HomeMy WebLinkAbout2030 Comprehensive Plan /
BROOKLYN CENTERBROOKLYN CENTERBROOKLYN CENTERBROOKLYN CENTER
2030 2030 2030 2030 COMPREHENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE COMPREHENSIVE
PLANPLANPLANPLAN
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
FEBRUARY 2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
Tim Willson, Mayor
Kay Lasman
Tim Roche
Dan Ryan
Mark Yelich
PLANNING COMMISSION
Sean Rahn, Chair
Kara Kuykendall
Carlos Morgan
Stan Leino
Michael Parks
JoAnn Campell-Sudduth
Della Young
CONSULTANT TEAM –
LOUCKS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jared Andrews, AICP, Senior Planner
David Hagen, AICP, Senior Planner
Tim Fedie, LEED AP, GIS Technician
CITY STAFF
Curt Boganey, City Manager
Gary Eitel, Director of Community Development
Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist
Tom Bublitz, Housing and Redevelopment Specialist
Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities,
Recreation and Services
Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works
Dave Peterson, Deputy Director of Public Works
John Harlow, Supervisor of Streets and Parks
T-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Summary of Goals ..........................................................i
Community Profile ....................................................................................1-1
Regional Setting .................................................................................. 1-1
Population and Households ................................................................. 1-2
Employment ........................................................................................ 1-7
Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan ......................2-1
Community Assessment and Visioning ............................................. 2-1
Planning Issues .................................................................................... 2-4
Land Use, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategy ........................2-11
Land Use Plan- 2008 Existing and 2030 Planned.............................................2-14
Solar Access Policies............................................................................................2-20
Historic Resource Preservation............................................................................2-20
Transportation Plan ..................................................................................3-1
Street and Road System ...................................................................... 3-1
Street and Road System Plan ............................................................. 3-13
Transit ................................................................................................. 3-15
Travel Demand Management ............................................................. 3-17
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Movement ................................................... 3-17
Sidewalk and Trail Improvements ..................................................... 3-18
Goods Movement ............................................................................... 3-20
Relationship of Land Use and Transportation ................................... 3-20
Aviation .............................................................................................. 3-21
Housing Plan ............................................................................................ 4-1
Introduction ........................................................................................ 4-1
Background....................................................................................... 4-2
Profile of Existing Housing ................................................................ 4-2
Housing Issues..................................................................................... 4-9
Housing Assistance Programs ............................................................ 4-10
Housing Regulation ............................................................................ 4-11
Housing Redevelopment Opportunities ............................................. 4-12
Housing Plan ....................................................................................... 4-13
Parks Plan ................................................................................................. 5-1
Introduction ........................................................................................ 5-1
The Existing Park System .................................................................. 5-1
Park Classification System ................................................................. 5-5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail System and Park Linkages .................. 5-9
Park Goals and Policies ...................................................................... 5-10
Park and Open Space Needs .............................................................. 5-12
Relationship to Regional Park Facilities ............................................ 5-13
T-2
Public Facilities Plans ............................................................................. 6-1
Water System ...................................................................................... 6-1
Wastewater System ............................................................................ 6-2
Water Resources Management ........................................................... 6-5
Implementation Program ....................................................................... 7-1
Official Controls ................................................................................. 7-1
Development/Redevelopment........................................................... 7-3
Capital Improvements Program ......................................................... 7-3
LIST OF FIGURES page
1-1 Regional Location 1-1
2-1 Planning Issues 2-5
2-2 Land Use Plan 2-16
3-1 Functional Classification System 3-2
3-2 Number of Lanes on Major Roadways 3-6
3-3A Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 3-8
3-3B Forecasts by Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 3-9
3-4 Public Transportation 3-16
3-5 Sidewalks and Off-Street Trails 3-19
5-1 Parks, Park Classifications and Schools 5-3
5-2 Regional Park and Trails 5-14
6-1 Sewersheds Map 6-3
6-2 Sanitary Sewer Flow Map 6-10
T-3
LIST OF TABLES page
1-1 Population and Household Change 1-2
1-2 Age Distribution, 1980 - 2000 1-3
1-3 Household and Family Status 1-4
1-4 Poverty Level 1-4
1-5 Poverty Levels in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980-2000 1-5
1-6 Racial Composition, 1980 - 2000 1-5
1-7 Minority Population, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 2000 1-6
1-8 Household and Family Income, 1990 - 2000 1-6
1-9 Change in Real Household Income, 1990 - 2000 1-7
1-10 Employment Levels, Brooklyn Center & Neighboring Cities, 2000 1-7
1-11 Industrial Classifications of Employed Residents 1-8
1-12 Occupational Distribution of Employed Residents 1-9
1-13 Jobs in Brooklyn Center, 1980 to 2030 1-9
1-14 Jobs in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980 to 2000 1-10
2-1 Existing and Planned Changes in Land Use 2-15
2-2 Land Use Table in 5-Year Stages 2-19
3-1 Street Classifications in Brooklyn Center 3-4
3-2 Traffic Level of Service Characteristics 3-10
3-3 Daily Roadway Capacities 3-10
4-1 Housing by Year Built 4-3
4-2 Housing Type, 1990 - 2000 4-3
4-3 2008 Single Family Structure Subtype 4-4
4-4 Housing Type Mix in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 2000 4-4
T-4
4-5 Housing by Tenure 4-5
4-6 Households by Age of Householder, 2000 4-5
4-7 Values of Selected Owner-Occupied Units, 1990 - 2000 4-6
4-8 Median Values of Owner-Occupied Housing 4-7
4-9 Rental Costs (Units by Monthly Rent) 4-8
4-10 Affordability, Life Cycle and Density Standards 4-13
5-1 Park Facilities 5-4
5-2 Park Classification and Improvements System 5-7
5-3 Proposed Park Classifications 5-8
5-4 Comparison of Park Acreage with National Guidelines 5-12
5-5 Parks by Neighborhood 5-12
6-1 Flow Projections into the Metropolitan Wastewater System 6-4
APPENDICES
Appendix A:
Summary of Results of Community Analysis and Visioning Meetings
Appendix B
Review of Opportunity Site Master Plan and Development Guidelines
Appendix C
2009 Capital Improvements Program
Appendix D
City of Brooklyn Center Zoning Map
i
Comprehensive Plan 2030
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF GOALS
his Comprehensive Plan is an update of the City's Comprehensive Plan 2020
prepared in 2000. Many of the recommendations of that plan have been
implemented but a number still remain. The current plan has been prepared in response to
the emerging issues and changing conditions since 2000. It is designed as a practical
handbook that will guide the City throughout the next two decades.
The plan has a twofold purpose:
To preserve and enhance the community's strong attributes.
Brooklyn Center has many characteristics that should be preserved and protected,
particularly its well-planned local park system, quiet tree-lined streets, single-family
neighborhoods, and sense of small-town community. As the community continues to
evolve and mature, new strategies are needed to preserve and enhance these resources.
To stimulate positive change and evolution in the community.
Brooklyn Center is experiencing changes common to many first-ring suburbs. The
housing stock has aged, as has a large segment of the population, the public
infrastructure requires increasing maintenance, traffic congestion has increased, and
commercial and industrial markets have shifted. Historically the City’s neighborhood’s
have been a stabilizing influence, but the single-family housing foreclosure crisis calls
for action.
The City must respond with a more proactive approach-- initiating responses to issues,
intervening where necessary to get the community back on track, to reverse negative
trends. Past comprehensive planning efforts have not lacked in comprehensiveness but
a renewed resolve is required to successfully deal with the challenges we face.
The Comprehensive Plan is the product of a six-month planning effort. A community
analysis and visioning process where attributes to preserve and issues to address were
identified (included in the Appendix to this report) was the focus of the initial meeting
with City Council and City Commission members. The entire community was invited to
participate in a similar process further on in the process.
The current draft is being distributed to the City Council, Planning Commission and
Housing Commission for their joint review. At the same time it is being distributed to
adjacent cities, county governments and other local government jurisdictions for their
review, as required by law. The final plan will be prepared for submission to the
Metropolitan Council for review prior to the City Council’s final adoption.
T
ii
SUMMARY OF GOALS
The goals for the plan have been developed based on the issues identified in the
community analysis and visioning meetings, discussions with staff and
background reports, including the Metropolitan Council's Regional Growth
Management Strategy and other studies. More detailed and specific goals are
included in the individual chapters of the Plan.
Brooklyn Center will become known for its sense of community and will
capitalize on its physical attributes including its first-ring suburban
location, good highway and bus access, sound and diversified housing
stock, vibrant mixed-use city center, attractive Brooklyn Boulevard
corridor, and interconnected park and open space system.
Brooklyn Center will gain an increased sense of place by:
• Retrofitting the public elements of its neighborhoods
• Focusing and linking these neighborhoods toward an intensified,
mixed-use, retail-office-residential-city center,
• Making major street corridors and other public spaces highly
attractive, and
• Celebrating diversity.
Brooklyn Center will develop a positive public image and strong
community esteem through programs to correct housing vacancy and
deterioration and crime in certain areas and by ensuring that the City's positive
attributes and successes are publicized.
Brooklyn Center will accomplish these and other aims through cooperative
leadership and sound management.
1-1
1 Comprehensive Plan 2030
COMMUNITY PROFILE
REGIONAL SETTING
rooklyn Center is located immediately north and west of Minneapolis, about six miles from
downtown. It borders north Minneapolis along 53rd Avenue North, and this proximity stimulated
its early development. To the east, the City's boundary is the Mississippi River; to the north, the City of
Brooklyn Park, and to the west and southwest, the cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale (see Figure 1-1).
Established in 1911 as an incorporated village, the area remained largely rural until after World War I.
Development up though World War II was confined to the southeastern corner of the village, the area
with direct transportation links to Minneapolis. The population grew from 500 in 1911 to 4,300 by 1950,
and then exploded during the 1950s to 24,356. This was the city's strongest growth period, during which
most of its single-family housing was built.
As one of the Twin Cities
metropolitan area's older
suburbs, Brooklyn Center shares
many issues with other cities
within this "first ring" — for
example, the need for renewal
of their housing stock and
infrastructure, increasing
concentrations of poor and
elderly residents, and a lack of
growth in their
commercial/industrial tax base.
Brooklyn Center has been
working throughout the 1980s
and 1990s to address these
issues, both within its own
borders and with other first-ring
suburbs on a regional basis.
The following sections examine
recent population and
employment trends for the city
and neighboring communities in
the north and northwest
suburban area. These
communities — Brooklyn Park,
Crystal, Robbinsdale, Columbia
Heights and Fridley — share
both a geographic location and
many demographic
characteristics with Brooklyn
Center.
B
Figure 1-1 Regional Location
1-2
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS
Brooklyn Center's population reached its peak in the mid-1970s, at approximately 35,300; declined during
the 1980s and 1990s; and began increasing again sometime in the 1990s, as shown in Table 1-1. The
Metropolitan Council's forecasts show a slight increase in 2020 followed by a similar slight decrease by
2030.
Unlike population, the number of households continued to increase through 2000 as household sizes
decreased. The Council's forecasts assume that household size has leveled off and will remain fairly
constant (at around 2.5 persons per household) through 2030.
Table 1-1: Population and Household Change
The Council allocates population to individual cities based upon past growth trends, land supply and
policies such as the Regional Growth Management Strategy. The Council's projections for the older
developed suburbs assume a modest overall eight percent growth rate, six percent of which is through
complete build-out and two percent from redevelopment. The growth rate projected for Brooklyn Center
from 1995 to 2020 is slightly lower, at just over seven percent.
Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Forecast
2020
Forecast
2030
Forecast
Population 35,173 31,230 28,887 29,172 29,500 30,500 29,500
Percent Change -11.2 -7.5 1.0 1.1 3.4 -3.3
Households 9,151 10,751 11,226 11,430 11,800 12,200 12,100
Avg. Household Size 3.84 2.90 2.57 2.55 2.5 2.5 2.44
1-3
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Changes in age groups during the 1980s and 1990s show a pattern that is typical of many first-ring
suburbs that were settled in the 1950s through the 1970s. As shown in Table 1-2 below, the "first
generation" of homeowners is aging — the over-65 population increased by 80 percent during the 1980s
and 27 percent during the 1990s — and some of them are moving out of their single-family homes into
"life cycle housing" such as townhouses, condominiums and apartments. The single-family homes they
vacate are becoming occupied by a new generation of young adults. The school age population increased
by 24 percent during the 1990s, while the number of children under age five decreased by about the
same percentage. Another group that declined sharply is the age 55-64 group, or the "empty-nester"
group. This may indicate that suitable housing alternatives are not available for this group in Brooklyn
Center. The median age in the city is now at 35.3, slightly above the regional median.
Table 1-2: Age Distribution 1980-2000
Age Group 1980 Percent 1990 Percent 2000 Percent
Under 5 2,419 7.7 % 2,597 7.3 % 1,957 6.7 %
6-17 6,457 20.7 % 4,306 14.9 % 5,353 18.3 %
18-24 4,595 14.7 % 2,849 9.9 % 2,805 9.6 %
25-34 4,919 15.7 % 5,372 18.6 % 4,330 14.8 %
35-44 3,649 11.7 % 3,986 13.8 % 4,451 15.3 %
45-54 4,244 13.6 % 2,762 9.6 % 3,395 11.6 %
55-64 2,985 9.6 % 3,488 12.1 % 2,374 8.2 %
65 and over 1,962 6.3 % 3,546 12.3 % 4,507 15.4 %
Median Age 28.9 33.8 35.3
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY STATUS
In keeping with the trend towards more and smaller households, the number of one-person households
continued to increase during the 1990s. Table 1-3 shows the differences in family status in 1980, 1990
and 2000. Non-family households (two or more unmarried persons) increased at a rate during the
1990s that was even greater than the rate of increase in the 1980s. The number of families with
children under 18 continued to decline during the 1990s. The increase in families with no children
during the 1980s was more than offset by the decrease in such families during the 1990s. The number
of female single-parent households continued to rise during the 1990s, though at a somewhat slower
rate than during the 1980s. Likewise male single-parent households, though still a small group,
increased substantially. "Other family households" (i.e., single house-holder and adult relatives)
leveled off during the 1990s.
1-4
Table 1-3: Household and Family Status
1980 1990 % Change 2000 % Change
Households
One-person 1,763 2,445 38.6 % 3218 31.6 %
Non-family 509 640 25.7 % 830 29.7 %
Families
Married, no children 3,449 3,775 9.4 % 3061 -18.9 %
Married, children 3,784 2,568 -32.1 % 2236 -12.9 %
Single Parent, Female 815 963 18.1 % 1088 13.0 %
Single Parent, Male 123 186 51.2 % 328 76.3 %
Other 397 649 63.4 % 669 3.1 %
POVERTY LEVEL
The number of persons living in poverty increased somewhat during the 1990s. Of those in poverty, over
one-third are under 18. About 7.3% percent of Brooklyn Center residents are below the poverty level
and about 22% are below 200% of the poverty level. The poverty level was defined as $17,029 for a
family of four in 1999. Generally, a greater number of persons living in Brooklyn Center have incomes
that place them below the poverty level and below 200% of the poverty level than in other neighboring
cities.
Table 1-4: Poverty Level
1980 % 1990 % % Change 2000 % % Change
All Persons 1,686 5.4 % 2,031 7.1% 20.4 % 2143 7.3 % 5.5 %
Persons under 18 860 3.0% 775 2.7 % -9.9 %
Persons over 65 130 0.5% 243 0.8 % 86.9 %
Persons < 200% 4,773 15.4% 5,381 18.7% 21.4% 6313 21.9% 17.3 %
1-5
Table 1-5: Poverty Levels in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities
1980 1990 2000
% in
Poverty
%<200%
of Poverty
% in
Poverty
%<200% of
Poverty
% in
Poverty
%<200%
of Poverty
Brooklyn Ctr. 5.4 15.4 7.1 18.7 7.4 21.9
Brooklyn Park 6.0 14.9 7.5 17.0 5.1 16.2
Crystal 3.0 12.1 3.8 12.8 4.4 13.2
Robbinsdale 3.8 16.3 5.0 16.7 4.7 17.5
Columbia Hts. 5.3 16.8 8.5 21.6 6.4 22.2
Fridley 4.2 13.9 6.1 17.1 7.3 18.6
RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION
The trend in the direction of more racial diversity accelerated during the 1990s as shown on Table 1-6.
The largest absolute increase again occurred among African Americans, and the number of Asian residents
realized the largest percentage increase — more than 300%. The number of persons who identified
themselves as Hispanic also more than doubled during the 1990s.
Table 1-6: Racial Composition, 1980-2000
1980 % of Total 1990 % of Total 2000 % of Total
White 29,984 96.0 26,271 90.9 20,825 71.4
African American 530 1.2 1,502 5.2 4,110 14.1
American Indian 201 .6 271 .9 253 .9
Asian and other 515 1.6 843 2.9 2,569 8.8
Hispanic* 273 .9 367 1.3 823 2.8
Total Minority 4.5 2,820 9.8 8,642 29.6
*Hispanic population consists of people of any race. "Percent minority" includes all persons of minority
races plus persons who identified themselves as white and Hispanic.
As a percentage of total population, Brooklyn Center’s minority population is more than two times that of
neighboring cities, except Brooklyn Park. Brooklyn Center’s minority population and minority
population composition, as a percentage of total population, is very similar to that of Brooklyn Park. As
shown on Table 1-7.
1-6
Table 1-7: Minority Population in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities
(as percent of total population)
African
American
American
Indian
Asian and
other Hispanic Total
Minority
Brooklyn Center 14.1 % 0.9 % 8.8 % 2.8 % 29.6 %
Brooklyn Park 14.3 % 0.6 % 9.3 % 2.9 % 29.7 %
Crystal 4.2 % 0.6 % 3.4 % 2.5 % 12.8 %
Robbinsdale 5.7 % 0.6 % 2.1 % 2.0 % 12.0 %
Columbia Heights 3.6 % 1.6 % 3.5 % 3.1 % 14.2 %
Fridley 3.4 % 0.8 % 3.0 % 2.6 % 12.5 %
MOBILITY
According to the 2000 census, among persons five years and older, 56 percent had lived in the same
dwelling for five years or more, while the remaining 44 percent had moved from elsewhere. Mobility has
increased since 1990 when 60 percent had lived in the same dwelling for five years or more.
Of Brooklyn Center residents five years or older, about 25 percent moved from elsewhere in Hennepin
County, 16 percent relocated from a different county and three percent moved to the community from outside
the country. This shows a fairly stable population. In Hennepin County, by contrast, about 50 percent had
moved from elsewhere.
EDUCATION LEVELS
The educational level attained by Brooklyn Center residents increased slightly between 1990 and 2000. Of
the 2000 population aged 25 and over, 87 percent were high school graduates, while 17 percent had a
bachelor's degree or higher. In comparison, in 1990 84 percent of the population aged 25 and over were
high school graduates and 14 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. In Hennepin County in 2000, by
contrast, 88 percent were high school graduates and 32 percent had a college degree.
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY INCOME LEVELS
Like many first-ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center household and family income failed to keep pace with
inflation in the 1990s. Also like other first-ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center saw marked increases in the
elderly population during the decade, paralleling the increase in residents living in poverty.
Table 1-8: Household and Family Income, 1990-2000
1989 (1999$) 1999 Percent Change
Median Household $45,925 $44,570 2.9 %
Median Family $52,175 $52,006 0.3 %
1-7
Real income, or income adjusted for inflation, declined for most neighboring cities. Brooklyn Park and
Robbinsdale, where buying power increased, were the exceptions to this general decline in real income
as shown in Table 1-9 below.
Table 1-9: Change in Real Household Income in Brooklyn Center
and Neighboring Cities, 1990-2000
1989 (1999$) 1999 Percent Change
Brooklyn Center 45,925 44,570 -3.0 %
Brooklyn Park 53,788 56,572 5.2 %
Crystal 49,856 48,736 -2.2 %
Robbinsdale 44,633 48,271 8.2 %
Columbia Heights 40,953 40,562 -1.0 %
Fridley 49,536 48,372 -2.3 %
EMPLOYMENT
Of the City's population, 70.1 percent was in the labor force in 2000, comparable to neighboring cities and
to Hennepin County as shown on Table 1-10 below. The unemployment rate for persons in the labor force
was 3.5%. (The "labor force" is defined as all persons 16 or over who are employed or unemployed — i.e.,
those who are actively seeking and available for work. It does not include persons in the military.) Low
labor force participation is generally correlated to a high percentage of retired persons.
Table 1-10: Employment Levels in Brooklyn Center
and Neighboring Cities in 2000
% in Labor Force % Unemployed
Brooklyn Center 70.1 % 3.5 %
Brooklyn Park 78.8 % 2.6 %
Crystal 72.0 % 2.4 %
Robbinsdale 70.1 % 3.2 %
Columbia Heights 66.6 % 2.5 %
Fridley 73.5 % 2.2 %
1-8
JOBS OF RESIDENTS
Brooklyn Center's employed population can be classified by the industry sector they work in and by the ir
occupational group — in other words, their individual job classifications (managers, technicians, etc.)
as seen in Table 1-11 below. The industrial sector classification as compared with the Twin Cities
region and the nation as a whole is shown in the table below. The percent of Brooklyn Center’s
employed population in manufacturing is significantly higher than the percent for either the Twin Cities
MSA or the United States.
Table 1-11: Industrial Classification of Employed Residents in 2000
Industry Brooklyn
Center
Twin Cities
MSA
United
States
Ag/Mining 0.3 % 0.6 % 1.9 %
Construction 4.9 % 5.6 % 6.8 %
Manufacturing 18.8 % 15.9 % 14.1 %
Trans./Comm./Utilities 6.0 % 5.4 % 5.2 %
Trade (wholesale/retail) 16.7 % 15.7 % 15.3 %
Information 3.1 % 2.9 % 3.1 %
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 8.4 % 8.9 % 6.9 %
Services 39.6 % 41.7 % 42.0 %
Government 2.4 % 3.3 % 4.8 %
The jobs of city residents can also be categorized by occupational category and compared with jobs in
the Twin Cities region as shown in the following Table 1-12. Compared to the region, Brooklyn Center
has higher percentages of production, skilled craft and administrative support jobs and considerably
fewer professional/ technical jobs. The relatively high percentage of Brooklyn Center residents
employed in a production, skilled craft occupation is related to the relatively high percentage of
employed residents in the manufacturing industry.
Censuses prior to 2000 indicated that Brooklyn Center's job mix included significantly more sales jobs than
the region or other first-ring suburbs — a function of retail jobs centered around Brookdale. According to
the 2000 census, the percentage of jobs in Brooklyn Center involving sales declined to less than the
region. This decline in percentage of jobs in sales is indicative of Brookdale’s decline as a retail center
within its trade area.
1-9
Table 1-12: Occupational Distribution of Employed Residents in 2000
Occupational Group Brooklyn Center Twin Cities MSA
Executive/Managerial 11.5 % 16.4 %
Professional/Technical 16.4 % 22.5 %
Sales 9.7 % 11.6 %
Administrative Support 21.1 % 16.5 %
Services 13.7 % 12.4 %
Production, Skilled Crafts 18.4 % 12.9 %
Farmers, Construction 9.2 % 7.7 %
JOBS IN BROOKLYN CENTER
The number of jobs based in Brooklyn Center increased significantly during the 1980s and declined
slightly in the 1990s according to Table 1-13 below. The Metropolitan Council has forecasted a 9%
growth in jobs in Brooklyn Center during this decade, followed by 2% job growth in each of the next two
decades.
Region-wide, developing suburbs took the lead in job growth in the 1980s, with a 63 percent share of new
jobs. Brooklyn Center retained a high jobs-to-residents ratio in 2000: 96 jobs per 100 "working age"
residents (18-61). This is typical of the fully developed suburbs, although some communities (like
Columbia Heights) have relatively few jobs and others (like Roseville) have a plentiful supply of jobs per
working age resident.
Table 1-13: Jobs in Brooklyn Center
1980 1990 2000 2010
Forecast
2020
Forecast
2030
Forecast
Jobs/100
Residents age
18-61, 2000
Number 11,995 17,006 16,698 18,200 18,600 19,000 96.2
% Change 62.9 % 41.8 % -1.8 % 9.0 % 2.2 % 2.2 %
Job growth in neighboring cities during the 1980s and 1990s shows no consistent pattern in the following
Table 1-14. Of these cities, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and Fridley are significant centers of
employment. Among these employment centers, only Brooklyn Park is experiencing significant job
growth — a result of the large supply of available land for development. As a fully developed
community, job growth in Brooklyn Center is related closely to redevelopment.
1-10
Table 1-14: Jobs in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980-2000
1980 1990 % Change 2000 % Change 2010 % Change
Brooklyn
Center 11,995 17,006 41.8 % 16,698 -1.8 % 18,200 9.0 %
Brooklyn Park 8,017 16,592 106.9 % 23,256 40.2 % 26,900 15.7 %
Crystal 6,030 6,019 -1.2 % 5,567 -7.5 % 6,600 18.6 %
Robbinsdale 5,348 6,813 27.4 % 6,988 2.6 % 8,100 15.9 %
Columbia Hts. 4,618 4,536 -1.8 % 6,419 41.5 % 6,600 2.8 %
Fridley 22,968 23,821 3.7 % 25,957 9.0 % 30,200 16.3 %
A Metropolitan Council study, Keeping the Twin Cities Vital (1994), classified jobs in the first-ring or
“fully developed area” suburbs. The data compiled in this study showed some differences in distribution of
jobs between the region's sub-areas. While having a mix of occupations very similar to jobs in the
developing suburbs, first-ring suburbs are slightly higher in their proportion of clerical workers and lower
in their proportion of operators/laborers than jobs in the developing suburbs.
2-1
2 Comprehensive Plan 2030
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND
COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
his chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes how the City of Brooklyn Center will
guide private investment in land and property through planning and zoning, initiate public
improvements through financing and funding and stimulate development and redevelopment through
incentives. In this fully developed community, the strategy focuses on guiding where effective and
intervening where necessary.
Practices set in motion by previous plans and ordinances will be largely maintained. Brooklyn Center
has progressed beyond initial development, however, and the forces of age and shifting market trends
have created new challenges. Therefore, the City has turned its attention to a set of policies and
practices aimed at building on its strengths of convenient regional location and access, a commercial-
civic core, a sizable job base, an award-winning park system and affordable housing in attractive
neighborhoods. The best aspects of suburban and urban living will be combined so that investments are
safeguarded and quality of life is promoted.
This chapter includes the following sections:
• Community Assessment and Visioning
• Planning Issues — City Center, Dispersed and Non-housing.
• Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Strategy — Goals and Objectives.
• City-Wide Land Use and Redevelopment Issues
• Land Use Plan — 2008 Existing and 2030 Planned
The topics of land use, redevelopment and community physical image are discussed in an interrelated
fashion because of their mutual dependence.
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AND VISIONING
Community stakeholders, including leaders and neighborhoods, were invited to community assessment
and visioning meetings. People were also encouraged to fill out a survey either online or hard copy.
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
One community meeting was held to gather input from the community’s leadership and the other two
were intended to involve the neighborhoods in the eastern half and the western half of the community,
respectively. People were invited to attend either or both of the neighborhood meetings, but were
encouraged to attend the one in which they had the most interest.
A community analysis and visioning process attendees participated in was the highlight of each meeting.
Participants were first asked to respond in writing individually to three questions. Working in groups,
participants were then asked to consolidate responses to the questions through consensus, and to record
that consensus on a large piece of paper. The results clustered into subject areas are contained in
Appendix A. Responses received at the meeting involving the community’s leadership were remarkably
T
2-2
similar to responses received at the neighborhood meetings. It should be noted that several people
attended two of the three meetings and that some attended all three.
The questions asked and responses were as follows:
1. What do you consider to be the best features, characteristics, aspects of Brooklyn Center that
should be preserved and enhanced? (Multiple responses listed in order starting from strongest)
• Parks (both local and regional), trails, schools
• Water features — Mississippi River, Twin Lakes, Shingle Creek
• Proximity and accessibility to downtown Minneapolis
• Small town atmosphere with strong sense of neighborhood
• Well-built housing, some in need of reinvestment/rehabilitation
• Earle Brown Heritage Center
• Commercial and employment opportunity sites — capitalize
• Hennepin County Library/Service Center
2. Of the issues identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, which have been adequately addressed
and which remain to be addressed? What issues not identified in the 2020 Comp Plan should be
addressed in this Plan? (Responses listed in order from strongest)
Issues addressed
• Redevelopment of Joslyn and Howe Fertilizer sites
• Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-694
• Brookdale, Northbrook and Opportunity Site underway
• 252/Regal Theatre
• Police Station north of I-694
• Street/Utility Improvement Program underway
Issues needing to be addressed
• Brooklyn Boulevard and single-family along it — report recommendations, overlay,
redevelop, beautify and cooperate with County
• Opportunity Site — vision, promotion, redevelopment
• 57th and Logan development — vision, redevelop
• Brookdale — vision, rejuvenate, daylight Shingle Creek, connect to neighborhoods
• Humboldt Square — improve and rejuvenate
• 57th — amenity potential
• Multiple-family housing — rehabilitate, redevelop
• Senior housing — support for and options to independent living
• Single-family — deal with foreclosures
• School districts — funding and consolidation
• Elementary schools/parks — preserve
• Civic Center — improve, expand
• Post-auto transportation — vision
• Low income and poor — reduce
3. What is your vision of the ideal for Brooklyn Center in the year 2030? (Value responses listed
first followed by responses visualizing physical change, followed by intangible responses)
• Sense of Community — comfortable, family-friendly, strong sense of community,
empowered, low crime, cohesive, engage diversity, safe (reduce speed limit on
Brooklyn Boulevard)
2-3
• Identity — establish unique, distinct identity from Brooklyn Park — create major
attraction, change name, improve reputation
• Aesthetics— city-citizen collaboration to improve and maintain streets (including
Highway 100) and public spaces
• Surface Water — increase treatment, increase infiltration (rain gardens), daylight
(Shingle Creek through Brookdale), capitalize (Mississippi River)
• Transportation — multi-modal, ease to downtown, pedestrian-friendly with trail access
and shelters
• Parks and Trails — maintain, re-designate Evergreen land as park and connect with
bridge to Riverdale
• Housing — increase move-up, owner-occupied, senior-accessible, new rental
• Commercial — Town Center, Opportunity Site and other commercial
redevelop/develop; Brookdale — viable or redevelop
• Schools — create city-wide district, personalize, consolidate
• Growth — 30,000 to 35,000 population
• Strategic Implementation — other city examples.
The summary of results of all of these meetings is contained in Appendix A.
COMMUNITY SURVEY
As part of soliciting input from the community for this comprehensive plan update, residents were
encouraged to fill out an online survey asking them to rate the community as a place to live, raise
children, work and retire; and also to rate physical aspects of the City including the housing,
transportation, park and recreation facilities, utilities and other services. Hard copies of the survey could
be filled out instead of taking the survey online.
Twelve persons responded to the survey, and the full results are available. The survey instrument used in
the survey has been used in other communities, but has not been validated. In addition, the level of
response was not adequate to assure the significance of the results. The summary below should be
reviewed with that in mind.
General consensus from the limited response emerged about several issues relating to redevelopment and
rejuvenation in the community. Ten of the twelve respondents feel that parts of City Center are in need of
redevelopment, that the level of intensity of land-use should be increased in City Center and that the City
should encourage the economic viability of Brookdale Shopping Center. Two-thirds of respondents
indicated that underutilized and single-family residential land along Brooklyn Boulevard is in need of
redevelopment and three-fourths believe that a significant amount of multiple-family housing in the City
is in need of maintenance or redevelopment. About two-thirds of respondents rate City Center as the
highest priority for proactive response as a city as compared to Brooklyn Boulevard or multiple-family
housing.
On the subject of transportation, more than 70% of respondents rate the overall system, as well as the
sidewalk and trails system in Brooklyn Center, good or excellent. On the other hand, more than half
indicated that ease of walking in the community is not good.
Consensus response to several questions may be cause for concern. Two-thirds rate Brooklyn Center as a
fair or poor place to raise children or to retire, though more than half of respondents indicated that
Brooklyn Center is either a good or excellent place to live. Three-fourths of respondents characterize the
sense of community in Brooklyn Center as fair or poor and over ninety percent rate the condition of the
2-4
housing stock as less than good.
The Civic Center was the subject of questions dealing with need for a daycare addition, multi-purpose
room addition, locker room expansion, swimming pool updating. No clear consensus of response
emerged from these questions. A more extensive telephone survey is planned to guide future Civic Center
decision-making.
PLANNING ISSUES
Issues identified as part of the community meetings and dealt with in the community survey can be
categorized into the following:
• City Center issues mapped on Figure 2-1: Planning Issues
• Other City issues mapped on Figure 2-1
• Geographically dispersed planning issues
The sub-sections that follow this introduction deal with City Center issues, other mapped issues, and
geographically dispersed non-housing issues. Housing issues are addressed in the Housing section of the
plan.
CITY CENTER ISSUES
As indicated above, Brooklyn Center’s "City Center" is located largely within the triangle formed by T.H.
100, Brooklyn Boulevard and I-694. Though well-defined geographically, the 500-acre Center lacks
identity. In 2002 the City of Brooklyn Center and the Metropolitan Council jointly engaged Calthorpe
and Associates — a national urban design, planning and architectural firm — to study City Center,
referred to as the Opportunity Site in the study. Calthorpe’s study, Smart Growth Twin Cities: Brooklyn
Center Opportunity Site (January 2003), indicated as follows:
It (City Center) has the elements that make a good town, but they are separated
and disjointed, and no place feels like the true heart of the city. While aging retail
areas pose a challenge for cities, they also present a great opportunity to improve
the quality of life of the citizens and for the making of a true community place.
The culmination of the Calthorpe study was the development of a final concept plan. The Calthorpe
planning process and the components of the Calthorpe illustrative plan are described on pages 3 and 4 of
a Review of City of Brooklyn Center’s Opportunity Site Master Plan and Development Guidelines
(January 2008) prepared by the consultant facilitating this comprehensive plan update, contained in
Appendix B.
Places located in City Center with issues identified in the community meetings include Brookdale, the
Opportunity Site (re-described as a part of City Center), the Civic Center, Northbrook and Brooklyn
Boulevard. All of these places are interrelated to some degree, but because of their geographical
proximity, Brookdale and the Opportunity Site are addressed in the same section below.
2-6
BROOKDALE AND THE OPPORTUNITY SITE
Brookdale Shopping Center was developed in the 1960s as a regional shopping center, and at that time
was the economic engine for City Center. Brookdale’s status in the regional retail marketplace has been
in steady decline for several years and its decline shows no signs of reversal. The Calthorpe study
indicates that this should not be unexpected:
Modern retail development often becomes obsolescent in a matter of a few
decades, so many areas developed in the middle of the 20th century are facing
problems of commercial decline now.
Consideration should be given to a vision of Brookdale Mall as an opportunity site itself for a mixed-use
development or destination institution that will give the city center landmark status.
Three years after the Calthorpe study was completed, a City Council-appointed task force, assisted by a
team of consultants, prepared the Opportunity Site Master Plan & Development Guidelines (2006). The
Plan and Guidelines were intended to reinforce and guide public and private investment in a manner that
will enhance and strengthen the viability of the area and recommend Brooklyn Center as a regional point
of destination. This plan focused on a 100-acre “Opportunity Site” bounded by Summit Drive on the
north and east, Highway 100 on the southeast, County Road 10 on the south and Shingle Creek Parkway
on the west. After review and analysis, the positive features of six concept sketch plans were synthesized
into the Opportunity Site Master Plan Concept. It provided for five land-use districts, including a mixed-
use center, two residential neighborhoods, an office district and community open space with trails and
ponds. These land-use districts are described in more detail in the Plan and Guidelines.
The consulting firm preparing this comprehensive plan was engaged by the City to review the Plan and
Guidelines to determine the viability and likelihood of their successful implementation. The review also
considered the foundation, central objectives and economics of the Plan and Guidelines.
Following are the findings of the review of the Plan and Guidelines:
• The Plan and Guidelines are design-oriented and have a weak foundation in the realities of the
marketplace and redevelopment financing.
• The Master Plan limits the potential contribution that the Opportunity Site’s redevelopment could
make to the restoration of viability of the area as a retail center.
• Adjustments to the master plan to make the Mixed-Use Center District conducive to anchor retail
should be considered.
• Adjustments to the Master Plan to increase the width of the Highway 100 District while at the
same time decreasing the Community Open Space area should be considered.
• In conjunction with authorized modifications to the Master Plan, the Opportunity Plan should be
exposed to the development community for solicitation of development interest.
• Sources to fund the gap to stimulate the redevelopment of the Opportunity Site, in addition to tax
increment financing through special legislative authorization, should be identified and pursued.
• Sources of funding to make structured parking more economically feasible should be identified.
• Restrictions on the use of condemnation in acquiring the land in the Opportunity Site require the
City to operate strategically.
Context for these findings is contained in the review. Many of these findings are part of the
Implementation section of this plan.
57TH AVENUE AND LOGAN AVENUE SITE
The Economic Development Authority’s (EDA) first effort at developing this site for a mixed-use retail
residential development was unsuccessful due to a number of factors. Formerly occupied by the
2-7
Northbrook Shopping Center in the northeast quadrant of Highway 100 and 57th Avenue North the site
was purchased and cleared by the City’s EDA in 2005. The EDA has been dealing with soil and
groundwater contamination on and adjacent to the site but, with issuance of a No Association
Determination by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency redevelopment should be able to proceed.
CIVIC CENTER
Brooklyn Center Civic Center was built in 1970 and, in addition to City government offices, contains a
50-meter swimming pool, exercise area, locker rooms, recreation area and meeting rooms. The exercise
area, locker rooms and recreation area ware updated and rehabilitated in 2004. With the swimming pool
nearing forty years of age, the community is planning to rehabilitate the pool, and possibly expand the
Civic Center in the near future. Several questions about rehabilitation and expansion were asked in the
Community Survey, but because the response to the survey was low, the results were inconclusive. A
telephone survey focusing specifically on the Civic Center is planned.
OTHER MAPPED ISSUES
Geographically based issues beyond City Center that should be dealt with in the plan are addressed in
this sub-section. All planning issues identified are interrelated to a degree, and many of these have a
bearing on City Center.
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR
Brooklyn Boulevard is a six-mile long County road running parallel with County Road 81 and serving as a
reliever minor arterial to that roadway. The Boulevard runs between County Road 81 in Brooklyn Park
and the 44th Avenue North/Penn Avenue intersection in north Minneapolis. In the regional transportation
system, it provides an alternative connection to Minneapolis and the central city from suburbs to the north
and west. Average daily traffic on the 3.5-mile stretch of Brooklyn Boulevard located in Brooklyn Center
varies between 18,700 south of Highway 100 to 40,700 just north of I-694/I-94. Much of the roadway
north of I-694/I-94 in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park has been improved to better accommodate the
significant traffic volume and to facilitate adjacent redevelopment.
The function of Brooklyn Boulevard within the regional transportation system conflicts with its function of
providing access to residents of and shoppers in this part of Brooklyn Center. The section south of I-694/I-
94 is lined with many single-family dwellings that access directly onto the Boulevard, causing traffic
problems. These single family units are too close to the street given the level of traffic carried by the
street. In addition, the streetscape in this section of the Boulevard has a negative visual image and lacks
aesthetic appeal.
Brooklyn Boulevard has been extensively studied over the years, including in the 1979 Comprehensive
Plan , the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study (1993) and the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape
Amenities Study (1994). The Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study is a set of project
recommendations for land use and redevelopment, traffic circulation, parking and design and was intended
to guide future decisions regarding redevelopment of the corridor. It contains an illustration of a proposed
treatment for the section of the Boulevard south of I-694/I-94.
The Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study proposed an overall design theme for the public
right-of-way of Brooklyn Boulevard, along with redevelopment plans for specific sites. Several detailed
studies were prepared for specific sites, including at least two alternative site plans to illustrate the
application of different design principles. Specifically recommended design themes should be
implemented to encourage growth and provide the community with a greater sense of pride.
The recommendations of the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study and the Brooklyn Boulevard
2-8
Streetscape Amenities Study have generally been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, but the City
continues to consult the studies for further, more detailed, advice. The City Planning Commission should
develop overall strategies to implement agreed upon design recommendations from these studies
favorable to the community’s image objectives. The land-use and redevelopment themes of both studies,
broadly stated, recommend gradually eliminating the remaining inappropriate single-family units along
the Boulevard. Further, both studies recommend replacing the single-family units with either commercial
and office/service uses on sites that are large enough to provide for adequate circulation and good site
design or with high- and medium-density residential uses. Generally, they recommend that the central
segment of the corridor be used primarily as a commercial district while the balance of the corridor is
devoted primarily to either higher-density housing or single-family housing south of Highway 100. Some
neighborhood service and retail functions should be promoted at 58th Avenue, 63rd Avenue and 69th
Avenue.
Additional multi-modal and transit amenities should be considered along Brooklyn Boulevard due to its
multiple purpose and function to both the City and the region. Bus pull-offs and better bus shelters
should be provided to upgrade this transit corridor.
Positive changes have occurred on Brooklyn Boulevard, including the reconstruction of the Boulevard
north of I-694/I-94, redevelopment of the Culver’s restaurant commercial center at 69th Avenue, and
redevelopment of the CVS drug store at Bass Lake Road. Reaching consensus on a vision for the section of
Brooklyn Boulevard south of I-694/I-94 that would then be translated into design parameters should precede
redevelopment of land area along the Boulevard. Three basic alternatives exist for the reconstruction design
of this section of the Boulevard:
• Use the current design;
• Create a landscaped boulevard between the roadway and the sidewalk; or
• Widen the landscaped boulevard to create a greenway within which the walkway would meander,
similar to 53rd Avenue N. adjacent to the Bellevue Housing project. Upgraded multi-modal transit
amenities could be provided to improve the function and safety of the corridor.
Hennepin County should be engaged in the consensus-building process since Brooklyn Boulevard is a
County road. Reaching consensus on vision and design will answer the following questions that need to be
answered before redevelopment land use decisions can be made:
• How much right-of-way will be needed in the reconstruction of Brooklyn Boulevard?
• How far should the roadway be situated from residential structures?
The Metropolitan Council should also be engaged in the consensus building process to implement design
recommendations for transit shelters in the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study.
HUMBOLDT SQUARE AND HUMBOLDT AVENUE
(Freeway Boulevard to 69th Avenue)
While the Humboldt Square Shopping Center functions to serve neighborhood needs, it is beginning to
show signs of age. The Center is located within a concentration of multiple-family apartments and
townhouses located in all four quadrants of the Humboldt/69th Avenue North intersection — many
having problems with deferred maintenance and many occupied by low-income households. The Center,
originally constructed in 1973, and many of the multiple-family structures that were built in the 1960s
are in need of renovation or redevelopment. Renovation and/or redevelopment of the multiple-family
structures will be dealt with in more detail in the Housing section of the plan. Some of the same design
recommendations from the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study could be encouraged in
the future redevelopment of the Center.
2-9
Humboldt Avenue is a major collector and carries 10,300 trips on an average day. Humboldt provides
access to the Humboldt Square commercial/multiple-family concentration at 69th Avenue and the entire
Northeast neighborhood in Brooklyn Center directly from Freeway Boulevard and indirectly from the
freeway system to the south (i.e., I-694/I-94 and Highway 100). Abutting Humboldt between the
freeways and the commercial center are Brooklyn Center Senior High School on the east and a gas
station, a church and a satellite office for the Brooklyn Center Police Department.
Humboldt Avenue is visually unappealing and unattractive and a modest investment in streetscape
improvements would create a more favorable first impression to persons coming to the 69th and Humboldt
commercial/multiple-family area or to anyplace in the northeast neighborhood.
TRAIL CONNECTIONS
As part of the community assessment and visioning process, a number of missing links in the City’s trail
system were identified. The completion of these links would improve continuity of the City’s sidewalk
and trail system. As noted in the Parks section herein, the north-south and east-west trails that cross
Brookdale are part of the regional trail system. The City should take part and partner with Hennepin
County and the Three Rivers Park District to assure that both local and regional goals are met with the
implementation of such trails.
North Hennepin Shingle Creek Trail (north-south through Brookdale)
The Park section indicates that the sidewalk portion of the North Hennepin Shingle Creek Trail is not
adequately separated from circulation and parking within Brookdale Shopping Center and that a better-
defined trail needs to be constructed. Construction of a north-south trail, separate from vehicular
circulation and parking should be required as part of a major renovation or partial redevelopment of
Brookdale.
57TH Avenue North/Bass Lake Road (east-west through Brookdale and easterly)
An east-west connection on the north side of Bass Lake Road across from Brookdale provides continuity
to a proposed regional trail, ultimately connecting the Crystal-Robbinsdale trail to North Mississippi
River Regional Park and the Mississippi River. This major link in the regional trail system should cross
the Brookdale site also and, like the north-south link through Brookdale, should have definition.
Ultimately this regional trail will cross Brooklyn Boulevard west of Brookdale before bending
southwesterly to make its connection to the proposed Crystal-Robbinsdale regional trail. The trail will
cross I-94 and connect to North Mississippi Regional Park and the Mississippi River to the east. A 77-
foot-wide strip of land for Xcel’s electricity transmission line runs parallel with 57th Avenue North three
lots north of 57th, and may be able to accommodate the trail easterly from Brookdale to the Park and
River.
Evergreen Park/Riverdale Park
The speed and volume of traffic on Highway 252 north of I-694/I-94 makes crossing that stretch of
roadway dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Several lighted intersections along the roadway
provide crossing options, though not ideal. A bridge over the highway would provide a safer crossing.
The locations of Evergreen Park and Riverdale Park on the west and east sides of the highway,
respectively, each provide area for landings for a potential pedestrian-bicycle bridge that would span the
highway.
57th AVENUE/LYNDALE AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT
Lack of connectedness of Brookdale to adjacent neighborhoods, specifically the southeast neighborhood,
was identified in community meetings as an issue. Good access to Brookdale across Highway 100 from
the southeast neighborhood is available on 57th Avenue North. Access, however, is not synonymous with
2-10
connectedness.
A strip of land three lots wide by about .8-mile long is located between the high voltage transmission line
and 57th Avenue North. If the regional trail can coexist with Xcel’s transmission line corridor,
consideration should be given to acquiring the 71 single-family structures between the transmission line
and 57th for redevelopment. Redevelopment of these properties would provide the land required to design
a trail/roadway/greenway/urban housing connection to Brookdale that would also give the neighborhood
identity. Redevelopment of the properties along Lyndale Avenue N. would capitalize on views of the
Mississippi River and proximity to the North Mississippi Regional Park, while increasing property
values in surrounding areas. Consideration should be given to increasing density using a phased
approach in order to address the following criteria:
• Diversify Brooklyn Center housing to maintain aging residents and attracting new residents with
additional alternatives for life-cycle housing including those with cooperative elements.
• Add higher value housing to increase tax base.
• Generate increased use of Mississippi river trail amenities.
• Increase sense of character in the neighborhood.
• Improve the image of the City
• Create a connection between the Bellevue neighborhood and the 57th Avenue corridor along the
river.
• Promote sustainable housing that respects the natural environment.
GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED NON-HOUSING ISSUES
SCHOOL FUNDING, CONSOLIDATION AND THE PARK/SCHOOL
The lack of adequate school funding in view of failing levy referenda and the prospects for consolidation
as a means of gaining some economy of scale for the Brooklyn Center District were raised as issues at the
community comp plan meetings. Consolidation as a means of gaining control of those parts of the other
school districts in the City was also brought up. The park/school concept also was the subject of
discussion.
Neighborhoods are the building blocks of the community, and neighborhood schools and parks are the
foundation of neighborhoods. The concept of combining school and park uses adjacent to each other is
economically efficient from a public service perspective. It has been applied repeatedly and successfully
in the City and in many cities. Brooklyn Center is served by four different school districts, one being
entirely within the city. The three school districts that are partly located in the city are each as large as
several cities and thus Brooklyn Center is at the geographical edge of those districts. When the economy
forces school closings, schools at the edge of districts are more likely to be closed than centrally located
schools. As a result, the schools in many of the city’s neighborhoods are threatened with closure. When
schools are threatened with closing the neighborhood is under threat. Figure 2-1 shows the locations of
these school/park facilities of which there are seven within the City.
LOW INCOME POPULATION
Of the residents in Brooklyn Center 2,143 or 7.3% were in poverty in 2000. Well paying jobs and job
training are the key to reducing poverty. The community has a reasonably sound job base with slightly
more jobs based in the City than there are City residents in the working year age bracket (18 to 65 years
of age).
The primary employment centers in the City are the City Center area surrounding and including
Brookdale, and the Shingle Creek Industrial Park, consisting mainly of modern multi-tenant
office/warehouse space. Both these areas are in close proximity to many concentrations of affordable
2-11
housing, both in multifamily complexes and in a number of newer townhouse developments.
As redevelopment occurs attention should be paid to the types of jobs and that will be created as well
as their level of pay. As part of the financial incentive that is provided for a project, the City should
consider requiring wage levels in excess of minimum wage, as well as residency requirements.
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND PHYSICAL IMAGE STRATEGY
This section of the plan describes a coordinated strategy for land use, redevelopment and community
physical image. This strategy addresses the City's intentions and hopes for the pattern of land use,
including changes to previously developed sites through regulation or guiding as well as by providing
monetary incentives. It also incorporates public improvements that will promote private investment and
enhance the livability of the community.
The strategy responds to previously identified issues and elaborates upon the Goals and Objectives.
Land use, redevelopment and physical image are discussed together because nearly all land-use decisions
in Brooklyn Center now involve redevelopment, and because public improvements to infrastructure are
seen as instrumental in promoting private re-investment. The strategy consists of goals and objectives
GOALS
The following goals for land use, redevelopment and community image build upon the fundamental goals
presented in the Introduction. All the subsequent objectives and guidelines of this chapter support these
three land use and redevelopment goals:
1. Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods.
2. Continuously renew and redevelop to make better use of land in City Center and the Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor.
3. Improve the appearance of the city to enhance quality of life, property values and civic pride.
4. Improve the image of the City through branding and coordinated theme development inpublic
areas.
LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
1. Gradually reduce and eliminate incompatible relationships among land uses (such as industry
vs. housing).
2. Reduce the geographic over-concentration of particular types of land development when that
pattern has become a negative influence on the community.
3. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted areas, commercial, industrial and residential,
to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment.
• Identify key commercial redevelopment sites through this comprehensive plan and
subsequent investigations.
• Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles contained in
this comprehensive plan and special area plans (such as the Calthorpe Study, the
Opportunity Site Plan and Guidelines, the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study and
the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Streetscape Amenities Study).
• Replace inappropriate single-family housing with attractive non-residential development
in a way that protects remaining housing.
2-12
• Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of
economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors.
• Reduce the over-concentration of apartment buildings in certain neighborhoods by
assisting in redeveloping it to housing that has a lower density, a higher rate of owner-
occupancy and a more pedestrian-friendly relationship to the street.
4. Minimize the time-period foreclosed single-family homes remain vacant and maximize re-
occupancy of homeowners.
5. Enhance and strengthen City Center’s economic viability and status in the regional market
place.
• Help increase retail sales, rental occupancy and tax base.
• Work with the managers of Brookdale Shopping Center to revitalize the area by adding
different but complementary land uses, structured parking, transit service, and better
public or community spaces.
• Promote the redevelopment of obsolete, underutilized or vacant sites into uses that
address needs in the marketplace, and that provide a more pedestrian-friendly
atmosphere.
• Explore the use of shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and
diversity of uses.
• Improve the streets, corridors and other public spaces for the sake of unity, identity and
beauty.
• Assist in the gradual evolution of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor consistent with the
1996 plan so that it offers a positive, complementary but different environment from that of
the City Center.
6. Use the zoning ordinance to provide for a more flexible mix of land uses and to encourage good
design.
COMMUNITY IMAGE OBJECTIVES
1. Improve the connections and linkages between neighborhoods, major corridors, parks and open
space, and City Center, through streetscape enhancements, signage systems, and other public
way improvements.
• Improve the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor through redevelopment and intensification of
underutilized sites, traffic improvements, and appearance enhancements, as outlined in the
Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study (1993) and the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape
Amenities Study (1994).
• Improve the landscaping, lighting, sidewalks and possibly bike lanes along major streets
that link the neighborhoods to the City Center, such as 57th Avenue/Bass Lake Road, 63rd,
69th, and Xerxes Avenues. Establish a 20-year program through the City's capital
2-13
improvement programming process to identify, rank, finance and accomplish such
improvements. Coordinate this work with street reconstruction projects.
• Improve the appearance of the Brookdale Mall vicinity through signage, landscaping and
upgrading of commercial areas.
• Consider day-lighting Shingle Creek around Brookdale Mall with future redevelopment
proposals and provide trail linkages, giving the center a more natural sense of place and
positive identity.
• Streetscape County Road 10 (Bass Lake Road) and provide regional trail link.
• Revisit the possibility of making the Humboldt Avenue corridor — particularly between
Freeway Boulevard and 69th Avenue and between an enhanced 57th Avenue and the
greenway in Minneapolis — a neighborhood amenity through a combination of public and
private improvements. Extending the corridor treatment in some form all the way to
Brooklyn Park should be another strong consideration.
• Strengthen the trail link from Shingle Creek south through Lions Park to Humboldt
Avenue and south to the Grand Round of the Minneapolis parkway system. Better signs
and street crossing stripes are needed so that bicyclists can find their way safely through the
Brookdale parking lot. This would temporarily fill a gap in the regional trail system until
more permanent measures can be implemented.
2. Improve local public access to and awareness of the city's natural amenities, specifically the
Mississippi River and the Twin Lakes.
• Work with Three Rivers Park District to construct the regional trail in the 57th Avenue
corridor/vicinity to provide a passageway between City Center, the southeast
neighborhood and North Mississippi Park as well as other City trails to be transferred to
Three Rivers Park District.
• Use the riverfront and lakefront as amenities to serve surrounding neighborhoods, not
only adjacent property owners, to create access to water to enhance home values.
3. Capitalize on the city's visibility and access from state and interstate highways through
improved signage and landscaping.
4 . Minimize the impacts of storm water runoff on water resources by minimizing the increase of
impervious surface and using naturally designed drainage, infiltration, other low impact
development (LID) techniques and best management practices, in the development and
redevelopment process.
2-14
LAND USE PLAN — 2008 EXISTING AND 2030 PLANNED
The City's land-use pattern is one of a well-defined commercial/industrial core surrounded by residential
neighborhoods. This core, the City Center, falls largely within the triangle formed by Highway 100,
Brooklyn Boulevard, and I-694. Most commercial development is located parallel to Highways 100 and
I-694/I-94, and along Brooklyn Boulevard. Most industrial development is located in the modern
industrial park north across I-694/I-94 from City Center at the north end of Shingle Creek Parkway and in
the industrial area along the Soo Line Railroad in the City's southwest corner. The City is fully
developed.
The City Center is also defined by its open space — a broad "greenway" or ribbon of parkland that follows
Shingle Creek from Palmer Lake Park south. Although interrupted by the Brookdale regional mall, this
greenway picks up again at Lions Park/Centerbrook Golf Course, and continues south through Shingle
Creek Park in Minneapolis to Webber Parkway and the Mississippi River. The Land Use Plan illustrates
these features.
Existing land use (2008) and planned use for 2030 for all parcels of land in the City using data from the
City's geographic information system are shown on Figure 2-2, Land Use Plan. The Plan is the central
element of the Land Use, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategy. The Land Use Plan illustrates
planned changes to the pattern of development by noting designations over the 2008 land use where the
land use is planned to change. Planned land uses also do not always reflect existing zoning.
This Land Use Plan is intended to be flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances and market
demands. The zoning ordinance more strictly defines the range of use possibilities. Some parcels show
two or more potential land uses where more than one use seems appropriate, or show a use that may become
feasible over the long-term rather than in the near future. As an example, a single-family home in need of
redevelopment may be designated retail business or office service because of its location on an arterial
roadway, but may continue to be zoned single-family until such time as redevelopment is proposed. Other
areas need further study before any changes in land use are proposed.
TABLE OF USES
On the following page, Table 2-1 shows existing land use by acreage, generally using Metropolitan Council
categories. The city is entirely within the urban services area. With only 77 acres of vacant land, the City
of Brooklyn Center is considered fully developed. As a result, changes in land use will, for the most part,
come about through redevelopment. Following Table 2-1 is Figure 2-2 Land Use Plan. Descriptions of each
of the land use categories appear on the table following the plan map. Mixed Use is proposed with the
redevelopment of the 160 Acre Central Commerce Area which is primarily made up of the Brookdale Mall
Area and “Opportunity Site” east of Shingle Creek Parkway and west of Hwy 100. Approximately 27 acres
of the 160 acres are planned for multi-family or townhouse use (See Table 2-1). Other areas of opportunity
for mixed use include a vacant 8 acre site at 57th Avenue and Logan Street, and the Malmborg Greenhouse
site which is approximately 5 acres. .20 acres of vacant single family and 1 acre of vacant multi-family use
are also proposed for 75 new housing units. All of the properties described above are primarily privately
owned and timing will depend heavily on market conditions.
2-15
Table 2-1 — Existing and Planned Changes in Land Us e (in acres)
Category Acres
Planned
Change in
Acres
Change in
Residential
Units
Total Acreage Within the Current Urban Service Area' 5,375 5,375
Existing land uses within the urban service area
Single-family residential (detached and mobile homes) 1,895 1,915 + 60 units
Two and three-family residential 22 22
Townhouse residential (10 units per acre 110 125 +145 units
Multifamily residential 237 250 +195 units
Office/service 109 111
Retail Business 330 340
Industrial 197 199
Public and semipublic 147 147
Schools 104 104
Parks, recreation and open space 580 580
Airport Property 12 12
Railway or Utility 57 57
Roadways 1,263 1,263
Lakes and rivers 235 235
Land use subtotal 5,298 5,360
Vacant land that is restricted from development
Environmental protection: wetlands, floodplains 15 15
Development restrictions subtotal 15 15
Vacant developable land
Single-family residential 20 0 (+60 units)
Multifamily residential 1 0 (+15 units)
Office Service 2 0
Retail Business 37 0
Industrial 2 0
Vacant developable subtotal 62 0
Total 5,375
(approx.)
5,375
(approx.)
+400 units
SHINGLE CREEKCREEK
PALMER LAKE
MIDDLE
TWIN
LAKE
UPPER
TWIN
LAKE M I S S I S S I P P I R I V E RM
I
S
S
I
S
S
I
P
P
I
R
I
V
E
RSHINGLERYAN
LAKE
SH
I
N
G
L
E
C
R
E
E
K
63RD AVE
BROOKLYNBLVDBROOKLYN BLVDBROOKLYNDROHENRY RD
MUMFORD RD
64TH AVE
65THAVE
NASH RD
60TH AVE
59TH AVE SHINGLECREEKPKWYJOHNMARTINDRHALIFAX AVE55TH AVE
SUMMIT DR
LILAC DR69TH AVE
56TH AVESHORESDRZENITH AVESHINGLECREEK PKWY
F
R
A
N
C
E
AVEXERXESAVE65TH AVE DREW AVE67TH AVE
53RD AVE
NORTHWAYDR
69TH AVE
70TH AVE
53RD AVE
66TH AVE IRVING PL73RD AVE
58TH AVE
68TH AV E
HIGHWAY 100TOLEDO AVEINTERSTAT E 6 9 4
65TH AVEKNOX AVETHURBER RD
67TH AVE 67TH AVE
W I N G A R D PL58TH PL
53RD AVEUNITY AVEWI
LLOWLN58TH AVE
69TH AVE
52ND AVE
55TH AVEUPTONAVEYORK AVES
A
I
LO
R
LN ZENITH AVE7 1 S T A V E
67THLN
B
R
O
O
K
L
Y
N
B
L
V
D
50TH AVE
67TH LN
NORTHPORTDR56TH AVE FRANCEAVENOBLE AVEOLIV
E
R
CIR
71ST AVE
F
REMONTPL68TH AVE
AL
D
R
I
C
H
C
T
DREW AVECHOWEN AVEPAUL DR GRI
MESPL68TH LNPERRYPLSCOTT AVEL IL A C D R
57TH AVE
56TH AVE
F RANCEDR55THAVEBRYANT AVE57TH AVE
66TH AVEEWING AVE68TH AVE
ALDRICH AVECOUNTY ROAD 1 0 EMERSON AVE5 6THAVECOLFAXAVEFREMONT AVEHOWE LN
ECKBERG DR
62ND AVE
6 7 T H LNHIGHWAY 100LILAC DRGIRARD AVEBROOKLYN BLVDFREMONTAVE70TH AVE
WINCHESTER LN
7 1 S T AV E
6 8 T H LN
70TH AVE
65THAVE
62ND AVEBEARDAVEPALM
E
RLAKE
C
I
R
FRONTAGE RD
MORGANAVEWOODBINE LN
68THLN
57THAVE
68TH AVE
72ND AVE
COMMODORE DR
64TH AVE
61ST AVE
61ST AVE
6
9
T
HLN
SCOTT AVE
59 1/2AVE
ELEANOR LN
70TH AVE
68THAVE
70TH AVE CAMDEN AVELEE AVEVINCENTAVE73RD AVE
51ST AVE
VIOLET AVE
DREWAVE67TH AV E
65TH AVE
64TH AVE
SCOTTAVEH U M B O L D TPL
URBAN AVE
72ND AVE
HALIFA X DR
58 1/2AVE
71ST AVE 72ND A V E
WOODBINE LN
72NDAVE
GIRARD AVE61ST AVE
59TH AVE
56TH AVE
54TH AVE
61ST AVEORCHARD AVE49TH AVE
ADMIR AL LN
60TH AVE
50TH AVEVERACRUZAVE EMERSONAVE70TH AVE
66THAVE
71 STAVE
56THAVE
72ND AVE
70THAVE
51STAVE
72NDAVENEWTON AVEXERXES AVE47TH AVE
53RD PL LOGAN AVEFRANCEPLABBOTT AVEALDRICHAVEZENITHAVEIRVING AVELAKESIDEPLTWINLAKEAVEBROOKVIEW D R ALDRICHAVE70TH AVE
INTERSTATE 694GRIMESAVEGRIMESAVEABBOTTAVE
N
OR
T
HPORTDR67TH AVE
BROO
K
L
Y
N
PL
7 0 T H C IR
MAJOR AVELAKESIDE AVE DREW AVEPENN AVEDREWAVEREGENTAVE70TH AVE
ERICON DR
MORGANAVELAKE BREEZE AVE CAMDEN AVE64TH AV E QUAILAVE71ST CI
R WINGAR D LN
LILACDRCOLFAX AVEINDIANA AVE55TH AVE XERXESPL JAMES AVE68TH AVE
67TH AVE NOBLE LN48TH AVEQUAIL AVETOLEDO AVEEWING AVEORCHARD LNPERRY AVEREGENTAVESCOTT AVEBRYANTAVEJAMES AVEKATHRENE D R
HUMBOLDTAVENOBLE AVEKYLE AVECHOWEN AVECAMDEN AVEINTERSTATE
94MAJOR AVEBRYANT AVEMAJORAVENEWTONAVEDREW AVEWINCHESTER LN
EWING AVECOLFAX AVEMAJOR AVEGREATVIEW AVEORCHARD AVECAMDEN AVEINDIANAAVE72ND
CI
R
LYNDALE AVE5TH STREGENT AVERIVERWOODL N
EWINGAVECAMD
E
N
DR54TH AV E RIVERDALERDN O RTHWAY DR
57TH AVE
POE RD PENNA
VE
BURQUEST LN
BOULDER LN
LILAC DR
6 3 R D L N
GIRARD AVEGIRARD AVEJUDYLNFRAN CE PLLEE AVEWOODBINE LN
72ND AVE
B A S S L A KE RD
IRVING LN
AMY LNINDIANAAVEJUNE AVEPERRY AVEQUAIL AVEREGENT AVELILAC DRLAWRENCE RD MORGAN AVEJAMES AVEJANET LN
67TH AVE
JOYCE LN DREW AVE62ND AVE
QUARLES RD
72NDAVE
66TH AVE
WOODBINE LN
BEARD AVEFRANCE AVEPALMERLAKEDRFREEWAY BLVD
LILAC D
RUNI
TY
AVEUNITYAVENOBLE AVELILACD RHUMBOLDT AVEXERXES AVEKYLEAVEVINCENT AVEINTERSTATE 94
WASHBURN AVEABBOTT AVEQUEEN AVEQUEEN AVEBEARD AVEBEARD AVE71ST AVE GRIMES AVEGRIMES AVEHIGHWAY 252HIGHWAY252TWI
NL
AKEBL
VDTWINLAKE BLVDTOLEDO AVE66TH AVE
NOBLE AVEINTERSTATE 94CAMDEN AVECAMDEN AVEHALI
FAXAVEFRANCE AVELOGAN AVEXERXES AVEXERXESAVEXERXES AVEXERXESAVEOLIVERAVEBRYA
N
T
A
V
E
INDIANA AVEINDIANAAVEJUNEAVEWILL O W LNA D M IRAL LN DUPONT AVEHUMBOLDT AVECOLFAX AVECOLFAX AVEFRANCEAVEFREMONTAVELAKEVIEWAVEEWINGAVEEWING
A
VEBROOKLYN BLVD
LNEWING AVEHALIFAXPLAZELIA AVEMAJOR AVEWESTRIVERRDWEST RIVER RDPERRY AVEPEARSONDRADMIRALPLYORKPL
OLIVERAVEP E R RY
C
T
HUMBOLDTAVEQUAILCIR
RUSSELL AVEEMERSONAVEPERRY AVEBRYANT AVEBRYANT AVELYNDALE AVEJAMES CIRJAMES C I R
P O NDS DRP O N D S DR
BEARD AVELEEAVEIRVING AVEIRVING AVELAKE CURVE LNKNOX AVEALDRICH AVEALDRICHDRINTER
S
T
A
T
E
9
4
LILAC DRORCHARDAVE
MARLIN DRE ARLEBROWND R
EARLE BROWN DR EMERSON AVE5 1 S T A VEQUAIL AVEP A R K W A Y C IR
P A R K W A Y C I R
BELLVUE LN
66TH AVE
62ND AVE
OAK ST 4TH STEMERSONAVEFREMONT AVEGIRARD AVEHUMBOLDTAVEDUPONT AVEDUPONT AVELOGAN AVEKNOX AVEJAMES AVE M IXED TH/M F/OS/RB/PS
PRIM ARY
M IXED-USE
REDEV ELOPM ENT
AREA
PRIM ARY
M IXED-USE
REDEV ELOPM ENT
AREA
M IXED TH/M F/OS/RB/PS
/
Document Path: L:\Users\ComDev\Zoning\City Land Use Map-(Updated 2014)-3.mxd
Legend - La nd Use
SF - SINGLE FAM ILY
TF - TW O or THREE FAM ILY
TH - TOW NHOM E (M EDIUM DENSITY)
M F - M ULTI-FAM ILY (HIGH DENSITY)
OS - OFFICE/SERV ICE BUSINESS
RB - RETAIL BUSINESS
I - INDUSTRIAL
RU - RAILROAD or UTILITIES
PS - PUBLIC a nd SEM I-PUBLIC
PRO - PARKS, RECREATION or OPEN SPACE
M IXED - OS/RB
M IXED - OS/I
M IXED - SF/TF/TH/M F
M IXED - I/PRO
M IXED - PRO/RU
M F - M IXED ENHANCED
M IXED - TH/M F/OS/RB/PS
SCHOOLS
AIRPORT
ROADW AYS
Centra l Com m erc e Overla y Distric t
Created & Updated by the City of Brooklyn Center's Business and Development DepartmentJanuary 2014)
Note: Pla nned la nd uses for 2030 a re the sa m e a s existing la nd uses (c irc a 2010).
Ap p roved La nd Use Cha nges (sinc e 2010):
1) Fra nc e Avenue Business Pa rk IV (form er Lifetim e site 4001 La keb reeze Avenue N.) from OS-Offic e/Servic e Business to new M IXED USE OS/I (Offic e/Servic e Business a nd Ind ustria l) Res. No. 2012-31, a d op ted Feb rua ry 13, 2012.
2) M a ra na tha Ca re Ca m p us Center (5401 & 5415 69th Avenue N.) from PS Pub lic a nd Sem i-Pub lic a nd M F-M ulti-Fa m ily to M F-M IXED ENHANCED (M ulti-Fa m ily M ixed High Density Resid entia l with Enha nc ed Setb a c ks). Res. No. 2012-72, a d op ted M a y 29, 2012.
3) Luther Auto Prop erties (3955, 4001, a nd 4007 69th Avenue N.) from SF-Single Fa m ily to RB-Reta il Business. Res. No. 2013-74, a d op ted July 8, 2013
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10.125 Miles
Text
Text
City ofBrooklyn Center
Figure 2-2Land Use Plan(Updated 2014)
2-17
DESCRIPTIONS FOR LAND USE CATEGORIES
Residential Land Use
Single-Family Residential (SF) — Residential purposes, including mostly one-family homes and
manufactured homes. May include some two-family homes, and open space within, adjacent or related to
residential development.
Two or Three Family Residential (TF) — Residential purposes including two-family and three-family
homes. May include open space within, adjacent or related to residential development.
Townhouse Residential (TH) – Residential purposes including townhouses attached to one another and
detached on a common lot. May include open space within, adjacent or related to residential
development.
Multi-Family Residential (MF) — Residential purposes apartment buildings and condominiums. May
include open space within, adjacent, or related to residential development.
Commercial/Industrial Land Use
Office/Service Business (OS) — Predominantly administrative, professional, or clerical services,
including medical clinics.
Retail Business (RB) — Provision of goods or services.
Industrial (I) — Primarily manufacturing and/or processing of products; could include light or heavy
industrial land use, or large warehouse facilities.
Public Land Uses
Public/Semi Public (PS) — Primarily religious, governmental, social or healthcare facilities
(excluding clinics).
Schools (S) — Educational facilities.
Park, Recreation and Open Space (PRO) — Primarily for public active recreation activities improved
with playfields/grounds or exercise equipment, golf courses, zoos or other similar areas; resource
protection or buffer, support unorganized public recreational activities, may contain trails, picnic areas,
public fishing; etc or preservation of unaltered land in its natural state for environmental or aesthetic
purposes.
Railway or Utility (RU) — Public or private freight or passenger rail activities; public or private land
occupied by a power plant or substation, electric transmission line, oil or gas pipeline, water tower,
municipal well, reservoir, pumping station, water treatment facility, communications tower, or similar
use.
Roadway Rights-of-Way (ROW) — Public or private vehicular, transit and/or pedestrian rights-of-way.
Airport (AP) — public or private property for airport facilities, runways and other airport uses.
2-18
Other Uses
Lakes and Rivers — Permanent open water, rivers and streams, not including wetlands or periodically
flooded areas.
Mixed Use (in the form XX-XX, for example OS/RB) — Two or more of the listed uses combined.
Wetlands — Wetlands included in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI).
Vacant — Unused land.
2-19 Table 2-2 Land Use Table in 5-Year Stages
2-20
SOLAR ACCESS POLICIES
Since 1978, in response to the energy shortages of that decade, state legislation requires that local
comprehensive plans include a solar access protection element. Solar energy ca supply a significant
portion of the space heating and cooling and water heating requirements of the individual home or
business, through the use of active or passive solar energy systems. About half of the local streets in
Brooklyn Center, mainly in the City’s western neighborhoods, run east-west, giving many houses a
southern orientation. However, the City’s extensive mature tree cover partially shades the typical house.
The City can protect solar access on individual properties by:
• Requiring that builders of units of two or more stories requiring setback variances or requesting
Planned Unit Development designation demonstrate that their proposals will not reduce winter
solar access to the second story or roof of the adjacent building to the north. Solar access should
be explicitly reviewed in each variance case, and in all PUD proposals.
• Exempting solar collectors from height restrictions if necessary, provided that they do not block
solar access to the adjacent building’s roof.
HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION
That City’s major historic resource, the Earle Brown Farm, is listed on the State Register of Historic
Places as “Brooklyn Farm.” The City’s stewardship and development of this property as the Earle Brown
Conference Center has resulted in the preservation of several important buildings on the site, as well the
construction of modern conference facilities, office towers, and parking. Little remains of the farm’s
original setting.
A 1988 reconnaissance survey of potential National Register sites in Hennepin County found a scattering
of older farmhouse-type buildings, mainly in the City’s Southeast neighborhood, dating back to the pre-
World War II period when it was an area of small truck farms. These buildings are now surrounded by
the more typical post-war housing stock. Although the City has not been heavily involved in preservation
issues, an effort should be made to inventory these older buildings and to encourage their restoration, as a
way to stimulate the revitalization of the Southeast neighborhood.
3-1
3 Comprehensive Plan 2030
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
rooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb with a well-established roadway network. No major
new roads will be required as part of the Transportation Plan. The plan will examine ways to
upgrade or maintain the existing transportation system, including transit, bicycling and walking, in
order to accommodate changes in the City's land use.
The Transportation Plan will function as a guide to:
•••• Identify the City's existing and proposed transportation network;
•••• Identify major investments to meet transportation needs; and
•••• Support the City's land use goals and objectives.
This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following elements:
•••• Street and road system
•••• Street and road system plan
•••• Transit
•••• Bicycle and pedestrian movement
•••• Travel demand management
•••• Goods movement
•••• Aviation
•••• The relationship between land use and transportation
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Functional classification is a tool used in transportation planning and traffic engineering to categorize
streets by the type of transportation service provided and the roadway's relationship to surrounding land
uses. The purpose of a functional classification system is to create a hierarchy of roads that collects and
distributes traffic from neighborhoods to the metropolitan highway system in as efficient a manner as
possible, given the topography and other physical constraints of the area. Functional classification also
involves determining what function each roadway should perform before determining street widths,
speed limits, intersection control or other design features. Functional classification ensures that non-
transportation factors such as land use and development are taken into account in the planning and
design of streets and highways.
B
3-3
The Metropolitan Council, in its Transportation Policy Plan, presents a functional classification
system for the metropolitan area. The major classifications are:
•••• Principal arterial
•••• "A-minor" arterial
•••• "B-minor" or "other minor" arterial
•••• Collector
•••• Local Streets
The local street system is not included in the Metropolitan Council's Transportation System. The function
of each of these roadways is slightly different depending on whether the roadway is in an urban or rural
area. Only the urban characteristics are applicable to Brooklyn Center.
The elements of the functional classification system are described below, along with a listing of which
roads are in each classification. These road classifications are described in more detail in the
Transportation Policy Plan. Figure 3-1 shows the 2007 pattern of road functional classification, and Table
3-2 lists roads by functional class, number of lanes, jurisdictional class and sub-class.
Principal arterials are the highest roadway classification and are considered part of the metropolitan
highway system. These roads are intended to connect metropolitan centers with one another and connect
major business concentrations, important transportation terminals and large institutional facilities.
Brooklyn Center is crossed by several of the region's principal arterials:
•••• I-94
•••• I-694
•••• Trunk Highway 100
•••• Trunk Highway 252
Principal arterials are further classified as "Freeways" and "Other Principal Arterials." The latter
category may be designed with high capacity, controlled, at-grade intersections rather than interchanges,
although grade separation is desirable. In Brooklyn Center, T.H. 252 between 73rd Avenue North and I-94
falls into the "Other Principal Arterial" category because of the at-grade intersections. All arterials are
under Mn/DOT's jurisdiction.
Minor arterials are intended to connect important locations within the city with access points on the
metropolitan highway system and with important locations outside the city. These arterials are also
intended to carry short to medium trips that would otherwise use the regional system.
The Metropolitan Council working cooperatively with Mn/DOT, Counties and Cities, defined a
network of A Minor arterials that are intended to either relieve traffic on the principal arterials or serve
as substitutes for principal arterials. The A Minor arterials were subdivided into relievers, expanders,
connectors and augmenters.
In Brooklyn Center, there are two roads classified as A Minor arterials:
•••• Brooklyn Boulevard (County Road 152)
•••• Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) west of T.H. 100
The Metropolitan Council classifies Brooklyn Boulevard as a reliever and Bass Lake Road as an augmenter.
Relievers provide direct relief and support for congested principal arterials. They provide relief for long
3-4
trips and accommodate medium length trips. Augmenters, literally, augment the capacity of principal
arterials by serving higher density areas and long-range trips. Both of the minor arterials are under the
jurisdiction of Hennepin County.
Collector roadways are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within the city, and to collect
and distribute traffic from neighborhoods and commercial/industrial areas to the arterial system.
Brooklyn Center has identified an extensive network of collector roads, all of which link neighborhoods
with each other, with neighboring cities, with the City Center, or with the regional highway system.
Currently two of the collector roadways are under Hennepin County's jurisdiction:
•••• 69th Avenue North west of Brooklyn Boulevard,
•••• Humboldt Avenue/57th Avenue North located just east of T.H. 100.
The remaining collector roadways are under the City's jurisdiction. The County classifies Humboldt as
a collector since it links to other collectors in north Minneapolis. Figure 3-1 shows it as part of the
collector system.
Local streets connect blocks and land parcels; their function is primarily to provide access to adjacent
properties. Local streets can also serve as important components of bicycle and pedestrian circulation
systems. In most cases, local streets will connect to other local streets and collectors, although in some
cases they may connect to minor arterials. All other streets within the City are classified as local streets.
Table 3-1: Street Classifications in Brooklyn Center
Functional
Classification
Jurisdictional
Classification Sub-class Lanes
Principal Arterials,
I-94 State Freeway 6+
I-94/I-694 State Freeway 6+
TH 252 State Other 6
T.H. 100 State Freeway 4
A Minor Arterials
Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) County Reliever 4/5
58th Avenue/CR 10 County Augmenter 3/4
Collectors
69th Ave N (CR 130) County
2
(west of Brooklyn Blvd.)
69th Avenue N (east of B. Blvd.) City
4/2
3-5
Humboldt Ave N/57th Ave N (CR 57) County 4/2
Humboldt Ave N (north of I-94/694) City 4/2
57th Ave N (east of Humboldt Ave N) City 4
Noble Ave N City 2
France Ave N (2 segments) City
2
June Ave N (58th Ave to 63rd Ave N) City
2
Halifax Ave/Eckberg Dr/France
Ave/50thAve/AzeliaAve/Lakebreeze Ave
City
2
55th Ave N/56th Ave N
(Xerxes Ave to CSAH 152)
City
4
53rd Ave N/Brooklyn Blvd frontage
(France Ave to 55th Ave N)
City
2
John Martin Drive City 4
Earle Brown Drive
(John Martin Drive to Summit Drive)
City 4
Summit Drive City 4
59th Ave N/Logan Ave N
(Dupont Ave N to 53rd)
City 2
Lyndale Ave N City 2
67th Ave N (Humboldt to Dupont Ave N) City 2
63rd Ave N (west of Xerxes) City 4/2
Shingle Creek Parkway City 4
Xerxes Ave N City 4/2
Freeway Boulevard (65th-66th Ave N) City 2-5
Dupont Ave N City 2
73rd Ave N (east of Humboldt) City 2
53rd Ave N (east of Penn) City 2
51st Ave N (east of Brooklyn Blvd.) City 2
3-7
JURISDICTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
Jurisdiction over the City's roadway system is shared among three levels of government: the State of
Minnesota, Hennepin County, and the City. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
maintains the interstate and State Trunk Highway System. Hennepin County maintains the County State
Aid Highway (CSAH) and County Road Systems. The City maintains the remaining streets.
Road jurisdiction is logically linked to the geographic area the roadway serves and the level of government
capable of administering and operating the road. Generally, jurisdiction can be linked to functional
classification as follows, although there is some overlap between classes:
•••• Principal Arterials — Federal and State
•••• Minor Arterials — County
•••• Collectors — City
•••• Local Streets — City
EXISTING AND FORECAST TRAFFIC
The most recent (2007) traffic counts and the forecast 2030 projected traffic counts are shown in Figure 3-1.
The 2007 average daily traffic volumes (ADT) and the 2030 projected daily traffic volumes (PDT) are
provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Given Brooklyn Center’s recent increase in
vacancies and underutilization of certain commercial properties and employment centers, traffic volumes are
expected to increase with the redevelopment of higher and better uses on these properties.
The existing and forecast traffic volumes are compared to the size and capacity of each roadway in order to
determine where capacity problems exist or are expected to occur in the future. Figure 3-2 shows the
number of lanes and general configuration of the City's major roadways in order to help identify
potential capacity problems.
Roadway capacity problems arise when the roadway cannot efficiently handle the traffic using it,
particularly at intersections. Efficient traffic movement is described in terms of "level of service" (LOS),
categorized using the letters "A" through "F." Table 3-2 illustrates LOS characteristics. Typical roadway
capacities for a fully developed area like Brooklyn Center are as shown in Table 3-3.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES
For purposes of regional transportation planning, the Metropolitan Council divides the region into Traffic
Analysis Zones (TAZs). Figure 3-3A shows the Metropolitan Council's TAZ boundaries and Hennepin
County's further subdivision of these zones. Regional population, households and employment forecasts
are allocated to the TAZs as a means of forecasting traffic volumes. These forecasts are shown on Figure
3-3B. Because Brooklyn Center is a fully developed community, the trips generated within the TAZs are
not expected to change significantly during the period of this plan. Slight changes could occur if and
when certain properties are redeveloped.
3-10
Table 3-2: Traffic Level of Service Characteristics
Level of Service Characteristics
A • Most Vehicles Do Not Stop At All
• Most Vehicles Arrive During Green Phase
• Progression Is Extremely Favorable
B • More Vehicles Stop Than LOS A
• Good Progression
C • Number of Vehicles Stopping Is Significant
• Fair Progression
• Individual Cycle Failures
D • Many Vehicles Stop
• Unfavorable Progression
• Individual Cycle Failures Are Noticeable
E • Limit of Acceptable Delay
• Poor Progression
• Frequent Cycle Failures
F • Unacceptable Delays
• Poor Progression
• Oversaturation
Table 3-3: Daily Roadway Capacities
Area Type — All are developed
Daily Capacity by Level of Service (LOS)
Cross-Section A B C D E
2-lane 6,600 7,900 9,000 10,100 11,200
3-lane 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
4-lane undivided 17,000 18,700 21,200 24,500 27,300
4-lane divided 18,700 21,700 25,000 28,200 31,300
4-lane expressway 22,800 26,500 30,000 34,000 38,000
Notes:
For developed area assume minimum acceptable LOS of "C".
For developing areas assume minimum acceptable LOS of "C".
For rural areas assume minimum acceptable LOS of "B".
-UNACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
3-11
COMPARISON OF TRAVEL DEMAND AND REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
CAPACITY
The City of Brooklyn Center believes that its land use plan is in conformance with the Metropolitan
Council's Transportation Guide/Policy Plan. Brooklyn Center is a nearly fully developed community in
which increased traffic generation may occur in two ways: increased per-capita trip-making and
intensified land use. As described in the Land Use and Redevelopment Plan, redevelopment and infill will
be pursued along Brooklyn Boulevard, Humboldt/65th Avenue/I-694 and the City Center Opportunity Site,
plus few other isolated locations such as the Gateway area near 66th Avenue and T.H. 252.
However, Brooklyn Center feels that it will be difficult to achieve the 2020 projections for households
and employment that the Metropolitan Council has established for Brooklyn Center and which are the
basis for the regional travel model. Opportunities for redevelopment are relatively limited given the
young age and sound condition of most structures. Increased traffic on the regional system may be offset
somewhat by possibilities for improved transit service resulting from higher densities and more mixed land
uses. Consequently, the City expects that its land use plan will not result in auto trips on the regional
highway system beyond those forecast by the Metropolitan Council; the City also feels that its land use
plan will further Council objectives of increased transit ridership and travel demand management.
While the City of Brooklyn Center believes they will not significantly contribute to traffic demand on the
regional highway system, they are concerned about the growth of traffic on this system and its impact on
Brooklyn Center. Traffic projections on I-94, I-694, T.H. 100, T.H. 252 and Brooklyn Boulevard indicate
increasing traffic demand from outside the city, which will have an impact on the city's access to the
regional highway system. The City believes improvements to the regional highway system are important
for economic development in the Brooklyn Center.
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
The transportation issues in Brooklyn Center have been grouped into the following categories for
discussion:
•••• Capacity Deficiencies
•••• Safety
•••• Jurisdiction
•••• Functional Classification
CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
Most of the capacity deficiencies and congestion that affect Brooklyn Center today occur on the
principal and minor arterial system. Congestion occurs in the peak hours on T.H. 252 north of I-694, and
on I-694 west of I-94. There is also significant off-ramp congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-
694 which can cause backups on the eastbound and westbound I-94. The traffic forecasts indicate that the
traffic demand on these regional facilities will continue to increase and the congestion could grow worse.
Further studies need to be done to analyze impacts of the limited freeway movements of northbound
Highway 100 to westbound I-94 and eastbound I-94 to southbound Highway 100 and the effect on the
local transportation system. Changing this interchange to a full interchange could relieve regional through-
traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard.
3-12
The 2030 forecasts anticipate low to moderate growth in traffic on the local and collector roadway
system. Most of this increase in demand will result from increasing congestion on the regional highway
system. This growth in traffic on collector roadways is expected to begin to cause some congestion on
some of these roadways, including:
•••• 63rd East of Brooklyn Boulevard
•••• 69th Avenue East of Brooklyn Boulevard
•••• Humboldt Avenue North of 65th Avenue
•••• Shingle Creek Parkway north of I-694
•••• Noble Avenue north of Brooklyn Boulevard
•••• 66th Avenue North west of T.H. 252
SAFETY
The major areas of concern relative to traffic safety in Brooklyn Center is on Brooklyn Boulevard and on
the collector roadways that are nearing capacity, such as 69th Avenue, 66th Avenue, 63rd Avenue and
Humboldt Avenue. The high traffic volumes on a roadway that is intended to have a relatively high level
of access can become a problem because of the number of vehicle conflicts that will occur.
JURISDICTION
Currently two of the collector roadways serving the City of Brooklyn Center are under the jurisdiction of
Hennepin County-- 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 130) and Humboldt Avenue
between 53rd and 57th Avenue/57th Avenue between Logan and Humboldt (CSAH 57). Hennepin County
would like to turn these roadways back to the City. There are capacity, maintenance and funding issues
that must be resolved before this would be considered.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
A number of streets have been upgraded as collectors to the Functional Classification System map since the
last comprehensive plan was completed. Most notable among these are the following:
•••• John Martin Drive, Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive (between John Martin and Summit); and
stretches of 55th and 56th Avenues West between Brookdale and Brooklyn Boulevard in City
Center;
•••• Humboldt and Logan Avenues North between 53rd and 59th Avenues, 59th Avenue between Logan
and Dupont, and Lyndale between 53rd and 57th Avenues in the southeast neighborhood; and
•••• Halifax, Eckberg Drive, France, 50th, Azelia and Lakebreeze and 53rd between France and the
T.H.100 frontage road, in the southwest neighborhood; and
•••• 67th Avenue between Humboldt and Dupont in the northwest neighborhood.
Hennepin County is interested in turning these roads back to the City. However there are capacity,
maintenance and funding issues which need to be resolved before this can occur.
3-13
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM PLAN
Brooklyn Center is a fully developed city and its road system is in place. No new roads are expected to be
constructed. However, these existing roads can be improved to address capacity problems:
•••• T.H. 252
•••• T.H.100
•••• I-694
•••• Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-694
•••• 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard
Specific Roadway Improvements
Trunk Highway 100
The only non-freeway portion of TH 100 between Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley and 50th Avenue
N. in Brooklyn Center was upgraded to freeway design standards since the 2000 comp plan was
completed. Further studies need to be done to analyze impacts of the limited freeway movements of
northbound Highway 100 to westbound I-94 and eastbound I-94 to southbound Highway 100 and the effect
on the local transportation system. Changing this interchange to a full interchange could relieve regional
through-traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard.
I-694
An additional lane was added between I-94 and I494 to accommodate increased traffic on I-694 and the
traffic demand being placed on 63rd and 69th, the City’s parallel collector roadways.
TH 2 5 2
Mn/DOT's Transportation System Plan shows TH 252 north of I-694 as an expansion corridor. The
extension of TH 610 and expansion of the TH 610 bridge are expected to cause an increase in traffic on
this segment of TH 252. Capacity improvements on this segment of TH 252 would help to reduce traffic
demand on the City's parallel collector roadways and maintain the City's ability to access the regional
highway system. Mn/DOT and the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park are studying elimination of
several signalized intersections north of I-94/I-694 to improve traffic flow. The difficulty is that several
properties including businesses get access from the 66th Avenue, 70th Avenue and 73rd Avenue
at-grade intersections with TH 252. If these are eliminated, care must be given in the design to
provide adequate access to these properties within the context of the limited area of right-of-way.
The City of Brooklyn Center anticipates additional infill and redevelopment in the Gateway area along TH
252 north of I-694. The intersection on TH 252 at 66th Avenue represents a potential capacity constraint
to development in this area. Some additional improvements will be needed at this intersection
(potentially an interchange) in order to accommodate the additional traffic from additional development in
the Gateway area. The City of Brooklyn Center will work with Mn/DOT to identify the improvements
needed that are consistent with other improvements Mn/DOT plans to make in the TH 252 corridor.
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-694 has been widened and improved from 65th to Noble/71st since the last
comprehensive plan was completed. As discussed below and elsewhere in this plan numerous
improvements to the section of Brooklyn Boulevard south of I-694 need to be made to increase the
aesthetic appeal and provide for long term growth.
3-14
69TH AVENUE
The improvements on Brooklyn Boulevard also included some improvements on 69th Avenue at the
intersection with Brooklyn Boulevard. The forecast volumes indicate that some capacity improvements
will also be needed to the west to the Brooklyn Center city limits. The City will need to work with
Hennepin County on the capacity improvements that will be necessary prior to turnback of this
roadway to the City.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
The access to Mn/DOT highways in the City of Brooklyn Center is largely fixed in place. I-94 and I-694
are interstates with access only occurring at interchanges. These interchange locations are set and the
City does not expect these locations to change. Access to TH 100 has been resolved with the TH 100
improvements. These improvements, however, have left eastbound I-94 to southbound TH 100, and
northbound 100 to west bound I-94 difficult. Local streets are used to make these movements including
Brooklyn Boulevard, Shingle Creek Parkway and 65th Avenue. Access to TH 252 was set when the
roadway was built. The City is not looking for more access but does believe that additional capacity will
be needed at the intersection of 66th Avenue and TH 252.
Access to the minor arterial system (Brooklyn Boulevard and Bass Lake Road) will require management in
order to maintain the mobility function and safety of these roadways. The Brooklyn Boulevard
Streetscape Amenities Study and the proposed Brooklyn Boulevard improvements identified a number of
access improvements that should be made on Brooklyn Boulevard in order to improve the capacity and
safety of this roadway. Access to Bass Lake Road, especially east of Brooklyn Boulevard, should be
consolidated to improve safety. Hennepin County has guidelines for desirable access spacing on minor
arterials. Although it may not be possible to achieve the desired spacing with the current land use and
development patterns on Bass Lake Road, the City will strive to consolidate access wherever possible.
LOCAL SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
In Brooklyn Center, as in many post-war first ring suburbs, most of the infrastructure was constructed in
the late 1950s and 1960s. These systems, including local streets, water and sanitary sewer, and storm
drainage systems, are now reaching the end of their useful lives and need replacement. In 1992 the City
undertook a Pavement Management Study to document pavement conditions and determine the extent of
street reconstruction needs. The study showed that about 80 percent of the street mileage should be
overlaid or reconstructed.
In response, the City embarked on a program to address these needs in a systematic manner. The
Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Program is an infrastructure rehabilitation program
designed to serve as a catalyst for neighborhood revitalization.
In 2009, Brooklyn Center is in its sixteenth year of constructing neighborhood improvements. Since 1985,
approximately 49.8 miles of residential streets and 18.4 miles of State Aid streets have been reconstructed.
With over 100 miles of streets and utilities, it will take approximately twelve more years to complete a
cycle of infrastructure rehabilitation.
3-15
LOCAL TRAFFIC CONTROL
The increasing level of traffic and congestion on the principal, minor, and collector roadways causes
increasing amounts of traffic that attempts to cut through residential neighborhoods in order to avoid
congested locations and save some travel time. The best solution is to make sure the principal and minor
arterials have capacity to serve the traffic demand so delays are minimized. However, on collector
roadways it may not be desirable to add capacity since it could encourage more traffic and higher speeds
through residential areas. On the other hand it also may not be appropriate to try to calm traffic because this
may cause the traffic to divert to local streets. Problems on collector roadways need to be addressed on a
case-by-case basis to identify the most appropriate solution.
TRANSIT
As shown in Figure 3-4, the City of Brooklyn Center is well served by local transit routes that operate on
most of the City's minor arterial and collector roadways. The City is also well served by express routes
providing quick access to downtown on I-94. The City has park and ride lots located on Brooklyn
Boulevard just south of I-694, one on the west side of TH 252 at 73rd Avenue and one at 65th Avenue. A
transit hub where a number of routes intersect to provide connections to other locations within the City
is located north across County Road 10 from Brookdale Center at Northway Drive. Metro Transit has
determined that 40 percent of the transit trips in Brooklyn Center go to Brookdale Center, making the
site across County Road 10 from Brookdale Center an ideal location for a successful transit hub. Some
timed-transfer feeder service was instituted in the 1990s when the transit hub/park and ride facility was
located at Brookdale Center and this continued with the relocation of the facility. Further expansion of
timed transfer operations and other transit improvements are dependent on the construction of a full-
scale transit hub which can accommodate significantly more customers and buses.
The Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan identifies five transit markets in the metropolitan
area and the service characteristics and performance guidelines that are appropriate for the different
markets. The transit plan also defines four transit service zones where the service is developed to be
responsive to the markets they serve. Brooklyn Center is located primarily within the Inner
Urban/Suburban Transit Zone. This zone has the second-highest service level in the Metropolitan area.
Service in this area should be available 12 to 18 hours a day, seven days a week. A small portion of the
northeast corner of the City falls into the Outer Suburban Zone. Given the type of land uses and density
of development in this area, the City believes it should be part of the inner urban/suburban transit
zone.
The City is within the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District and in Market Area II. Service options for
Market Area II include regular-route locals, all-day expresses, small vehicle circulators, special needs
paratransit (ADA, seniors), and ridesharing. Metro Mobility serves the paratransit needs of the City
and Prism operates its dial-a-ride service
3-17
The Transportation Policy Plan identifies the primary factors that can influence the creation of transit-
and pedestrian-friendly communities. These are:
•••• Concentrated, compact development patterns
•••• Mixing of land uses within 40 to 160-acre neighborhoods
•••• Pedestrian- and transit-oriented design, as expressed in building and parking locations, transit
shelters, sidewalks and paths, etc.
As described in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan, Brooklyn Center's goals
include the revitalization and intensification of certain areas, notably the City Center Opportunity Site
and the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor, with a more diversified mixture of uses that will reduce reliance on
the private automobile and encourage walking and transit use. The City is ready to work with Metro
Transit on strategies that will enhance transit service to such mixed-use areas.
TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Travel Demand Management (TDM) is a set of techniques to reduce peak period vehicle trips by 1)
shifting travelers from driving alone into shared ride arrangements, such as ridesharing or transit, or 2)
by encouraging alternative work arrangements, such as flextime and telecommuting that remove trips
from the peak travel times.
In this metropolitan area and throughout the nation our ability to build our way out of growing
congestion and environmental problems is severely limited by the cost of roads and the environmental
and social impacts of new and expanded roads. Brooklyn Center's road system allows for very little
expansion if any, due to constrained rights-of-way and established land uses. Therefore, the City
supports travel demand management as a way to alleviate increasing traffic congestion.
TDM techniques are best implemented through a partnership of cities, regional and state agencies, and
employers to encourage travelers to change their behavior through incentives, enhanced services and
high occupancy facilities. For example, employers can provide subsidized transit passes, allow
staggered work hours to allow travel outside of peak hours, and encourage telecommuting. The state
and region provide transit service and facilities such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, metered
ramps and meter bypasses to allow faster travel times for ride-sharers and transit users. These type of
improvements are important for supporting drivers who choose alternatives to driving alone.
Most of the City of Brooklyn Center has been developed so that the City is somewhat limited in what it
can do to encourage transit-friendly design or to encourage employers to provide incentives to employees
that rideshare. In infill and redevelopment areas the City will review plans to ensure transit is
accommodated and to encourage the development of TDM programs.
BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT
Although much of Brooklyn Center was originally developed without sidewalks, the City has developed
a system of sidewalks and trails that effectively link its parks, schools, commercial areas and civic
buildings. As shown on Figure 3-6, sidewalks have been developed along most minor arterial and
collector streets and along an interconnected system of local streets.
3-18
Trails are connected with sidewalks and cross most City parks. The extensive Shingle Creek trail
system rings Palmers Lake and connects with the Three Rivers Park regional trail system that follows the
course of Shingle Creek north to south through the City but is disconnected at the Brookdale site
between 57th Avenue and T.H. 100. At the City's southern boundary, the trail continues along the creek
through north Minneapolis, eventually linking to Webber Parkway, the Grand Rounds Scenic Byway of
the Minneapolis Parkway system and Three Rivers regional trail system.
Pedestrian bridges provide key links in the trail and sidewalk system, crossing I-94/694 at Central Park,
and crossing TH 100 from Summit Drive to Knox Avenue, and from Brookdale Center to Lions Park.
Providing a new pedestrian access bridge across Highway 252 would link the Mississippi trail to
Evergreen Park and provide a unique opportunity for community branding.
SIDEWALK AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
The on-sidewalk segment of the Shingle Creek trail system across the Brookdale Shopping Center is
unimproved, not adequately separated from traffic, and is somewhat confusing because of a lack of
directional signs. Improved signage and landscaping along the trail would improve this segment.
A trail and sidewalk crossing has been constructed under I-694 on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard to
improve access and safety. However, pedestrian movement is particularly unsafe along the sidewalk of the
west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 63rd Avenue and 58th Avenue. A trail has also been constructed by
Three Rivers Park District from 53rd under I-694 to connect with Brooklyn Center’s trail system north of I-
694 and the Minneapolis trail system to the south.
Gaps in the sidewalk system still hinder pedestrian and bicycle movement in some locations, and should
be filled when other street improvements are made. These routes are intended to link neighborhoods,
parks, schools and the City Center. In particular sidewalks are currently missing on the south side of the
section of 57th Avenue/Bass Lake Road from Shingle Creek Parkway to Xerxes.
Bicycling is accommodated on the City's off-street trail system. However, bicycling on City streets can be
difficult, especially on arterial and collector streets with high traffic volumes and insufficient width for
bike lanes or paths. The recently-constructed multi-use path along 66th Avenue is one example of a
facility that accommodates both bicycles and pedestrians. However, rights-of-way in many locations
are too narrow to allow on-street bike lanes or off-street paths to be developed.
The most feasible solution would be a system of signed bicycle routes on the three main "loop" routes
identified on Figure 2-4. Most of these streets -- Dupont and Humboldt, for example -- have two
undivided travel lanes and two parking lanes. A separate bicycle lane cannot be accommodated without
removing parking. However, where traffic volumes are moderate, experienced bicyclists can share the
road with occasional parked cars. Bicycle routes, or bicycle lanes where space is available, should be
located on the following streets:
•••• Humboldt Avenue
•••• Dupont Avenue
•••• Xerxes Avenue north of County Road 10
•••• 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard
•••• 57th Avenue/County Road 10 east of Brooklyn Boulevard
Shingle Creek Parkway
3-20
A regional trail is under review with Three Rivers Park District for the section of 57th/County Road 10
east of Brooklyn Boulevard. In its current configuration, much of Brooklyn Boulevard is unsuitable for
bicyclists, due to high traffic volumes and narrow sidewalks. However, in lieu of other alternatives,
bicyclists can use the existing sidewalk for short distances, although this creates visibility hazards at
intersections. As redevelopment occurs along the portion of Brooklyn Boulevard south of I-694,
increased consideration should be given to providing wider off-street paths for shared bicycle and
pedestrian use, as has been done north of I-694.Other regional trails being discussed to be taken over by
Three Rivers Park District include Twin Lakes trail and Shingle Creek trail. Given the location of
Brooklyn Center to the ever growing Metropolitan area, and the increased interest in alternate forms of
transportation and conservation of energy, the City should work with Three Rivers Park District to
promote more regional trails to address the needs of not only the City, but the larger metropolitan area.
GOODS MOVEMENT
Most freight movement in the City of Brooklyn Center is primarily by truck on the existing roadway
system. Maintaining good access and mobility on this system will be the best method of providing for
goods movement in the City. There are no major freight terminals in the city and most freight movement is
related to delivery service to commercial businesses in the city.
The Canadian Pacific Railway runs through the southern tip of the City providing service to a small
industrial area located in this area.
RELATIONSHIP OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
Brooklyn Center has a relatively dense pattern of residential development with small lot singles and a
high proportion of attached units. It also has a large and centrally located retail-office-civic core that is
supportive of transit and pedestrian-bike access.
Brooklyn Boulevard, a Minor Arterial and the major non-regional roadway in the community, is struggling
with the dual demands of traffic movement and land access. There is a strong and growing demand for
traffic from the north to use Brooklyn Boulevard to access I-94/694 and TH 100. At the same time, the
City wishes to make this corridor a more important location of office, retail and multi-family residential
development. This includes replacing the existing single-family detached housing that has direct access to
Brooklyn Boulevard with more intensive development with limited access points conducive to traffic
flow. The Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (199 4) calls for consolidating and
sharing access points, closing certain median openings, and increasing the use of intersecting streets for
land access.
Another area where transportation plans and land use patterns are of concern is the TH 252 corridor.
This area is planned to be expanded in Minnesota Department of Transportation’s plan in 2024. There is
a primary issue with access to existing businesses in this area. Great care will need to be done to provide
access in any proposed plans to limit the negative impacts that project would have in this northeastern
area of the community.
County Road 10 is also an area where streetscaping and the connection of the regional trail gap in this
area could go along way in the improvement of the image in this area of the community as well as
attracting appropriate land uses for redevelopment around the Brookdale Mall and Opportunity Site.
3-21
This would provide an important link to the major business centers and provide a connection to other
amenities along Shingle Creek Parkway.
PLANNED CHANGES IN LAND USE THAT MAY AFFECT TRAFFIC AND TRANSIT
•••• Possible long-term City Center area intensification through redevelopment; greater mixture of
uses; more pedestrian emphasis.
•••• Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment and intensification; closing current and restricting future
access points to Brooklyn Boulevard south of I-694; additional transit shelters as part of
streetscape improvements.
•••• Possible reduction in housing density in the Northeast Neighborhood.
•••• Infill commercial and industrial development north of I-94/694 near Shingle Creek Parkway and
south of I-94/694 within the Opportunity Site.
•••• Infill and intensification of the Brookdale Mall Site.
AVIATION
Brooklyn Center is within the influence area of the Crystal Airport, which is a designated reliever airport
for the Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) Airport. Airspace over Brooklyn Center is also used by aircraft
operating from Metropolitan Area airports and other airports.
A small portion of the Crystal Airport is located within Brooklyn Center. Most of this area is located in the
Shingle Creek floodway and as such is controlled by the City's floodplain zoning and not suitable for
development.
Brooklyn Center is a member (with Crystal and Brooklyn Park) of the joint Airport Zoning Board, which
regulates land use around the airport. This commission functions under a joint power agreement. In the
early 1980s, the Zoning Board adopted airport zoning regulations which apply to each of the member
cities. The airport zones are shown on the Brooklyn Center zoning map but the text of the regulations has
not been incorporated into the City's zoning ordinance.
Airspace zones are imaginary surfaces around the airport into which no structure or tree is permitted to
penetrate. The imaginary surfaces include approach surfaces, primary surfaces, horizontal surfaces and
conical surfaces.
Land use safety zones are established to control land uses near public airports for the safety of airport
users and persons in the vicinity of airports. There are three safety zones: A, B and C.
Safety zone A extends outward from the end of the runway for a distance equal to two-thirds of the
length of the existing or planned runway. No buildings, transmission lines, or uses that would cause an
assembly of persons are permitted. In Brooklyn Center, this area is partially airport-owned open space
and partially in single-family residential use.
3-22
Safety zone B extends outward from safety zone A, a distance equal to one-third the existing or planned
runway length. It covers an additional single-family residential area.
Safety zone C contains all land within an arc drawn with a 6,000 foot radius from the ends of all
runways, excluding the areas in zones A and B. Uses are only subject to general restrictions regarding
interference with electronic communications, airport lighting and the impairment of visibility in the
vicinity of the airport. In Brooklyn Center, this zone extends as far as Brooklyn Boulevard,
encompassing a wide range of land uses.
Structures which are 150 feet or higher above ground level and within approximately two miles of the
airport may be considered hazards to air navigation. Brooklyn Center has no existing structures of this
height; does not permit such structures under its zoning ordinance, and has no plans to permit such
structures in the future. Any applicant who proposes to construct such a structure shall notify the city, the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration at least 30 days in
advance as required by law (MCAR 8800.1200 Subpart 3 and FAA form 7460-8). The FAA
recommends that proposed structures be reviewed if they are located within two miles of the airfield
and within five miles of a runway approach corridor. The Metropolitan Airports Commission
recommends that any proposed structure within these parameters which may exceed 50-feet should be
reviewed by the FAA, Mn/DOT Aeronautics and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
The City's policy in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan was to encourage the eventual phase-out of the
Crystal Airport and its replacement with a new minor classification airport. Both Brooklyn Center
and the City of Crystal have maintained that relocation would eliminate hazardous situations caused
by the proximity of the airport to surrounding residential development. Brooklyn Center still supports
this policy. The Metropolitan Airports Commission has recently developed A Long-Term
Comprehensive Plan Draft (2008) which discusses various options from no-expansion to certain runway
closures, to full closure of the facility. They have no plans to expand the airport.
The summary of the 2008 Draft concluded the following Preferred Alternative for the 20-year planning
period:
• Reconstruction of Runway 14L-32R;
• Reconstruction of the Runway 14R-32L pavement into a taxiway ;
• Removal of runway signs for the turf crosswind runway;
• Consider the option to redevelop areas on the airport into non-aeronautical uses.
The preferred alternative does include additional hangar space, unless redevelopment of existing area is
pursued. No other airport expansion or provision of new facilities was recommended.
None of the land use changes proposed in this Comprehensive Plan will affect the functioning of the
Crystal Airport. By the same token, airport operations have relatively few impacts on the adjacent
neighborhood in Brooklyn Center. Noise impacts are considered in the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
for the airport. The Metropolitan Council suggests that the 60 DNL (day-night average sound level')
contour should be used for planning purposes for areas inside the MUSA. The 60 DNL noise contours
in 1993 had minimal impact on Brooklyn Center, since most departures are to the northeast, into the
prevailing wind direction. The projected 60 DNL noise contours for 2013 in the Long Term
Comprehensive Plan extends just beyond the airport boundary into Brooklyn Center, but should affect
few, if any, residential properties. According to FAA standards, the 60 DNL contour is compatible
with residential development.
(DNL is the average sound level, in decibels, obtained from the accumulation of all sound events; it
weights night-time sound events to account for the increased disturbance resulting from night-time
3-23
noise. It is the FAA's single system for determining exposure of individuals to airport noise.)
There are no heliports in Brooklyn Center, and heliports are not a permitted use in any zoning district.
The City should examine the issue of where heliports might best be permitted, to ensure that any future
proposals for heliports occur in appropriate locations.
4-1
4 Comprehensive Plan 2030
HOUSING PLAN
INTRODUCTION
reating and maintaining a sense of community is important to the well being of every city.
Creating community has many aspects but from a planning perspective it includes reducing
turnover in the population and integrating newcomers into the web of community life. Population
stability depends on maintaining a high quality of life as compared to other affordable location
alternatives and on the availability of housing alternatives for people at all stages of their lives.
Brooklyn Center is a community of well kept single-family neighborhoods with readily accessible
parks, filled with affordable, entry-level homes. It is also a community with relatively high
foreclosure rates in those single family neighborhoods. Brooklyn Center has great access to
downtown Minneapolis but it also has relatively concentrated areas of multiple family housing in
need of rejuvenation or, in some cases, redevelopment.
The housing issues that emerged from the subsection profiling existing housing in the City and
the community comp plan meetings is one highlight of this section. Another is the Housing plan
that has as its focus the production and maintenance of housing that is affordable to the people
that want to live here and meets their life cycle housing needs.
This housing section of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following subsections:
• Profile of existing housing
• Housing Issues
• Assistance Programs
• Redevelopment Opportunities in Housing
• Housing Regulations
• Housing Plan
C
4-2
BACKGROUND
Two studies done in the late 1980s continue to provide a good overview and introduction to
many of the housing issues in Brooklyn Center. The Year 2000 Report (1985) examined many
demographic and social trends influencing Brooklyn Center and assessed the most significant City
issues. Major trends identified in that report with the potential to affect the City's housing stock
included:
• An increase in the number of single-parent households;
• The aging of the population;
• The aging of the infrastructure and housing stock;
• The ability of Brooklyn Center to deal with occasional metropolitan problems;
• The City's overall image and perceptions related to its ability to attract young families.
The second study, The Brooklyn Center Housing Market: A Study of Trends and Their Impact on
the Community (1989), provide important insights into the City's housing stock, although
conditions in the housing market have changed since then. The report notes: "Since [Brooklyn
Center] developed rapidly during the 1950s and 1960s and was populated by young families
buying their first homes, its stock of single-family housing is, by today's standards, positioned
as entry-level."
The report also pointed to problems associated with the City's rental housing:
• An increased need for social services in the community;
• Difficulty in maintaining the aging rental housing stock;
• The danger of allowing rental buildings to become lower-income housing through
deferred maintenance.
The report recommended City involvement with rental property owners and an increased City
role in developing higher-quality low-income housing.
The City has addressed many of the housing and related issues identified in the two reports and
in the Comprehensive Plan 2020 (2000). It also has new ones to deal with like the foreclosure
crisis impacting single-family homes.
PROFILE OF EXISTING HOUSING
A number of aspects of the existing housing stock a re relevant in planning for the City’s
future. The following sections deal with these various factors of housing age, housing type,
housing tenure and affordability.
AGE OF HOUSING
The majority of the City of Brooklyn Center housing stock was built before 1970. Table 4-4 shows
that while the 1950s were the peak decade for housing construction in the City, this was a period in
which owner-occupied housing predominated. Most of the City's rental housing -- i.e., most of its
multifamily apartments -- were built in the 1960s and 70s. The lack of vacant land has limited
housing construction since then, and new construction will mostly take place through
redevelopment.
4-3
Table 4-1: Housing by Year Built
Year Built Pre-
1950
1950-
1959
1960-
1969
1970-
1979
1980-
1989
1990-
1999
2000-
2008
Total
Owner-
occupied 561 4,605 1,448 707 401 76 61 7,859
Renter-
occupied 61 266 2,282 788 403 93 10 3,730
Total Units 622 4,871 3,730 1,495 804 169 71 11,762
SOURCE: CITY ASSESSOR
The above chart indicates that more than 91% of the Brooklyn Center owner and renter-occupied
housing will be over 30 years old next year. This is a major concern because at 30 years of age
exterior components of a building including siding, windows and roofs need to be replaced to
protect its structural integrity.
HOUSING TYPES
Single-family detached dwellings are the predominant housing type in Brooklyn Center. The
City’s housing stock is diversified, however, and includes many multi family units in large
structures, some in smaller structure containing less than 5 units, as well as a significant number
of single family units attached units.
Brooklyn Center's housing mix changed very little in the last decade. The number of units in all
housing type categories, except 2-units (duplex), declined slightly. Presumably this decline
occurred as a result of clearance and redevelopment or conversion to other types. The City
Assessor records for 2008 show 106 additional single-family detached units and 260 additional
other housing units as compared to the 2000 Census.
Table 4-2: Housing Type, 1980 – 2000
1980 % 1990 % 2000 %
Single Fam Det 7,248 66.0 7,351 63.0 7,180 63.0
Single Fam Att 497 4.5 953 8.2 929 8.2
2-units 104 0.9 73 0.6 97 .9
3-4 units 205 1.9 174 1.5 142 1.2
5 unit and up 2,915 26.6 3,110 26.7 3,048 26.7
Total 10,969 11,661 11,396
SOURCE: CENSUS
The rambler with full basement was the home style of choice in the 1950s and 1960s when
most of the single-family housing in the community was constructed. At 76% ramblers are the
predominant single-family housing structure type in the City. With the living space on one
level, these homes are better suited for elderly persons than are other home styles where stairs
are required to access some of the space. This housing style allows the elderly to remain in
their own home for a longer period of time. Multi-level style homes such as the split entry and
split-level became popular in the 1960s and 1970s and, as indicated on the chart below, not
many homes of this style have been built in Brooklyn Center. Some 1-½ stories and a few 2
stories have also been built in the City. In recent decades a significant number of town home
units and some condominium units have also been built.
4-4
Table 4-3: 2008 Single Family Structure Subtype
Structure Type Number
Rambler 5,526
Split Entry 365
Split Level 398
1 ½ Story 835
2 Story 162
Total 7,286
SOURCE: CITY ASSESSOR
Table 4-3 shows a similar housing mix in neighboring communities. As in Brooklyn Center, single-
family detached units predominate, while units in larger multifamily buildings are the second most
common. Townhouses are slowly increasing in number.
Table 4-4: Housing Mix in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 2000
(percentage of total housing units)
Single-
family
Town-
house
Two-
family
3-4
units
5+ units
Brooklyn Center 63.0 8.2 0.9 1.2 26.7
Brooklyn Park 60.9 12.5 1.2 1.3 23.9
Crystal 76.2 2.3 1.5 1.6 18.3
Robbinsdale 71.2 5.0 4.5 0.5 21.3
Columbia Heights 64.6 4.9 6.6 2.4 21.2
Fridley 58.2 6.8 2.3 2.4 26.9
SOURCE: CENSUS
HOUSING TENURE AND HOUSEHOLDER AGE
Characteristics of occupants including ownership versus rental and age of householder are
important to consider when analyzing a community’s housing.
The City's housing tenure (ownership versus rental) mix changed very little in the 1990s,
although numbers in each category increased. At 69/31 (rounded) the ownership-to-rental ratio is
well within the Livable Communities Act goal for the city of 64 - 72 percent ownership to 28 -
36 percent rental. The City Assessor counted 328 more renter-occupied units in 2008 than the
Census did in 2000 while only 10 rental units were constructed from 2000 to 2008.
4-5
Table 4-5: Housing by Tenure
1990 % 2000 %
Owner-occupied 7,806 69.5 7,855 68.7
Renter-occupied 3,420 30.5 3,575 31.3
Total occupied 11,226 11,430
SOURCE: CENSUS
The age distribution of householders -- both homeowners and renters -- is an indicator of the "life
cycle" stages that predominate within a community, including renters, first-time home-buyers,
move-up buyers, empty-nesters or seniors with various housing needs. As Table 4-6 shows, the
largest age groups in 2000 were in the 25-34 and the 35-44 age ranges, which can be characterized
as "first-time home buyers" and "move-up buyers." The "under 25" age group is the smallest
group because children generally live with a parent(s) “householder” until completing high
school and then often leave home to attend college. In general the distribution among the
various age classes is fairly even.
Householders in one age group cohort move to the next age group cohort the next decade.
Significant losses of people in the 45-54 and the 55-64 age groups in 1990 advancing to the 55-
64 and the 65-74 age groups, respectively, in 2000 is probably indicative of an inadequate
selection of housing for empty nesters looking for alternatives to their single-family detached
home.
Table 4-6: Households by Age of Householder, 1990-2000
Age Group Number Percent 1990 Number 2000 Percent 2000
Under 25 years 574 5.1 707 6.2
25 - 34 2,567 22.9 2,043 17.9
35-44 2,140 19.1 2,492 21.8
45-54 1,608 14.3 1,965 17.2
55 - 64 1,983 17.7 1,343 11.7
65-74 1,509 13.4 1,487 13.0
75 + 845 7.5 1,393 12.2
SOURCE: CENSUS
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Housing values and rent levels are analyzed to determine whether housing stock is affordable for
families and individuals. Generally Brooklyn Center has an affordable supply of housing but
affordability has changed significantly since 1990.
4-6
OWNER-OCCUPIED AFFORDABILITY
The Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors indicated that though Twin City home prices grew
dramatically during recent years of rapid appreciation, low interest rates and modest gains in
consumer incomes weren’t enough to keep pace. As a result before the recent collapse of the
housing market, affordability reached its lowest point in two decades. In the same vein the Twin
Cities Builders Association reported in late 2006 that median price grew 161% over the past 14
years while income grew only 51% over the same time period.
As indicated on the chart below the number and percentage of homes in value categories above
$100,000 increased significantly during the 1990s. The City Assessors records show that values
have continued to increase during the current decade to a point in 2008 where 80% of owner-
occupied units are in the $150,000-199,999 value category. Census values are based on the
homeowner's own estimate, and thus may reflect perception as much as reality. An assessor’s
value, however, is based on an analysis of sales of comparable housing and, though lagging actual
sales in time, is therefore reliable. With the collapse of the housing market home values are
likely to decline over the next few years, improving the affordability outlook.
Table 4-7: Values of Single-Family Owner-Occupied Units, 1990 – 2000
1990 % 2000 %
Less than
$100,000 6,834 94.3 3,383 43.0
$100,000-
149,999 368 5.0 4,069 51.7
$150,000-
199,999 32 .4 269 3.4
$200,000
and up 15 .2 149 1.9
Total 7,249 7,870
Median
value $79,400 $105,600
SOURCE: CENSUS
As Table 4-8 shows, median values for owner-occupied homes increased in real terms during the
1990s in Brooklyn Center and in all neighboring communities. This reversed a trend in the 1980s
where median values for owner-occupied homes declined in real terms. This increase in the 1990s
following a decrease in the 1980s was a common pattern in first and second-ring cities as well as in
the Twin Cities metropolitan area and throughout the Midwest.
4-7
Table 4-8: Median Values of Owner-Occupied Housing, Brooklyn Center and
Neighboring Communities, 1990 - 2000
1990 (2000$) 2000 Percent change
Brooklyn Center 100,550 105,600 5.0
Brooklyn Park 112,560 131,000 16.4
Crystal 98,761 112,900 14.3
Robbinsdale 97,739 112,000 14.6
Columbia Heights 94,673 103,000 8.8
Fridley 110,004 120,300 9.4
SOURCE: CENSUS
The Metropolitan Council measures affordability of owner-occupied housing in terms of
the amount of housing that is affordable by households earning 80% or less of the regional
median income, $62,800 in 2007. In Brooklyn Center 90% of the single family housing
stock is valued at $206,800 or less in 2008, the ma ximum affordable purchase price for a
household earning $62,800 annually.
Vacancy rates have an affect on housing costs in that housing costs go down as the
available housing supply increases. Vacancy rates for owner occupied housing have
climbed significantly as a result of the home foreclosure crisis. The reduction in housing
cost or value from the increase in vacancy rates is a positive effect of the otherwise gloomy
single family housing crisis.
RENTAL AFFORDABILITY
The cost to rent a housing unit in Brooklyn Center increased significantly between the last two
census years. In 1990 40.6% of the rental housing units in the City cost less than $500 per month
and by 2000 only 15.6% of the rental housing cost less than $500. According to the Metropolitan
Council, however, 46 percent of the City's rental housing met the Livable Communities Act
standard for affordability in 2006 -- higher than the regional benchmark and City goal of 41 to 45
percent. (For a rental housing unit, “affordable” is defined by the Metropolitan Council as
monthly rent/utility payment level that does not exceed 30% of the income of a household at 50%
of the median income, $39,250 in 2007 for a family of four.)
According to GVA Marquette Advisors Apartment Trends at www.gvamarquetteadvisors.com
average rents for studio/ efficiency, one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom units are all
below monthly rent affordability levels established by the Metropolitan Council.
4-8
Table 4-9: Rental Costs (Units by Monthly Rent)
SOURCE: CENSUS
Vacancy rates for rental housing in the City averaged about 4.2% in mid-2007, slightly lower
than the 5% rate suggested for ideal balance between supply and demand. This vacancy rate has
increased somewhat since mid-2007 due to economic conditions.
PLANNING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Communities within the Metropolitan Council’s jurisdiction are required to plan for sufficient existing
and new affordable housing production to meet their local share of the region’s total affordable
housing need. In order to meet the housing needs of the region, the Metropolitan Council estimates
that 30% of the new housing stock to be added in coming decades needs to be affordable.
The estimated need for affordable housing has been allocated amongst communities in the region
connected to the regional wastewater collection and treatment system based on certain factors. Those
factors are as follows:
• Proximity to job growth;
• Shortage of existing affordable housing; and
• Proximity to public transit services.
City’s are not required to construct or even finance construction of the allocated affordable housing
units. Rather land to accommodate multi-family housing of at least as many units as allocated needs
to be properly designated. Zoning or plan designation in place to allow construction of multi-family
housing meeting or exceeding the number of allocated units with only a building permit would suffice.
Brooklyn Center has been allocated 163 affordable housing units or 40% of the additional 400 units
projected by the Metropolitan Council for the City during the 2011 to 2020 time period. The City's
Zoning Ordinance contains seven residential districts, which permit a complete range of housing
types. Densities range from approximately four units per acre in the R1 single-family district to as
Monthly contract rent
2000
Number Percent
Less than $300 193 5.6
$300 to $399 82 2.4
$400-to $499 262 7.6
$500 to $599 847 24.5
$600 to $699* 808 23.4
$700 to $799* 434 12.6
$800 to $899 467 13.5
$900 to $999 143 4.1
$1,000 to $1,249 157 4.5
$1,250 or more 61 1.8
4-9
many as 30 units per acre in the R7 multiple family district (buildings of 6 or more stories).
Townhouses are permitted in the R3, R4 and R5 districts; multifamily apartments are permitted in the
R4 through R7 districts. Most residential neighborhoods are zoned R1, the R2 districts are located
close to the City's southern boundary, and the higher-density districts are generally contiguous with
areas of townhouses or multifamily housing. Between current zoning and proposed planning
designations there is enough land planned for multi-family housing to provide 163 units.
HOUSING ISSUES
As implied in the profile of existing housing above and as indicated in community analysis and
visioning that were part of the comprehensive planning process the City of Brooklyn Center faces a
number of challenges in the future in the area of housing. This section deals with these challenges.
MULTI-FAMILY ISSUES
As indicated above, 3,048 or 27% of the housing units in the City were in multi-family structures
with more than 5 units. Most of this multi-family housing is rental and as indicated above the
vast majority of the rental housing stock was built before 1980. This housing stock is at least 30
years old and in need of significant reinvestment. The City has sold revenue bonds and secured
financing for a number of multi-family structures but deferred maintenance continues to be a
problem with much of this housing.
A few areas in the City's Northeast Neighborhood contain concentrations of low-cost and
substandard housing, which has resulted in difficulties in maintenance and upgrading of these units
and an increased demand for social services by tenants. These areas are:
• The area surrounding Humboldt and 69th Avenues North, which contains approximately
330 multifamily units in some 20 buildings, most of them occupied by low-income
households under the Section 8 program. This area has been identified as a problem for the
City due to the increasing functional obsolescence and/or deferred maintenance of these
buildings.
• Multifamily complexes on both sides of Trunk Highway 252, from Willow Lane at the
southern end to 73rd Avenue. Along the eastern side in particular, these complexes are
adjacent to the City's most desirable residential areas along the riverfront, with single-
family homes that generally exceed $300,000 in market value.
Most of the City's other multifamily complexes are scattered in and around City Center and along
Brooklyn Boulevard. One of these, Twin Lakes Manor (referred to above under "Housing
Development and Rehabilitation Programs") is large enough to constitute a "concentration" of
lower-cost units.
SINGLE-FAMILY ISSUES
Single-family detached housing makes up 7,180 housing units or 63% of the City’s housing stock.
Most of the owner-occupied housing in the community is single-family detached and 84% of the
owner-occupied housing was built before 1970. This housing is 40 years old or older and generally
after 40 years of age major exterior investments are required to maintain structural integrity.
4-10
Brooklyn Center's housing stock, like that of its immediate neighbors, Crystal, Robbinsdale and
parts of Brooklyn Park, is comprised largely of older entry-level homes purchased mainly by
first-time homebuyers. This general profile applies to many of the first-ring suburbs in the
metropolitan area, such as Richfield, St. Louis Park, West St. Paul, Columbia Heights, and
others. All these cities face the challenges of maintaining an older housing stock and addressing
the needs of their elderly residents and single-parent/single adult households.
The City's primary competition for the market segment of entry-level homebuyers comes from
the second-ring suburbs such as Anoka, Champlin, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids or Maple
Grove, where newer affordable starter homes are available. The City recognizes that it must
address this competition, along with its first ring neighbors, by emphasizing the benefits of
buying homes in older, established neighborhoods (i.e. mature trees, convenient access to
the central cities) and the potential for renovating the older suburban detached home to meet
today's needs.
Single-family home foreclosures are a major issue that the community is addressing. There is
potential for homes that go into foreclosure to remain vacant for an extended period of time and
to be purchased by investors and reoccupied as rental housing. As of October 2008 192 single-
family properties in Brooklyn Center were vacant. An ordinance has been put in place by the
City that requires owners of buildings that are vacant for 30 days to register the building with
the City and to provide the City with a plan for re-occupancy.
HOUSING FOR EMPTY-NESTERS AND SENIORS
As touched upon in the subsection above on age of householders there is a lack of housing
designed for individuals and couples beyond middle age who looking for low maintenance
alternatives to their single-family detached home. The lack of housing supply to address this
housing need is probably causing people to move out of the community.
At the community comprehensive planning meetings the housing needs of seniors looking to move
out of independent living situations and into housing that includes a degree of supervision and support
was brought up as a housing issue. A second need of seniors identified was support to do chores for
seniors and help them maintain their homes
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The City is involved in a number of programs to meet the housing needs of people living in and
people interested in moving to Brooklyn Center.
AFFORDABLE FINANCING FOR HOME BUYERS
Though housing prices are declining as a result of the single-family housing crisis, a need for
affordable financing for homebuyers remains. The City is continuing its long participation in
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA) first time homebuyer programs. The Minnesota
Mortgage Program (MMP) provides low interest loans to first time homebuyers making less than
$64,800 for a family of four or less. In addition down payment and closing cost assistance is
available to those who qualify for the Homeownership Assistance Fund.
4-11
REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)-funded Housing Rehabilitation Program and
the MHFA's Fix Up Fund provide grants and loans to low and moderate-income homeowners to
home rehabilitation. The CDBG program has been operating for a number of years to serve the
needs of very low-income homeowners. The Fix Up Fund is a longstanding MHFA program that
provides a low interest loan to homeowners that meet income qualifications for a wide variety of
rehabilitation projects. The loans are targeted to a higher-income group than is targeted with
CDBG funds, and increases the range of rehabilitation services in Brooklyn Center.
HOME REPAIR AND CHORE SERVICES FOR SENIOR RESIDENTS
In cooperation with the City of Brooklyn Center, the Senior Community Service and Community
Emergency Assistance program provides household and outside maintenance repair services for
the elderly.
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
While Brooklyn Center does not directly fund rental assistance programs, these programs are
available to persons and families in the City, primarily through the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development's (HUD's) Section 8 rental assistance program. The Metropolitan
Council Housing Authority administers this program in the City. Rental assistance is also
provided in the form of project-based Section 8 assistance, under which the rent assistance goes
with the unit ("project") rather than the individual. These renters pay approximately 30% of their
monthly household income for rent, with the Section 8 program making up the difference in
market rents.
REMODELING ASSISTANCE
The City will continue its efforts to assist homeowners in remodeling their single-family homes
to meet today's housing standards. Most of the City's single-family housing stock consists of
ramblers, built in the 1950s and 1960s. While many are in sound condition, their size and
configuration do not meet the needs of today's homebuyers.
HOUSING REGULATION
BUILDING MAINTENANCE CODE
Brooklyn Center was one of the first cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area to adopt a
building maintenance code. The code, adopted in 1975, was designed to provide minimum
standards for maintenance of existing buildings, and thus to protect the character and stability of
all buildings and property within the City. The building maintenance code provides a mechanism
to establish and enforce neighborhood and community standards for maintenance of the City's
housing stock. Rather than systematic enforcement at the point of sale or based on a schedule
this code is being enforced on an as needed basis. The City continues to consider whether to
institute systematic enforcement.
4-12
RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE
In 1975, Brooklyn Center adopted a rental-licensing ordinance designed to provide for the
continued maintenance and upkeep of all rental property in the City. By requiring biennial
licensing of all rental property, the City is able to assure a minimum standard of maintenance
and upkeep of rental property, thereby helping to preserve the rental housing stock and thus assist
in the preservation of affordable housing.
VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION AND REGULATION
The City adopted an ordinance at the height of home foreclosure crisis in 2008 to require
owners of vacant buildings to register that fact and a plan to reoccupy the building within 30
days of the building becoming vacant. If the building is not reoccupied within a one year time
period from the date of planned re-occupancy, the owner is required to demolish the building
and restore the grounds. The ordinance also requires that the building be secured while it is
vacant.
HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
As described in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan (Section 2), several areas
offer opportunities for redevelopment with mixed residential, office and commercial land uses at
medium to high densities.
• Many areas along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor that are currently occupied by single-
family homes or underutilized as commercial sites would be available for redevelopment
for high- or mid-density housing or more intensive office and commercial uses. The
corridor is well served by transit lines.
• The City Center area, including the Opportunity Site, 57th and Logan and other areas
near the Brookdale Shopping Center, could be strengthened by the addition of
complementary land uses such as mid-density housing, along with structured parking to
free up land now in surface lots, improved pedestrian and transit amenities, and
improved public or semi-public spaces. Of the 173 acres in this area, 27 acres with 145
units of townhouses and 180 units of multiple family residential are planned in this area
See Table 2-1 of Section 2, Land Use)
The City's future redevelopment efforts may also focus on replacement of multifamily housing in
the 69th and Humboldt area, either with medium-density housing such as townhouses or with an
extension of the adjacent Shingle Creek Industrial Park. Industrial uses, if appropriately
landscaped and buffered, could extend as far east as Humboldt Avenue North.
The Mississippi riverfront offers unique opportunities for future redevelopment efforts.
Upgrading this area with common amenities could increase housing values and community pride.
• The area on Lyndale Avenue from 53rd to 57th along the Mississippi river could be an
opportunity for increased residential concentration, supplemental recreation,
neighborhood gathering or historic amenities.
• Redevelopment of the area could create a critical link with the 57th Avenue trails, housing
4-13
opportunities and the existing housing in the Bellevue neighborhood along 53rd Avenue.
This type of redevelopment would add additional housing opportunities for residents as
well as draw new people to the area.
• This sort of use would be consistent with the “Above the Falls” master plan and other
appropriate planning proposals from the City of Minneapolis to the south.
HOUSING PLAN
HOUSING PRINCIPLES
As part of participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives
Program, in 1996 the City declared its support for the following principles:
1. A balanced housing supply with housing available for people at all income levels.
2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and
location of housing within the community.
3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle.
4. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership
and rental housing.
5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while
striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs.
6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the
improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment.
The City continues to participate in the program and support the above principles. To carry out these
principles, the City agrees to maintain levels of affordability, life cycle housing and density that meet
the "benchmarks" set by the Metropolitan Council, as shown in Table 4-10.
Table 4-10: Affordability, Life Cycle and Density Standards, 1996
City index Benchmark Goal
Affordability:
Ownership 99% 77% 77%
Rental 46% 41-45% 41-45%
Life Cycle:
Type (non-SED) 37% 34-41% 34-41%
4-14
Owner Renter Mix 68; 32% 64-72; 28-36% 64-72; 28-36%
Density:
Single-family
2.9/acre 2.4-2.9/acre 2.4-2.9/acre
detached
Multi-family 11/acre 11-15/acre . 11-15/acre
RELATIONSHIP TO REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES
Metropolitan Council housing policies, as stated in the Regional Framework and other policy
statements, stresses the need to create affordable, diverse, and convenient housing -- i.e.,
housing in close proximity to transit - to meet the region's needs. As expressed in the Livable
Communities Act, Council policies emphasize the need to achieve and maintain affordable and
life cycle housing.
Brooklyn Center's housing stock helps to meet regional needs for affordable housing, both
owner- and renter-occupied. The City has also done much to foster life-cycle housing, by
supporting the creation of townhouse developments and senior housing. However, the City has
also been adversely impacted by the over-concentration of low-income housing in certain areas,
and has taken steps toward introduction of higher-value housing in certain neighborhoods.
HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following housing objectives build upon the goals presented in the first section of this plan.
These objectives overlap with the Land Use and Redevelopment objectives listed in Section 2,
since housing needs are closely linked to redevelopment.
1. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted commercial, industrial and residential
areas to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment.
• Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles
contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans (such as the
Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study, the Brookly n Boulevard
Corridor Streetscape Amenities Study, the Calthorpe Smart Growth Study
and the Opportunity Site Master Plan and Dev. Guidelines).
• Replace inappropriate single-family housing with attractive higher quality
residential and non-residential development in a way that protects remaining
housing.
• Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the
point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its
neighbors,
• Reduce the over-concentration of apartment buildings in certain
4-15
neighborhoods by assisting in redeveloping it to housing that has a lower
density, a higher rate of owner-occupancy, and a more pedestrian-friendly
relationship to the street.
2. Work to ensure that the City's housing can evolve to meet the needs and demands of
its current and future population.
• Accommodate changing family and household structure by providing a
suitable mix of housing types.
• Foster a mix of housing values and incomes, including introduction of higher-
value housing in lower income areas.
• Encourage the development of more new high-quality single-family housing
(of above the median neighborhood value), to balance the City's large stock of
affordable single-family housing.
• Help owners update their older houses to meet today' s market demands
through demonstration projects, education and financial assistance.
• Support outreach efforts to potential homebuyers.
• Continue to rehabilitate multifamily housing in targeted areas.
• Institute or continue housing maintenance requirements such as
inspection at time of sale and rental housing code enforcement.
5-1
5 Comprehensive Plan 2030
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
INTRODUCTION
rooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb with a well-established park and open space system. No new
parks are planned for acquisition or improvement. Improvements will be confined to enhancement of the
recreational facilities, improvement of trail linkages, and possible acquisition of additional open space.
This section of the Comprehensive Plan examines Brooklyn Center's park and recreation system, analyzes how
well it meets the City's needs on both a neighborhood and a citywide basis, and makes recommendations for
changes and additions to park facilities. This chapter includes the following sections:
• The Existing Park System
• Park Classification System
• Park Policies
• Park and Open Space Needs
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail System and Park Linkages
• Relationship to Regional Park Facilities
• Park Profiles
THE EXISTING PARK SYSTEM
The City's park system, as shown in Figure 5-1, is one of the most extensive municipal systems in the region.
The system includes 24 developed parks and a municipal golf course, providing a variety of recreational
opportunities for all segments of the population. In addition, considerable undeveloped public open space is held
in the Twin Lakes area. Recreation and leisure opportunities range from passive pursuits such as sitting, walking,
picnicking, fishing, and enjoying music to more active pastimes such as organized sports, pick-up athletic games,
bicycling, running, and in-line skating. Many parks are adjacent to schools or other open space, and one park,
Central, is adjacent to the Community Center, which houses an indoor 50-meter pool with a water slide and other
indoor recreational opportunities.
The even distribution of parks throughout all areas of the City and the variety of recreational facilities available
enable the park system to serve all areas of the City and all segments of the population. There is excellent
coordination of programs and facilities between parks and schools, and between parks and City and county
facilities. The trail system links parks, schools, and other activity centers. However, like the rest of the City's public
facilities, the park system is beginning to show its age, and its size and scope create maintenance burdens for the
City.
B
5-2
Previous park planning efforts date back to the late 1970s: the Park and Recreation Policy Plan of 1976 and the
subsequent Park Development Schedule formulated by the Park and Recreation Commission in 1978. These
documents established a classification system for the parks, and set priorities for park system investments, which
have largely been followed to date.
Capital improvements to parks have followed a roughly 20-year cycle. In 1960 and in 1980 the citizens of Brooklyn
Center approved bond referenda for financing the development and improvement of park facilities. This included
acquiring land, installing new playgrounds, developing ball fields, tennis courts and other facilities. Following these
improvements, for a time no formal plan was put in place for a systematic update. Following up on the City’s
practice of programming for street reconstruction 15 years into the future, the City recently began developing a
15-year capital improvement program for parks.
OTHER OPEN SPACE
The City owns much additional open space above and beyond the park system. These areas include the following:
•••• Three trail corridors: Shingle Creek, 69th Avenue, and the new 53rd Avenue Greenway;
•••• The Centerbrook Golf Course, a 65 acre public facility managed by the City;
•••• Additional undeveloped open space that the City retains in its natural state. This includes substantial areas
around Twin Lake.
ISSUES
•••• Is it practicable to continue to maintain the existing park system at its current levels?
•••• How can the park system best meet the changing needs of the City's population? In other words, how
can it keep pace with social and demographic changes that affect the population?
Fiscal and staffing constraints make it difficult to continue to maintain the park system at its current level. Staffing
levels have declined since 1981, while the number of parks and trails has increased. Demographic and social
changes also affect the park system. The City's population increased slightly during the 1990s while the number of
school-age children in the City increased significantly during that decade. Meanwhile a significant decline in the
number of pre-school children occurred in the 1990s. These trends are opposite of the prior decade. In response to
the issues, Public Works staff and the Park and Recreation Commission have developed a parks systems plan that
revises the way in which parks are classified and reallocates the resources that each classification of parks will receive.
5-4
Table 5-1: Park Facilities
5-5
PARK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Parks are classified and developed according to a functional hierarchy. This functional system suggests the types
of facilities and development that would be appropriate in each park; however, specific improvements are
individually tailored to each park based on neighborhood desires, historical presence of certain types of facilities,
and resources available.
Different types of parks are located and designed to serve different needs and populations. For example, there
should be a park in each neighborhood that is safely accessible to pedestrians, especially children, within a reasonable
walking radius of one-quarter to one-half mile. At the other end of the spectrum, one or two larger parks in each
neighborhood needs can meet organized sports and specialized and community-wide recreation.
The following classification system has been developed by City staff based on national standards. It is similar to
the system the City has used for park and recreation planning for the past twenty years. However, the
classification of parks within the system has been changed in order to make better use of park resources, meet
neighborhood needs, and address issues of demographic and social change.
The system is divided into three broad categories: neighborhood parks, community destination parks, and special
use parks and open spaces.
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
Neighborhood Parks include the following three types:
PLAY LOT
The smallest unit of the park system both in terms of size and area that it serves; its function is to provide play
facilities for pre-school children who are not conveniently served by larger parks. It may contain play equipment,
sandboxes, paved areas for wheeled toys, walking and bike trails, and seating areas.
Service Area: The sub-neighborhood level of 500 to 2,000 persons with a ¼ mile radius.
Desirable Size: .25 to 2 acres
Acres per person: No set standard -- desirable in higher-density areas.
Site Characteristics: Should be located so that children do not have to cross major streets. Should
include or be combined with an adult seating or gathering area; can be combined
with a school.
PLAYGROUND
Parks designed for use by children from pre-school to age 12. Often coincides with the service area for an
elementary school, and may adjoin and complement the school facility if intended to serve the same age group.
5-6
Facilities and programs of a neighborhood playground should be designed to meet the particular requirements of
each individual neighborhood. May include a larger play area with equipment for older children; an area for free
play and organized games; minimum maintenance ball diamond, multi-purpose hard surface courts; walking and
bike trails, pleasure skating rinks, and seating areas. Some parks may contain portable restrooms.
Service area: A population of up to 4,000 with a ¼ to ½ mile radius.
Desirable Size: 5 to 10 acres.
Acres per 1,000 pop.: 2.0
Site characteristics: Geographically centered in neighborhood with safe walking and bike access.
Suited for intense development. Helpful if located adjacent to a school.
PLAYFIELD
Larger parks designed to provide recreation opportunities for all ages. They may contain all the features of
playgrounds, with groomed ball facilities suitable for adult play. Hockey and pleasure skating rinks are lighted.
May include portable restrooms and sheltered picnic areas.
Service area: Neighborhood-wide; serves entire population with special emphasis on organized
adult sports, ideally within a 1½ to 2 miles biking distance.
Desirable Size: 20 acres or more.
Acres per 1,000 pop.: 1.0 to 2.0
Site characteristics: Direct access from all parts of the neighborhood or quadrant. Level terrain with
few water bodies or other environmental constraints. Easily accessible by large
numbers of vehicles. Physically separate from homes so as to minimize light and
noise problems.
COMMUNITY DESTINATION PARK
Relatively large parks serving as a recreational focus for a neighborhood of the City. Community destination parks
are noted for having a wide variety of leisure and recreational options, and are fully accessible to persons of all
abilities. Lighted areas for evening play are provided. Daytime recreational programming and playground
supervision are provided in the summer months. Heated, enclosed park shelter buildings provide for recreational
spaces and warming houses.
Previously known as community parks the name for this type of park was broadened in 2000 to incorporate the
idea that these parks would contain the costlier types of facilities and that each would have a distinct identity or
theme. Central is the flagship park of the system, with substantial improvements that serve the entire
community. Evergreen focuses on team sports; Kylawn/Arboretum builds on its nature areas of the Arboretum
and the Preserve; West Palmer is seen as a prime family picnic and outings area; and Grandview’s focus is on
youth and winter recreation.
5-7
Service area: A neighborhood or quadrant of the City
Desirable Size: 25 acres or more.
Acres per 1,000 pop.: 5.0
Site characteristics: Easily accessible from all parts of neighborhood or quadrant. Should be located
on collector or arterial streets to provide adequate access for residents, and should
be well-buffered from adjacent {residential areas.
SPECIAL USE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
These are areas providing specialized or single-purpose recreational or leisure activities. These parks
generally do not provide extensive permanent facilities, but may provide nature interpretation, trail and
greenway corridors, or walking/ biking paths. Trails or greenways should connect other components of
the recreation system, schools, community facilities or neighborhoods. Table 5-2 illustrates the facilities
and improvements that would be expected in parks of each classification. Table 5-3 shows how the City's
parks are classified, and Figure 5-2 illustrates the classification system.
Table 5-2: Park Classification and Improvements System
Improvement Community Playfield Playground Play lot
Special
Use
Playground Equipment ■ ■ ■
Shelter Building ■Storage
Baseball Field ■
Softball Field ■ ■
Football Field ■
Soccer Field ■
Tennis Court(s) ■
Hockey Rink ■
Skating Rink ■ ■ As needed
Basketball Court ■ ■ ■
Volleyball Court ■ ■
Other:
Horseshoe ■
5-8
Archery ■
Lighting for:
Baseball ■
Softball ■
Football ■
Hockey ■
Skating ■
Trails, walkways ■■ ■ ■ ■
Picnic Areas:
Pavilion ■ ■
Tables ■■ ■ ■
Restrooms ■ ■
As needed
Table 5-3: Park Classifications
Park Community Playfield Playground Play lot
Special
Use
Arboretum ■
Bellvue ■
Cahlander ■
Central Park ■
Central Park West ■
Evergreen ■
Firehouse ■
Freeway ■
Garden City ■
Grandview ■
5-9
Happy Hollow ■
Kylawn ■
Lakeside ■
Lions ■
Marlin ■
Northport ■
North Mississippi (Three
Rivers)
■
Orchard Lane ■
Palmer Lake (east) ■
Palmer Lake (west) ■
Palmer Lake (south) ■
Riverdale ■
Twin Lake ■
Wangstad ■
Willow Lane ■
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND PARK LINKAGES
A comprehensive system of on and off-street bicycle trails has been developed and integrated with the park system.
The use of this system as a means of transportation is addressed in the Transportation Plan.
The City's bicycle and pedestrian trail system is anchored by the Shingle Creek Trail, an off-street separated trail
which runs from the north to the south City limits along Shingle Creek. For much of its length, separate trails are
provided for bicyclists and pedestrians; a short segment across the Brookdale Shopping Center uses a sidewalk trail.
The north end of the trail circles Palmer Lake; a portion of that trail is located in the City of Brooklyn Park and is
maintained by that city.
The other major north-south trail system is the Mississippi River trail system, which from north to south consists of:
the West River Road off-street trail; an on-street trail on Willow Lane extending to the trail link under the 1-694
bridge, and then the existing Hennepin Parks trail in North Mississippi Regional Park.
East-west links include the 69th Avenue greenway, the Freeway Boulevard/65th Avenue trail; and the 53rd
Avenue greenway.
5-10
On- and off-street trails have been designed to link community parks and playfields to the major trail systems.
Within parks, trails continue to major facilities such as ball fields, playgrounds and shelters.
The on-sidewalk portion of the Shingle Creek Trail across the Brookdale Shopping Center site is substandard in
that it is not adequately separated from traffic. This segment detracts aesthetically from the overall feel of the trail,
most of which travels through natural areas, and should be separated from traffic circulation on the Brookdale site.
Consideration should be given to providing a greenway trail easement across the property to link the
pedestrian bridge to the south and the existing trail to the north at the intersection of Shingle Creek and
Bass Lake Road.
PARK GOALS AND POLICIES
Development and improvement of the park and recreation system has been consistent with the Park and
Recreation Policy Plan of 1976. This document was reviewed and revised in 1997. The goals and policies
expressed in this document are excerpted as follows:
Base park and recreation planning on the needs and demands of all segments of the City's population.
•••• The Park and Recreation System consist of a mix of facilities to provide a mix of opportunities for persons
of all ages and abilities.
•••• New park and recreation services and facilities will be considered where recreational opportunity is
deficient or nonexistent, and where appropriate, they will be provided in cooperation with local school
districts and the private sector.
•••• Citizen surveys and interviews will be conducted periodically to evaluate the effectiveness of existing
facilities and programs and system deficiencies.
Incorporate citizens into the planning process at every level.
•••• A citizen's Park and Recreation Commission is appointed by the City Council to advise the Council on
matters relative to parks, recreation and environmental planning.
•••• Neighborhood groups are encouraged to participate in the planning of all major park improvements.
Establish high-quality planning design, and preservation standards in the development and maintenance of the
system.
•••• Consistent with economic realities, innovative park and recreation development will be pursued.
•••• Park design and development will embody a balance between function and aesthetics, including the
conservation of natural resource areas.
•••• Water resources in parks, including wetlands, will be preserved for habitat and wildlife corridors where
appropriate.
•••• Consistent with economic realities, trees will be planted and maintained in those parts of parks not
5-11
planned for open field uses.
•••• Creativity in park design is encouraged to stress variety and diversity from park to park.
•••• Where possible, park design may be used to establish a neighborhood improvement theme, or
complement redevelopment.
Maximize accessibility and use of park and recreation facilities by area residents.
•••• Improve access to, signage for and information in support of Central Park thus driving increased
awareness and use.
•••• All park facilities will be connected and accessible using the City's system of bicycle/pedestrian trails
and/or collector sidewalk system.
•••• Volunteers and service organizations in the community will be afforded opportunities for service in the
development and maintenance of the park and recreation system.
•••• The special place of the Mississippi National Recreational River Area in the park and recreation system
will be promoted and further developed.
•••• Provide an identification system of all park areas, facilities and programs that is consistent, functional
and creative, and which identifies the total system as an attractive, identifiable feature of the city.
•••• Through the use of signage, kiosks, and other forms of communication, a park system identity that is
aesthetic yet informational will be established and updated as necessary.
•••• There will be an ongoing information and education process to make residents aware and knowledgeable
of park and recreation facilities and programs.
Maximize the impact of resources dedicated for park and recreation facilities.
•••• A functional classification system for parks will identify the types of facilities appropriate for different
types of parks. Each park will be classified according to that system.
•••• Facility improvements and recreational programming provided in each park will be consistent with the
classification scheme.
•••• The highest-priority improvements will be those that address health or safety concerns, reduce
maintenance costs, or address overall system deficiencies.
•••• Improvement and maintenance of the system will be pursued on a regular and continuous basis through
the operating budget and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) so as to avoid development of a costly
backlog of improvements.
5-12
PARK AND OPEN SPACE NEEDS
The City's current park acreage and facilities are sufficient to meet the needs both of its present population and of
the projected 2030 population and number of households. Table 5-4 evaluates parkland needs based on the
projected 2030 population of 29,500, using national guidelines. The table shows that although the City falls
somewhat short of land in community parks, it more than makes up for the deficit through the large amount of land
in neighborhood parks and special use parks. The "neighborhood parks" category includes play lots, playgrounds
and playfields. Under the City's proposed classification system, playfields will fulfill many of the active,
organized recreational functions of community parks, while the many special use parks will be used for individual
recreational activities such as hiking and nature study.
Table 5-4: Comparison of Park Acreage with National Guidelines
Park Classification Acreage,
1997
Guideline 2030 Target Surplus/
deficit
Community Parks 135 5/1,000 pop. 148 (13)
Neighborhood
Parks
104 2/1,000 pop. 59 45
Special Use Parks 200+ no guideline
Furthermore, the distribution of parks across the City is such that each of the City's six neighborhoods has one
large community park or playfield and several playgrounds or play lots (see Table 5-5 and Figure 5-1). Most parts
of the City are within walking distance of a neighborhood park (play lot, playground or playfield) and within a
short drive or bike ride of a community park.
Table 5-5: Parks by Neighborhood
Neighbor-
hood
Play lot Playground Playfield Community
Destination
Special
Use Park
1 - Central Garden City
2 - Northeast Riverdale
Firehouse
Palmer Lake
East
Evergreen
3 –
Northwest
Freeway Willow Lane Palmer Lake
West
Palmer
Lake
South
4 -
Southeast
Bellvue Lions Central
Grandview
North
Mississippi
Regional
5 -
Southwest
Lakeside Twin Lake
Happy
Hollow
Northport
6 - West
Central
Marlin
Wangstad
Orchard Lane Kylawn Arboretum
Cahlander
5-13
RELATIONSHIP TO REGIONAL PARK FACILITIES
Three regional park/recreational facilities are located within Brooklyn Center: part of the North Mississippi
Regional Park, the Shingle Creek Trail and the Twin Lakes Trail.
NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK
A section of North Mississippi Regional Park is located along the Mississippi River from 53rd Avenue to 1-694.
From 53rd to 57th Avenue, it includes the area between Lyndale Avenue and the river and from 57th Avenue to I-
694 it includes the area between 1-94 and the river. The primary improvements within Brooklyn Center are an off-
street bicycle path and a DNR fishing pier at the foot of the 1-694 bridge. The bicycle path links to another in the
regional park in Minneapolis. At the park's north end the trail goes under the 1-694 bridge, providing a connection to
the City's trail system at Willow Lane.
1-94 is a significant barrier between the residents of Brooklyn Center (and Minneapolis) and the Regional Park.
Bridges over 1-94 provide possibilities for City trail linkages at 53rd and 57th Avenues. The 53rd Avenue
Greenway improvement enhanced linkage to the park from the Brooklyn Center’s Southeast Neighborhood
immediately to the west. As discussed in the Trail System section below, improved linkage to the park will result
from the proposed Brooklyn Center-Robbinsdale Twin Lakes Trail that will provide a connection to the park from
the Shingle Creek Trail and the proposed Crystal-Robbinsdale Trail as well as the neighborhoods along those
trails. Aside from the linkage, it is expected that the Twin Lakes Trail will "open up" the Mississippi riverfront to
Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis residents, who do not currently have a pleasant, easy means of reaching it. As
indicated in the Land Use Plan, the residential use of the properties along the west side of Lyndale Avenue from
53rd to 57th Avenues are proposed to continue.
REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM
The North Hennepin Shingle Creek Trail running generally along Shingle Creek is part of the regional trail system
and was developed as part of the forty-mile North Hennepin Trail System loop. This Trail was constructed by
Brooklyn Center in conjunction with the development of Central/Garden City Parks and the Palmer Lake basin.
It is a very popular and heavily used trail year-round. Brooklyn Center is working in partnership with Three
Rivers Park District to define maintenance and reconstruction responsibilities and to explore options for
improvements.
Except for the short segment across the Brookdale Shopping Center, the trail is located entirely on City-owned
parkland or open space. Major renovation or partial redevelopment of Brookdale would provide an opportunity to
improve this important segment and to protect it with an easement for public use.
The proposed Twin Lakes regional trail will connect the Crystal-Robbinsdale trail running along Highway 81 at a
point near Lower Twin Lake, to North Mississippi River Regional Park. This trail will run along the west side of
Lower Twin Lake and the east side of Middle and Upper Twin Lakes, through or around the Brookdale site and in
proximity of 57th Avenue North (perhaps in the transmission line easement north of 57th) easterly to North
Mississippi Regional Park. Figure 5-2 is a map of the City of Brooklyn Center showing both the city and
regional park and trail system within the City.
6-1
6 Comprehensive Plan 2030
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RESOURCE PLAN
his section of the Comprehensive Plan references or summarizes plans and background materials
that the City has prepared in three areas:
Water System
Wastewater System
Water Resources Management
WATER SYSTEM
The City of Brooklyn Center maintains a water pumping and delivery system that serves all parts of the
City. In the interests of greater convenience and efficiency, some owners of property bordering
neighboring communities are served by those communities' systems; likewise, some properties in
neighboring communities are served by Brooklyn Center's system.
Water is derived from the Prairie Du Chien and the Jordan Sandstone aquifers via nine wells. In order to
conserve groundwater, the City of Brooklyn Center enacted Section 4-202. Subdivision 2 of the City
Code to prohibit the sprinkling of lawns and gardens of properties with even numbered addresses on the
odd numbered days of the month and of properties with odd numbered addresses on the even numbered
days of the month.
Storage and system pressure for the City’s water system are provided by three elevated storage tanks with
a total capacity of 3 million gallons. The system is capable of delivering up to 15 million gallons per day
through over 115 miles of water main, with the record daily use being almost 12 million gallons. The
facilities are monitored and controlled by a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.
Part 1 of the Wellhead Protection Plan (WPP) that delineated a wellhead protection area (WHPA) and a
drinking water supply management area (DWSMA) and assessed the vulnerability of the system’s wells and
aquifer within the DWSMA was approved by the State of Minnesota on August 24, 2004. The system is
considered to be vulnerable to contamination because it appears that surface water is able to infiltrate and
recharge the aquifer. The levels of vulnerability in the DWSMA range from moderate to very high. Part 2
of the WPP for the City that includes the results of a potential contaminant source inventory, a potential
contaminant source management strategy, an emergency/alternative water supply contingency plan and a
wellhead protection program evaluation plan has also been approved by the State on November 5th, 2005.
The City has completed and received Metropolitan Council approval of its Water Supply Plan. System
storage is currently 3 million gallons, while average daily use varies, but can approach 3.5 million gallons. It
has been determined that additional ground storage capacity of 2 million gallons would be beneficial, but
construction of that additional storage is not yet incorporated in the Capital Improvements Program.
Water treatment is not considered necessary at this time, but continuous monitoring of the Safe Drinking
T
6-2
Water Act standards is necessary to determine if a water treatment plant should be considered in the
future. Treatment may be necessary in the future because the system is vulnerable to contamination. The
City's well water contains greater-than-average concentrations of iron and manganese, minerals which do
not pose any health risks and are not regulated, but which are considered impurities. If a water treatment
facility becomes necessary or desirable, it would be financed through reserves in the water utility fund
and through rate increases.
Continuing maintenance and improvements to the existing system will include regular and routine
projects to inspect and rehabilitate well pumps; rehabilitate well houses; repair or reconstruct water mains
as necessary; inspect, paint and repair towers; and maintain SCADA system.
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
The sanitary sewer system consists of about 105 miles of gravity and force main. The City operates ten
sanitary sewer lift stations, which have been upgraded and integrated with the water utility's SCADA
system. The entire City is connected to the Metropolitan Wastewater System, and is served by five
mainline connections out of the City. No expansions of the trunk sewer system are proposed through 2030
No major system deficiencies exist. There are no on-site septic systems in the City, and all new
development is required to connect to the local sanitary sewer system. There is one individual sewer
treatment system in Brooklyn Center located on the southwest side of Upper Twin Lake.
The City's current wastewater flow has been ranging just over 1,100 million gallons per year. This flow
amount is expected to remain relatively stable in future years. As redevelopment occurs, flows would be
expected to increase slightly.
Overall flows have in fact been showing very slight reductions over the past several years. This can be
attributed at least in part to reduced water usage through upgraded and more efficient plumbing fixtures,
the City's ongoing infiltration and inflow reduction efforts, water conservation measures, and an overall
trend toward fewer individuals per household. It is expected that the continuation of many of these
factors will somewhat mitigate any slight increases from redevelopment activities. There is a limited
amount of additional industrial and redevelopment growth potential in the City. In addition, the City is in
the sixeenth year of a twenty-eight-year effort to reconstruct or rehabilitate neighborhood streets and
utilities. Of high priority are neighborhoods with high rates of suspected infiltration. Given these
factors, it is not expected that flow will increase significantly.
Future improvements to the system will consist of continued maintenance through regular and routine
projects to maintain collection systems and lift stations; repair or reconstruct sanitary sewer main as
necessary; and maintain the SCADA system.
6-4
Table 6-1:Flow Projections Into The Metropolitan Wa stewater System
Projected Households
and Employees
Projected Flows
(in millions of gallons)
First Service Area Ave. Annual Wastewater Flow (MGY)/
Year Households Employees Allowable Peak Hourly Flow (MGD)
2000* 11,430 16,698 1,114
2006* 11,207 13,131 999.5*
2010 11,800 18,200 1,084/ 7.72
2020 12,200 18,600 1,084/7.72
2030 12,100 19,000 1,030/7.61
Flows for 2000 and 2006 are actual flows. Projected future flows were based on modest redevelopment
over the coming decades. Brooklyn Center is considered a "fully developed" first ring suburb with
almost no open space remaining for development. Any future growth is expected to occur from
redevelopment activity.
Wastewater flows are expected to decline slightly during the last ten years of the planning period due to
the limited opportunities for growth, and because of the City's aggressive efforts to reduce inflow and
infiltration (I/I). The City's on-going street and infrastructure improvement program has included
extensive repairs and replacements of wastewater collection conduits identified as having I/I problems.
These efforts will continue for at least the next 20 years.
INFILTRATION AND INFLOW INTO METROPOLITAN WASTEWATE R
SYSTEM
Brooklyn Center recognizes the need and importance of reducing infiltration and inflow (I/I) as
opportunities arise. I/I not only burdens the city with additional treatment costs, but also assists in
wearing and deterioration of the sewer infrastructure. Infrastructure susceptible to I/I is often in need of
repair, increasing maintenance costs. Several different strategies are used to eliminate these problems,
including everything from individual spot leak repairs to massive infrastructure replacement projects.
The City's policy is to identify reasonable measures, efforts, and results that are feasible and attainable.
Much of the infiltration is believed to originate from rainfall and runoff. Infrastructure repair and
improvements, as well as the implementation of measures to discourage storm water from potentially
entering the system, have typically been the most effective. However, ground water is also believed to
be a significant contributor to I/I. Since ground water typically cannot be removed or altered, the City's
efforts to provide a tight conveyance system have been the best measured against that type of I/I.
Reasonable measures, efforts and results, as feasible and attainable are always reviewed, considered,
and implemented. They are described below.
An annual televised inspection program identifies many of the sewer main pipes and infrastructure with
6-5
I/I problems. The City's sanitary sewer system, along with individual house services, and Metropolitan
Council interceptors have all been identified as conveyors of I/I. The sanitary sewer system is aging and
many of the pipes installed were of the older clay type with joints susceptible over time to root
infiltration and subsequent I/I. Through the City's annual neighborhood infrastructure improvement
program, these same mains are replaced when warranted with new main and water tight joints, along
with similar replacement of the adjoining private services between the main and property line. Other
sewer mains are often relined through trenchless repair methods. These replacements and repairs are
costly, but the reduction in I/I, along with the removal of roots and other flow-restricting debris will
ultimately provide cost benefits in the long run.
The same infrastructure improvement program also provides storm drainage improvements throughout the
City. Because of the lack of storm sewer and flat grades, large quantities of storm water are often left
standing for extended periods and eventually infiltrate into the ground and into the sewer conveyance
system. By systematically adding new storm sewer pipe, upgrading lines, and providing designated
ponding facilities, storm water can no longer be provided the opportunity to infiltrate into the sanitary
sewer system.
In addition, the City's street division annually inspects and repairs manholes and catch basins that are
identified with conditions that encourage I/I. In 2009 the City is implementing an AMR (automatic meter
reading) system. As part of the program, during the first year utility employees installing automated
meters will inspect for visible sump pump connections to the sanitary sewer and require corrective action.
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Brooklyn Center is located in two watersheds: the West Mississippi Watershed along the easterly third of
the City, and the Shingle Creek Watershed. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
and the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission (jointly referred to as SCWM WMC)
are Watershed Management Organizations (WMOs) formed in 1984 using joint powers agreements
developed under authority of Minnesota Statutes 471.59 and 103B.201. Nine Hennepin County cities
are located in the Shingle Creek Watershed whereas the West Mississippi Watershed contains parts of
five cities. Brooklyn Center is one of four cities located in the West Mississippi Watershed that is also
located in the Shingle Creek Watershed. Because many cities located in the West Mississippi
Watershed are also located in the Shingle Creek Watershed, the Commissions for the two watersheds
work closely with each other.
First generation plan adopted in 1990 by the Commission for each of the watersheds pursuant to the
State of Minnesota’s Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act was primarily concerned with
managing the volume and rate of stormwater runoff. The Commissions prepared a joint Second
Generation watershed Management Plan in 2004 and established standards in eight management areas,
including runoff management, floodplain management, shoreland management, water quality
monitoring, erosion and sedimentation control, stormwater treatment, wetlands management and
groundwater protection. The thrust of the Second Generation Management Plans adopted by each of
the Commissions in May 2004 is to establish water resources priorities for the next ten years, identify
goals, and determine how best to achieve those goals.
The Commissions each adopted a major plan amendment to their Second Generation Management
Plans in 2007 consisting of the following:
• a Water Quality Plan that includes specific water quality goals for the lakes, streams
and wetlands in the watersheds and a specific set of management actions to manage and
improve those resources;
6-6
• a revised capital improvements program; and
• a revised cost-share policy that provides that, if affected cities agree, 25% of the cost of
qualifying capital projects would be funded by the county ad valorem tax levy across
all property in the watershed, with the balance of project costs paid for by the cities.
In October of 2008, the two Commissions adopted minor amendments to the Second Generation
Management Plans, consisting of technical revisions to development rules and standards.
BROOKLYN CENTER LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Cities are required to update their local water management plans within two years of the adoption of a
Second Generation Management Plan by a watershed commission. Pursuant to this requirement, the
requirements of Minnesota Statute 103B,235 and Minnesota Rule 8410 and the standards set forth
by the Commissions, the City of Brooklyn Center updated their local water management plan in June
2006. The updated local plan will serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City in
conserving, protecting, and managing local surface water resources.
Goals and policies of the City of Brooklyn Center Local Water Management Plan (BC LWMP) are listed
below:
Goal 1
To minimize public capital and maintenance expenditures necessary to control excessive
volumes and rates for stormwater runoff.
Policy 1.1
Preserve existing storage capacities of protected waters, wetlands and natural water courses.
Policy 1.2
Perform hydrologic and hydraulic modeling on a case-by-case basis to analyze runoff
characteristics for development and redevelopment projects.
Policy 1.3
Limit stormwater runoff rates from development and redevelopment sites based on the design
standards provided in Appendix A of the BC-LWMP.
Policy 1.4
Provide additional storage either onsite or within the subwatershed where necessary to comply
with the standards provided in Appendix A of the BC-LWMP..
Policy 1.5
Implement cost effective and efficient methods of stormwater management to limit public
expenditures.
Policy 1.6
Coordinate the preservation and enhancement of storage areas where appropriate with state,
county and neighboring municipal agencies.
Goal 2
To provide a reasonable level of stormwater flood protection within the City of Brooklyn Center to limit
6-7
potential flood damage.
Policy 2.1
Prohibit encroachment that will reduce the storage capacity of floodplains, unless
mitigating action is undertaken.
Policy 2.2
Allow only structures that have been flood-proofed or will not be subject to excessive damage in
the floodway fringe.
Policy 2.3
Establish a 5-year rainfall event as the minimum criteria for new stormwater conveyance facility
designs.
Policy 2.4
Require new habitable structures to be protected from flooding during the 100-year rainfall event.
Goal 3
To maintain or improve both surface water and groundwater quality.
Policy 3.1
Promote the implementation of water quality best management practices for treatment and/or
control of stormwater runoff in accordance with the requirements as outlined in Appendix A of
the BC-LWMP.
Policy 3.2
Preserve and protect wetlands which provide natural treatment for runoff where
necessary to comply with the LWMP.
Policy 3.3
Support water quality monitoring efforts being undertaken by the SCWM WMC.
Policy 3.4
Protect groundwater recharge areas from potential sources of contamination in
accordance with the City's Wellhead Protection Plan.
Goal 4
To protect and enhance fish and water related wildlife habitats.
Policy 4.1
Promote those aspects of local shoreland regulations that enhance fish and wildlife habitat to the
extent feasible.
Policy 4.2
Preserve protected waters and wetlands that provide habitat for game fish spawning and wildlife
to the extent feasible.
Policy 4.3
Coordinate efforts to protect areas of significant natural communities with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
6-8
Policy 4.4
Coordinate efforts to protect rare and endangered species with the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources.
Goal 5
To protect and enhance opportunities for water recreation.
Policy 5.1
Coordinate efforts with state, county and neighboring municipalities to enhance waterbased
recreation to the extent practical.
Goal 6
To coordinate stormwater management efforts with the SCWM WMC, adjacent communities and citizens
within Brooklyn Center.
Policy 6.1
Work with adjacent municipalities and the SCWM WMC in planning and implementing mutually
beneficial regional type stormwater management improvements.
Policy 6.2
Promote implementation of water quality improvements involving wetland 639W and Twin
Lakes as described in the Twin Lakes Management Plan. These goals and policies are intended
to incorporate the spirit of several regional, state and
federally mandated programs. They are not meant to replace or alter these programs, rules and
regulations, but to serve as an enhancement and provide some general policy guidelines. The
goals address the management strategies of both watershed management commissions, West
Mississippi and Shingle Creek, and are consistent with the objectives set forth in the State
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the Federal Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP).
SHINGLE CREEK AND WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION AND BC LWMP GOALS AND POLICIES
Goals and policies outlined in the Shingle Creek Watershed and West Mississippi Watershed
Commissions Second Generation Watershed Management Plan are supported by goals and policies in the
City of Brooklyn Center Local Water Management Plan and City of Brooklyn Center Ordinances as
follows:
Management Area: Water Quantity
• SCWM WMC Goal 1 and Policies 1.1 – 1.3 are supported by Goal 1 and Policies 1.1 – 1.4 and
1.6 of the BC LWMP Plan.
• SCWM WMC Policy 1.4 is addressed by City Ordinance 15-106. The ordinance states that a
storm water easement or drainage right of way will be provided for drainage where a subdivision
is traversed by a water course, drainage way, channel or stream. Utility easements will be
provided where necessary.
• SCWM WMC Policy 1.5 is supported by Policies 3.3 and 6.1 of the BC LWMP.
• SCWM WMC Policy 1.6 is addressed in the City Ordinance in Chapter 35 – Zoning and in
Policy 2.4 of this Plan.
6-9
Management Area: Water Quality
• SCWM WMC Goal 2 and Policies 2.1 – 2.8 are supported by Goal 3 and Policies 3.1 – 3.4 and
Goal 6 and Policies 6.1 and 6.2 of the BC LWMP.
Management Area: Recreation, Fish, and Wildlife
• SCWM WMC Goal 3 and Policies 3.1 – 3.4 are supported by Goal 4 and Policies 4.1 – 4.4 and
Goal 5 and Policy 5.1 of the BC LWMP. Palmer Lake Basin is a DNR Regionally Significant
Ecological Area, and the Mississippi River and the Shingle Creek Corridor from Palmer Lake to
the Mississippi River are Metro Priority Wildlife Corridors.
Management Area: Public Participation, Information and Education
• SCWM WMC Goal 4 and Policies 4.1 – 4.6 are supported by Goal 6 and Policies 6.1 of the BC
LWMP.
Management Area: Ditches
• SCWM WMC Goal 5 is supported by Goal 6 and Policy 6.1 of the BC LWMP.
Management Area: Groundwater
• SCWM WMC Goal 6 and Policy 6.1 are supported by Goal 3 and Policy 3.4 of the BC LWMP.
• SCWM WMC Policy 6.2 is supported by Goal 6 and Policy 6.1 of the BC LWMP.
Management Area: Wetlands
• SCWM WMC Goal 7 is supported by Goal 3 and Policies 3.1 and 3.2 of the BC LWMP.
• SCWM WMC Policies 7.1 – 7.3 are supported by Goal 6 and Policies 6.1 and 6.2 of the BC
LWMP, and by completion of the functions and values assessment which is addressed in Section
5: Implementation Plan.
Management Area: Erosion/Sedimentation
• SCWM WMC Goal 8 and Policies 8.1 and 8.4 are supported by the permit for land disturbing
activities and requirement of an erosion and sediment control plan presented in City Ordinance
Section 35-235. The ordinance states that no construction, reconstruction, development,
redevelopment, grading, excavation, or other activity shall occur without first securing a permit
from the City if such activity causes a land disturbance of one acre or more of land or a land
disturbance of less than one acre if it is a part of a common plan of development of one acre or
more. The applicant must submit an erosion and sediment control plan with the application. The
plan shall be consistent with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management
Practices Handbook.
• SCWM WMC Policy 8.3 is supported by Goal 6 and Policy 6.1 of the BC LWMP.
6-10
FIGURE 6-2 Sanitary Sewer Flow Map
7-1
7 Comprehensive Plan 2030
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
mplementation of the recommendations proposed in this plan can be accomplished using a
variety of tools. The city can regulate land, offer incentives for its (re)development and
undertake improvement projects. These powers fall into three categories:
• Official controls
• Development/Redevelopment
• Capital improvement program
OFFICIAL CONTROLS
The City's zoning and subdivision ordinances are already in place, and only minor text
amendments are needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan:
• Adopt and incorporate Shoreland District regulations. Very few parcels of land would be
affected by this District since nearly all the lake and river edges in Brooklyn Center are
already developed.
• Adopt a Critical Area Overlay District after the Mississippi River Critical Area and
MNRRA Plan is updated.
The Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance includes a wide variety of residential, commercial and
industrial districts and a flexible planned-unit district.
Zoning map changes will be considered when land use changes consistent with this plan are
proposed. In the few locations where the zoning map becomes inconsistent with the Land Use Plan
map (Figure 2-3) either when the plan is adopted or in the future, the zoning map will be
amended to be consistent with the intentions of the land use plan.
The City has adopted a Critical Area Plan but not a Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance
governing the Mississippi River Corridor. The City will soon update its Critical Area Plan and
incorporate policies in response to the federal Mississippi River National Recreation Area
Management Plan. Until a Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance is adopted, the City will
continue to use the Interim Development Regulations to ensure that all developments are
consistent with Critical Area guidelines. The river corridor is largely protected as parkland (the
North Mississippi Regional Park) or fully developed with low-density housing.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL AREA
The state of Minnesota, pursuant to the Critical Areas Act of 1973 and Executive Order 7949,
requires that each city along the Mississippi River prepare and adopt plans, capital improvement
programs and regulations consistent with state standards and guidelines for the Mississippi River
Critical Area corridor as designated in the Executive Order. The purpose of this requirement is to:
A. Protect and preserve a unique and valuable state and regional resource
B. Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to the resource
I
7-2
C. Preserve and protect the river as an element in the national, state and regional
transportation, sewer, water and recreational systems
D. Protect and preserve biological and ecological functions of the corridor.
Generally, the boundaries of the Critical Area extend approximately one-quarter mile or less
back from each side of the river in Brooklyn Center.
Each City along the Mississippi River from Dayton to Hastings can choose to amend its Critical
Area Plan to come into conformance with the policies of the MNRRA Management Plan.
The City of Brooklyn Center has an approved and adopted Mississippi River Critical Area Plan
(1981). The City also prepared an overlay zoning district to help implement its Critical Area Plan,
but the zoning ordinance has not been amended to incorporate the district.
MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA
The Critical Area Plan update will aid the City in its efforts to address both the Tier I and Tier II
provisions of the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, which is necessary to qualify for
MNRRA implementation grants.
In 1988, the United States Congress passed legislation creating the Mississippi National River and
Recreation Are (MNRRA) as a unit of the national park system. The legislation calls for the
National Park Service (NPS) to assist state and local units of government "to protect, preserve
and enhance the significant values of the waters and land of the Mississippi River Corridor within
the Saint Paul-Minneapolis Metropolitan Area." This new area encompasses a 72-mile stretch of
the Mississippi, including Brooklyn Center.
The Comprehensive Management Plan for MNRRA was approved by the Secretary of the Interior
in 1995. This plan details goals that the Park Service has identified for the area and the
coordinating role that the agency will pursue with local governments.
Unlike a traditional national park such as Voyageurs or Yellowstone, the Park Service owns
little land. Instead, federal funds could become available to local governments that have plans
certified as consistent with the MNRRA plan for river corridor projects.
CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND RELATIONSHIP TO COMP PLAN
The City of Brooklyn Center updated its Critical Area Plan on February 10, 2003. This plan
aids the City in its efforts to comply with both the Tier I and Tier II requirements of the
Management Plan, which is necessary to qualify for land acquisition and development grants.
This Critical Area Plan is hereby adopted into the Comprehensive Plan by reference and thus
has the full force of the rest of this plan.
The Comprehensive Plan already contains many policies and plans that are highly supportive of
the Critical Area and MNRRA objectives. Through this plan, Brooklyn Center recognizes the
river as a major amenity and a key element in its overall efforts toward improvement.
Consequently, this plan continues the previous policy of low density housing along the
riverfront north of 1-694 and maintenance of North Mississippi Regional Park (in conjunction
with Three Rivers Park District) south of 1-694. An important new initiative in this
7-3
comprehensive plan is the creation of a greenway in the vicinity of 57th Avenue leading across I-
94 to North Mississippi Regional Park.
DEVELOPMENT/REDEVELOPMENT
Several redevelopment project areas (RPAs) have been created within the City of Brooklyn
Center where the City’s Economic Development Authority may exercise redevelopment powers
including acquiring, clearing and selling property for redevelopment. It will be necessary to
create additional RPAs if redevelopment recommended in this plan is to be implemented. Parcels
of land on which redevelopment powers are to be exercised will be put in RPAs when the EDA
desires to exercise its redevelopment powers.
Redevelopment activities are usually public-private partnerships, in which City involvement is
usually initiated in response to private development initiatives. Financing of redevelopment
projects is often accomplished through tax increment finance districts that are created at the
same time as RPAs are created.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
The 2009 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) (See Appendix C) outlines the capital
improvements proposed in this Comprehensive Plan, their approximate costs and a general
time frame for implementation. It is recognized that this plan is intended as a guide and does not
commit the city to specific expenditures or dates. Nearly all of the cost estimates were estimated
without preparing engineering or design studies and, therefore, are open to much refinement. It is
updated and refined annually.
Most of the activities listed are park, street and streetscape improvements. Several roadway
projects that are the responsibility of the Minnesota Department of Transportation or Hennepin
County have been included to acknowledge the need for coordination with the City. The CIP
suggests general time frames for implementation of these activities, while recognizing that the
costs and feasibility of each project must be determined individually. It does not include cost
estimates for redevelopment activities in which the EDA may become involved. Redevelopment
activities are usually public-private partnerships, in which City involvement is usually initiated
in response to private development initiatives. Likewise, the financing of redevelopment projects
is often accomplished through tax increment finance districts, which are outside the usual
avenues of municipal funding.