Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 07-27 CCP Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License CategoryNumber of UnitsProperty Code Violations per (Based on Property Inspected Unit Code Only) Type I –3 Year1-2 units0-2 3+ units 0-0.75 Type II –2 Year1-2 unitsGreater than 2 but not more than 5 3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III –1 Year1-2 unitsGreater than 5 but not more than 9 3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV – 6 Months 1-2 unitsGreater than 9 3+ units Greater than 3 b.Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are “Family or household members” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of “Domestic Abuse” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Number of Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct CategoryUnitsService & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No 1-20-1 Category 3-4 units0-0.25 Impact 5 or more units0-0.35 Decrease 1 1-2Greater than 1 but not more than 3 Category 3-4 unitsGreater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more unitsGreater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 1-2Greater than 3 Categories 3-4 unitsGreater than 1 5 or more unitsGreater than 0.50 Page 2 of 2 Planning Commission Report Application Filed:06/09/2020 Meeting Date: July 9, 2020 Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 08/08/2020 Extension Declared: N/A Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A Application No. 2020-006 Applicants: Matt Durand Location: 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing (PID: 02-118-21-23-0030) Requests: (1) Site & Building Plan Approval, (2) Issuance of Special Use Permit REQUESTED ACTION Matt Durand (“the Applicant”) is requesting approval of a site and building plan and issuance of a Special Use Permit to construct a standalone, approximately 3,667-square foot car wash and related site improvements on Building Site E, located at 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing (“the Subject Property”) in the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD)—refer to Exhibit A. As Special Use Permits require a public hearing to be held, a public hearing notice was duly published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on June 25, 2020 (Exhibit B), and mail notifications were sent to property owners in proximity to the Subject Property. BACKGROUND Map 1. Location of Subject Property (Building Site E) and Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Boundary. Site Data 2040 Land Use Plan: Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Neighborhood: Centennial Current Zoning: Planned Unit Development -Commerce (PUD-C2) District Site Area: Shingle Creek Crossing PUD: 68.05 Acres |Building Site E: 0.92 Acres App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 1 Surrounding Area Direction 2040 Land Use Plan Zoning North TOD C2 (Commerce) District South ROW (Highway 100) Highway 100 East ROW (Highway 100) Highway 100 West TOD C2 (Commerce) District Central Commerce Overlay District In the fall of 2019, the City brought forward a request under Planning Commission Application No. 2019- 014 to adopt certain zoning amendments to the Central Commerce Overlay District, which the Subject Property (Building Site E) is located within. The proposed amendments were intended to provide clarity to the outlined permitted and prohibited uses within the District. City staff recommended several amendments to Section 35-2240 (CC Central Commerce Overlay District) of the Zoning Ordinance to bring the uses permitted in the District closer in alignment to the future land use plans identified in the recently adopted 2040 Comprehensive Plan and remove the least desirable and incompatible uses. Given that the majority of the District is located within the identified “Transit-Oriented Development” future land use designation under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, certain auto-oriented type uses, outdoor storage and display of materials, and indoor storage establishments were deemed to necessitate greater restrictions. Standalone car (auto) washes were specifically identified at this time as a permitted use within the Central Commerce Overlay District given the desire of the community to have one after closure of the Brookdale Car Wash off Brooklyn Boulevard. Additionally, car washes are permitted in very few areas of the City as the current Zoning Ordinance only allows the use through issuance of a Special Use Permit and so long as the use does not abut R1 (One Family Residence), R2 (One and Two Family Residence), or R3 (Multiple Family Residence) District properties, including abutment at a street line. This essentially precludes the presence of a car wash for the near entirety of Brooklyn Boulevard and many other areas of the City, particularly as the R1 District is the most prevalent District type in the City. Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development The original Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved on May 23, 2011, and provided for the overall redevelopment of the Brookdale Mall properties. The mall was originally comprised of over 1.1 million square feet of retail space, which was subsequently reduced following the demolition of 760,000 square feet of old mall space, followed by the planned renovation of 123,242 square feet of former food court space; the redevelopment of over 403,000 square feet of new retail commercial and restaurant uses; and approval of the Shingle Creek daylighting. Since 2011, the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD has been amended eight additional times to allow for the physical separation of the food court building from Sears, alterations, removals, and additions to the building sites, changes to the signage allowances, the re-subdivision of certain sites, and amendments to the allowed and prohibited uses within the PUD. Recently, City Staff was approached by Attorney Matthew Wolf (Taft, Stettinius, and Hollister LLP) on behalf of property owner Shingle Creek LLC/Gatlin Development Co. Inc. regarding a proposal to bring a standalone car wash to Building Site E, located at the northeast corner of the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD), and between Aspen Dental and the daylit portion of Shingle Creek. In App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 2 order to facilitate marketing and development within the PUD, Mr. Wolf also indicated a desire by Gatlin Development Co. Inc. to amend the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing PUD to delete an “eating establishment” requirement in place under Section 4.A of the Shingle Creek Crossing Declarations and related PUD concepts, revise the list of uses currently allowed within the PUD, update Building Site E to reflect the proposed standalone car wash, and bring the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD and associated Declarations back into synchronization given the number of amendments that have occurred since 2011. Planning Commission Application No. 2020-002 was submitted to the City for consideration of the aforementioned amendments to the PUD, and the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the requested PUD amendment on May 14, 2020. The City Council subsequently approved the request on June 8, 2020 by a 3-1 vote. The approvals included an update to the building and site configuration of Building Site E to accommodate a car wash and amendments to the Declarations to allow for a car wash on Building Site E specifically. See attached for a draft excerpt of the discussion at the June 8, 2020 City Council meeting (Exhibit C). SITE AND BUILDING PLAN Image 1. Site Plan of Proposed Standalone Car Wash (Building Site E, Shingle Creek Crossing PUD). Matt Durand (“the Applicant”) and Shingle Creek LLC/Gatlin Development Company Inc. (“the Property Owner”) approached the City regarding a proposal to develop an approximately 3,667-square foot standalone car wash and related site improvements on Building Site E in the Shingle Creek Crossing App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 3 retail shopping center. Section 35-230 (Plan Approval) requires Site and Building Plan approval from the City Council for the construction or major alteration of a structure, with the exception of one (R1 District) and two-family (R2 District) dwellings and buildings accessory thereto. Section 35-355, Subdivision 5.d (Planned Unit Development) requires an amendment to the existing Planned Unit Development any time a submitted plan is not in substantial compliance with the approved development plan. Substantial compliance means that the buildings, parking areas and roads are in essentially the same locations as previously approved; the floor area of nonresidential areas has not been increased or decreased by more than 5 percent; no building has been increased in the number of floors; open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use, and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10 percent. In reviewing the plan set submitted as part of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006, it appears that the submitted site plan is in substantial compliance with the plans submitted under Planning Commission Application No. 2020-002, which approved amendments to the building size and site configuration of Building Site E (“the Subject Property”) to accommodate a standalone car wash. Proposed Location Per Property Owner Frank Gatlin (Gatlin Development Co. Inc.), the business model for car washes typically see the use as an outparcel tenant that relies on good visibility and easy access from major roadways. The car wash was initially proposed for construction on the west end of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD, off Xerxes Avenue North, and north of the Sears property; however, Sears refused to grant for permission for the use on either Building Sites R or T. The Property Owner attempted to offer incentives to lift the restriction from Sears, but Sears would not agree. Building Sites L, M, O, S, N and Q, located east of Walmart, were also reviewed as potential sites; however, they are all internal to the Shingle Creek Crossing shopping center and are outlined as restaurant or traditional retail uses in the approved PUD documentation and master plans with specific building footprints that are intended to work around the Shingle Creek box culvert and day lighted creek. Of additional concern in proposing a car wash on an internal site is traffic circulation. It is for these reasons that Building Site E was determined to be the best identified alternative location due to its visibility from Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) and access on the edge of the PUD shopping center. Building The proposed standalone car wash is approximately 3,667-square feet, with over half of the building comprised of a single car wash tunnel, capable of handling three cars at a time. The remainder of the interior is comprised of two offices, a bathroom, employee area, and large carwash equipment room. The Shingle Creek Crossing Architectural Guidelines require Buildings A through M to provide at least all four sides with at least 50% Class I and remaining 50% Class II materials. As proposed, the building would meet and exceed this threshold. The Applicant intends to utilize a mix of stucco (Class I), glass (Class I), and stacked stone panels (Class I), and insulated architectural metal panels (Class II) as an accent feature and cap along the roofline of the building (Exhibit D and Images 2-5 Below). App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 4 Images 2 and 3. North Elevation (Left) and South Elevation (Right) of Proposed Standalone Car Wash. Image 4. West Elevation of Proposed Standalone Car Wash. Image 5. East Elevation of Proposed Standalone Car Wash. The Shingle Creek Crossing Architectural Guidelines also specify that the maximum building coverage of the overall site shall not exceed 40 percent. As the Subject Property is 0.92 acres (40,075 square feet), the proposed 3,667 square foot building would only comprise 9.2 percent of the Subject Property. The previous iteration of Building Site E reflected a restaurant, which would have comprised 12 percent (4,800 square feet) of the Subject Property. Upon submittal of the initial building renderings, City staff noted that the west elevation featured a large expanse of stucco. City staff is aware a large portion of the west elevation contains an equipment room; therefore, it was suggested that additional stonework or transom windows be incorporated to break up the wall, as the Architectural Guidelines note that, “large expanses of blank and featureless walls facing App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 5 public street frontage shall incorporate architectural elements to mitigate the expanse.” The Guidelines also specify that colorful canopies, roofs and accents, and the use of cornices, ornamental lights, graphics, tenant blade signs, and other architectural details are encouraged. In line with the Architectural Guidelines, the Applicant should consider opportunities to expand the canopy over the entry way on the north end of the building (Image 2 above). Setback-wise, the proposed car wash would be positioned in line with Buildings D and G to the west, at approximately 55 feet from the north property line along Bass Lake Road (County Road 10), 102 feet from the west property line (abutting Building D), 75 feet from the south property line, situated at the centerline of the abutting access road, and 55 feet from the edge of curb. The east property line, which abuts sidewalk along the daylit portion of Shingle Creek, is approximately 8.7 feet from the property line. Access Access would be gained via two primary points off Bass Lake Road (County Road 10). The submitted site plan identifies three stacking lanes to the entrance of the car wash tunnel. The two innermost stacking lanes would provide pay stations, while the third, outermost lane would be reserved for VIP members. This lane would utilize license plate scanning equipment to allow for an express entrance into the car wash. The Applicant anticipates only 10 percent of the total daily users would be VIP users. With an estimated 300 users of the car wash per day (maximum 25 vehicles per hour), as noted in the Traffic Generation and Queuing Summary provided by Kimley-Horn and dated June 30, 2020, it is anticipated that only 30 vehicles would use the outermost lane each day. Peak Demand of Use and Trip Generation Per the Trip Generation & Queuing Summary provided by Kimley-Horn and dated June 30, 2020 (Exhibit E), car washes have the majority of site trips occur during the middle of the day with a peak hour occurring from 2:15 to 3:15 p.m. This peak hour accounts for 10.5 percent of the daily trips at the car wash. Assuming 300 car washes per day, the Summary indicates that this would result in 32 vehicles (64 trips) during the midday peak hour at the car wash. During the traditional commuter PM peak hour, 8.6 percent of the daily trips are anticipated, which would result in 26 vehicles (52 trips), which Kimley-Horn notes is consistent with ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) trip generation standards. City staff requested a review by Kimley-Horn of the anticipated queuing needs given the proposed three stacking lanes. Based on their review, and assuming each vehicle takes up 25 feet in length of queuing space, there is stacking for 13 to 14 vehicles before there would be any impacts on the adjacent land use site circulation. In estimating stacking needs during the presumed peak demand hour of 2:15 to 3:15 th percentile queue (9 vehicles), the Subject Property p.m., Kimley-Horn determined that, assuming a 95 should have sufficient stacking to accommodate the queue. Fire/Emergency Access Although a minimum of 20 feet is required for fire access, the Fire Inspector indicated that, should fire services ever be needed on the Subject Property, access would be gained via the main drive, which is currently noted as 30 feet in width before narrowing to a 24 foot wide drive aisle. Access to Building D, located to the west, is still available via the front (south), rear (north), and west drive aisle between Buildings D and G. Access to the Fire Control Room and connections would be unaffected by the proposed development of Building Site E as it is located on the north end of the building, along Bass Lake Road (County Road 10). App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 6 Garbage Truck and Delivery Truck (Single Unit Truck) Circulation City staff requested an updated garbage truck turning exhibit (see Exhibit F and Image 6 below) due to concerns on the ability of a typical garbage truck to access the existing trash enclosure at the north end of the Subject Property, between Building Sites D and E. Following review the exhibits provided by Kimley-Horn, City staff is requesting the site plans be updated to taper down and narrow the 4.1 foot wide median separating the two inner stacking queues to the car wash, and to decrease the width of the main parking lot from 26 feet to 24 feet, which is the minimum width required for a two-way drive aisle with 90 degree, perpendicular parking. The tapering of the outermost median may require the relocation of certain landscaping, although City staff recommends maintaining some landscaping in the median as a visual buffer and for aesthetic appeal. It should be noted that, per Shingle Creek Crossing property management company Mid-America, garbage is typically picked up on Fridays in the early to late morning. As noted above, the anticipated peak use for car washes is in the afternoons. Image 6.Garbage Truck Turning Exhibit. Parking The parking needs for a standalone car wash are considerably less than the previously approved use on Building Site E of a restaurant. The information provided to City staff indicate each car wash would take 1.5 minutes per car, with a maximum of three (3) vehicles allowed in the wash tunnel at any one time. It is anticipated that the total time at the car wash only would take approximately three (3) minutes to complete, and the anticipated total time at the car wash, assuming a customer cleans and vacuums their car after, would take approximately 10 to 15 minutes. The car wash would likely have two employees available during their hours of operation. City staff reviewed the site plan and proposed parking assuming a retail use of 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet given that there is no outlined parking ratio in the PUD for car washes. Assuming a 3,667 App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 7 square foot building, 17 on-site parking spaces would be required. The updated site plan for Building Site E reflects 17 on-site parking spaces as well as three lines of stacking for the car wash queue. The proposed stacking lanes would impact existing parking along the east side of Building Site D; however, it should be noted that the parking there today is actually located “off-site” on Building Site E. Upon review of the PUD master plans, it appears Building Site D would maintain 48 on-site parking spaces. The minimum identified on-site parking stalls for Building Site D are 50 stalls given its identified retail use (4.46 parking stalls per 1,000 square feet per PUD Master Plans). It appears the shortage stems from the addition of an ADA loading space in the front and additional parking that was not installed per PUD plans on the west side of Building Site D, which appears to be partially located on Building Site G. Following visits to the sites, City Staff is not concerned about a lack in parking given that the parking tends to be communal in the shopping center. Lighting No photometric plan was provided as part of the application submittal; however, the PUD master plans for Shingle Creek Crossing provide a lighting exhibit for the entire PUD. As part of the updates to the master plans under Planning Commission Application No. 2020-002, which updated the building size and site orientation of Building Site E (Subject Property) in preparation of this application request, Kimley- Horn and the Applicant shall provide an updated lighting exhibit for the Subject Property and for the overall PUD. All lighting will need to comply with the Shingle Creek Crossing Architectural Guidelines as the Subject Property is located in the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. Any details not outlined within the Guidelines shall follow Section 35-712 (Lighting) of the City’s Zoning Code. As the submitted architectural renderings show lighting below the roofline, the Applicant will need to ensure the lighting does not cast out and up towards the sky. Noise City staff is requesting that the Applicant submit additional documentation as they relate to noise coming from the car wash tunnel and 17 vacuums. The Applicant will want to confirm with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) that no additional permitting or restrictions are in place for the use and that the business complies with all applicable City ordinances. No outside broadcasting of music or announcements, other than as necessary at pay stations, shall be permitted. Trash | Screening There is an existing trash enclosure located on the northwest corner of the Subject Property. City staff viewed employees from Building D utilizing the trash enclosure on a recent visit to the Subject Property. The Applicant will need to determine if the existing enclosure is sufficient and work with the neighboring users at Building D to ensure trash needs are being met as the two sets of enclosures are attached. In addition, as trash is of concern in the Shingle Creek Crossing shopping center, City staff is requesting that the Applicant provide supplemental information concerning plans to provide trash receptacles for users of the vacuuming stations, and plans to empty said trash receptacles and clean up litter. The Applicant should work with Kimley-Horn to identify opportunities to screen or provide landscaping near the utility access door and transformer on the south side of the building. Landscaping App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 8 A landscape plan was submitted as part of the civil sets, prepared by Kimley-Horn and dated June 9, 2020 (Exhibit A). As a landscape exhibit is provided in the PUD master plans for Shingle Creek Crossing, Kimley-Horn will need to update the PUD master plans to reflect the proposed landscaping for the Subject Property and as required under Planning Commission Application No. 2020-002. The Applicant should review the proposed landscaping for opportunities to plant year-round landscaping that might offer better screening of the stacking lanes. This is promoted in the Architectural Design Guidelines for Shingle Creek Crossing. In addition, the Applicant should revisit the east side of the Subject Property and incorporate landscaping that highlights the daylit portion of Shingle Creek, which the Subject Property abuts, and the walking paths along it. Landscaping should also take advantage of opportunities to provide additional stormwater management. The Guidelines also require perennial, shrub planting beds, trees, and turf areas to be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system to provide optimal plant establishment and long-term plant health. Stormwater and Shingle Creek During review of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-002, which included a request to update the building size and site configuration of the Subject Property (Building Site E), concerns were identified regarding potential impacts to Shingle Creek. The Subject Property is located just west of the daylit portion of Shingle Creek (refer to Image 7 below). “Daylighting” is a term for restoration of an originally open-air watercourse (Shingle Creek in this case) which has been diverted below ground back into an above-ground channel. Daylighting is intended to restore streams to a more natural state so that more stormwater gets absorbed and gradually released by soil and plants. Image 7. Daylit Portion of Shingle Creek—Exhibit provided by Kimley-Horn. App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 9 City Staff requested the Applicant and Kimley-Horn, who prepared the civil plans for the proposed standalone car wash and has been involved in the master planning for Shingle Creek Crossing provide additional documentation on Shingle Creek (Images 7 and 8, and Exhibit G). To provide context, “sanitary water,” sometimes referred to as, “grey water,” is the water that is discharged from toilets, sinks, showers, etc. “Storm water,” is the rain or snow water that falls on roof or other parking lot areas of a site that needs to drain off into a retention pond. The grey water from the car wash operations will be directed to the on-site sanitary sewer which will discharge to a lift station (designed to pump wastewater or sewage from a lower to higher elevation), near LA Fitness before being sent to the public sanitary treatment plant. The storm water runoff from the proposed car wash and parking lot areas will be routed to the existing stormwater management area behind Walmart. Neither system is to directly discharge into Shingle Creek (refer to Image 8 below). Image 8. Storm Sewer Routing from Building Site E (within Shingle Creek Crossing PUD), provided by Kimley-Horn. App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 10 Per Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, in his memorandum dated July 6, 2020 (Exhibit H), it was confirmed that, “all waste water generated by the car wash from within the wash tunnel, is collected by interior drains and directed to the sanitary sewer…the parking areas and drive lanes on the site are surrounded by B612 concrete curb and gutter, where all storm water is directed to the City’s storm water system. The site storm water, which is water from the outside area, is routed through a series of storm water treatment ponds at Centerbrook Golf Course for treatment prior to discharge in Shingle Creek. No stormwater from paved areas on site is directly discharged to the creek. There is a small section of landscaped areas along the east side of the building which may sheet flow into the creek.” Assistant City Engineer Review The Applicant shall comply with all revisions and redline comments as requested by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg in his memorandum dated July 6, 2020 (Exhibit H). Fire Inspector | Building Official Review Per Building Official Dan Grinsteinner, a Sewer Access Charge (SAC) determination is required by the Metropolitan Council. This is typically addressed during the City’s building permit review process. The Applicant will also need to submit plumbing plans, which are to be reviewed by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. The Applicant will also need to comply with any applicable Minnesota Accessibility Code requirements as relating to parking and access (e.g., bathrooms, counters). The Applicant will need to work with Building Official Dan Grinsteinner and Fire Inspector Brandon Gautsch to address any matters as they relate to the Fire Code (Chapter 5 of the City Code). Per Section 503.2.1 (Dimensions), a minimum width of 20 feet is required for fire apparatus access roads, exclusive of shoulders. Per the plans submitted, the main access drive, which provides the closest access to the proposed car wash building, has a 30 foot wide entrance. Assuming the drive aisle is narrowed to 24 feet in width, per City staff comments under Access, this minimum required width would be maintained. During review of the submitted plans, Fire Inspector Gautsch did not express concerns regarding access to Building Site D, located to the west. This is despite plans to alter the existing drive, which is located on Building Site E, to accommodate a series of stacking queues to the car wash. As the fire access control room and connections are located on the north side of Building D, it was expressed that, should fire services be needed, access would be provided via the south main parking lot, the access between Buildings D and G, or from the north drive, which is a one-way. Signage No signage requests were submitted as part of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006. All signage is to comply with the Shingle Creek Crossing Signage Guidelines and requires approval from the Property Owner (Gatlin Development Co. Inc.) and the City prior to installation. Per Planning Commission Application No. 2020-002, the approved amendments included a request to relocate one of the existing Shingle Creek Crossing monument signs to provide proper clearance for any proposed improvements to the Subject Property (Building Site E). This relocation is noted as item “P” on Sheet Number C400 (Site Plan) on the submitted plans under Exhibit A. The Applicant and Property Owner should identify opportunities to install additional signage along the access road leading into the proposed car wash as it turns into a one way road towards the eastern edge of the shopping center. In addition, the Property Owner should work with the City to address opportunities to incorporate additional striping on the south extension of Shingle Creek Parkway leading into the shopping center, as cars utilizing the two westbound left turn lanes will often cross over into the App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 11 other lane (and into the path of another vehicle) to access the one way road into the shopping center site. Based on the above-noted findings of fact contained in this report, City staff recommends approval of the site and building plans for the Subject Property, located at 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing; subject to issuance of the Special Use Permit to operate a standalone car wash and complying with the comments as outlined in the Approval Conditions below. SPECIAL USE PERMIT According to Section 35-220 (Special Use Permits) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, “Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given district but which are, in some respects, incompatible with the permitted uses in the district. Before a building or premises is devoted to any use classified as a special use by this ordinance, a special use permit must be granted by the City Council.” Section 35-322 (C2 Commerce District) notes that “Gasoline service stations (see section 35-414), motor vehicle repair and auto washes, provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3 District property, including abutment at a street line” are permitted in the C2 (Commerce) District by Special Use only. Although the Subject Property is zoned, “Planned Unit Development,” the underlying zoning district is C2 (Commerce) District and is subject to the regulations within that district. Per the Standards of Special Use Permits, a Special Use Permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met (City staff responses are italicized): 1.The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. The intent of the proposal is to provide a convenient and well-maintained car wash that will serve as an amenity to residents and visitors alike and provide additional traffic and visibility to Shingle Creek Crossing shopping center. The Applicant was made aware of concerns relating to traffic and impacts to the daylit portion of Shingle Creek as they were present during the Planning Commission and City Council reviews of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-002, which approved the PUD amendments necessary to allow for updates to the building and site configuration of Building Site E and the use of a car wash within the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. Kimley-Horn provided a Trip Generation and Queuing Summary to provide additional insight into the anticipated traffic volumes and users to and from the site. Per their review, the proposed stacking lanes and on-site parking are considered sufficient and are not to result in conflicts between users of Building Site E and D, nor result in backups onto the adjacent interior access road. Kimley-Horn and the City both confirmed that the storm water systems in place will not directly discharge into Shingle Creek and the B612 gutter required to be in place will assist in directing flow away from Shingle Creek. The Applicant will need to work with the City to App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 12 ensure any snow removal is maintained away from the daylit portion of the Creek so as to not sheet flow into the Creek. 2.The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The Subject Property is currently vacant and has not had success in being developed as originally intended as a restaurant; therefore, City staff is of the sense that development of the Subject Property would obviously increase the value of the Subject Property. It is hoped that the addition of a standalone car wash will provide an amenity to residents and and visitors, and increase foot traffic to neighboring businesses. The Applicant intends to create a substantial investment into the development of the Subject Property. Assuming the property is maintained, City staff feels the use would not substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 3.The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Although the proposed development would result in the removal of parking along the east side of neighboring Building D, this parking is located on Building Site E and City staff feels the on-site parking is sufficient for Building D. As car washes are typically found on the outparcels of shopping centers, and as approval was not granted for construction of a car wash on the west side of the Shingle Creek PUD, it is reasonable that Building Site E would be the proposed alternative location for a car wash operation. The eastern edge of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD has yet to be developed and it is hoped that the construction of a standalone car wash will bring additional attention and future development to the remaining vacant parcels within the shopping center, and in particular on the east side. 4.Adequate measurements have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The Traffic Generation and Queuing Summary provided by Kimley-Horn summarizes that the parking and queuing needs for the car wash operation will be sufficient and will not result in the blocking of circulation to and from proposed Building E or Building D. City staff has recommended that the proposed main drive aisle for the main parking lot be reduced by two (2) feet and the median between the outermost and middle stacking lanes be reduced to provide sufficient turning radius for any garbage trucks or single unit (delivery) trucks that require access to the north end of Building Site D. The Applicant will need to work with Property Owner Shingle Creek LLC/Gatlin Development Co. Inc. to incorporate sufficient signage denoting the eastern end of the main access road as “one way.” Additionally, the Property Owner should address the potential for additional striping along the Shingle Creek Parkway extension leading into the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD to limit the number of cars in the wrong lane when turning into the development from the westbound left turn lanes at Bass Lake Road (County Road 10). App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 13 5.The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. As indicated in the staff report, the submitted plans substantially conform to the City’s codes and the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD Architectural Design Guidelines and associated PUD documents. Any deficiencies as outlined within the staff report shall be revised to reflect conformance and be submitted to City staff for review and approval. Based on the above-noted findings of fact contained in this report, City staff recommends issuance of the Special Use Permit to operate a standalone car wash at the Subject Property located at 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing; subject to approval of the site and building plans and complying with the comments as outlined in the Approval Conditions below. APPROVAL CONDITIONS Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006 for the Subject Property located at 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing: 1.Building and Site Plan Review: The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. a.The Shingle Creek Crossing Master PUD plan set, Declarations, and documents shall be updated to reflect changes approved under Planning Commission Application Nos. 2020- 002 and 2020-006. An updated master plan set shall be provided for City records and prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed car wash. i.Update the civil set to reflect requirements and redline comments from the Assistant City Engineer in his memorandum, dated July 6, 2020, and requests to narrow the stacking lane median and main drive aisle. ii.Provide updated landscape and photometric plans that are in agreement with the PUD master plans and per comments addressed in the staff report. iii.An irrigation plan is to be submitted as part of any building permit submittal for the proposed car wash and said system is to be maintained. b.Any major changes or modifications made to this Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to the approved Site and Building Plan as approved by the City Council. 2.Agreements: a.Unless otherwise determined, Property Owner/Applicant shall execute a separate Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City, which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards comprehended under this Site and Building Plan. b.The Applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the Subject Property, as well as any improvements and utility service lines, prior to the release of the Performance Agreement financial guarantee. 3.Engineering Review: a.The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the Assistant City Engineer’s Review memorandum, dated July 6, 2020. App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 14 4.Construction Standards: a.A pre-construction conference shall be held with City staff and other entities designated by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. b.Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City’s Engineering Division. c.All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 5.Facilities, Operations, and Equipment: a.Any outside trash disposal facilities or roof top or on ground mechanical building equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. b.The building shall be equipped with automatic fire extinguishing systems meeting NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. c.The civil and architectural plans shall meet Minnesota ADA compliance as related to parking, public access, etc. d.The Applicant shall provide additional documentation as relates to anticipated noise levels for car wash equipment and vacuums, and provide a plan for addressing trash and litter on-site. i.The Applicant will conform to any applicable noise standards and any additional permitting needs from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and adhere to City noise ordinance requirements. e.No outside broadcasting of music or announcements, other than as necessary at pay stations, shall be permitted. 6.Signage a.All signage is to comply with Shingle Creek Crossing Signage Guidelines and Chapter 34 of the City Code, and any new or relocated signage is to be approved by the City by issuance of a sign permit. 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. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above-noted findings, City staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006 for the approval of a site and building plan and issuance of a Special Use Permit to operate an approximately 3,667-square foot standalone car wash and related site improvements on the Subject Property located at 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing and known as Building Site E in the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. Should the Planning Commission accept this recommendation, the Commission may elect to adopt the resolution which memorializes the findings in granting site and building plan and Special Use Permit approvals, subject to the Applicant complying with the conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A – Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006, submitted by Matt Durand, and Associated Plans. Exhibit B – Public Hearing Notice, published by Brooklyn Center Sun Post, dated June 25, 2020. App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 15 Exhibit C – Draft Excerpt of June 8, 2020 City Council Meeting Minutes Concerning Planning Commission Application No. 2020- 002. Exhibit D – Architectural Renderings and Building Materials Calculations for Proposed Car Wash. Exhibit E – Trip Generation & Queuing Summary, prepared by Kimley-Horn, and dated June 30, 2020. Exhibit F – Garbage and Single Unit (Delivery) Truck Turn Exhibits, prepared by Kimley-Horn, and dated June 26, 2020. Exhibit G – Shingle Creek Storm Sewer Routing and Daylighting Exhibit, prepared by Kimley-Horn, and dated November, 10, 2017. Exhibit H – Review Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, dated July 6, 2020. App. No. 2020-006 PC 07/09/2020 Page 16 Councilmember Ryan expressed his appreciation for the service of these long-serving employees. He added he greatly admires their commitment to service to the City of Brooklyn Center. He noted he hopes that the City can continue to be a great employer despite the challenges it faces, and continue to encourage and develop its employees, which are a valuable asset. Fire Chief Todd Berg expressed his appreciation for Reggie Smart and Mark Reinking. He added he has had the privilege to work with Mr. Reinking for the past 10 years on a daily basis. He noted these employees will be missed. Mr. Boganey stated, as Mr. Cote mentioned, Mr. Reinking was a union official and he always fought hard for the best interests of the members of the union. He added he has never worked in an organization that had a collective bargaining group as committed to the community and City they served as they were to their members. He noted this was shown frequently at the table and through dispute resolutions, and the City has been fortunate to have this type of union leadership over the years. 8.PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a.ORDINANCE NO. 2020-04 AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES Deputy Community Development Director Jesse Anderson reviewed a proposed Ordinance amendment to bring the City’s building code into alignment with the State of Minnesota building code, amendments to which were adopted in 2020. He added these changes are intended to clarify interpretation of the Code. He reviewed the proposed changes. He noted the amended Code, if adopted, would be effective July 8, 2020. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one appeared to address this item. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and CouncilmemberRyan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Ryanmoved and CouncilmemberButler seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2020-04 Amending Chapter 3 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding the Administration of the State Building Code. Motion passed unanimously. 9.PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS PLANNING COMMISSION 9.9.ITEMSITEMS 06/08/20 -5-DRAFT 9a.PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-002 FOR PLANNED UNIT 9a.PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020002 FOR PLANNED UNIT - DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE 2011 SHINGLE CREEK DEVELOPNT AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO THE ME2011 SHINGLE CREEK 2011 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT CROSSING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT C ommunity Development Director Meg Beekman reviewed a request for an amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development (PUD). She added, if approved, this would th be the 9amendment to the original PUD, which dates back to the original Brookdale Mall. She noted the City Council rezoned most of the property in 1999from the C-2 district to PUD C-2. The Shingle Creek Crossing PUD was approved in 2011.This included 760,000 square feet of the 1.1 million square foot mall was demolished to pave the way for a new retail center. Since then the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD has been amended eight (8) times for future alterations and demolition of the remaining mail; replatted/revisions to certain building pad sites; and amended to allow for other approved uses within the Shingle Creek Crossing shopping center. Ms. Beekman stated City Staff was approached by attorney Matthew Wolf, representing Gatlin Development, the Shingle Creek Crossing LLC property owner, regarding proposed development of a stand-alone car wash on Building Site E. She added to help marking and development of PUD, including proposed car wash, the applicant is requesting PUD amendments to delete Section 4.A of Declarations ad PUD Concepts, which requires 4 SCC lots to be used for eating establishment uses, which included Building Site E; revised list of uses currently allowed within the PUD; and in general, bring the PUD and associated declarations back into sync given numerous amendments that have occurred since 2011. Ms. Beekman stated this amendment would removea restriction from development of other uses in the PUD, including educational use, day care use, and veterinary clinics. She added removal of these restrictions is proposed to help to bring the PUD into alignment. She added the applicant originally included gasoline service stations in listing of uses to now be allowed in the PUD but after some discussion with staff and looking at the C-2 District, it was removed. Ms. Beekman pointed out that on the application, the applicant included language that referred to the C-1 District but this area is zoned C-2. This is just to thatthese are allowed within the Central Commerce Overlay District. Also, if this development is approvedthis evening the developer has indicated he would come forward together withproposed user for building safety that is interested in developing a standalone car wash on that site. The request specifically speaks to the site plan which would allow for reduction in building size and also reduction in the parkingsize and to re-orient the building and setbacks. Ms. Beekman stated the developer has indicated they would present a proposal for a stand-alone car washon Site E if the Ordinance amendment is approved. She added the developer is aware that any necessary changes to the building site due to the car wash use would require additional amendments. She noted the developer feels these changes are necessary to simplify the process and accommodate the end user. Ms. Beekman stated Section 35-355 Planned Unit Development requires development plans to be in substantial compliance and require PUD amendments in cases where the number of 06/08/20 -6- DRAFT dwelling unit, if any, has not increased or decreased by more than 5%; the floor area of non- residential areas has not increased or decreased by more than 5%; no building or has been increased in the number of floors; Open space has not been decreased or altered from its original design or use; and lot coverage of any individual building has not been increased or decreased by more than 10%. Ms. Beekman indicated the applicant is requesting these changes now rather than at the time of the application for the proposed car wash in order to streamline the process for the developer of the potential car wash. The applicant, Gatlin Development, and the car wash developer worked together to get the site plan as close to final as possible and recognizes the risk should the plans change. Ms. Beekman stated thecurrent use requirement of eating establishments on Building Site E requires parking ration of 10 parking spaces per 1,000 SF of building. The PUD does not factor parking needs for car washes. Assuming 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000SF (retail use), a minimum of 16.5 on-site parking spaces would be required. The submitted plans reflect 17 parking spaces and two stacking queue and exit lane. The proposed site plan would remove a row of parking along the eastside of Building D (Aspen Dental). Staff reviewed and it appears Building Site D would maintain the minimum 50 on-site parking spaces it requires. The site plan reflect north setback Ms. Beekman stated he Planning Commission held a virtual public hearing on May 14, 2020, of which public notice was given. She added the developer and car wash owner were on the meeting to answer questions. She noted the only comment that City Staff received was from Bank of America, located next to Site E, who asked to be notified when the car wash proposal is received by the City. Ms. Beekman stated the Planning Commissioners had a robust conversation about whether Site E is the right location for a car wash. She added they expressed concerns about design standards. She noted the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the request. Ms. Beekman stated City Staff recommends City Council approval of the proposed amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing PUDbased on the findings of fact and submitted plans based on the. She added the developer and representatives were on the meeting to answer questions. Councilmember Graves stated she is open to discussing the Ordinance amendment but would like to see something different at that site, as that is one of the few places left that has beauty and amenities. She added, however, she would support the car wash use if it is in alignment with other surrounding uses. She noted she feels there is probably a better location in Brooklyn Center for a car wash. Elliott:Are there any Councilmember questions?(1:00:48) Ryan:Meg I appreciate the presentation. I can understand the need to put in more flexibility into this PUD amendment. I have some questions about repurposing these four pads, because one of the things I get the most complaints about from my constituents is why aren’t there more restaurants in Brooklyn Center. Perhaps you, or I understand Mr. 06/08/20-7-DRAFT Gatlin is with us this evening, perhaps we could hear from you or Mr. Gatlin about marketing efforts and why it is that over such an extended period of time, we have not received more interest in having restaurants located in Shingle Creek Crossing or elsewhere in the city. Gatlin:For over 10 years I have tried and tried and tried, I knew the City and community wanted restaurants, including myself. There’s nobody tried harder than me. Since this project started, September 12, 2012, we started marketing it 10 years ago. we have marketed every national and local restaurant that we could possibly do. I had Mid-America, and recently changed to Upland to get fresh eyes on the project. We have tried for 10 years. If you asked me why, it’s hard for me to answer, because it has all the elements I have been doing for 45 years. Over 75 Wal-marts, very similar to what you have there. I have been very successful in most of them in getting restaurants. The only thing I can tell you is the income levels, they seem to be less than what restaurants are seeking to be able to put the investment they need to put in. I get that thrown at me a lot.But I can promise you one thing. I have not turned down one possible restaurant. Back when I was working with Curt, Meg, and others, we tried to put a Mexican restaurant on the Bank of America pad, and the City was willing to subsidize it, and I tried everything I could and we didn’t get it. Now we have the Bayou Crab restaurant that is getting ready to open next to liquor store, 5,000 square feet, we were able to get. I was thrilled to be able to get that one. What I’m being handicapped by right now is something that is out of my control. We are not by any means with this amendment going to stop trying to get or looking for a restaurant. This just gives me a fair playing field against everyone else in the neighborhood and the community that we will be able to seek others and not be stuck with having to have a restaurant. I have felt confident that if I brought you another tenant, you would approve it if it is a good tenant, and you were okay with it. This has cost me $250,000 a year in taxes on these properties, that’s $2.5 million. Over $500,000 in maintenance, even though they are vacant. Over $2 million in interest for holding the properties. I am now $5 million in dead money trying to get back and break even, just in interests and taxes. One thing that is worse than not having a restaurant, and that’s not having anything at all. And my goal is to finish the project, with whatever the market is. When I came to your city 10 years ago it was a different environment. In the last 3 months, look at what’s happened. In the past 10 years, shopping centers have changed, and I am trying to be able to change with it and successfully fill this development up. The car wash that we are presenting is a multi-million-dollar facility. I have done 10 of them across the country. Just finished several beautiful ones here in Florida. It will compliment that area. This is not a boring building by the side of the road, this is fully automated, and the façade will complement the rest of the development. Something that will fit right in. It is the only lot that it works on. The last time I was there, a year ago, September 2019, in person, and spoke with you all, and I mentioned I had a car wash. We were going to put it by the Sears. Sears turned me down, would not let me put it on 06/08/20-8-DRAFT parcel T no matter what I did, and I wasted months, tried everything I could. Now we have a new buyer, local here in Brooklyn Center, who wants to put facility up. I’m asking humbly to let us put this parcel into commerce andgive the City something it needs. It is definitely lacking a first-class car wash. I have pictures, I think Meg has them, gorgeous projects across Florida. Back to restaurant specifically, for the last 10 years, I have done 20 or so Wal-Mart centers, and put in 60-70 restaurants. It’s not my fault. It’s not your fault. It’s not my broker’s fault. We have given it the best we can. Every broker in the Twin Cities know about Shingle Creek. And yet we have failed. I don’t like failure, and I don’t like to admit failure, but I can’t make something happen that is not there. God knows I have tried, I have put money, time and energy into it. I’m not asking to let it go away, I’m just asking let me have what everyone else has, and try to bring tenants in and turn it into job producing projects that will create income and jobs, and hopefully I will be able to come in with another flex building or two and attract more restaurants. But as far as me being able to get a free-standing restaurant, I have not been successful. If it was 1 or 2 years, I’d say give me more time. But after 10 years, we have to accept reality. I can’t make them do it. When we did get interest (in putting a restaurant on the site), we haven’t had it in 2 years, when we did have it, they passed on us. It wasn’t because I was asking too much. I knew I could come to the City and get some help, because the City wanted restaurants. Ryan:Mr. Gatlin, I appreciate you joining us this evening and sharing what has been your experience. I think it’s essential that you have the opportunity to bring that into the record to explain this challenge. As much as I have gotten that complaint from so many of my constituents, they need to hear what the real conditions are and how you have worked very hard to address that request on the part of so many residents of the City who desire to have a restaurant, like we used to have when Brookdale was thriving and vibrant, in the 1980s and 1990s. As we know, so much has changed. Going forward, there are things that the City can do to address this which is to bring in not just housing for the very lowest income households but a broad spectrum of housing, will bring a diversity of incomes. If we can raise the local median income of our City. As much as I am proud of the diversity of our City, to this point, we are struggling with the fact that diversity has brought lower income (1:11:48).And I think we need to recognize that and that the challenge of affordable housing is a regional challenge that will require a regional solution and cannot be solved simply by the City of Brooklyn Center. So if we brought in, for example, a significant number of market rate apartments across Bass Lake on the opportunity site, that would breathe new life into Shingle Creek Crossing. That’s what I hope we can do. I am very supportive of this proposal. I would imagine your interest in placing it where you want to place it, there is validity in that there will be high visibility that will draw traffic. Is that a fair assessment? Gatlin:That is 100% correct. I don’t know all your plans for across the street, Meg has shared some of it with me, and what I’ve seen in the press. If you all are successful in bringing in an entertainment component such as a movie theater or any type of entertainment, that 06/08/20-9-DRAFT will make a huge difference for Shingle Creek Crossing. Any type of entertainment that can be brought in and more restaurants, it will always go back to action begets action. If we can get it started, get some residents acrossthe street, and some entertainment, we will have a domino effect. If we can work together and get something like that to happen across the street, or even the Sears building if something would happen where we could come up with a use, that would make a major difference. Ryan:I hope that the City Council will understand that successful redevelopment in a community like ours entails a successful public/private partnership. And I appreciate you being here this evening. Gatlin:As I said to the Commissioners, I just put in permanent financing, a 10-year loan on the project. This has been one of the most challenging developments of my career, but I am committed to it, I am going to see it completed. I want to have good uses for it and get it finished for all of us. Elliott:I do want to comment on my friend Councilmember Ryan’s comments. I hear you say as part of your analysis that diversity brings lower income. Is that correct? Ryan:I am looking at the data. That’s a very extended conversation abouthow we can bring people out of lower income status, and I think my memory goes back farther than I would like to think about, President Johnson’s War on Poverty. The United States, as well as our region and Statewide, we have not had the greatest successwith that. Hope springs eternal. I think there are a number of issues, in the context of what has happened in recent days and the promise of greater reforms, that we can look at a broader spectrum of socio-economic issues and how to address them. But inevitably, as we become more diverse, the data shows we have become by household or individual income, poorer. This is not a problem that Brooklyn Center can solve on its own. These are regional, statewide, national problems that require solutions on that scale. What we have done, with the Coronavirus challenge, we have stepped up and made a commitment to assist our local and minority micro-business, which we should, and I support that. I want to see the level of opportunity that I experienced as a young man, for everyone. And that’s a larger conversation. But as far as the consequences of the City doing financial and real estate redevelopment, we have to look at what will place us strategically in a better place the next 5, 10, 20 years. And that is not something we can really escape. I’m sure the staff will have more focused options available to us as time goes on. I wanted to raise that because we should think about that holistically, while at the same time recognizing that we may have little leverage. Elliott:I wanted to get clarification on what you said. Your premise. It’s important that we have conversations like this but I want to respectfully disagree with your premise. Because I think the facts bear something different out. I don’t think, again respectfully disagree, I don’t think diversity brings poverty, or brings lower income to a community. I honestly sincerely beg to differ. And the federal reserve bank of Minneapolis conducted a study, the African immigrant population alone brought in $2.5 billion in earnings during 2015. Households paid $419 million in federal taxes and $222 million in state and local taxes. 06/08/20-10-DRAFT We estimated $81 billion in spending power. And that’s despite its relatively small size. That community, according tofederal reserve bank makes “significant contributions to Minnesota’s economy”. That particular community, for example, is heavily represented in industries and fields that represent health care, nursing, highly entrepreneurial, so I sincerely disagree with your premise. I don’t think diversity is going to lead to more poverty or lower levels of income. I think that two things happening at the same time, correlation does not equal causality. You may see that perhaps we got more diverse when average incomes went down, when we were hit with the worst recession we have had in 2008. We know we also have struggled economically but it does not mean that minorities are the cause of Brooklyn Center’s struggles financially. And I will say that DEED and the governors have stated repeatedly that they do not believe that increased diversity causes poverty. Now you are saying we need to do what we need to do to make sure that the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years are economically viable for Brooklyn Center. So if we wantto do that, according to DEED and the governor, 70% of Minnesota’s economic growth is coming from the State’s people of color, from the diverse communities. So objectively I would submit that if we want to be at the forefront of the economic activity andgrowth in this state, we need to really invest in the diversity we have and I would submit to you that it is rather an asset rather than a liability. Ryan:I do not question the value of the great contribution that our immigrants bring to us. We are a nation of immigrants. My great grandfather came from Norway as a young man. That whole side of my family were immigrants who struggled but prospered, because of the American dream. The American dream is our contract. Are you saying that the people in Minneapolis who have decried extraordinary racial inequities are wrong? No, we have to acknowledge that. We can address it, we can move past it if we work together and prosper together. Even the example of the Lux, the City’s only luxury apartment building, recently redeveloped by Mr. Soderbergh on Earle Brown Farm, charging very high rents, he was surprised by the diversity of the folks living in that development. Entrepreneurs and IT people working in Minneapolis or around the area like the location. Our diversity has great promise. But at the same time, I was focusing on giving that data that shows the grave racial disparities in terms of household and individual income, that is something that has to be overcome and that is a regional problem that requires a regional solution. And that is really where I was going with that. And that gets to the discussion of diversifying housing products and price points in our housing stock. Shingle Creek Crossing’s success or failure will be reflected in how successfully we are able to move in that direction. In no way would I discount or dismiss or disparage the value of our ethnic and cultural diversity. I think that’s our strengthbut at the same time it’s the great challenge. When a lot of our folks are starting from a place that’s less than advantageous. That’s why we have the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance and the BrookLink and all the rest of the of it because we have a lot of disadvantaged households in the city. We have to face up to that and try to engage some to address that challenge. And I’m sorry 06/08/20-11-DRAFT about this week, we got into a broader discussion about this, but I thank you and I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion here tonight. Councilmember Butler stated she appreciatedMayor Elliott for saying something because she was highly offended by that comment as a person of color, who is highly educated, debt free, a homeowner, coming from private schools. She and her husband grew up in Brooklyn Center and many of her family members still live in Brooklyn Center. We need to be careful out our words especially now after what we have learned in the last two weeks. We are tired, we are tired of the comments, we are tired of the labels, we are tired. I appreciate the commentary, thank you Mayor Elliott for talking back and she would appreciate going forward that we watch ourselves. In a way of not lumping us into one narrative. That is what I will say on that subject. Councilmember Butler stated she will support the car wash if the City Council also supports it. She added the City Council spoke with Mr. Gatlin about keeping Shingle Creek Crossing clean, and were told that the situation would improve, but that has not happened, and in fact, it has gotten worse. She noted it is difficult for her to be amenable to Mr. Gatlin’s requests when the existing development is not being maintained. Mayor Elliott stated he is not sure that a car wash is the best use of that land, and he would like to see other options. Mr. Gatlin humbly requested the City Council’s consideration of this request, as there are no other options. He added he has tried for 10 years and no one has shown interest in the site. He noted the vacant site does not do anyone any good, and the car wash use will bring a lot of activity to this intersection. The car wash developer stated he owns a Holiday Station Store on Bass Lake Road and works in Brooklyn Center. He added he wants to support the community, and he has had many requests from Holiday customers for a car wash. He noted thecar wash would be a high end, state of the art express facility. He asked that the City Council put their trust in him and Mr. Gatlin to work together to put something beautiful on Lot E for the City of Brooklyn Center. Mayor Elliott stated he speaks toa lot of residents, and he knows what people want. He added he has not heard that residents want a car wash. He added, at this time, it does not seem to be the best use for that property. Mr. Gatlin asked Mayor Elliott what the right use would be because there is no other use interested in the site. Mayor Elliott stated he does not have an answer as to what would be the right use, but he would like to see other options. Mr. Gatlin stated he visited with the City Council in the fall of 2019, and a CityCouncilmember indicated that the City needs a car wash. He added he understood the City Council would be interested in having a car wash. 06/08/20-12-DRAFT Councilmember Ryan stated a few City Councilmembers were amenable to the idea of a car th wash. He added there was a family car wash at 55Avenue and Brooklyn Boulevard that closed, and he has heard many residents say that they miss the car wash. He noted he feels that the product sounds goodand would bring traffic and business to the area. He reiterated his supportof the Ordinance amendment, and the potential for a car wash on Site E, considering the developer’s challenges in getting other uses for the site. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she spoke with Mr. Gatlin last year and indicated that the City needed a car wash. She added she believes a car wash will bring traffic and business to Shingle Creek Crossing and will serve the community well. She noted that would not be her first choice for a location, but it will draw traffic and customers to the area. Mr. Boganey stated he can attest to the fact that Gatlin Development has worked tirelessly to pursue restaurants for the City of Brooklyn Center over the years. He added they have not been successful. He noted this is a common problem for Brooklyn Parkand Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Graves stated she would have liked to have seen an overall view of the site with surrounding uses, which would give it a broader context. She added she would support entertaining all potential ideas and uses for thesite. She added the City Council approved a zoning change recently so that a mosque could move into an industrial area. She noted many small businesses and entrepreneurs are currently renting space in an office building, and it would be preferable for them to have affordable space that is out facing the public. Councilmember Graves stated, considering the City’s larger goals for providing services and resources and promoting economic prosperity, she would not want to be exclusive and unwilling to hear aproposal. She added a car wash is not what she would want to see on that site, but she is open to making a zoning change that would allow flexibility in terms of redevelopment. She noted that should not be considered a vote in favor of a car wash. Councilmember Graves stressed the importance of working collaboratively with the community to determine strategies for finding businesses for the empty spaces in Shingle Creek Crossing. Councilmember Ryan agreed, adding the success of Shingle Creek Crossing will depend upon a successful public/private partnership and favorable market conditions. CouncilmemberRyan moved to approve PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-002for Planned Unit DevelopmentAmendment No. 9 tothe 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development. The motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Graves requested clarification that this amendment is not an approval of a development plan, but rather an amendment to the PUD language. Ms. Beekman confirmed this amendment does not approve a car wash, but rather amends the PUD to allow a car wash. She 06/08/20-13-DRAFT added the site and building plan, as well as Special Use Permit, would be reviewed by the City Council. Mayor Elliott asked whether the application can be denied once it becomesa permitted use. Ms. Beekman stated the amendment would allow car washes as an acceptable use in the PUD. She added the PUD does not currently allow car washes. She noted residents asked for a car wash during community engagement activities related to the Central Overlay District amendment. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist stated the City Council’s discretion for denying a use is limited when allowed uses are identified. He added there would generally need to be a health, safety or welfare reason to deny a proposed use that has been identified as an allowed use. He noted the PUD is different, but that is a standard analysis. Councilmember Graves stated the Planning Commission expressed concerns about the site’s proximity to Shingle Creek. She asked whether there is an environmental component to be considered, and whether this type of development would be allowed in the watershed area. The civil engineer for Gatlin Development stated the car wash would be contained entirely within the parcel, and the creek would not be exposed or impacted in any way. He added the car wash drainage route runs behind the Walmart property. He noted there will be no environmental concerns related to this development. Councilmember Graves asked how many staff would be employed by the car wash. The car wash developer stated there would be 7 full-time employees, 1 manager, and two assistance, for a total of 10 employees, including himself and his partner. Councilmember Graves asked whether customers stay inside their car. The developer confirmed this, adding customers pay at a pay station in their lane, and the express car wash takes about 1.5 minutes. He stated customers can utilize vacuums. He noted this express model is new to the area, and they plan to be one of the first of its kind in the State of Minnesota. Councilmember Graves stated she was envisioning a car wash on the site and wishing there could also be an ice cream stand, to make it more of a community car wash. The developer stated their car wash in New Hopehas an ice cream truck that frequents the site, as well as a food truck, and they have already asked if they can also come to the new Brooklyn Center location. Councilmember Graves stated she feels very conflicted and unable to make a decision with the information that has been presented. The developer stated he and his partner plan to be around for a long time and remodel the building every 4 years. He added they will be in it for the long haul. He noted local restaurants are often unable to stay in business. 06/08/20-14-DRAFT Mr. Gatlin stated he would be willing to consider the PUD amendment only for Site E and leave the other sites as they are. He added he hopes that would help the City Council make a decision. Mayor Elliott stated, in terms of how long restaurants last in Brooklyn Center, the 50’s Grill has been around for 35 years. Councilmember Ryan stated the developer as indicated he has invested in the development for another 10 years and has put a lot of effort into Shingle Creek Crossing. He added he is willing to work constructively with the developer. He noted the developer is willing to be flexible and apply the amendment only to Site E and leave the other vacant sites that are committed to restaurant use. Councilmember Graves stated she is willing tomove forward with the amendment as it only applies to Site E. She added she hopes that the site design will allow for more community interaction than an express car wash, and she looks forward to getting more information. Mayor Elliott stated he sees potential for the area near Shingle Creek, with its high visibility from the freeway. He added he believes there is a better use for this site than a car wash. He added he does not understand why the City has struggled to attract restaurants. He noted he will pass this up and look for a better opportunity. Mr. Gatlin stated this is the smallest lot that is left to be developed and will not accommodate a larger use. He added he has a use ready for this site, and he can continue to try to attract restaurants for the remaining vacant sites. Councilmember Ryan stated he wished to amend his original motion to apply the PUD amendment to Site E only. Mr. Gilchrist stated the initial motion failed for lack of a second. Councilmember Ryan moved and CouncilmemberGraves seconded to approve PLANNING Councilmembe moved and CouncilmemberGraves seconded to aseconded to a Ryanpprove PLANNING r Ryanpprove PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-002 for Planned Unit DevelopmentAmendment No. -002 f-002 fAmendment No. COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020or Planned Unit Develo pment -002 f pment 9 to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, to be applied to Site E only. 9 to the 2011 Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development, to be applied to Site E only. Mayor Elliott voted against the same and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson did not respond. ayor Elliott voted against the same and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson did not respond. ayor Elliott voted against the same and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson did not respond. ayor Elliott voted against the same and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson did not respond. M ayor Elliott voted against the same and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson did not respond. Motion passed. Motion passed. 10.COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a.APPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS Mayor Elliott stated he intends to appoint new Commissioners to the City’s Commissions. He added the City’s Commissions arenot representative of the diversity of Brooklyn Center, and he took pains to ensure that appointments will create Commissions that are diverse and representative of the City’s population, especially against the backdrop of the current global movement toward full inclusion and systemic change. He noted he believes that having 06/08/20 -15- DRAFT Night Renderings of Proposed Car Wash (1080 Shingle Creek Crossing) SHEET5OF12 11/10/2017 05 STORMSEWEREXHIBIT BROOKLYNCENTER,MN CONCEPTUALPLANS SHINGLECREEKCROSSING PUDAMENDMENT8 200 FEET BIOFILTRATION NORTH 100 *ON-SITE STORM SEWER IS PRIVATE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE SYSTEM SCALE PROPOSED PRIVATE STORM SEWER PROPOSED X-INCH STORM SEWER EXISTING PRIVATE STORM SEWER EXISTING X-INCH STORM SEWER WATER FEATURE/STORMWATER 0 f s 2 2 9 Y , 6 9 24" STORMCEPTOR E12" PROPERTY LINE TREATMENT AREA LEGEND EXISTING 12" 12" 12" STORMCEPTOR 24" 12" 12" EX" f X" EXISTING s 0 24" 7 8 X , 2 18" 18" 3 Nbobhfnfou!Qpoet f E12" s 0 E18" 12" 0 Pvugbmm!up!Fyjtujoh F 0 , 4 12" Tupsnxbufs E15"E36" CULVERT STORMCEPTOR BOX CULVERT f s 0f s 2'x4' 0 0 " 5 Q EXISTING O, SIGNAL 0 4 7 EXISTING 0 , f 6 2 s 0 E 0 M 5 , 7 E15" " G N I T LAUDETAVIRPS 21I 21x' E18"B'X CXO LU 4 TREVE 2 " E 2 f 4 " E15"s 0 15" 6 E 0 " 5 3 N f , 2 s 15"0 x 0 2 4 0" E 8 ,E15" 3 E 12" E15"4 15"2 f E s 0 " E10"0 S 4 8 , 7 1 R E E T A 15" W M f R s E18" O 0 E23"X36"T 0 2 S , D E15" 1 E42" 1 E18" E15" 0 0 0 2 L , 1 1 0 1 .0 " 1 " 4 O 4 2 2 " N E18" E15" E E 2 E18" . " E18" "4 0" O 8 E 2 D 1 1 N " 4 E 5 A E f 1 E s x 4 2 E10"3 O G 4 E15" , Y 8 S R D A N "O G W Y 4 N I 2 H T T A S E I N G X I N P O I E L H G U O E T " R O 5 " 1 C RETAIL E SMALL 0 E T 1 f E15" E51" s A E 0 0 E12" K T 5 EXISTING SIGNAL" , " " 9 "S 8 4 8 8 4 2 R "4 1 E EE "8 T E G E 0 4 A N I RETAIL" SMALL 3 W E T 4 E24" S M E I 2 " f R X "s E " 8 0 EO 2 0 T 84 H 2 , S 4 1 4E " 1 E 2 E " 4 0 " E 1 8 " 4 E "5 "E 51 4 " 1 E " 2 8 5 4 E 1 E E " ""2 1 " 2 4 E C" 8 1 2 "0 E24" 1 E 8 3 " E24" E 1 E 8 " E 84 " 4 E 8 E18" E 1 E15" " " E 6 4 3 2 " E " E 8 8 " 1 4 1 2 38,000sf G 1 E N I 2 E " J D " G L I 4 N 2 I U 3 D 2 B 4 L G I E N IU E " B D "L 2 I U 8 " " 1 4 B E15" " 1 82 G E " 4 1"4 N E I 5 2 8 D E E L I 1 5 1 E U G B EE N I D L I " U 6 B f " " s 3 3 4 2 " E B 7 2 1 6 5 , E12"BUILDING 6 " E 6 E 1 4 BUILDING 7 E "2 0 1 2 E G N I 1 D E15" "L I U 6 B E E15X24" BUILDING 8 E12" 3 E f E15" E36" s E21" E8" 2 E15" 2 A " 9 3 G , N 6 I 7 D L I 3 U B APPLEBEE'S E EXISTING E15" E18" E15" T 5" R Dpnqmfufe!jo!3123!btqbsu!pg!Tijohmf!DsfflDspttjoh!Jnqspwfnfout Fyqboefe!Tijohmf Dsffl!Ebzmjhiujoh Qjqf!Dpoofdujoh!Tijohmf!DsfflEbzmjhiujoh!Dpnqmfufe!jo!3123 up!Fyqboefe!Tijohmf!Dsffl bt!qbsu!pg!Tijohmf!Dsffl Dspttjoh!Jnqspwfnfout Gmpx Ebzmju!Tijohmf!Dsffl boe!Xfjs Tijohmf!Dsffl!xjuijo Cpy!Dvmwfsut Gmpx From:Matt Durand To:Lokensgard, Arik;Matt Durand;Ginny McIntosh Cc:Wurdeman, Brian;"Park McMillan";Frank Gatlin (frank@gatlindc.com) Subject:RE: Follow-up: PC Application No. 2020-006 (Car Wash, 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing) Date:Wednesday, July 8, 2020 1:39:05 PM Ginny, Please see the below answer to the questions you had. How is the water collected in the tunnel & what type of drain system is there? Answer: Water that gets applied to the car will be collected in a large debris pit that runs the length of the tunnel. This pit will capture all water and debris coming from vehicles. Once collected, there is a filter system (i.e. settling tanks) that will capture and large debris (i.e. sand, etc.) and what’s left will be fresh water “gray” water (Gray Water – safe, not drinkable). This fresh gray water then flows into the city’s sanitary sewer system just like what is used for toilets as an example. The tunnel will be designed so that the floor funnels all water to the center of the pit from all ends (see image below). All of the water used in our wash will be fresh water and all of the soaps and detergents used are biodegradable and environmentally friendly. There will be absolutely NO water coming from the car wash that will flow into Shingle Creek, rather it all flows into the city’s sewer system. To utilize the city’s sewer system, I will be purchasing “Sewer Access Credits” (SAC) at the going rate. This is a fee that the city charges me to access the sewer. In conclusion, there is no threat of water from our car wash operation running off into Shingle Creek. Tunnel Floor Draining Slope Example: This is an example from a previous wash that my car wash manufacturer did last year. Please reach out with any questions. Thanks! Matt From: Lokensgard, Arik <Arik.Lokensgard@kimley-horn.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 11:55 AM To: Matt Durand <mattdurand@holidayss1.com>; Ginny McIntosh <gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> Cc: Wurdeman, Brian <Brian.Wurdeman@kimley-horn.com>; 'Park McMillan' <Park@gatlindc.com>; Frank Gatlin (frank@gatlindc.com) <frank@gatlindc.com> Subject: RE: Follow-up: PC Application No. 2020-006 (Car Wash, 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing) Ginny, I will also be on the call. Thanks! Arik M E M O R A N DU M DATE: July 6, 2020 TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: PreliminarySitePlan Review – Holiday Car Wash – 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing Public Works staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review for the proposed Holiday Car Wash (Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006): Preliminary Plans dated 06/18/2020 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. TitleSheet 1.No Comments C200 – DemoPlan 2.Protect existing public sanitary sewer within easement. C400 – Site Plan 3.Label site trash enclosure. 4.Circulation around Building D should not be impacted. Verify lane width with Building Official and Fire Official. C500 – Grading Plan 5.Add additional spots to grading plan per redlines. C600 – Utility Plan 6.Comment from the Assistant City Engineer – Afterreviewing the submittals from the developer and engineer, it is clear that all waste water generated by the car wash from within the wash tunnel, is collected by interior drains and directed to the sanitary sewer. This sewer is ultimately conveyed to the Met Council water treatment plant in Saint Paul for final treatment. The parking areas and drive lanes on the site are surrounded by B612 concrete curb and gutter, where all storm water is directed to the City’s storm water system. The site storm water, which is water from the outside area, is routed through a series ofstorm water treatment ponds at Centerbrook Golf Course for treatment prior to discharge in Shingle Creek. No storm water from paved areas on site is directly discharged to the creek. Thereis a small section of landscaped areas along the east side of the build which may sheet flow in to the creek. L100 & L101 – Landscaping Plans 7.No Comment Holiday Car WashReviewMemo, July 6,2020 Miscellaneous 8.See redlines for additionalcomments. 9.Provide missing SWPPP documents. 10.Provide civil details. 11.Provide irrigation plan. 12.Upon projectcompletiontheapplicant must submit anas-built surveyoftheproperty, improvements and utilityservicelinesand structures; and providecertifiedrecord drawings of all project plan sheets depictinganyassociated privateand/orpublic improvements, revisions andadjustments priorto issuanceofthecertificateof occupancy.Theas-built surveymust also verifythatall propertycornershavebeenestablishedandarein placeat thecompletion ofthe projectasdeterminedand directed bytheCityEngineer. 13.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). 14.The total disturbed area does not exceedone acre, an NPDES permit isnotrequired. The property was formerly included in theapprovedoverallstorm water plan for Shingle Creek Crossingand meets the watershed requirements.However the plan set shall show erosion control measures to prevent sediment from leaving the site. 15.The City has submitted the plans to Hennepin County for review. Applicant must meet requirements from the Hennepin County review. 16.Applicant must apply for a Land Disturbance permit. PriortoIssuanceofa Land Alteration 17.Finalconstruction/demolition plans and specifications need to bereceivedandapprovedbythe CityEngineerinformand formatasdeterminedbytheCity.Thefinal plan must complywith the approved preliminaryplanand/orasamended,asrequiredbytheCityEngineer. 18.Aletterofcredit oracashescrowin theamount of100percent oftheestimatedcost as determinedbyCitystaffshall bedepositedwith theCity. 19.During construction ofthesiteimprovements anduntil thepermanent turfand plantingsare established, thedeveloperwill berequired to reimbursetheCityfortheadministration and engineeringinspection efforts.Pleasesubmit adeposit of$2,500 that theCitycan drawuponon amonthlybasis. 20.AConstruction Management PlanandAgreement is required thataddressesgeneralconstruction activitiesand management provisions, trafficcontrol provisions, emergency management provisions,stormwaterpollution prevention plan provisions, treeprotection provisions, general publicwelfareand safetyprovisions, definition ofresponsibility provisions, temporaryparking provisions, overall sitecondition provisionsand non-complianceprovisions.Aseparate $2,500 deposit will berequiredas part ofthenon-complianceprovision. Holiday Car WashReviewMemo, July 6,2020 AnticipatedPermitting 21.ACityLandDisturbancepermit is required. 22.Otherpermits not listed mayberequiredand is theresponsibilityofthedeveloperto obtain and warrant. 23.Copies ofallrequiredpermits must beprovided totheCitypriorto issuanceofapplicable buildingand land disturbancepermits. 24.Apreconstruction conferencemust bescheduledand held with Citystaffand otherentities designatedbytheCity. Theaforementionedcommentsareprovidedbasedontheinformationsubmittedbytheapplicant at thetimeofthisreview.Otherguaranteesandsitedevelopmentconditionsmaybefurther prescribed throughout theprojectaswarrantedand determinedbytheCity. Ifoofqjo mjnftupof jssjhbujpo cpvmefs Qspufdu fyjtujoh should boe light relocated Existing be sfnpwbmt tjefxbml Tipx dimpsjef<xjmm ejsfdumz cfouijd Ipx cjpbttfttnfout< dpmj/ gps gspn ftdifsjdijb jnqbjsnfou qsfwfoufe dsffl@ pyzhfo< nbdspjowfsufcsbuf mjoft jtcf qspqfsuz Dsffl tupsbhf tiffut uif ejttpmwfe foufsjoh Tijohmf bmm Tipx topx po dvscboebddfttjcmf pg Qspwjef efubjm sbnqspvuf BEB jtpvu uijt tp Sfwjtfsjhiu dvscuibu pomz b pqfojohgpsbWfsjgzcf dbo sfevdfe/ pvu mbshf pomz/uijt sjhiu uibuwfijdmfttupqqfeuif 41( Fotvsfbddftt xjuijoh tibsfejtjg bsf op Dpotjefsjotubmmbujpo esjwfxbz bqspo b pg ofxtjefxbml.bddfttjcmfuif nbjoubjo cvjmejoh bspvoe Qspwjefedvsc Tipx spvuf dbouijt hbscbhf Fotvsf sbnq nblfBEB usvdl uvso tqpudvscbddfttjbcmf tubmm beejujpobm BEB pvutjef tupsn BEB gps tbojubszfbtfnfou tusvduvsf sfmpdbuf fmfwbujpot gspn boe Qspwjefe sbnqspvuf pg Qspwjefedvsc Qspwjefebeejujpobmfmfwbujpottmpqf bsspxt sbnq BEB tqpu boe pops vujmjujft sfmpdbujoh cfjoh tjhot qsjwbuf up pg evf tvhhftu gspou pg usfft upq jo gspn 21( dmfbsbodf qspwjefe izesbou nbjoubjofe@ uijt bsfb jt Ipx tpe Watershed Management Commission 3235 Fernbrook Lane N Plymouth, MN 55447 Phone (763) 553-1144 Fax (763) 553-9326 www.shinglecreek.org July 17, 2020 Mr. Andrew Hogg Assistant City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 Re: Proposed car wash at Holiday Station Stores at Shingle Creek Crossings Mr. Hogg: Regarding the water resource concerns for the proposed car wash I agree with the City staff assessment. The important points being: 1.Water used inside of the car wash flows to the sanitary sewer and not Shingle Creek. 2.Exterior stormwater that comes off pavement flows to stormwater treatment ponds prior to flowing into Shingle Creek. In summary, the proposed project is consistent with Shingle Creek Water Management Commission rules regarding stormwater pollutant control and managing rates and volumes of runoff. Sincerely, Ed Matthiesen, PE Shingle Creek Watershed Commission Engineer Attachments: 200629 Plan Review Memo, Preliminary Site Plan-Holiday Car Wash-1080 Shingle Creek Crossing Review by Andrew Hogg to Ginny McIntosh, 7/6/2020 Car Wash Site Plan by Kimley Horn 6/9/2020 Cc: Judie Anderson, JASS From:Matt Durand To:Ginny McIntosh Subject:Fwd: Future Holiday Car Wash Date:Tuesday, July 7, 2020 12:32:08 PM Attachments:image001.png Ginny, Please see below from our neighbors at Bank of America. Regards, Matt From: Owusu, Caleb <caleb.owusu@bofa.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 12:30:57 PM To: Matt Durand <mattdurand@holidayss1.com> Subject: Future Holiday Car Wash Matt, It was my pleasure talking to you a couple weeks ago. I just wanted to let you know how excited the employees at the Shingle Creek Crossing Bank of America are for there to potentially a new car wash less than a minute away from us. As we discussed, this is a very good, high traffic, diverse, enriched community we are in and we do not have any major car washes in the area. The car wash would not only good for your business, but also local businesses around and the citizens in the community. I do believe this would be a hot commodity in this area, and I urge anyone else that you have been communicating with to seriously consider opening up the car wash in Brooklyn Center. Thank you for letting me say my piece and if there is anything that we can help our neighbor out let me know! This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms From:Angela Dahl To:Ginny McIntosh Subject:Re: Follow-up to Comments: Proposed Car Wash (PC Application No. 2020-006) Date:Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:16:33 PM Hi Ginny, Thank you so much for the response with answers to all my questions. It sounds much better than it seemed just looking at location. There will be many downsides to Sears continuing to hold out for planning. Add this to my comments also. Thanks again, Angela Dahl On Wed, Jul 8, 2020, 15:54 Ginny McIntosh <gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us> wrote: Hi Angie, I wanted to follow up with you on the comment you submitted via the Brooklyn Center Request Tracker. I’ve included a copy of the staff report to this email for your information. Since release of the packet, I have also received additional detailing on how water is collected and discharged within the wash tunnel, which will be discussed at the meeting: How is the water collected in the tunnel & what type of drain system is there? Answer: Water that gets applied to the car will be collected in a large debris pit that runs the length of the tunnel. This pit will capture all water and debris coming from vehicles. Once collected, there is a filter system (i.e. settling tanks) that will capture and large debris (i.e. sand, etc.) and what’s left will be fresh water “gray” water (Gray Water – safe, not drinkable). This fresh gray water then flows into the city’s sanitary sewer system just like what is used for toilets as an example. The tunnel will be designed so that the floor funnels all water to the center of the pit from all ends (see image below). All of the water used in our wash will be fresh water and all of the soaps and detergents used are biodegradable and environmentally friendly. There will be absolutely NO water coming from the car wash that will flow into Shingle Creek, rather it all flows into the city’s sewer system. To utilize the city’s sewer system, I will be purchasing “Sewer Access Credits” (SAC) at the going rate. This is a fee that the city charges me to access the sewer. In conclusion, there is no threat of water from our car wash operation running off into Shingle Creek. Tunnel Floor Draining Slope Example: This is an example from a previous wash that my car wash manufacturer did last year. Car washes are permitted in very few areas of the City as the current Zoning Ordinance only allows the use through issuance of a Special Use Permit and so long as the use does not abut R1 (One Family Residence), R2 (One and Two Family Residence), or R3 (Multiple Family Residence) District properties, including abutment at a street line. This essentially precludes the presence of a car wash for the near entirety of Brooklyn Boulevard and many other areas of the City, particularly as the R1 District is the most prevalent District type in the City. Per Property Owner Frank Gatlin (Gatlin Development Co. Inc.), the business model for car washes typically see the use as an outparcel tenant that relies on good visibility and easy access from major roadways. The car wash was initially proposed for construction on the west end of the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD, off Xerxes Avenue North, and north of the Sears property; however, Sears refused to grant for permission for the use on either Building Sites R or T. The Property Owner attempted to offer incentives to lift the restriction from Sears, but Sears would not agree. Building Sites L, M, O, S, N and Q, located east of Walmart, were also reviewed as potential sites; however, they are all internal to the Shingle Creek Crossing shopping center and are outlined as restaurant or traditional retail uses in the approved PUD documentation and master plans with specific building footprints that are intended to work around the Shingle Creek box culvert and day lighted creek. Of additional concern in proposing a car wash on an internal site is traffic circulation. It is for these reasons that Building Site E was determined to be the best identified alternative location due to its visibility from Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) and access on the edge of the PUD shopping center. If you have any other questions, please let me know. I will relay your comments during the meeting tomorrow evening at 7 p.m. via Webex. If you would like to join in on the meeting, you can access by phone of by browser using the following (click the green button if joining by browser and if you don’t have the Webex app, you can click the “Join from your Browser” on the bottom of the page): Meeting number (access code): 133 710 0749 Meeting password: BCPC07092020 Thursday, July 9, 2020 7:00 pm | (UTC-05:00) Central Time (US & Canada) | 2 hrs Start meeting Join by phone Tap to call in from a mobile device (attendees only) +1-312-535-8110 United States Toll (Chicago) +1-415-655-0001 US Toll Thanks, Ginny Ginny McIntosh| City Planner and Zoning Administrator City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org | 763.569.3319 | gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us From:Lisa Bluemke To:Meg Beekman;Ginny McIntosh;Jimmy Loyd Subject:New Car Wash Complaint Date:Tuesday, June 23, 2020 3:30:16 PM Hi All, A complaint came in on Request Tracker for the following: Car wash should not be allowed on Shingle Creek. There are far too many chemicals and waste discarded at carwashes. This is a terrible location for the carwash. How about over by Sears? Much more visible! I will close the request, but pass along her information for reference: Angela Dahl 3301 Ohenry Rd 612-400-2429 Angiedahl13@gmail.com Thank you! Lisa Bluemke | Administrative Assistant City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Direct: 763-569-3356 | General: 763-569-3330 General Email: communitydevelopment@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org | lbluemke@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us From:Randy C. To:Ginny McIntosh Subject:Planning Commission items 7.9.2020 Date:Wednesday, July 8, 2020 4:48:33 PM Hi Ginny and Commission, I am trying to do input for the public hearings July 9, 2020. Planning application 2020-006 Matt Durand 1080 shingle Creek Crossing I am excited to once again have a full service car wash in Brooklyn Center and only a few blocks from the previous one. I would suggest that the Friday or regular trash day the outer line be closed until trash hauler have removed the trash. I am in favor of the special use permit and the site and building plan. Planning application 2020-004 C Alan Homes 6000 block of BB - Tabled I am excited to see that there is interest by a builder to put in triplexes. I would have liked to seen some type of condo ownership rather than rental. However, this gives another option for rental in BC as market rate and 3 bedroom. I hope the staff, commission and council will review carefully the snow removal and parking as my biggest concerns. I would not want to have parking spill onto the streets and create issues year round, but specifically during snow season. Planning application 2020-005 C Alan Homes 6900 block of BB - Tabled I am excited to see that there is interest by a builder to put in triplexes. I would have liked to seen some type of condo ownership rather than rental. However, this gives another option for rental in BC as market rate and 3 bedroom. I hope the staff, commission and council will review carefully the snow removal and parking as my biggest concerns. I would not want to have parking spill onto the streets and create issues year round, but specifically during snow season. Following the concern for a short cut if there is a curb cut in Brooklyn Blvd. and further issues of snow removal onto or slowing Brooklyn Blvd. Randy Christensen 7001 Regent Ave N July 7, 2020 C Alan Homes Attn: Terry Robertson and Curt Brekke 5215 Terraceview Ln N Plymouth, MN 55446 RE: City of Brooklyn Center, MN Planning Commission Application No. 2020-005 Request for Establishment of a Planned Unit Development, Site and Building Plan, Preliminary and Final Plat Approvals for the 6900 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard Mr. Robertson and Mr. Brekke, Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99, the City of Brooklyn Center is required to approve or deny a written request for certain land use actions within sixty (60) days from receipt of an application. Community Development Department records indicate the City received the above-referenced application and documentation on June 15, 2020, which means the City’s 60-day time limit would expire on August 14, 2020. By allowances granted under Minnesota Statutes Section 15.99, Subd. 3(f), the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby providing official notice that the review period has been extended an additional sixty (60) daysto allow the time necessary for City staff to prepare a resolution, including proposed conditions of approval, for review and action by City Council. The new deadline for completing the review and final action on this application is now October 13, 2020. As the public hearing has already been published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post for the July 9, 2020 Planning Commission meeting, the intent is to table the public hearing to provide sufficient time for you, the Applicant, to reconcile any adjustments to the site plan as relating to the additional easements necessary and determine the ability for driveway access off Brooklyn Boulevard from Hennepin County. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call me at (763) 569-3319 or email gmcintosh@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us. Sincerely, Ginny McIntosh City Planner and Zoning Administrator Memberintroduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-006SUBMITTED BY MATT DURAND FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A STANDALONE CAR WASH ON BUILDING SITE E WITHIN THE SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING PUD (1080 SHINGLE CREEK CROSSING) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006,submitted by Matt Durand (“the Applicant”),requests review and consideration for approval of a site and building plan and issuance of a Special Use Permit for an approximately 3,667-square foot standalone car wash onthe 0.92 acre Building Site E within the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development located at 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing (“the Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is situated in the PUD (Planned Unit Development) / C2 (Commerce) District, where car washes are only permitted through issuance of a Special Use Permit under City Code Section 35-322 (C2 Commerce District), and so long as said use does not abut an R1, R2, or R3 District property, including abutment at the street line,and WHEREAS, standalone car washes as permitted within the Central Commerce Overlay District, where the Subject Property is located; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2020-002 was approved by City Council on June 8, 2020, and approved amendments to the Shingle Creek Crossing Planned Unit Development plans and documents to reflect updates to the building and site configuration of Building Site E andtheuses allowed on Building Site E in preparation of the requested car wash use and to facilitate the submittal of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and called public hearing on July 9, 2020, whereby a planning staff report and Assistant City Engineer’s memorandum were presented and public testimony regarding the site and building plan and Special Use Permit requests were received; and WHEREAS, in light of all testimony received, and utilizing the guidelines and standards for evaluating site and building plans, as contained in Sections35-230 (Plan Approval), 35-322 (C2 Commerce District), 35-355 (Planned Unit Development), and 35-2240 (CC Central Commerce Overlay District) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance,along with consideration of the goals and objectives of the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commissionofthe City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota,considers this Site and Building Plan an appropriate and reasonable improvement to the currently vacant Subject Property; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO. considered the Special Use Permit request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines and standards for evaluating this Special Use Permit contained in Section 35-220 (Special Use Permit) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, and the request complies with the generalgoals and objectives of the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councilof Brooklyn Center, Minnesotathat Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006, submitted by Matt Durand,be approved based upon the following considerations: a)The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals,or comfort. b)The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. c)The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. d)Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. e)The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED bythe City Council ofBrooklyn Center, Minnesota to recommendthat Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006, submitted by Matt Durand for approval of a site and building plan and issuance of a Special Use Permit to construct and operate an approximately 3,667-square foot standalone car wash on Building Site E within the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD, and also known as 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing, be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1.The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. a. The Shingle Creek Crossing Master PUD plan set, Declarations, and documents shall be updated to reflect changes approved under Planning Commission Application Nos. 2020-002 and 2020-006. An updated master plan set shall be provided for City records and prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed car wash. i.Update the civil set to reflect requirements and redline comments from the Assistant City Engineer in his memorandum, dated July 6, 2020, and RESOLUTION NO. requests to narrow the stacking lane median and main drive aisle. ii.Provide updated landscape and photometric plans that are in agreement with the PUD masterplans and per comments addressed in the staff report dated July 9, 2020. iii.An irrigation plan is to be submitted as part of any building permit submittal for the proposed car wash and said system is to be maintained. b. Any major changes or modifications made to this Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to the approved Site and Building Plan as approved by the City Council. 2.Unless otherwise determined, Property Owner/Applicant shall execute a separate Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City, which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards comprehended under this Site andBuilding Planapproval. 3.A pre-construction conference shall be held with City staff and other entities designated by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 4.The Applicant shall submit an as-built survey of the Subject Property, as well as any improvements and utility service lines, prior to the release of the Performance Agreement financial guarantee. 5.The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the Assistant City Engineer’s Review memorandum, dated July 6, 2020. a. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City’s Engineering Division. b. All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 6.Any outside trash disposal facilities or roof top or on ground mechanical building equipment shall be appropriately screened from view. 7.The building shall be equipped with automatic fire extinguishing systems meeting NFPA standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 8.The civil and architectural plans shall meet minimumMinnesota ADA compliance standards. 9.The Applicant shall provide additional documentation as relates to anticipated noise levels for car wash equipment and vacuums, and provide a plan for addressing trash and litter on-site. RESOLUTION NO. i.The Applicant will conform to any applicable noise standards and any additional permitting needs from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and adhere to any City ordinance requirements. ii.No outside broadcasting of music or announcements, other than as necessary at pay stations, shall be permitted. 10.All signage is to comply with Shingle Creek Crossing Signage Guidelines and Chapter 34 of the City Code, and any new or relocated signage is to be approved by the City by issuance of a sign permit. July 27, 2020 DateMayor 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. Mr. Gilchrist agreed with ChairOmari’s statement.He added a motionwould be appropriateto approve the Agendaand have a roll call vote. There wasa motion by CommissionerKoenig, seconded by CommissionerMacMillan, to approve the agenda for theJuly 9,2020meeting asamended.The motion passedunanimously. 7.APPROVAL OF MINUTES –June11,2020 There was a motion by CommissionerDaniels, seconded by CommissionerHmong,to approve the minutes of theJune 11, 2020meeting aspresented.The motion passedunanimously. 8.CHAIR’S EXPLANATION Chair Omariexplained 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 Commissionmakes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 9.PLANNING APPLICATION ITEMS 9PLANNING APPLICATION ITEMS . 9a) Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006 (Public Hearing) 9a) Planning Commission Application No. 2020006 (06 (Public HearingPublic Hearing) Public Hearing - 06 ( g Comm ission Application No. Applicant: Matt Durand Matt Durand Applicant: Applicant: Property Address: 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing Property Address: Property Address: 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing Summary: The Applicant is requesting review and consideration of a The Applicant is requesting review and consideration of a Summary: The Applicant is requesting site and building plan approval and issuance of a Special site and building plan approval and issuance of a Special site and building plan approval and issuance of a Special Use Permit that would allow for the development of an rmit that would allow for the development of an Use Pe t would allow for the development of an approximately 3,667-square foot standalone car wash and approximately 3,667square foot standalone car wash and - approximately 3,667 square foot standalone car wash and associated site improvements on Building Site E in the associated site improvements on Building Site E in the associated site improvements on Building Site E in the Shingle Creek Crossing retail center. Shingle Creek Crossing retail center. Ms. McIntosh reviewed arequest for site and buildingplan approval and issuance of aSpecial Use Permit(SUP)for development of a car wash and associated site improvements, on Building Site E in Shingle Creek Crossing.She requested that Commissioners hold their comments until the end of the presentation, after which there will be a public hearing. Ms. McIntosh stated, in September 2019,developer Frank Gatlin provideda development update on Shingle Creek Crossing to the City Counciland indicated that a location within the development was being reviewed fora stand-alone car wash.She added Sites R and T were originally identified as possiblelocationsbut were not pursued due to restrictions from Sears. Ms. McIntosh stated, in May 2020, Mr. Gatlin presented a request to the City Council for a PUD amendment for a stand-alone car wash in Shingle Creek Crossing Shopping Center, to update Building Site E from restaurant use to car wash use.She added the updated site and building plansand amended use were approved, but these approvals did not include thecarwash PC Minutes PC MinutesPC Minutes 07-09-20 -4-DRAFT 070920DRAFT -- application.She noted thereview at tonight’s meeting is for asite and building plan and Special Use Permit requestsfrom applicant Matt Durandfor development of a 3,000 square footstand- alone car wash and related site improvements. Ms. McIntosh stated the Planned Unit Development’sarchitectural guidelinesare part of the approval process for Site E, including a minimum of 50%Class 1 building materials on each side of the building.She added the remaining building materials could be class 2 materials.She noted City staff hasreviewed the mix of materials, whichmeet andexceedminimum requirements. Ms. McIntosh stated Property Owner Frank Gatlinhas providedexamples of similar car washes, which arepopularacross the country. She added the car wash building would cover 9.2% of the full site, which is well below the 40% maximum thresholdoutlined in the PUD guidelines.She noted access to the car wash would be from two points on Bass Lake Road, with 3 lanes entering the car wash: 2 inner lanes with pay stations and an outside VIP lane for frequent usersthat would utilize license plate recognitiontechnology. Ms. McIntosh stated aminimum of 20 feet is required for fire and emergency access.She added the Fire Department indicated that they would use the main driveway to access the property, which is 30 feet wide and meets the threshold.The Fire Inspector did not express concerns of impacts to Buiding D to the west as access would be maintained from the south, west, and north. The fire connections for Building D are located on the north side of the building.She noted parking on Site E would be reviewed. Ms. McIntosh statedtraffic data from Kimley-Horn planning consultants estimatesa total of 300 cars per dayor 600 total trips, with the majorityof tripsto the site, or 10.5%,occurringbetween 2:15-3:15 p.m.She addedthese estimates are in line with other similar type car washes nationwide.She noted Kimley-Hornhas indicated there will be space for stacking of13-14 vehicles which is sufficient to accommodate the queueper the traffic generation memo provided. Ms. McIntosh stated City Staff reviewed the garbage truck turning radiusbased on plans provided by the applicant, and City staff proposes the4.1-foot wideoutermedianbe decreased in size to provide additional buffer space.She added the main drive aisle is proposed to be 26 feet wide, and City Staff is requesting that be reduced to 24 feet, which is standardfor two-way traffic.She noted City Staff would like to see somelandscaped areas maintained as a buffer. Ms. McIntosh stated garbage pick-up at this location would be on Friday mornings, so there should be no conflict with customer traffic, particularly with a anticipatedpeak in the mid- afternoon. Ms. McIntosh stated each trip should take approximately 10-15 minutes totalif customers clean their vehicles and vacuumafter.She added City Staff used retail use ratios for parkingas car washes have no identified minimum parking ratio in the PUD, or 4.5 stalls per 1,000 square feet, for a total of 17 spaces. She noted the applicant is showing 17 spaces on the main lot. PC Minutes 07-09-20 -5-DRAFT Ms. McIntosh stated City Staff are requesting that the applicant work with Kimley-Horn to update the lighting plan to bring it into compliance with the original PUD architectural guidelines, as well as City guidelines.She added City Staff is requesting that the applicant provide informationon the car wash tunnel and vacuums,to ensure compliance with City Ordinances andanyrequirements from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Ms. McIntosh stated a trash enclosure was constructed for SitesDand E, and the applicant intends to determine whether that enclosure will be sufficient. She added City Staff is requesting additional informationregarding trash receptacles in the vacuum area as well as plans for emptying trash and cleaning up litter. She noted City Staff is requesting that the applicant review opportunities for screening and landscaping by the proposed transformer and utility access dooron the south side of the building. Ms. McIntosh stated alandscapeplan for this site is included in the Shingle Creek Crossing master landscaping plan, and City Staff is requesting that the applicant consider ways to provide year-roundlandscaping and screening of the stacking laneson theproperty. She added City Staff has also requested that the applicant work with the Assistant City Engineer torelocatetrees near the access roadon a part of the property where utilities are locatedand to revisit the landscaping to provide additional landscaping along the sidewalk portion by Shingle Creek for aesthetic appeal and to provide additional opportunities for stormwater management. Ms. McIntosh stated Site E is located westof a portion of Shingle Creek that was daylit in the original PUD. She added daylightingaportion of the creekisintendedtorestore the stream to a more natural stateand that the creek runs south in a channel under the Shingle Creek Crossing parking lots.She addedgray water, or sanitary water, from this area is shipped to a treatment plant in St. Paul thatis operated by the Metropolitan Council. She noted water coming from the car washwould go into the sanitary sewer system, which runs west to a lift station near LA Fitness before continuing on to the treatment plant. Ms. McIntosh stated stormwater, which typically comes from the roofs of buildings and impervious surfaces, like parking lots,is collected via drains and directed southto the stormwater ponds between Walmart and Highway 100,through Centerbrook Golf Course, and discharged intoShingle Creek. Ms. McIntosh stated the Assistant City Engineer provided a memo with comments and recommended changes, including comments from the Fire Inspector and Building Official. She added the applicant is aware ofMetropolitan Council Sewer Access Charges. She noted Hennepin County did not have any concerns regarding impacts to Bass Lake Road, which is a County road. Ms. McIntosh stated the second part of this request is for a Special Use Permit as car washes are a special use in the C-2 District, along with gas stationsand vehicle repair.She added Site E is zoned PUD-C2, so this use is allowed as long as it does notabutan R1, R2 or R3 property, and is an allowed use in the Central Commerce Overlay District, where the propertyis located. She noted the Special Use Permit requires apublic hearing, and public notice was given. PC Minutes 07-09-20 -6-DRAFT Ms. McIntosh statedCity Staff received comments from two residents and two businesses. She read the comments from one resident:“Iam excited to have another car wash.”She added anotherresident, whose comment was received throughthe City’sRequest Tracker, stated:“The car wash should not be placed so close to Shingle Creek due to waste and chemicals at car washes.”Ms. McIntosh statedshe followed up with this resident and provided a copy of the Staff Report, and the resident retracted her concernand noted that it sounds much better than it seemed just looking at the location, but added, in response to Sear’s refusal to allow for a car wash on sites R and T,“There will be many downsides to Sears holding out for planning.” Ms. McIntosh statedthe applicant received comments froma consultant at Bank of America and the Bank Manager of TCF Bank, which he forwarded to City Staff. She added the Bank of America representative expressed excitement on behalf of theiremployees to have a new car wash near their office, which will be good forlocal businesses and the surrounding community. She noted the representative from TCF wrote to show their support for the car wash, which will make a nice addition,bring an upscale look to the City, and add something special. Ms. McIntosh stated City Staff recommendsthat the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval ofPlanning Commission Application No. 2020-006for site and building plan and Special Use Permit to operate a stand-alone car wash and related site improvements at 1080 Shingle Creek Crossing. Ms. McIntoshstatedChair Omari may call for a motion to open the public hearing. Chair Omari asked whether the Planning Commissioners should speakfirst. Commissioner Hmong asked whether the Commission should gofirst. Ms. McIntosh stated the public hearing must be openedfor comments.She added the developer, Frank Gatlin,and applicant Matt Durandjoined the meeting, as well as aconsultant from Kimley-Hornif there were any questions from the Commissioners later in the meeting. OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS –APPLICATION NO. 2020-006 There was a motion by CommissionerMacMillan, seconded by CommissionerHmong, to open the public hearing on Application No.2020-006. Chair Omari stated he has a few comments. Mr. Gilchrist stated a roll call vote is required. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. McIntosh stated Chair Omari shouldcall for public comments. Ms. Beekman asked the City Attorneywhether comments made through the Webex chat feature can become part of the record. PC Minutes 07-09-20 -7-DRAFT Mr. Gilchrist confirmed that submittinga chat commentin an onlinepublic meeting is appropriate as it is the same as submitting a written comment.He added City Staff can read it into the record. He noted the preferred method of public comment would be submitting a comment prior to the meeting by email or letter, but theonline chat comments are appropriate. Ms. McIntosh read a comment from Tamika Baskin: “Lookingforward to it! I would like to keep my dollars in the City rather than travelling outside of Brooklyn Center for such simple tasks. I support having another car wash in Brooklyn Center.” Ms. McIntosh read a comment from Randy Christensen:“I’m excited to see a car wash back in Brooklyn Center again. It’s been missing for a long time,and I hope that you will work to pass this and send the recommendation onto the City Council.” Tim Willson, 7007 Dallas Road, stated he agrees with Randy’s comments. Headded the City cannot seem to build or have economic growth to support a restaurantor two in the area where the car wash is anticipated, so a car wash is a good choice. He noted the planning over the last 20 years has been to have restaurants come in, but it is necessary to have the wages and a strong economy in the City to support them,and we haven’t had that for a while. ChairOmari asked whether Commissioners can makecomments. Ms. McIntosh stated the public comment period is intended for the public. Ms. McIntosh read another comment from Tamika Baskin:“Willthe car wash company be promoting job opportunities to Brooklyn Center residents?” Chair Omari stated perhaps the applicant could answer that question. Ms. McIntosh stated the applicant and developer can address comments and questionsfrom Commissioners and the public after the public hearingis closed. Steve Schonning,5515 Fremont Avenue N, stated he is still concerned about the visual aspects of the building and facility.He added he is less than overjoyed with the concept of a car washin that location, close to Shingle Creek. He noted he understands it isthe developer’s wish to move forward with this, and he looks forwardto hearing the developer’s comments. MOTION TO CLOSEPUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING) There was a motion by CommissionerHmong,seconded by CommissionerDaniels, to closethe public hearing onApplication No. 2020-006.The motion passed unanimously. Ms. McIntosh stated the Commissioners can ask questions and make comments at this time. Commissioner Koenig requested that Mr. Gatlin and Mr. Durandgive some background regarding difficulties in finding a restaurant tenant. He added he does not believe this is the ideal use for the site, but the traffic might bring shoppers to other nearby stores. PC Minutes 07-09-20 -8-DRAFT Frank Gatlin, Shingle Creek Crossing developerand property owner, welcomed the new Commissionmembers. He stated he started this project 10 years ago, and he has done just about everything he can to bring tenants to Brooklyn Center. He added he has done this type of car wash in shopping centers and this model does very well across the country, and one in Florida brings800-900 cars a day into a shopping center.He noted this would be a good assetas there are no other car washes in Brooklyn Center. Hethanked applicant Matt Durandfor doing a wonderful job on the elevations. Mr. Gatlin stated he has worked with City Staff for 10 years to bring quality restaurants to Shingle Creek Crossing, but they were not successful.He added times have changed, and what was envisioned for the development 10 years ago is no longer feasible. He noted he signed a lease with a seafood restaurant that will be opening soon near the liquor store, andthe car wash will hopefully attract another retail useonnearbySite L. Chair Omari thanked Mr. Gatlin for the background information. He asked Ms. McIntosh if she notedthe questions that were askedduring the public hearing. Ms. McIntosh stated Tamika Baskin asked whether the car wash will be promoting job opportunities in Brooklyn Center. Matt Durand, the applicant, stated they own the Holiday Station Store on Bass Lake Road, and 90% of their employees are from Brooklyn Center. He added it is anticipated that there will be 8-11 job postings for this car wash, and they plan to hire within the City of Brooklyn Center. Chair Omari asked whether the Commissioners had questions or comments. Commissioner Daniels asked whether City Staff have communicated withresidentsnear the site about the car wash, and whether there have beenany concerns. Ms. McIntosh stated the public hearing related to the Special Use Permit required public notificationand was noticed in the newspaper and mailings were sent to surrounding property owners. She added she receivedcomments from Randy Christensen and Angie Dahl.She noted Mr. Durandforwarded her letters from Bank of America and TCF Bank. Ms. Daniels asked when notification was sent out to residents in the area. She asked what could be the reason that people are not responding. Ms. McIntosh stated the City does not get much response for these types of public hearings, in her experience. She added public hearing notices are statutorily required.She noted the notification was published in the Sun Post on June 25, 2020, and mail notifications were sent over aweek before the meetingper statutoryrequirementsto provide advance notice to nearby property owners. Commissioner Goyahstatedif it is considerednormal to only gettwowritten responses, then the Commission should look for different ways to bring more people to the table. He asked whether PC Minutes 07-09-20 -9-DRAFT the applicant could tryto get input from residents that would be impacted by the car wash development. Commissioner Goyahasked what limits City Staff from reaching outto more residents. Ms. McIntosh stated there are no stipulationsin the current Zoning Code for additional notifications other than that which is statutorily required.She added other communities have amended their Zoning Codes toinclude neighborhood meetings, and that is somethingthat is being considered byCity Staff,particularlyas the current Zoning Code is undergoinga major overhaul at this time. Chair Omariasked whether the City couldsend the notice via mail to every homewithout an envelope. Ms. McIntosh stated that is something the City can look at, but right now the City onlysends notifications to surrounding property owners.She added it is difficult to send notification to every tenant of an office building,such asnearby5701 Shingle Creek Parkway,as the City does notknow who thetenants are. Ms. McIntosh stated, in terms of notice to nearby residentsfor this particular location,there are not manyresidential properties near Site Ewith the exception of the apartment complex to the north.She added the nearest residential building is the apartment complex nearthe white office building. Commissioner Hmong stated it would be nice if the applicant did an info session, so the Commission can getinformation directly from the applicant and not from City Staff, since the applicant owns the property. She asked whether that is allowed. Mr. Gilchrist stated, with regard to public notification, the statutoryrequirementis 10days’ published notice.He added City Staff goes overand abovethat requirement bymailing notification to property ownerswithin a certain distance of the property. He noted the Planning Commissioncan discuss ideasfor ways to reach the publicand make recommendationsto the City Council. He noted it will ultimately be a decision of the City Council regarding whether to incorporatechanges into the City Code. Mr. Gilchrist stated, inhisexperiencerepresenting cities, thisamount of responseis very typical, and there are generally very few or no responses. He added if people are concerned about or opposed to a proposal, they will show up. Commissioner MacMillan asked how many staff will be hired. Mr. Durandstated there will be approximately 8-11 staffon site. Commissioner MacMillan asked what the car wash hours will be. Mr. Durandstated they are thinking about 8:00 or 9:00 a.m. through 7:00 p.m., with different hours on the weekends.Commissioner MacMillan asked whether this will be similar to Tommy’s Car Wash in New Hope. Mr. Durandstated Tommy’sis a very similar model. Commissioner MacMillanstated he is excited to have Mr. Durandand the car wash come aboard. PC Minutes 07-09-20 -10-DRAFT Commissioner Daniels stated she had asked a question about involving community members in the discussion, not because they are for or against an issue, but because it is appropriate for community voices to be at the center of all decisions. She added the problem may be the way the City tries to contact people. She noted many people do not read the newspaper or pay attention to mail. Shestressed the importance of reaching out to thecommunity in other ways to engage them and hear their voices. Commissioner Daniels stated she is excited for the car wash project to happen. Ms. Beekman stated she wholeheartedly agrees with Commissioner Daniels’comments. She added, prior to the pandemic, she had asked theCity Planner to schedule a Planning Commission Work Session on this issue, to have a discussion and begin making recommendations to the City Council regarding notification policy changes. She noted she agrees it isdeficient,and there are many methods that can be utilized rather than just the statutory minimum. Ms. Beekmanstated there will be an opportunityfor a Work Session on this issue in the coming months, to add something to the Zoning Code or adopt a notification policy.She added sheis glad that the Commission wouldlike to have a conversation on this issue.Ms. McIntosh added that she was able to have an initial discussion with the former iteration of the Planning Commission and they generally wholeheartedly agreed thatadditional notifications and neighborhood meetings should be considered dependent on project type, scale, etc. Commissioner Hmong stated she is excited too, and she thinks Brooklyn Center needs a car wash. She asked how much an individualcar wash will cost, and whether the car wash needs to be that big. She asked whether there is another way to reclaim and recycle the water rather than using the Met Council’s facility in St. Paul.She expressed concern that the car wash will be so close to Shingle Creek, and she does not want any water to go into the Creek.She noted Ms. McIntosh explained to her that the water will not go into the Creek. Mr. Durandstated pricing will be in a range between $8-18, depending upon the service. He added prices have not been finalized yet.He noted an unlimited monthly plan will also be availablefor frequent users. Mr. Durandstated, with regard to an on-site reclamationsystem, it is uncommon for businesses in Minnesota to have a reclaimed water system as there is an abundance of water and businesses use water creditsfrom the Met Council.He added on-site reclaim systemshave a bad, almost sulphericodorand arenot the type of experience they want for their customers.Typically, for systems that used reclaimed water, that water is only used on the underside of the car. Commissioner Goyahstated he too is excited that there will be a car wash in Brooklyn Center. He added right now he goes to car wash in Brooklyn Park.He asked whether there will be enough space on the site to prevent overflow of cars into other areas. He asked whether it is common practice for the applicant to be required to contact Minnesota Pollution Control directly, and why the City does not do that. He asked why Sears refused to let Mr. Gatlinput a car wash near their site. PC Minutes 07-09-20 -11-DRAFT Mr. Gatlinstated, with regard to the last question, Lot T near the Sears building is an odd-shaped lot with a difficult building envelope.He added approval was needed from Sears and they denied the useas it couldcauseissues when they sell their property. Mr.Durandstated, with regard to overflow traffic, the car wash and vacuumwill be very quick with a fast turnaround, due to improved quality and systems technology. Commissioner Hmong stated, with regard to the water reclaim system she has suggested, it is important toreviewthe car wash’s environmental impactsand find other solutions. She added she does not feel comfortable as there is a lot of pollution and she does not want to shipany of the water away to be cleanedat the treatment plant.She noted there is an abundance of water in Minnesota, but it is important to keep it that way. She noted there may be a better car wash system. Mr. Durandstated all the chemicals that will be used on site are environmentallyfriendlyand are produced by a company called Glenco. He reiterated that on-site reclamation systems are extremely uncommon in Minnesotadue to localsewer access credit policies.He noted businesses are assignedcreditsfor the water they use, and if they need excess credits,then they have to look for other solutions. Commissioner Jones asked how large the debris is that is captured onsiteafter the gray water is sent on to be cleanedvia the treatment plant.Mr. Durandstated the entire pit under thecar wash is pumped and dredged on a cyclical basis, and all excess dirt, sand grit, and other particulate is removed. Commissioner Jones asked what Mr. Durand’s role is with Holiday Station Stores and how much experience he has in that type of operation. Mr. Durandstated his family has been in the business for over 30 years, and he recently took overthe family businessafter his fatherhad a health scare. He added he worked for Johnson & Johnson and 3M before gettinginvolved in the family business, as President of fivelocations, a few months ago. Ms. Beekman stated, with regard to Commissioner Goyah’s question regarding theMinnesota Pollution Control Agency,applicants are often required to obtain approvals from government agencies.She added permitting is generally withhelduntil documentation and any necessary approvals are received by City Staff.Any anticipated permits are often documented as a condition of any approval. Commissioner Koenig askedhow many vacuums the applicant is planning to have.Mr. Durand stated there will be 17 vacuums that will be dual-sided to speed up the process. Chair Omari stated he is grateful thathisfirst meeting withthe Commission contained a great detail of discussion on the proposed car wash as part of the now approved amendment to the Shingle Creek Crossing PUD. He added he went to Tommy’s to look at the car wash thereand visited another car wash in Fridley. He noted he went to Site E and walked along the area of Shingle Creek and over towardsthe golf course. PC Minutes 07-09-20 -12-DRAFT Chair Omari stated this will be a permanent structure that will be built. He added excess water should not run into the creek, which runs right next to where the car wash will be. He noted there is a chance that water from the car wash will find its way into the creek. Chair Omari asked whether an independent environmental study has been done to review the long-term effects of the car wash on Shingle Creek. He added he loves the car wash idea, but this type of study will be helpful in the long term. Mr. Durandstated every vehicle that comes out of the car wash will be clean. He added there is arinse cycle and a dryer cycle, and there will be no chemicals on the cars that exit the car wash. He noted there is a smalldrip factor, as with every car wash, but the underbody will be flushed with clean, fresh water and there will be drainage systems around thesite. Chair Omari asked whether an environmental study will be completed. Mr. Durandstated they have not conducted an environmental study. He asked whether Chair Omari is worried about water inside the car wash buildingor water on the carwhen it leaves the tunnel. Chair Omari stated he is concerned about the general area. Mr. Gatlin’s staff engineer stated cars coming out of the car wash will be clean on the underside, and chemicals will end up in the sanitary system, and not in ShingleCreek. He added the dry water treatmentbehind Walmart is specifically designed to filtrate contaminates and particulates. He noted it is a Code requirement to provide treatment to ensure that water quality in protected areas remains clean for yearsto come. The staff engineer stated Gatlin Development has worked since the beginning of the Shingle Creek development to ensurethatthe creek is environmentally enhanced and protected. He added Gatlin Development has partnered with the City in these efforts.He noted the partnership with the city from an environmental perspective for the past 10 yearsensuresthat all efforts will be made to preserve Shingle Creek. Ms. McIntosh stated as a general note that all commercial development sites in Brooklyn Center are developed with standardB612curband gutter to provide an additional barrier and efficient stormwater mitigation. She added there would never be a situationwhere run-off from the car wash parking lot would run straightinto the grass and then into Shingle Creek. Commissioner Hmong asked whether the barriercan be made higher than standard. Ms. McIntosh stated, if Commissioner Hmong is talking about the City’s curb and gutter, B612 isastandard sizeand formthat is used for the entire City. Ms. Beekman stated the Assistant City Engineerand City Engineerhavereviewed the applicant’s plans, independently from the engineer who prepared them for the applicant. She added the Assistant City Engineer has provided a memo with items to be addressed, which is also submitted to the Shingle Creek Stormwater Commission, and the City Engineer sits on that Commission. PC Minutes 07-09-20 -13-DRAFT Commissioner Hmongexpressed concern that the Commissioners did not have enough time to review the City Engineer’s report. Chair Omari stated, for the record, there is a comment for Matt Durand that a Shingle Creek clean-up could be organized. Mr. Gilchrist stated the clean-up can be added as part of the hearing record but not added as a Condition of Approval. Ms. McIntosh stated the City has an annual Shingle Creek clean-up event that is held in April. Commissioner Jones asked whethershe could get information about the different classes of building materials, as mentioned earlier. Ms. McIntosh stated she can forward thatinformation to the Commissioners. Chair Omari requested an update on the City Council’s discussion related to the car wash use. Ms. McIntosh stated the City Council reviewed a request to amend restrictions to Site E to remove a restaurant use restriction. She added the City Council voted 3-1 to proceed with the amendments, with Mayor Elliott voting against the amendments. She noted she included an excerpt from the draft meeting minutes under Exhibit C in the meeting packet. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2020-004 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING NO. REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING 2020-004 COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-006 COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-006 There was a motion by CommissionerMacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to here was a motion by CommissionerMacMillan, seconded by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner Koenig T , to here was a motion by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to approve Planning Commission RESOLUTIONNO. 2020-004 regarding the recommended Planning Commission RESOLUTIONO. 2020-004 regarding the recommended . 2020-004 regarding the recommended N approve approve nning Commission . 2020-004 regarding the recommended disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006 for site and building plan disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-006 for site and building plan isposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2020site and building plan approval and issuance of a Special Use Permit that would allow for the development of an approval and issuance of a Special Use Permit that would allow for the development of an approval and issuance of a Special Use Permit tha t would allow for the development of an approximately 3,667-square foot standalone car wash and associated site improvements on approximately 3,667square foot standalr wash and associated site improvements on one ca - approximately 3,667square foot standalr wash and associated site improvements on Building Site E in the Shingle Creek Crossing retail center. Building Site E in the Shingle Creek Crossing retail center. Voting in favor: Chair Omari and Commissioners Daniels, Goyah, Koenig, MacMillan,and Chair Omari and Commissioners Daniels, Goyah, Koenig, MacMillanand Voting in favor: , Voting in favor: Jones. Jones. And the following voted against the same: Commissioner Hmong. And the following voted against the same: Commissioner Hmong. The motion passed 6-1. The motion passed 6-1. Ms. McIntosh stated this application will be reviewed by the City Council at their July 27, 2020 meeting. Mr. Gatlin thanked the Planning Commission for their support and all their questions. He added he pledges that this building willbe built to the same standards as all the buildings in Shingle Creek Crossing. PC Minutes 07-09-20 -14- DRAFT Mr. Durandthanked the Planning Commission and City Staff. He added he is excited to bring a fantastic car wash to Brooklyn Center, a City he loves, and he vowed not tolet the Planning Commission down. 9b)Planning Commission Application No. 2020-004 (Public Hearing) Applicant: CAlan Homes Property Address: 6000 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard (6025, 6031, 6037 and 6045 Brooklyn Boulevard) Summary: The Applicant is requesting review and consideration of requests that would allow for four EDA-owned lots to be developed into seven (7) triplexes and associated improvements. This request requires the establishment of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), site and building plan, andpreliminary and final plat approvals. Ms. McIntosh stateda vote is required to continue Agenda Items 9b and 9c. Mr. Gilchrist stated City Staff recommends that these two items be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting, and a motion is required so all notices will carry forward. Commissioner Koenig stated Commissioners have expressed a desire for notification for residents to go out further and broader. He asked whether this should be discussed, and whether more residents should be included in an additional public notice. Chair Omari agreed, addingit might be appropriate to reach more people in the community using other means like Facebook and Twitter. Commissioner Koenigstated the CAlan Homes development is a big deal and could be a turning point in Brooklyn Center in terms of what typesof development are desired to enhance the City, both aesthetically and in terms of affordability. He added he would support getting lots of public input. Commissioner Daniels agreed, adding it might be possible to use this project to test the waters andincrease community engagement through new models. She added there is discussion at the City Level about the Zoning Code. She noted there may be other ways to reach residents and increase community engagement. Commissioner Koenig asked whether notices could be resent, even though this item will be continued. Ms. Beekman stated the City is operating under a 60-day rule as these properties are owned by the Economic Development Authority and the timeline has started. She added City Staff have encouraged the applicant to meet with neighbors and residents near the site, and she believes they have been doing that. PC Minutes 07-09-20 -15-DRAFT Tim Gannon, Police Chief Type of Meeting, Date Internal Affair and Lawsuit Employee Complaint, Data Charts 2 Brooklyn Center Police Department 2015 and May 31, 2020 we have been involved BCPD is a busy police Between January 1, in 198,967 calls for department. service 3 Concerns Raised by Type MN Dept. of Human Rights investigations Internal Affairs investigations POST Board Complaints complaints Lawsuits 4 threshold with regard to the quality or validity of all have no the concern. Anyone can make a complaint making a report with the MN Department of Filing a complaint, initiating a lawsuit and without any validated/vetted evidence. Human Rights or MN POST Board 5 Total Concerns over 5.4 years for 49 Averages out to less per officer per year. than 0.2 concerns sworn staff. 6 Complaint Source public) or internal source We typically get one external source (the complaint for every We have fielded 38 (supervisor or peer) Can be initiated by 5,236 interactions complaints 7 External Complaints 8 Internal Complaints 9 Total - Complaints sworn staff receive or 7.03 complaints a complaint each are received per We average 0.14 complaints per or 14% of our officer per year yearyear 10 Complaints - Dispositions 11 Internal Affairs Investigations 12 MN Department of Human Rights 13 Lawsuits 14 The City had to pay the $2,500 deductible and the LMC covered the rest The City had to pay the $2,500 deductible and the League of MN Cities In 1 of these 4 instances, the City actually paid $1,631.40 (as the total The plaintiff will receive $825,000 as agreed upon by a settlement. of the legal costs, and the money to the plaintiff. costs were less than our $2,500 deductible). covered the remainder of legal costs. 4 of the 6 lawsuits were dismissed 1 of the 6 lawsuits is still pending 1 of the 6 lawsuits Lawsuits 15 Internal Affairs (IA) investigation an agreement on an . involving a potential missing firearm from a search warrant deductible. reached 2,500 Since January 1, 2015 the City also by an 3,000. the $ Other Payment investigated paid agreed to pay $ technically issue that was City The City The 16 Complaints by Specific Officer 17 Concerns by Specific Officer 18 Complaints 24 Officers have been named in a complaint (49% of officers) We get one complaint for every 5,236 interactions 198,967 Calls for Service (CFS) in 5.4 Years - Based on the Numbers We have fielded 38 complaints 19 We have conducted six Internal Affairs (IAs) investigations Ten officers have been named in an IA (20% of officers) IAs We get one IA for every 33,161 interactions 198,967 Calls for Service (CFS) in 5.4 Years - Based on the Numbers We get one MN Department of Human Rights investigation for Five officers have been named in a MN Department of Human 20 MN DOHR We have been involved in two MN Department of Human 198,967 Calls for Service (CFS) in 5.4 Years Based on the Numbers Rights investigations (10% of officers) every 99,484 interactions Rights investigations 21 Eight officers have been named in a lawsuit (16% of officers) Lawsuits We get one lawsuit for every 33,161 interactions 198,967 Calls for Service (CFS) in 5.4 Years Based on the Numbers We have been involved in six lawsuits Department of Human Rights investigations, or Lawsuits (35% of 22 17 Officers have not been named in any complaints, IAs, MN Overall 198,967 Calls for Service (CFS) in 5.4 Years Based on the Numbers officers). 23 Questions? BROOKLYN BOULEVARD Open House Summary To inform the Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study, a series of open houses were held to identify local stakeholder priorities and desires regarding the future of Brooklyn Boulevard. Each open house asked attendees to envision what they hoped Brooklyn Boulevard would become, while establishing guiding principles to inform the Study. Approximately 160 attendees across the three open houses provided input, guidance, and meaningful questions to the City and its project partners. The Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study is part of the Becoming Brooklyn Center city-wide initiative of reimagining the future of Brooklyn Center. More information can be found at BecomingBrooklynCenter.com Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study Results Summary Design Features PUBLIC ART OPEN SPACENATURAL PLANTS AND TREES 71421 TOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTES SAFE BIKE INFRASTRUCTURESIDEWALKS AND TRAILS PUBLIC SPACES 121624 TOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTES WRITE YOUR OWN IDEA! GREEN INFRASTRUCTURESAFE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS Bee Pollinator Plants: 3 votes More Restaurants: 1 vote Open Markets: 1 vote 2122 TOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTES Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study Results Summary Housing Options MODERN COURTYARD YESNO YESNO 14094 TOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTES ROW BUNGALOW NO YESNO YES 93255 TOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTESTOTAL VOTES Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study Foods Cub General Comment Themes d R e k a L s 6 s a B e v A h t 9 5 ••••••••• e v A h t 0 6 Results Summary 5 e v A t s Bass Lake Rd & Brooklyn Blvd 1 6 65th Ave & Brooklyn Blvd e v A d n 2 6 vard Land Use Study Park Maintenance e v A d r 3 4 6 Foods Sun Metro Transit Park & Ride ••• •• 3 6 3 e v A h Cahlander t 5 6 Park Brooklyn Boule e v A h t 6 6 US 694/94 & Brooklyn Blvd 2 61st Ave & Brooklyn Blvd e v A h t 9 1 6 ••• •• St. Alphonsus Catholic Church 5 2 e v A h t 0 7 63rd Ave & Brooklyn Blvd 69th Ave & Brooklyn Blvd Restaurants e v A e l b o •••• N •••• 1 4 Results Summary Desire for sit-down restaurants and Desire for Need for Desire for more farmer’s markets & general roadway community improvementshousing gardens Desire for Concern for public safety more local measures are of new developments businesses needed for being unsafe and public pedestrian and and support spaces being used as crime hangouts businesses More green Desire for more spaces – improve Engage programs/classes, air quality and all ages water quality and racial groups Support Need for more Need for and physical such as biking and scooters Need more Concerns Desire for youth-oriented expressed about streetscape spaces and over-taxing Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study 26-50% 1-25% of trips of trips What percentage of weekly trips spend in a park/greenspace? 4% >2 hrs 7% 13% are taken by car? Less than 30min 75-100% of trips of trips - 51-75% n i 21% s r 46% m % 68% h 0 2 3 6 1 30-60min 28% Results Summary vard Land Use Study Somewhat Other Yoga Hike Swim Run Easy How well do you feel you can If you exercise, what are make all bill payments? 4% 6% Somewhat 8% Bike 29% 35% Very Easy 8% Brooklyn Boule 48% Bike 29% Walk 35% 10% Walk 35% 17% 8% How easy is it to get healthy exercise each week? Less than t a Somewhat Easy h once w 24% e m o S 40% % 0 2 56% Very Easy 10% 40% 10% Results Summary What do you do when you visit Brooklyn Blvd?Brooklyn Boulevard? 6% Live Here 6 3 >2hrs 0 m i% Worship n 3 - 2 15%% h 30-60 Restaurants r 3 s Other % 3 8 min % 23% % Work 15% 9% Exercise Play Shop Car Services 9% <30 min 23% T r a v e l 62% t o / f r o m w o r k 1 8 % Would you visit Brooklyn Blvd more if new Would you visit Brooklyn Blvd more development was safe and accessible? if it had more businesses/retail? No Unsure No 13% Unsure 17% 20% 8% Yes Yes 75% 67% Would you visit Brooklyn Blvd more if it was more bicyclist friendy? No Unsure 27% 27% Yes 46% Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study Brooklyn Boulevard Land Use Study