Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 Comprehensive Plan �� 6 � 111111 EEO MEMO NMI Brooklyn Center. i BROOKLYN CENTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FI NAL D RAFT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JANUARY 2000 ' R ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY COUNCIL Myrna Kragness, Mayor Kathleen Carmody Debra Hilstrom Kay Lasman Robert Peppe PLANNING COMMISSION Tim Willson, Chair Graydon Boeck Donald Booth Stephen Erdmann Mark Holmes Rex Newman Diane Reem Brian Walker COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TASK FORCE Council Members Lisa Hunter Planning Commission Members Dr. Toni Johns Jerry Blamey Tom Kouri Maurice Britts Tony Kuefler Dr. Jim Cole Frank Slawson Rev. Tom Donaldson Ron Thomas Dale Greenwald CONSULTANT TEAM - BRW, INC. William Weber, AICP, Project Manager Suzanne S. Rhees, AICP,Community Planner Tony Heppelmann, P.E., Transportation Planning CITY STAFF Michael J. McCauley, City Manager Ron Warren,Planning and Zoning Specialist Diane Spector, Public Services Director Brad Hoffman,Community Development Director TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Summary of Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Community Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Regional Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Population and Households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 Age Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 Household and Family Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 PovertyLevel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 Racial and Ethnic Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 Education Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 Household and Family Income Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8 Jobs of Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 Jobs in Brooklyn Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10 Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 Existing Land Use Pattern, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 Neighborhood Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 Central Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2 Northeast Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5 Northwest Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7 Southeast Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8 Southwest Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 West Central Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-12 Citywide Land Use Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13 Land Use, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17 Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-17 Specific Area Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-21 Solar Access Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30 Historic Resource Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-32 Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 Street and Road System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 Functional Classification System, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 Jurisdictional Classification, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Existing and Forecast Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Traffic Analysis Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 Comparison of Travel Demand and Regional Highway System Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 Street and Road System Issues and Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11 JANUARY 2000 BRW, INC. #24531 Street and Road System Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 Functional and Jurisdictional Classification Systems Plan . . . . . . 3-13 Specific Roadway Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13 Transit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 Travel Demand Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 Bicyclist and Pedestrian Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22 Sidewalk and Trail Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-22 Goods Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24 Relationship of Land Use and Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-24 Aviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-25 Neighborhoods and Housing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 Analysis of Housing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Profile of Existing Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Neighborhood Housing Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 Housing Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 Current and Future Housing Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-15 Housing and Neighborhood Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-18 Housing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19 Goals and Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-19 Housing Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-21 Appendix: Housing Design Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-28 ParksPlan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 The Existing Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 Park Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail System and Park Linkages . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12 Park Goals and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-12 Park and Open Space Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15 Relationship to Regional Park Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16 Public Facilities Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 WaterSystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 Wastewater System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2 Water Resources Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-3 Appendix: Worksheet D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4 Appendix: Worksheet E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5 Implementation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Official Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Capital Improvements Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2 JANUARY 2000 BRW, INC. #24531 APPENDICES 1. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 2. Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 3. Traffic Projection Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9 JANUARY 2000 BRW, INC. #24531 LIST OF FIGURES 1-1 Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 2-1 Land Use Pattern, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2-2 City-Wide Land Use Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-15 2-3 Land Use Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-23 2-4 Road Corridor Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-31 3-1 Functional Classification System, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3-2 Number of Lanes on Major Roadways, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 3-3 Transportation Analysis Zones(TAZ's) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9 3-4 Proposed Functional Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14 3-5 Transit Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19 3-6 Sidewalks and Off-Street Trails, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21 5-1 Existing Park System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3 5-2 Parks Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11 LIST OF TABLES 1-1 Population and Household Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 1-2 Age Distribution, 1980- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 1-3 Household and Family Status, 1980- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 1-4 Poverty Level, 1980- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 1-5 Poverty Levels in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 1-6 Racial Composition, 1980- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-6 1-7 Minority Population,Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 1-8 Household and Family Income, 1980- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8 JANUARY 2000 BRW, INC. #24531 1-9 Change in Household Income,Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1979- 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-8 1-10 Employment Levels, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 1-11 Industrial Classifications of Employed Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-9 1-12 Occupational Distribution of Employed Residents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-10 1-13 Jobs in Brooklyn Center, 1970 to 2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11 1-14 Jobs in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980- 1995 . . . . . . . . . 1-11 1-15 Occupational Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12 2-1 Existing Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 3-1 Street Classifications in Brooklyn Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5 3-2 Traffic Level of Service Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 3-3 Daily Roadway Capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 4-1 Housing Type, 1980- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4-2 1996 Housing Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3 4-3 Housing Mix in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1990 (percentage of total housing units) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 4-4 Housing by Year Built . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-4 4-5 Housing by Tenure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4-6 Households by Age of Householder, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5 4-7 Values of Selected Owner-Occupied Units, 1980- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 4-8 Values of Selected Owner-Occupied Units, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6 4-9 Median Values of Owner-Occupied Housing,Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Communities, 1980- 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7 4-10 Rental Costs (Units by Monthly Rent) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-8 4-11 Affordability,Life Cycle and Density Standards, 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-20 4-12 Housing Strategies by Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-22 JANUARY 2000 BRW, INC. #24531 5-1 Park Facilities, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 5-2 Park Classification and Improvements System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-9 5-3 Proposed Park Classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 5-4 Comparison of Park Acreage with National Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-15 5-5 Parks by Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-16 7-1 Capital Improvement Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3 JANUARY 2000 BRW, INC. #24531 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2020 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF GOALS This Comprehensive Plan is an update of the City's original plan,prepared in 1979. That plan served as a guide to development and redevelopment within the City for almost twenty years, and many of its recommendations have been implemented. The current plan has been prepared in response to the emerging issues and changing conditions of the 1990s. It is designed as a practical handbook that will guide the City throughout the next two decades. The plan has a twofold purpose: • To protect and enhance the community's strong attributes. Brooklyn Center has many characteristics that should be protected, particularly its vital city center district, well-planned park system, quiet tree-lined streets, stable neighborhoods,and sense of small-town community. As the community continues to evolve and mature, new strategies are needed to protect and enhance these resources. • To manage the community's change and evolution. 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. The plan must respond with a series of"mid-course corrections"--adjustments in City programs and investments to reflect these changing conditions. The comprehensive plan update offers an ideal opportunity to focus on these adjustments,and to prepare for future changes. The Comprehensive Plan is the product of a year-long planning process. Its preparation was directed by City staff and by a Comprehensive Plan Task Force composed of representatives from the Planning Commission, City Council, the school district, community organizations and interested citizens. At an initial meeting with City Council and Planning Commission members key issues were identified, along with strengths,weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the City (included in the Appendix to this report). The City then organized the Task Force, which met four times throughout the project to review and discuss draft sections of the plan. The current draft is being distributed to the Task Force,Planning Commission and City Council for their joint review. At the same time it is being distributed to adjacent cities and county governments and other jurisdictions for their review,as required by law. A final report will be prepared for submission to the Metropolitan Council prior to a City Council hearing and final adoption. #24531 i SUMMARY OF GOALS The goals for the plan have been developed based on the issues identified by the City Council and Planning Commission, 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 n Center will carve out a unique and desirable niche in the Twin Cities area by capitalizing on its physical attributes including its first-ring suburban location, good highway and bus access, sound and diversified housing stock, vibrant mixed-use center, attractive Brooklyn Boulevard corridor,and interconnected park and open space system. • Brooklyn Center will gain an increased sense of unity and place by: • Retrofitting the public elements of its neighborhoods • Focusing and linking these neighborhoods toward an intensified,mixed- use,retail-office-residential-civic core, • Making major street corridors and other public spaces highly attractive, and • Celebrating diversity. Brooklyn Center has the opportunity to build upon the community attributes described in these goals to become in effect a "suburban village." In other words, it can become a place that has the good characteristics we traditionally associate with a village--an identifiable locale with a commercial and civic center and a central green or square, pleasant and intimate neighborhoods, safe, quiet streets, and a strong community spirit. Brooklyn Center possesses the "raw materials" of many of these elements; the challenge is how to retrofit,refocus,and link them into a greater whole. • Brooklyn Center will develop a positive public image and strong community esteem. The City's image can be enhanced,first through actual programs to correct housing deterioration and crime in certain areas and second, 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. Every city must possess these strengths if it is to continue to move forward and accomplish its other goals. Brooklyn Center has strengths in both these areas. #24531 ii Comprehensive Plan 2020 COMMUNITY PROFILE REGIONAL SETTING rooklyn Center is located immediately north and west of Minneapolis, about 6 miles from the 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 small 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 1. Development up though World War Il 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 90s 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. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS Brooklyn Center's population reached its peak in the mid-1970's, at approximately 35,300,and has been declining steadily since that time,as shown in Table 1-1.Some of the decline can be attributed to declining household sizes and the gradual aging of the City's population. However, the Metropolitan Council's forecasts show a slight increase through 2020. JANUARY 2000 BRW, INC. #24531 Community Profile Unlike population,the number of households continued to increase through 1990, 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 2020. Table 1-1:Population and Household Change Year 1970 1980 1990 1995 (est.) Forecasts 2010 2020 Population 35,173 31,230 28,887 28,463 30,000 30,500 Percent -11.2 -7.5 -1.5 5.4 1.7 change Households 9,151 10,751 11,226 11,186 11,800 12,200 Avg. hshold. size 3.64 2.89 2.56 2.54 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 7 percent. AGE= DISTRIBUTION Changes in age groups during the 1980s show a pattern that is typical of many first-ring suburbs that were settled in the 1950s through the 1970s. The "first generation" of homeowners is aging--the over-65 population increased by 80 percent during the decade-- 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. Numbers of older children,teens and young adults declined sharply,but the"first-time homebuyer" age bracket of 25-34 showed a modest increase, as did the number of children under 5. Another group that declined sharply is the late middle-aged or"empty-nester" group, age 45-54. This may indicate that suitable housing alternatives for this group are not available in Brooklyn Center. The median age in the City is now at 33.8, slightly above the regional median of about 32 years. JANUARY 2000 1-2 BRW, INC. #24531 I I I 5 .-1•/�11'�..r•� 169 ! ANOKA 10 ! O 94 �ssA !W SHINGTON a i i 10 O 61 HENNEPIN 12 I' j I RAMSEY 55 94 169 I as 61 4 I 36 I 69 I 12 j I i 5a i i 3s Sainf i 494 "'80 Paul i 94 00 6 i 94 94 v� a� 7 Minn apo I I ! A P 49 I 7 q t 6 110 00 77 '• �. :•� 5 5 • SE 55 (. 351a C" CARVER i m 50\0 s. ` 61 Bloomington .. i ! DAKOTA MissrssiPp i SCOTT i j 35 L 0 5 10 Scale in Miles Z Figure 1-1 0�wi�l 1ve t If Regional Setting Community Profile Table 1-2: Age Distribution, 1980- 1990 Age Group 1980 Percent of 1990 Percent of total pop. total pop. Under 5 2,419 7.7 2,597 7.3 6-17 6,457 20.7 4,306 14.9 18-24 4,595 14.7 2,849 9.9 25-34 4,919 15.7 5,372 18.6 35-44 3,649 11.7 3,986 13.8 45-54 4,244 13.6 2,762 9.6 55-64 2,985 9.6 3,488 12.1 65 and over 1,962 6.3 3,546 12.3 Median Age 28.9 33.8 HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY STATUS In keeping with the trend towards more and smaller households,the number of one-person households increased during the 1980s. Non-family households (two or more unmarried persons) also increased. The number of families with children under 18 declined, while families without children at home increased. The number of female single-parent households increased moderately, while male single-parent households increased substantially (although still a small group). "Other family households" (i.e., single householder and adult relatives) showed the greatest increase. POVERTY LEVEL The number of persons living in poverty increased by 20 percent during the 1980s. Of this group, over 40 percent are under 18. Almost 6 percent of families are below the poverty level; the majority of these are single-parent families. The poverty level was defined as $12,674 for a family of four in 1989; the 200% level is twice that amount. In Hennepin County as a whole,9.2 percent of all persons are below the poverty level,with 20.5 below the 200%level. Table 1-5 shows similar trends in surrounding cities;Brooklyn Park and Fridley seem to most closely mirror trends in Brooklyn Center. JANUARY 2000 1 -4 BRW, INC. #24531 Community Profile Table 1-3: Household and Family Status, 1980- 1990 1980 1990 Percent Change Households One-person hshlds. 1,763 2,445 38.6 Non-family hshlds. 509 640 25.7 Families Married, no children 3,449 3,775 9.4 Married w/children* 3,784 2,568 -32.1 Female sgl. parent* 815 963 18.1 Male sgl. parent* 123 186 51.2 Other family hshlds. 397 649 63.4 ""With children"or"parent' means only that the householder has related children under 18 living at home at that time. Table 1-4: Poverty Level, 1980- 1990 1980 Percent 1990 Percent Percent of total of total change, 1980- 1990 All persons 1,686 5.4 2,031 7.1 20.4 Persons under 18 860 3.0 Persons over 65 130 0.5 Persons under 200% 4,773 15.4 5,381 18.7 poverty level JANUARY 2000 1 -5 BRW, INC. #24531 Community Profile Table 1-5: Poverty Levels in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980- 1990 (percent of total population) 1980: Persons below 1990: Persons below Persons in 200%poverty Persons in 200% poverty poverty(%) level (%) poverty(%) level (%) Brooklyn Ctr. 5.4 15.4 7.1 18.7 Brooklyn Park 6.0 14.9 7.5 17.0 Crystal 3.0 12.1 3.8 12.8 Robbinsdale 3.8 16.3 5.0 16.7 Columbia Hts. 5.3 16.8 8.5 21.6 Fridley 4.2 13.9 6.1 17.1 RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION The City became more racially diverse in the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring among African Americans. The Asian and Hispanic population also increased significantly, although numbers are still small. The minority percentage of the population is close to that of Hennepin County,at 11.4 percent. Table 1-6: Racial Composition, 1980- 1990 1980 Percent of 1990 Percent of 1980 pop. 1990 pop. White 29,984 96.0 26,271 90.9 African American 530 1.2 1,502 5.2 American Indian 201 0.6 271 0.9 Asian and other 515 1.6 843 2.9 Hispanic* 273 0.9 367 1.3 Total Minority* 4.5 2,820 9.8 Hispanic population consists of people of any race. Therefore, "percent minority' includes all persons of minority races plus persons who identified themselves as white and Hispanic. JANUARY 2000 1 -6 BRW, INC. #24531 Community Profile Table 1-7: Minority Population, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1990 (as percent of total population) African Amer. Asian and Hispanic Total Amer. (%) Indian (%) other (%) (%) minority (%) Brooklyn Ctr. 5.2 0.9 2.9 1.3 9.8 Brooklyn 4.9 0.6 3.8 1.2 10.1 Park Crystal 1.8 0.6 2.3 1.0 5.2 Robbinsdale 1.7 0.6 1.5 0.9 4.3 Columbia 1.2 1.1 2.0 1.4 5.0 Hts. Fridley 1.0 0.7 2.6 1.0 4.9 MOBILITY Among persons five years and older, almost 60 percent had lived in the same dwelling for five years or more, while the remaining 40 percent had moved from elsewhere. This shows a fairly stable population;in Hennepin County,by contrast, about 50 percent had moved from elsewhere. Of those who relocated in Brooklyn Center,about 25 percent had moved from elsewhere in Hennepin County,including about 5 percent from elsewhere in the City. Eleven percent had moved from Minneapolis or St. Paul, and 7 percent had moved from another state or country. (These numbers do not add up to 100 percent because of the overlap between cities and counties.) EDUCATION LEVELS Of the population aged 25 and over, 84 percent were high school graduates,while 14 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. In Hennepin County,by contrast,88 percent were high school graduates and 32 percent had a college degree. HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY INCOME LEVELS Household and family income failed to keep pace with inflation in the 1980s. This is the case for many of the first-ring suburbs, including Crystal, Golden Valley, Richfield,St.Anthony,and St.Louis Park. All these cities,like Brooklyn Center,saw marked increases in the elderly population during the decade. This trend can also be related to the increase in residents living in poverty. There are also some JANUARY 2000 1 -7 BRW, INC. #24531 Community Profile indications that the Consumer Price Index may have been over-estimated during this period. Table 1-8: Household and Family Income, 1980 - 1990 1979 (1989$) 1989 Percent change Median 22,282 34,168 -8.5 Household (37,338) Median Family 24,932 38,818 -7.1 (41,779) Table 1-9 shows similar patterns in neighboring cities: only Brooklyn Park experienced an increase in household income during the 1980s,while the remainder showed declines. Table 1-9: Change in Household Income, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1979 - 1989 1979 (1989$) 1989 Percent change Brooklyn Ctr. 37,338 34,168 -8.5 Brooklyn Park 37,134 40,018 7.8 Crystal 37,519 37,093 -1.1 Robbinsdale 33,794 33,207 -2.0 Columbia Hts. 35,082 30,469 -13.1 Fridley 38,290 36,855 -3.7 EMPLOYMENT Of the City's population,71.2 percent was in the labor force in 1990. This percentage is comparable with that of Hennepin County, at 73.5 percent. The unemployment rate for persons in the labor force was 5.4 percent,somewhat higher than Hennepin County's,at 4.7 percent. (The"labor force" is defined as all persons 16 or over who are employed or unemployed -- i.e., those who are actively seeking work 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. JANUARY 2000 1 -8 BRW, INC. #24531 Community Profile Table 1-10: Employment Levels, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1990 Percent of pop. Percent in labor force unemployed Brooklyn CU. 71.2 5.4 Brooklyn Park 83.9 4.7 Crystal 74.3 4.8 Robbinsdale 65.9 4.6 Columbia Hts. 69.7 6.0 Fridley 77.5 4.9 MOBS OF RESIDENTS We can classify Brooklyn Center's employed population by the industry sector they work in and by their occupational group -- in other words, their individual job classifications (managers, technicians, etc.). The industrial sector classification, as compared with the Twin Cities region and the nation as a whole, is as follows. Table 1-11: Industrial Classifications of Employed Residents (percent of total employment), 1990 Industry Brooklyn Center Twin Cities MSA United States Mining -- -- 0.6 Construction 4.3 3.3 4.2 Manufacturing 21.9 18.5 16.8 Trans./Comm./ 7.4 5.5 5.3 Utilities Trade (wholesale/ 25.7 23.8 23.2 retail) Finance/Insuranc 8.3 7.3 6.2 e/ Real Estate Services 28.2 27.9 26.7 Government 3.8 13.7 17.1 JANUARY 2000 1 9 BRW, INC. #24531 Community Profile The jobs of City residents can also be categorized by occupational category and compared with jobs in the Twin Cities region. Compared to the region,Brooklyn Center has somewhat higher percentages of production and skilled craft workers, operators and laborers, and service and administrative support workers. It has fewer persons in professional and technical positions, and slightly fewer in executive/managerial jobs. Table 1-12: Occupational Distribution of Employed Residents (percent of total employment) Occupational Group Brooklyn Twin Cities Center Region Exec./managerial 13.3 14.3 Professional/technic 13.6 19.7 al Sales 12.0 12.7 Admin. support 20.6 18.4 Services 13.4 11.9 Production, skilled 11.3 9.5 crafts Operators, laborers 15.8 12.5 JOBS IN BROOKLYN CENTER The following table shows that the number of jobs within Brooklyn Center has increased steadily since 1970, although estimates show a slight decline at mid- decade, possibly due to declines in retail activity in and around Brookdale. Metropolitan Council projections show continued growth in employment through 2020. Region-wide,in the 1980s the developing suburbs took the lead in job growth,with a 63 percent share of new jobs. The fully developed suburbs had about 21 percent of new jobs,while the central cities had only 2 percent. Brooklyn Center retained a high jobs-to-residents ratio: 92 jobs per 100 "working age" residents (18 - 64). This is typical of the fully developed suburbs, although some communities(like Columbia Heights)have relatively few jobs and others(like Roseville)have more than one and a half jobs per working age resident. JANUARY 2000 1-1 0 BRW, INC. #24531 Community Profile Table 1-13: Jobs in Brooklyn Center, 1970 to 2020 1970 1980 1990 1995 2010 2020 Jobs per Est. (prof.) 100 res. (18-64), 1990 Number 7,360 11,99 17,006 16,16 22,400 23,50 92 5 6 0 Percent 62.9 41.8 -4.9 38.6 4.9 Change Job growth in surrounding cities during the 1980s and early 90s does not show any consistent pattern. Among these cities, only Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and Fridley are significant employment centers, and among these, only Brooklyn Park is continuing to experience rapid job growth. Table 1-14: Jobs in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980 - 1995 1980 1990 Percent 1995 Percen change estimate t chang e Brooklyn Center 11,995 17,006 41.8 16,166 -4.9 Brooklyn Park 8,017 16,592 106.9 20,355 22.7 Crystal 6,030 6,019 -1.2 5,272 -12.4 Robbinsdale 5,348 6,813 27.4 6,791 -0.3 Columbia Heights 4,618 4,536 -1.8 5,659 24.8 Fridley 22,968 23,821 3.7 23,676 -0.6 Jobs in the first ring or "fully developed area" suburbs have been classified by the Metropolitan Council as follows. The data used for this study (Keeping the Twin Cities Vital, 1994)show some differences in distribution of jobs between the region's subareas. Jobs in the first ring suburbs have a mix of occupations very similar to jobs in the developing suburbs,but are slightly higher in their proportion of clerical workers and lower in their proportion of operators/laborers. Brooklyn Center's job mix shows significantly more sales jobs than the region or the first ring suburbs; a function of retail jobs centered around Brookdale. It also has JANUARY 2000 I I BRW, INC. #24531 Community Profile slightly more support and service jobs, and considerably fewer professional/ technical jobs. Table 1-15: Occupational Distribution (percent of total jobs by job location) Occupational Group Brooklyn Twin Cities Center Region Exec./managerial 13.1 14.3 Professional/technic 11.1 19.7 al Sales 20.6 12.7 Admin. support 22.6 18.4 Services 12.4 11.9 Production, skilled 8.7 9.5 crafts Operators, laborers 11.4 12.5 .JANUARY 2000 1 -1 2 BRW, INC. #24531 Comprehensive Plan 2020 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes how the City of Brooklyn Center will attempt to guide private investment in land and property through planning and zoning, public improvements and incentives. In this nearly fully developed community, the strategy focuses on "mid-course" corrections,neighborhood protection,selective infill and redevelopment,and image enhancement. Practices set in motion by previous plans and ordinances will be largely maintained, as they have resulted in a sound community overall. However, Brooklyn Center has progressed beyond initial development, and the forces of age and shifting market trends have created new challenges. Therefore, City leaders, in consultation with citizens, have decided to turn their attention to a set of policies and practices aimed at helping Brooklyn Center mature gracefully into a well-rounded community. During the next two or three decades, Brooklyn Center will build on its strengths of convenient regional location and access, a commercial-civic core, a sizable jobs 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 promoted. This chapter includes these sections: • Existing Land Use Pattern, 1997 — Neighborhood profiles and neighborhood land use issues • City-Wide Land Use and Redevelopment Issues • Land Use, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategy — Goals, objectives and specific area plans. The topics of land use, redevelopment and community physical image are discussed in an interrelated fashion because of their mutual dependence. JANUARY 2000 2- 1 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN , 1 997 This section examines the current pattern of land use,highlighting the major land use changes since the City's 1979 Comprehensive Plan and the issues that remain to be addressed. As it was described in 1979, 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 T.H. 100, Brooklyn Boulevard, and 69th Avenue North. Most commercial development is located parallel to T.H. 100 and I-694/94,and along Brooklyn Boulevard. Most industrial development is located in the modern industrial park at the north end of Shingle Creek Parkway and in the older industrial area along the Soo Line Railroad in the City's southwest corner. Figure 2-1,Land Use Pattern, 1997,illustrates these and other features using data from the City's geographic information system. Table 2-1 shows existing land use by acreage,using Metropolitan Council categories. 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 the Shingle Creek Park in Minneapolis to Webber Parkway and the Mississippi River. NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILES Each of the City's six residential neighborhoods has its own character and mix of land uses and housing types. Because of this diversity,it makes sense to link more detailed descriptions of land use to the following individual neighborhood profiles. Neighborhood boundaries, shown on Figure 2-1, are the same as those in the 1989 Housing Market report. The following text summarizes and updates that report's issues and findings. JANUARY 2000 2'2 BRW, INC. #24531 3' z z z z z 73rd Ave N 73rd Ave N f®® 1 0 ® ® 690,Ave N 69th Ave N F694 0 ~' 66th Ave N AEHR SEMI 6 63rd Aye N 4, 111 �® 1 -�•� EEO A wort ®®®®®®® 4 Bass wke Rd VON t1111LC 57th MN as M M M HWR IM 5 NUNN MEMO upa wn lak � 53rd Ave N z z T_ w ®® Wk 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 t N Lake Breeze Rd LEGEND: ,ten - ak 0 Single-Family Residential 0 Office/Service Business Two-Family Residential 0 Parks and Open Space moo s 0 Medium-Density Residential 0 Industrial 0 High-Density Residential 0 Public and Semi-Public z z z 0 Retail Business Undeveloped z z 0 Lake/Creek ONeighborhood Boundary and Number Figure 2-1 Brooklyn Center Land Use Pattern, 1996 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN Table 2-1 - Existing Land Use (in acres) Number of Acres Category Total Acreage Within the Current Urban Service Area' 5,440 Existing land uses within the urban service area Single-family residential (detached and mobile homes) 1,901 Multifamily residential (2-family, townhouse, multi) 362 Commercial and office/service 517 Industrial 217 Public and semipublic (institutional) 240 Parks and recreation 556 Roadways 1,263 Open water 285 Existing use subtotal 5,341 Vacant land that is restricted from development Environmental protection: wetlands, floodplains 4 Highway and street right of way 1 Airports 12 Utility easements 7 Other 1 Development restrictions subtotal 25 Vacant developable land Single-family residential 11 Multifamily residential 12 Commercial 33 Industrial 14 Vacant developable subtotal 70 Total Land Area of Community 5,436 (approx. Notes 1. The City is entirely within the urban services area JANUARY 2000 2-4 BRw, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD The Central Neighborhood (1) is the smallest of the City's neighborhoods. It is bordered on the east by Shingle Creek Parkway,on the south by County Road 10, on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard and on the north by I-94/694.It contains a solid "core"of single-family residential blocks,extending east and west from the "spine" of Xerxes Avenue. The housing stock is well-maintained and is well-buffered from the freeway on the north. Commercial and office uses are centered along County Road 10 across from Brookdale and,in a more fragmented pattern, along Brooklyn Boulevard. Several multifamily apartment complexes are located in the neighborhood: the Summerchase Apartments,just behind the commercial/ office uses along County Road 10,and the Garden City Court complex, at Beard and 65th Avenues North. Smaller apartment buildings are found along Beard Avenue at 61st Avenue North. Many of these are in need of rehabilitation. Along Brooklyn Boulevard,blocks of single-family residences are interspersed with small commercial and office uses and institutional uses (the Garden City School). The largest commercial site in this segment is the full block previously occupied by Builder's Square,now undergoing redevelopment. The site will be redeveloped for a community-scale shopping center with a 70,000 square foot supermarket, a drugstore, and other attached and free-standing uses. Parks are located on both sides of the neighborhoods,with Garden City Park and the Shingle Creek trail system on the east and the Brooklane Park and Garden City School complex on the west, at 65th Avenue N. and Brooklyn Boulevard. ISSUES - CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD • What can the City do to eliminate single-family uses along Brooklyn Boulevard? • How can the City encourage maintenance and upgrading of older multifamily housing? NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD The Northeast Neighborhood (2) is one of the City's two largest, and contains the widest diversity of land uses, as well as the largest number of rental housing units (over 1,200 in 1989). It is bounded by the Mississippi River on the east,I-94/694 on the south,Shingle Creek on the west, and 73rd Avenue North (the Brooklyn Park boundary) on the north. Unlike the Central neighborhood, in which a "core" of single-family residences is surrounded by multifamily and nonresidential uses, the Northeast neighborhood has a large multifamily and commercial core,at Humboldt and 69th Avenues North. This area includes approximately 660 multifamily units in some 34 buildings,almost JANUARY 2000 2-55 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN one-fourth of the City's rental housing supply. Many of these units are showing signs of age and lack of maintenance. North of this core is a large and well- maintained single-family area extending from Palmer Lake Park to Camden Avenue. The northeast corner of the neighborhood also includes several large multifamily complexes,most built in the 1970s. Trunk Highway(TH)252,widened in the 1980s to a 4-lane expressway, effectively divides the riverfront area from the rest of the neighborhood. This area contains many of the City's highest-value single-family homes,on large riverfront lots. West of TH 252 is another multiple-family complex, Evergreen Park Manor,and a parcel containing several of the City's wells. The southeast corner of the neighborhood,where TH 252 intersects with I-94 and I- 694,was identified in the Study of Commercial and Industrial Development Trends as the "gateway" to the northern suburbs, and has become known as the "Gateway Area." Highly visible from both freeways, it contains substantial areas of vacant land, including a site recently acquired and cleared by the City, south of 66th Avenue and east of TH 252. Multifamily complexes here include the recently renovated Melrose Gate apartments, the Georgetown Park and Riverwood townhouses, and the Willow Lane apartments east of TH 252. The southwest portion of the neighborhood is part of the larger Shingle Creek Industrial Park,consisting mainly of modern multi-tenant office warehouse space, much of it built during the 1980s. Commercial uses along Freeway Boulevard take advantage of visibility from I-94/694. Neighborhood parks, as well as the trails around Palmer Lake, are within walking distance of most residential areas. The large Evergreen Park/School complex is centrally located in the northern section of the neighborhood;the Brooklyn Center High School and Firehouse Park are central to the southern section. ISSUES - NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD • What uses should be considered for the "Gateway Area," both east and west of TH 252, to take advantage of its excellent access and visibility? • How can the City encourage maintenance and upgrading of older multifamily housing, especially the concentration of apartments around 67th and Humboldt Avenues North? • Will the increasing volume of regional traffic through this neighborhood affect the residential quality of life? JANUARY 2000 2-6 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNI7Y IMAGE PLAN NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD The Northwest Neighborhood (3) is the area west of Shingle Creek, between I-94/694 and the City's boundary with Brooklyn Park,both to the north and west. Brooklyn Boulevard divides it into two parts,each of which contains a single-family residential core and multi-family uses on the periphery. The easternmost section of the neighborhood is part of the Shingle Creek industrial complex that extends into the Northeast Neighborhood. Several large vacant parcels remain here,along with one new commercial/hospitality use, a Country Inn, along the freeway. Just west of this area are several townhouse complexes, the Earle Brown Estates and a small new development at York Place. Between this area and Brooklyn Boulevard,single-family residences predominate. This area is served by two neighborhood parks at its periphery: West Palmer Lake Park to the east and Freeway Park to the south, as well as the Palmer Lake trail system. This segment of Brooklyn Boulevard is characterized by a large complex of auto dealers and services just north of the freeway and,to the north,a fragmented pattern of small single-family residential,small free-standing commercial,the Willow Lane Apartments,the Brooklyn Methodist Church,and several newer office complexes. West of Brooklyn Boulevard, three townhouse complexes occupy the City's northwest corner. Both Creek Villas,built in 1970s, and Island Ponds,built in the early 80s, feature attractive two-story side-by-side units on winding, well- landscaped streets. Unity Place (formerly The Ponds) is a subsidized Section 8 development that was renovated and converted to cooperative ownership in 1993. All these complexes were designed around a series of ponds and wetland areas along Shingle Creek. The Willow Lane School and park serve these complexes and the single-family areas to the south. The Maranatha Place senior rental apartments are located at 69th and Unity Avenues North. ISSUES - NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD • What can the City do to facilitate removal of single-family uses along Brooklyn Boulevard,specifically between 69th and 70th Avenues North? • What actions can the City take to encourage redevelopment of many underutilized parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard,consistent with the Streetscape Amenities Study? • What actions should the City take to enforce adequate maintenance standards at rental townhouse projects? JANUARY 2000 2-7 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD The Southeast Neighborhood(4)borders the Mississippi River on the east,northeast Minneapolis(the Lind-Bohannon and Shingle Creek neighborhoods) on the south, Shingle Creek on the West, and I-94/694 on the north. Land use in much of the neighborhood is dominated by single-family residential. This area also contains the oldest homes in the City—about 25 percent of the housing stock was built before 1950. The only major commercial uses east of TH 100 are Northbrook Shopping Center, a neighborhood shopping center that is in marginal condition, and surrounding free-standing commercial uses. TH 100 creates a sharp boundary between residential and office/commercial land uses; most of these are located in the triangle between TH 100, Shingle Creek Parkway and I-94/694. This area includes the Earle Brown Heritage Center,the City Hall and Community Center, Hennepin County library and offices, several new apartment complexes, and a number of large commercial and office uses. Hennepin Parks has acquired and demolished all the remaining homes on the thin strip of land between the river and Lyndale Avenue North, as part of the North Mississippi Regional Park. The City's former River Ridge Park has also been absorbed into the regional park, which continues south into Minneapolis and is currently under development. The most vulnerable section of the Southeast Neighborhood is considered to be the corridor along 53rd Avenue North. It has been documented that,during the 1980s, property values fell in this corridor,the number of owner-occupied homes declined, and the condition of some of the older single-family residences deteriorated. The City is therefore implementing a redevelopment plan for the "53rd Avenue Development and Linkage Project," involving clearance of existing older housing along 53rd Avenue and its replacement with a landscaped greenway and new owner-occupied housing. ISSUES — SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD • What actions can or should the City take to bring about the upgrading or redevelopment of the Northbrook Shopping Center? • How can the City capitalize on the amenity value of riverfront land to attract higher- value housing? • Should the City create an open space "greenway"on vacant land under the power lines? JANUARY 2000 2-8 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD The Southwest Neighborhood (5)borders three cities—Minneapolis,Robbinsdale, and Crystal—on the south and west. County Road 10 (58th Avenue North)forms its northern boundary;its eastern boundaries are Shingle Creek and Xerxes Avenue North. It includes both the Brookdale Mall and a great variety of industrial, commercial and residential land uses,many in close proximity to each other. Brookdale,built in 1962 as the second regional mall in the Twin Cities,contains 1.1 million square feet of retail space. Numerous free-standing commercial establishments have clustered around it, many along Xerxes Avenue North. This area also includes the Westbrook Mall and several financial and office uses. Brookdale's image has suffered in recent years due to lack of updating and a loss of some tenants;it changed ownership in December 1996 and these owners are now evaluating its expansion or renovation needs. The City's Local Water Management Plan addresses the issue of needed storm water ponding for the center. Other commercial uses in the Southwest Neighborhood are grouped around the intersection of TH 100 and France Avenue North. Proposed upgrading of TH 100 with full interchanges in this area may change access patterns to these businesses and to residential areas. The other prominent use in this neighborhood is industry, including some heavy manufacturing as well as warehouse and light industrial uses. Industrial uses follow the Soo Line Railroad across the southern end of the neighborhood. The largest site is that of the former Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company,south of the railroad and just west of Middle Twin Lake;this is a Superfund site where an extensive soil and water clean-up managed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency(MPCA) is in its final stages. The site will require monitoring for 50 to 75 years, and cannot accommodate any uses that could pierce its protective "cap." Another large use is the Howe Company, a fertilizer and agricultural chemical manufacturer,located north of the railroad tracks at Ryan Lake and just east of TH 100. The Howe plant no longer manufactures fertilizer,but functions instead as a wholesale and distribution center. Housing in the Southwest Neighborhood is divided into four subdistricts by the barriers of TH 100 and the Soo Line Railroad, and by the industrial uses along the railroad corridor. Bordering Upper Twin Lake is a large, stable, largely single- family area,benefiting from the amenities of both the lakefront and the Northport School and Park complex. A multiple-family housing complex,Twin Lakes Manor (formerly Brookdale 10),borders TH 100;the 1989 Housing Market report found it to be in poor repair. The southern end of this area backs up to some large industrial uses,notably the Murphy Warehouse at France and 50th Avenues North. A new block of single-family residences was recently developed on a vacant parcel north of the warehouse on 51st Avenue N. The project was developed under a Planned JANUARY 2000 2-9 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN Unit Development agreement through which the eastern section of the site near the lake was donated to the City as open space. The other residential pockets are small ones,somewhat isolated by the railroad,the highways,and the industrial uses. Each one benefits from a neighborhood park,but all are negatively impacted by incompatible uses. The southwest area(south of the railroad, west of TH 100) contains a great variety of residential uses, including a large condominium apartment complex, and a mix of single-family residences, newer duplexes,and small fourplex apartment buildings,most of which are in poor condition. The southeast area (south of the railroad and east of TH 100) is largely industrial, with the exception of a cluster of multifamily buildings — eight buildings with eleven units each—that line the south side of 47th Avenue facing industry. The residential area in the triangle of Brooklyn Boulevard,TH 100 and the railroad line consists of single-family residences;these are well-buffered from surrounding uses, except for the homes on 49th Avenue that back up to the Howe Company fertilizer complex. Three of the neighborhood's separate residential subdistricts contains one or more neighborhood parks: Northport and Lakeside Parks on the northwest,Twin Lake Beach park on the southwest, and Happy Hollow Park east of TH 100. The southeast corner contains undeveloped open space adjacent to Ryan Lake ISSUES - SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD • What actions can the City take to encourage the continued economic viability of the Brookdale Shopping Center and surrounding commercial areas? • Which sections of the neighborhood are most appropriate for industrial use and which for residential?How can the conflicts between these uses be eliminated or mitigated? • Should Lakeside Park be developed as a play lot (it contains no equipment at present)? • How can the City encourage maintenance and upgrading of older multifamily housing in this area, or its replacement with newer housing? WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD The West Central Neighborhood (6)is a fairly homogeneous neighborhood largely composed of single-family residences. Its southern boundary (with the Southwest neighborhood) is County Road 10; to the west it borders the cities of Crystal and Brooklyn Park;to the north,1-94/694,and to the east,Brooklyn Boulevard. Like the JANUARY 2000 2- 10 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN Central Neighborhood,it has a large single-family core,occupying fully 80 percent of the land within the neighborhood,with more intense uses on the periphery. Multi-family housing is found along Brooklyn Boulevard,where the largest complex is Brookhaven,at 65th Avenue N.,and in the southwest corner of the neighborhood, along County Road 10. Here, the Twin Lake North Apartments and the adjacent townhouses enjoy a private location backing up to Kylawn Park and a nature preserve in Crystal. The Brooklyn Boulevard corridor in this area is characterized by the typical mixture of commercial, office and institutional uses, intermixed with small segments of single-family residences. A recent redevelopment project has replaced a block of single-and multi-family units at 65th Avenue North with a new MCTO park-and- ride lot and Cahlander Park,a new park with landscaped seating areas and a storm water basin adjacent to the I-94/694 interchange. The neighborhood is well-served by parks:in addition to the large Kylawn Park and Arboretum,there are three small neighborhood parks—Marlin,Wangstad and Orchard Lane — and the new Cahlander Park, which is designed around a regional storm water pond. ISSUES - WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD • What other actions should the City pursue to eliminate additional single-family uses along Brooklyn Boulevard? • Are facilities at Marlin and Wangstad Parks still in need of upgrading,as mentioned in the 1989 Housing Market report? JANUARY 2000 2- I BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN CITY-WIDE LAND USE ISSUES This section of the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan summarizes the issues of city-wide significance. Issues are matters of debate that should be addressed and resolved in the plan in light of the other issues. Therefore, a clear and comprehensive understanding of the issues is essential to writing and understanding the plan. Many of these issues(and some of those listed above)were identified by members of the City Council and Planning Commission through a brainstorming session held during the comprehensive planning process. Figure 2-2 summarizes the key land use issues,including those listed above. Issues that are geographically specific are keyed to Figure 2-2 from the following list: I . BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR This street has been extensively studied over the years,including a special study in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study. While many positive changes have occurred on Brooklyn Boulevard, including the new park-and-ride lot at 65th Avenue,a unified image for the corridor has yet to be implemented. • What actions should the City take to address the long-standing conflicts between land access, traffic movement,and incompatible land uses? • To what extent should the City become financially involved in assisting private redevelopment? 2. GATEWAY AREA (HIGHWAY 252 NEAR 66TH AVENUE) This area has excellent visibility from adjacent freeways, but access is somewhat difficult. The existing retail businesses are scattered and marginal, and some of the multiple-family housing in the area is ready for replacement or substantial remodeling. At the same time, this area represents an excellent opportunity for a large and highly visible redevelopment project. • How should the City capitalize on this opportunity? 3. 69TH AND HUMBOLDT AVENUES The large concentration of multiple-family apartments in this area,many occupied by low-income households,have shown problems with deferred maintenance. The Humboldt Square Shopping Center,while it functions well to serve neighborhood needs,is also in need of renovation or redevelopment. • What should be the role of the City in promoting redevelopment? JANUARY 2000 2- 12 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN • What resources should be committed to upgrade this area? 4. 65TH AVENUE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD This largely single-family neighborhood located just south of 66th Avenue and north of I-94/694 will continue to be subject to increasing traffic pressures as congestion increases on TH 252 and I-94/694,leading to traffic taking alternate routes through the neighborhood. It is likely to be subject to increased traffic from the Gateway area in the future,as redevelopment occurs. The neighborhood will also experience economic pressure for changes in land use because of access and visibility from adjacent highways and proximity to commercial development. • What should the City do to sustain the viability of this neighborhood? 5. CITY CENTER This area,extending from Brookdale to the municipal complex and the Earle Brown Heritage Center,encompasses most of the City's retail,office and civic uses. While most of these buildings are occupied and in excellent condition, connections between them are often lacking, and the whole area lacks a clear identity and a meaningful internal circulation pattern. The continued success of the whole area hinges on the long-term viability of the Brookdale Shopping Center. • What should be the role of the City in the future of the City Center? • Should land development be intensified from current levels? • Should this area take on more of an "urban,downtown"feel? • Should the edges of the City Center be expanded into adjacent single-family neighborhoods through redevelopment? • What should be done,if anything, to improve the transition and buffer between the commercial land uses in City Center and their single-family neighbors? • What should be done to link the City Center to the rest of the community better? • Where in the order of priority does City Center currently stand among other locations vying for City involvement? How might that order shift in the future? 5A. NORTHBROOK SHOPPING CENTER AND VICINITY • What types of uses should be considered for Northbrook Shopping Center as it is redeveloped over time? JANUARY 2000 2- 1 3 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN 6. 53RD AVENUE CORRIDOR This area has suffered a decline in property values and in housing condition; the City is working on a redevelopment project that would create an open space link to riverfront parkland. • Should this improvement be extended further west along 53rd Avenue? • Should a similar project be undertaken in other locations in the Southwest Neighborhood? 7. SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD A. JOSLYN SITE AND VICINITY: Given the level of cleanup required at this site,what uses would be most appropriate? B. 47TH AVENUE: Can the multifamily and industrial uses along this street continue to coexist indefinitely? JANUARY 2000 2- 1 4 BRW, INC. #24531 � n c m n z 0 t Z z z Z N 73rd Ave N ®® 73rd Ave N 3 !: Concentration 1 of Multi-Fami !�® Brooklyn Housing d� Boulevard =ay ®® ® Corridor LJn aahA°aN ®®®®® ®® d Gateway Area: I ♦ Redevelopment Opportunity j o Ib94 � _ ♦ ®® Neighborhood } 65th Street ® n J ®® City_ - - a3rdAveN ® Cente _y ,�,,_ ■�: � :, ®® 5a j Northbrook Shopping Center 9 Fq��7�T�qq FmH�yY 8 B..LakeRd _ "n ..� �. I MM MM® ® ®®� ® M®® R!' ® as � I®®® 6 � J� ME I 53rd Avenue U/( Corridor r 7 a $ 1 z Z f Southwest ' Neighborhood: 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 s000Fee Incompatible N Lake Breen - Land uses -� 7b aD D D Z z Z Ok t Figure 2-2 COO s;ve P ar Land Use Issues LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN 8. COMMUNITY PHYSICAL IMAGE While Brooklyn Center contains attractive and well-maintained neighborhoods,an identifiable town center and an excellent park system,its visual image has suffered because of the deterioration of a few highly visible areas such as Brooklyn Boulevard or clusters of older apartment buildings. Meanwhile,the City's image in the region has suffered because of the perception of decline, exacerbated by negative media coverage. • What steps should the City take to improve its image? • How can the City improve the appearance of"Auto Row"(on Brooklyn Boulevard)? • How can the City best unify itself across the highways that divide it? • How can the City best exploit its natural amenities (Shingle Creek, the Mississippi River, Twin and Palmer Lakes) to build its image? J. INFRASTRUCTURE AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES A cluster of issues was identified under the topic of infrastructure and municipal services. While not directly related to land use and redevelopment, City facilities and services can play a powerful role in supporting and encouraging private property investment and influencing public perceptions about the community. • What is the best pace(phasing, timing)for infrastructure improvements? • What are the most effective methods the City can employ for preventing crime? • How should the City allocate its resources between infrastructure and social programs? • How much will citizens support in bond costs for capital improvements? • Is the City's park system adequate for its current population and recreation needs? Which parks need improvements or upgrading? (This and related park system issues are reiterated in the Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.) JANUARY 2000 2- 16 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN 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, and for public improvements that will promote private investment and enhance the livability of the community. The strategy responds to the previously-identified issues and elaborates upon the Goals and Objectives. The three subjects (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. This strategy consists of these elements: • Goals • Objectives • Specific Area Plans 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 make better use of land in the City Center and the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. 3. Improve the appearance of the city for the sake of quality of life, property values and civic pride. OBJECTIVES LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT 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. JANUARY 2000 2- 1 7 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN 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 Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Streetscape Amenities Study). • Replace inappropriate single-family housing with attractive 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 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. Build on the success of the city center and take it to the next level of sophistication: • Help increase retail sales, rental occupancy, tax base and civic pride. • Work with the owners of the Brookdale Mall to inject new life into that area and strengthen it as the visual, social and psychological center of Brooklyn Center. This could be done by adding different but complementary land uses, structured parking, transit service, and better public or community spaces. • Promote the eventual redevelopment of single-use,big-box retail sites into more diversified, mixed-use sites that have less overall parking and 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. JANUARY 2000 2- 18 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN 5. 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 7. Improve the connections and linkages between neighborhoods, major corridors,parks and open space, and the City Center, through streetscape enhancements,signage systems, and other public realm improvements. • Improve the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor through redevelopment and intensification of underutilized sites,traffic improvements, and appearance enhancements, as outlined in 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. In particular,create a visually strong loop around the City Center using 57th, 69th and Dupont Avenues and Brooklyn Boulevard. Establish a 20-year program through the City's capital improvement programming process to identify, rank, finance and accomplish such improvement. Coordinate this work with street reconstruction projects. • Improve the appearance of the Brookdale Mall vicinity through signage,landscaping and upgrading of commercial areas. • Revisit the possibility of making the Humboldt Avenue corridor a neighborhood amenity through a combination of public and private improvements. One aim would be to make this corridor a link between an enhanced 57th Avenue and the proposed new open space in Minneapolis. Extending the corridor treatment in some form all the way to Brooklyn Park should be another strong consideration. (Unlike the 1996 Hennepin Community Works "Humboldt Greenway"proposal, these improvements would not require any land acquisition.) • Strengthen the pedestrian-bicyclist 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 JANUARY 2000 2- 19 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN crossing stripes are needed so that bicyclists can find their way safely through the Brookdale parking lot. This would fill a gap in the regional greenway system. 8. Improve local public access to and awareness of the City's natural amenities, specifically the Mississippi River and the Twin Lakes. • Work with Hennepin Parks and the City of Minneapolis to extend and improve the North Mississippi Regional Park. • Improve the sidewalks, landscaping and lighting along 57th Avenue to enhance the sense of that corridor as a passageway between the city center, the southwest neighborhood and the riverfront park. • Use the riverfront and lakefront as amenities that can serve surrounding neighborhoods, rather than just adjacent property owners,and can create a setting for higher-value housing. 9. Capitalize on the City's visibility and access from state and interstate highways through improved signage and landscaping. 10. When practical and feasible, use naturally-designed drainage for better storm water management and community beautification. JANUARY 2000 2-20 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN SPECIFIC AREA PLANS Figure 2-3,Land Use Plan,is the central element of the Land Use,Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategy. This map illustrates planned changes to the pattern of development by noting amendments over the map of 1996 land use. Explanation and guidance are provided by the following text,which is keyed to the Land Use Plan map by numbers. Those numbers also related to the areas shown in Figure 2-2, City-Wide Land Use Issues. The Land Use Plan map was prepared based upon recently adopted sub-area plans such as the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (1994),consultations with property owners, current zoning, development trends and accepted city planning principles, which take into account access, visibility, building conditions, surrounding development and natural features. However,the proposed land uses do not always reflect existing zoning. This plan, unlike a zoning ordinance and map,is intended to be flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances and market demands. As such,it is distinct from the zoning ordinance, which allows a more strictly defined range of possibilities. Therefore, some parcels show two or more potential land uses,where more than one use seems appropriate,or show a use that may become feasible in the long term rather than the near future. Other areas are indicated as needing further study before any changes in land use are proposed. I . BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 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, each including two or more alternative site plans to illustrate the application of different design principles. That 1994 study provided direction to the City for land use and zoning decisions and for capital improvements, particularly in coordination with roadway changes. The recommendations of that plan have generally been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, but the City will consult the Brooklyn Boulevard Study for further,more detailed, advice. The land use and redevelopment theme of the Brooklyn Boulevard Study, broadly stated, recommends gradually eliminating the remaining inappropriate single- family homes, and replacing them with either: • Commercial and office/service uses on sites that are large enough to provide for adequate circulation and good site design;or • High-and medium-density residential uses. JANUARY 2000 2-21 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN Three key factors need to be addressed along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor: 1. The corridor land use plan 2. The size and shape of the property to be redeveloped 3. The design guidelines for redevelopment. Four principles for redeveloping properties in this corridor are: • Assemble parcels that are large enough to permit higher-density development and reasonable access and circulation • Identify desirable boundaries between the proposed and adjacent land uses and create buffers. • Reduce the number of private access points to Brooklyn Boulevard for the sake of traffic safety and flow. • Provide comfortable and convenient internal pedestrian circulation systems to reduce car trips and encourage walking from adjoining neighborhoods. • Promote higher-density developments located close to Brooklyn Boulevard. A series of 16 development guidelines from the Brooklyn Boulevard Study elaborate upon these principles. They should be followed by the City when working with builders. In summary,the Brooklyn Boulevard Study recommends 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,south of Highway 100, single-family housing. The study recommended that neighborhood-oriented commercial uses be developed at 58th Avenue,63rd Avenue and 69th Avenue. The City should promote including some neighborhood service and retail functions in those three locations. JANUARY 2000 2-22 BRW, INC. #24531 MDR 0, SF Mtn 3 -- .,i �SF RS -SF[>0 ) � n Space SF � a - I � L d lyIX O/MDR : 4 �� D r t _ 5-I RE/HDR i O S P Cr-- 3 I 1 Refer also to the policies --- - S F 1 1 and plans of the Brooklyn i. I I - a f 7 1 1 Bo.reified Sfreafsc9p4 `� i— _ �y Amenities Sfudy(1994)• i', R Bt.. - .y S M C F E 1 J 1 _ SF 4 - RB/MI FR/MIX 0 :P/MDR sI: r. Open Spate CDR `, { r• i IKGEN.) �r r AND uSE ABBREVIATIONS. �' �+ tir� �° '`� `irriletan-.ils Residentia, 1 Iwa�amdy SF - Single Famriy TF - TY.o F�mity N,,.&twDonvty Residential rs,OR - M-dum-Density ResidenRai ' HiyirDansity Residwdal '-IDR - Hiyh-0ens�ty ResAdenfioi Retail B,mr- R6 - JHic Se"'ic s O OfficrService Buainess ® O(Nce/Service Business I - .nduzrcial Parka and Open Se re ' °nA':"red Open;;pace E 4•,IX - ?Axeo Lk. I:x)usinal Q- Primary Redevelopmcry Area PuvUc and Seer Public r__I_ S.cordary Redevelapmenr Are, I.� J-d -kped ssue Arrw Re�er to rextl 'nke%�re!ek 1=3 ._riliGUl Are &—dar,. 9 - iext.Reference Figure 2-3 B rook!y t r�rrs i- sive P a ME3 Land Use Plan LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN SPECIFIC SITES IN THE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR Recommendations for specific sites along the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor are presented below and keyed to Figure 2-3,Land Use Plan. General priorities for redevelopment staging are: 1. The sites north of I-694, in coordination with the proposed roadway widening,when and if it occurs. 2. Sites in the central portion of the corridor between 58th Avenue and 1-694. Changes to these sites would help strengthen the Brookdale area. 3. Sites south of 58th Avenue. SITE A This was one of three sites specially studied in the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. Issues include: cut-through traffic; vacant and underutilized property; single-family housing closely abutting Brooklyn Boulevard; the potential to change the street pattern and extend the medium-density housing complex;whether the Willow Lane School site has excess land that could be redeveloped; and how to finance and implement acquisition of the ten houses. Two reasonable options were presented in the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. SITE B These single-family housing areas abutting Brooklyn Boulevard could evolve to attached housing. Excess land from the St. Alphonsus Church site could be consolidated with the small pocket of single-family lots on the east side of the corridor to create a nice infill site. JANUARY 2000 2-24 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN SITE C The northeastern quadrant of the intersection at 69th is underutilized, creates conflicts between housing and businesses, has inappropriate access to Brooklyn Boulevard, and would lose some land if Brooklyn Boulevard is widened. The Brooklyn Boulevard Study included a detailed analysis of the site,several alternative development concepts and a recommended design. The preferred redevelopment scheme (Concept B) involves removing the existing properties from 69th to just north of 70th Street and creating new high-density senior housing north of 70th and either retail or office south of 70th. SITE D The proposed widening of Brooklyn Boulevard would probably necessitate redeveloping these frontage properties to other commercial functions. A surface water pond should be incorporated into the site along 69th Avenue. These sites, including the adjacent auto dealerships, were examined in detail in the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. SITE E This site would be favorable for either offices or high-density housing because of its proximity to I-694. Problems are posed by its size and whether it should extend to Ewing Avenue, and its access to Brooklyn Boulevard. Because of the weaving distances and access requirements to the ramps at I-694, the only full access point would be at the signalized 65th Avenue intersection,which means that site access from the north would be limited to the intersection of 65th and Ewing Avenue. A right-in / right-out access point might be permissible at the current France Avenue access point. SITE F The former Builders Square site was undergoing redevelopment in 1997 to a community-level shopping center. SITE G This site includes several deteriorating single-family houses along Brooklyn Boulevard, a fire station and the City liquor store. Issues include the site size and how much of the adjacent single-family neighborhood should be included;whether the fire station and liquor store should be included; and JANUARY 2000 2-25 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN what the new uses should be. This area has been identified as a higher-density residential area for a "town center:complex. Other possibilities for the site include retail or office. SITE H These are two of several sites that include single-family houses with driveways onto Brooklyn Boulevard. As with other sites,the key issues are whether they are deep enough by themselves to accommodate new functions, and how the access should be controlled. If single-family housing to the rear is not included (the possibility of which would generate considerable controversy), site design will have be carefully handled. The Brooklyn Boulevard Study included a sketch and guidelines for this situation. SITE I The Brooklyn Boulevard Study questioned whether the row of houses along the south side of 59th Avenue should be converted to commercial use. The Comprehensive Plan recommends that only the two parcels abutting Brooklyn Boulevard plus,possibly, one or two more parcels to the east undergo that change. The two parcels along the arterial may be too small for commercial re-use by themselves. SITE J This location remains under economic pressure to change from single-family housing because of its location near Brookdale,access and visibility(already the area at 56th Avenue has converted to offices). The major issue, once again, is how to make the transition to the residential neighborhood. SITE K This circumstances, issues and recommendations for this site are very similar to those of Site J. SITE L The plant nursery site has long been considered for redevelopment to higher-density housing. This would be appropriate because the site is among a church,a park and two highways. 2. GATEWAY AREA (HIGHWAY 252 AT 66TH AVENUE) Beginning in 1995, the City began working toward the redevelopment of the area east of TH 252 near 66th Avenue, having acquired and demolished a block of substandard commercial and multiple-family residential land uses. The City has a special interest in the quality of this vicinity because it is highly visible and an JANUARY 2000 2-26 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN entrance to the Northeast Neighborhood. Townhouses or similar housing taking full advantage of riverfront proximity would be suitable types of development if designed to be compatible with the larger neighborhood. On the west side of Highway 252, the pattern is one of scattered retail businesses surrounded by vacant land and a few large multifamily and townhouse complexes. This area is not ideal for large-scale retail business use,given its somewhat difficult access and the large amount of retail business elsewhere in the city. Rather, it would be well-suited for a large office complex or"corporate campus"which could take advantage of its visibility. Another possibility for this area is a mixed- or multi-use development that would combine mid-to high-density housing (possibly including the nearby multiple-family housing), office-service uses, and limited neighborhood-scale retail businesses. 3. HUMBOLDT AND 69TH AVENUES The concentration of aging multiple-family housing in this area makes it worth considering for redevelopment. Although a good argument can be made for the presence of multiple-family housing in this location,the current buildings and sites suffer from inadequate original design,marginal upkeep,shortage of useable open space, and, consequently, disfavor in the current market. Replacement or substantial updating of the present buildings should be seriously considered in the near future to end the negative influence that is being felt by nearby properties. Therefore, the City will evaluate the possibility of replacing some of the multiple- family housing with housing of moderate density,that can provide a much higher percentage of market-rate along with some assisted units in a more attractive setting. A higher rate of individual ownership would be a related objective. Renovation of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center should also be encouraged, to include a variety of retail and small service businesses. The viability of this retail center depends in part on the quality of the nearby housing. 4. 65TH AVENUE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD As discussed under "City-Wide Land Use Issues," this neighborhood is likely to experience increasing pressures for redevelopment as the nearby Gateway area is redeveloped. Since the neighborhood's housing is sound, a strategy of continued stabilization should be pursued until conditions change substantially. The City should continue to monitor traffic volumes within the neighborhood and to consult with residents regarding any issues or problems. The other single-family neighborhoods that border I-94/694 do not share these redevelopment pressures,since they generally lack the direct access to and from the freeway and nearby office/industrial areas that are present in this neighborhood. .JANUARY 2000 2-27 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN 5. CITY CENTER As mentioned above under"City-Wide Land Use Issues," this area has experienced much new development in the 1980s and 90s. The long-term strategy for strengthening this area as a true"town center"involves gradual"intensification"— adding complementary land uses such as medium-density housing, adding structured parking to reduce the amount of land in surface parking lots,enhancing transit services and facilities, and adding more pleasant outdoor public or semi- public spaces. 5A. NORTHBROOK SHOPPING CENTER AREA Like Humboldt Square, this neighborhood shopping center could benefit from redevelopment. While its current retail use is appropriate,this location may also be suitable for a more comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment that would include the surrounding retail and residential uses. 6. 53RD AVENUE CORRIDOR Brooklyn Center initiated in 1996 a project to create a green buffer and pedestrian path along 53rd Avenue from I-94 to Bryant Avenue. One north-south local street would be shortened and looped,creating a new road parallel to 53rd,bordered with new housing parcels and green space. The project will also improve pedestrian access to the riverfront parkland. If this project is judged a success, the City will discuss with other residents the possibility of extending it further west,perhaps to Humboldt Avenue, which is also proposed for improvement in both Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis. There may be an opportunity to collaborate with the City of Minneapolis to implement further improvements. 7. SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD A. JOSLYN SITE AND VICINITY: The level of cleanup this site has undergone and the amount of monitoring it will require make it suitable for continued industrial rather than residential use. Furthermore, its proximity to the rail line and other industrial uses seem to point toward continued industrial use. However,the lakefront portion of the site,consisting mainly of wetlands and floodplain,should remain as undeveloped open space. The City should continue to assist in the removal of the small multiple-family buildings between Lake Breeze Avenue and the Joslyn site, and their replacement with new duplexes or possibly single-family units. B. 47TH AVENUE:The row of apartments on the south side,although sandwiched between industrial uses on the north and a channel of Ryan Lake on the south, are in sound condition. In spite of their proximity to industry, they JANUARY 2000 2-28 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN seem to be viable sources of affordable housing,and,as such, should remain in place for the time frame of this plan. 8. RIVERFRONT AMENITY AREAS The City's Mississippi riverfront offers opportunities for upgrading surrounding neighborhoods and increasing housing values. When waterfront properties extend to the shoreline,as they do today,the amenity value of the waterfront is reflected only in the values of those properties, while residents just inland have no access to the waterfront,and share none of the increased value it brings. Redeveloping these areas with common amenities spreads their value over the entire neighborhood. For example, redevelopment of residential areas along the riverfront on the west side of Lyndale Avenue with higher-value detached or attached housing could help to diversify the City's housing stock while capitalizing on views of the river and parkland on the east side. 9. ROAD CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENTS It is proposed that the City undertake a long-term program to beautify and visually unite the City Center and surrounding neighborhoods by creating three distinct but interconnected road corridor "loops" as shown on Figure 2-4, Road Corridor Enhancements. A. COMMERCIAL-civic LOOP: This loop includes segments of Brooklyn Boulevard, 69th Avenue N.,Shingle Creek Parkway, and County Road 10. It links most of the City's commercial and civic uses within the City Center. B. NEIGHBORHOODS Loop: This loop offers an alternative route around and into the City Center,using the largely residential north-south streets of Xerxes and Dupont Avenues and the east-west connecting segments of 69th Avenue and County Road 10/57th Avenue N. C. SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS LOOP: This loop would act as an internal circulation system and public amenity within the Southeast neighborhood, linking parks, schools and the riverfront, along 53rd Avenue, Humboldt Avenue, 57th Avenue and Lyndale Avenue. Improvements to Humboldt Avenue as part of this loop would be coordinated with proposed improvements to that street in Minneapolis. This project would have the added benefits of supporting housing values and pride in the Southeast Neighborhood and of extending the effects of the other proposed streetscape improvements. One of the themes of this plan is to improve the sense of a civic core surrounded by a ring of residential areas. This would be achieved by a strategy of uniting the JANUARY 2000 2-29 BRW, INC. #24531 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN neighborhoods more strongly,linking them to the City Center area,complementing the improvements proposed for Brooklyn Boulevard and minimizing the barriers posed by the highways. Other benefits include better linkage to the riverfront park and neighborhood enhancement. Physical elements of the loops may include coordinated, attractive street lighting, boulevard trees, seasonal flower plots, continuous sidewalks, bike lanes when feasible,corner curb"bump-outs," directional signs,and neighborhood entry signs. Work on 57th Avenue could also be part of a program to improve the community's access to an enhanced riverfront park. It is anticipated that these and related streetscape improvements would be conducted over 20 years,in conjunction with local street improvements. This loop system should be formally incorporated into the City's Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Program. 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 can 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. JANUARY 2000 2-30 BRW, INC. #24531 � �r-nnnnnn.unuu■n-p_::n11//II— �_•._p_� :illlllll-___ :ptn Innm.nm:_� ■p��- �\���� \�„i��1-1-1 u.■n.l■:��?°�iiiii��i11nnP %:��7:°�nn....��'_ =.n a/�.m■■oi: .:��_��.. r - � �- �� -nun�••nurii': .i..nu....•� �.i ill S ��:_ ��_ �'�'\f-.,� :�::!:d� __':Inp obi /C S.n■nn..i■i i __ -.. - .� `.�''�'f ..b � i.il::li 1��- = ■��► • �...non.C - ♦ ii � � i ���,.1111• `��/nnnnlo��: �/►�♦ �,� :: .n..nn� ...n..n�L1 '+�=�� �l€_:,In.11i - -.�I� :-===: :Iil in. C�•�" :It111111:,�, nl L=- = ` =--= :;.•►..Inner_ — -__ =:I1111t1111 �� .- :. -■'.11.1 �. �._ -tl....t-'•1r�- --■ ■__- : �� ���` �iil�n� : �. � C 7 i1111111./III Bill 11ttlt- •- -_er�1���::-::�:: :.tlluh 11 .■.., n.\�' _:: mm�nunuunl:/• I�1�1I���IIIIIIIIIIIh. `..••_•_--•ow.� �� ■ I ■ p annnnu■nn►.I. .... I - ..u.■■.■.u■..:. •t IIt11111 nnnmm�i 7:4::::•_mup.. l n......■.....,.. noon nnn..n:�'.: uu... .q / .- 1• ,■� �, ������ �` �.. nu.....nm...;P noon nuunnln: � �!-����iiiiiii��i••�i� ■ 1 - In nnn■.■■nnn.nNi nn anon nnnnnu.11lQ�♦ •• i:iiv�Nis "���.G .oil _ ► :� _■■■ -._�,� ■�� '- iiG-1� _?=P°� =�==�%i \��iiii���Q�hil iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�i -�i' •�`y =■ �, /,iiliii:i■i i�■�■■:: /i�N�:C p_ ■-_ ,,Q•�t1111--Ili.im ii■iiiii list - =IIIInOp.■ntl����OI\�111�.:...-7�••:��_'- nnln.nn■IIt111nIn1O1I�. { :.11111111::111111111.I..i 1111..11..-.11-.-.-..- \ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIf 111.I.n1I Q �, -' :noon•na_.: ■:_. =nnnnlllllll_ � �•■■unn11111Vm unnnr.���� A n.•_ -mom:::�:-� :-:. 111111: ��:nu ♦•ai nnmr. :Ir fit\ mmlp 7 -_-_ 7 nnuh -- ►qi V a nn■n�. .��� _I: ::.011b::_ : :n111.11••111111 -_X111....::•••. 11111111. . ... . _ �III.P--°:. :OI►11 .7o11�nupl b4.�l'liii� 7::::: .1111 I/IUIIIIII: Inq.4.q ♦ y � �..1 _- ■ � . 111111111111 ! �.. /.. '_- --.,;,,'�'1�1�1 �II = �::�../11111111. 1.• -�...... .:... ..11111111■:� .� .......11.11... . � __.�::1::� _ _ • :1►�/.111 Inllllt..�::. ■=..■ -:-���-' � � ® - = = - cc \x.11--Illllllllll�; -:_ -�_I,.--=■ ,,� � ♦ ---- - _� =::� _=-= '•111111�� 1.:: �� _ -- -'�L.__ _-'''_ .. ��n/di�l'��=:= =-�'■��.11� � 1 _,_����e-_•��"III OF � � :mmb♦%4.:C�� �. � a ��----: - _ _�1Ia: IN :10 ti non.. �� ' �'� � ,0,♦i♦'C•�i °--•r�I_ip i_■=• _---_-:� �i:iiii:i: � �: � ii•�•�.0�\,����0���:-.-_a:'-_I G_I_�e��■■i=7C��■11 _ �: ,. II III III I a� IIIInlll.111\� !�_ -- _�: =� 1•� ® :fill.■11•Oi _� ��-���_� , _- _-- '. 1 �.11110 ■\ . s �..��- •. _� : . N .ull■q ♦:�� _.�,y �:_:iu:..111- _._ ___ I _-- �nIn111►i --__ _�_� -� M :- 21:-_ ■ :/1 nlulnitdi�-� -°--i nni� nnnnm� :: :__ :._ .nnnnatlll:.1.. nnnuun:�\� ---: - - : =/nunna ROOM `iannmm:�°■ � u lllllllllllll��97- IIIII► `�� _� 1 i I�I�III�i WE -. - . .. 000 •. ... LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION The City's major historic resource, the Earle Brownn 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 I1 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. JANUARY 2000 2-32 BRW, INC. #24531 Comprehensive Plan 2020 TRANSPORTATION PLAN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW Brooklyn 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; ■ Rank in priority its 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, 1 997 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 JANUARY 2000 3- 1 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN non-transportation factors such as land use and development are taken into account in the planning and design of streets and highways. 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 1997 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 • TH 100 • TH 252 At the time of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan,the northernmost segment of I-94 and TH 252 (formerly U.S. 169)were still in the planning stages. 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,TH 252 and TH 100 between the City boundary and 50th Avenue North fall into the "Other Principal Arterial" category. All of the principals within Brooklyn Center are under Mn/DOT's jurisdiction. JANUARY 2000 3-2 BRW, INC. #24531 111 -; It■=�•�.■111.■11■111.11111-- ---�._- - `,., _■�. mnnuunn=: n11//II— 1�:I=:_� 1111111_.�•.ul.nnminnn:?�� X1:7�_C - ��\����•�,�o: amni gg1j411110 i -_ __ :dllLllllr°_: ■■■•■1■■lulls■■. __�- .,1� �/ -s� ��: � _ �C-- - •14♦IU■nP i'. -- - -umm�i:_:�I�C-- 7U.10= == �■ ,♦ Ib�. 0 A& �1�' uiG:� dal m 6:Iq__-1_ Ire♦i♦G►�4 -:nulovui .i■-.'n•♦ pv� ;�� ��in��nlll�� r.- nnm.�1 __ �-�♦���� - =mn-■u:: ��n.■M I I�� -�, 3 G o��7 :■nnnnu � .F IO�1�� r_,'.``1111��""I 1 -,i= I 1 I_ I 11 111 � -_ =:11111111: •ni --== I I l "_ _�'••� I l..1 1 I I =---__ :nunnu'• .-r- ■ P= m1\ 1 . �■�_ :11111111111■jT� 7� IIII �■ J MW, • , 1 I IC11//,p �1,,. 11� � :nU♦gi4lh,C 1 1 1 1 •, � �I�: � �=:: nnnmC_ I I -�, _ I I•uuq IIIgI �� r: °�: annnnun■.■••••nnq �• - IIIb/j1� 1 1 1 _� ��■ \ :nunnnnunntP • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL�► Wqr � - \� >�1 y p nnnnnunpr I.�• �_____.-� .rrr♦ `' I 1( - _ _ - ' nnnn nummnri m______ulu.r •■•n;;;;;nnn. �=OIIIIII 0 11/11111 0 1: � Illb•ri�r♦ ♦q � '�-- _■rrn■•H■■■0■■■■■��111111111111111111111:�i•��.-___-1■1■11111 •fir\ � \ � I „� minn nnu��lu�oe=n nnnn nnnlnnnniO/��� °=1 ulluui�4p� •u. �' \ /__-__ :::�_ _�■nlni7 ._ ____ ___ .\I♦ I�IIIII/p p ■un i � -__ _ _I 1 _ _ - muui♦i♦♦�X11-n mu � � I I 1 ' \• ♦ W� a ._ �� �=-1/•�10�_:�::- __ ��=I�°°= =I '. - 0101♦/♦♦iftll. Wuu� __° _ iw1:7=_:_ �__:A n7_�__� � 1 1 ■nn•♦ice/�rin. _ 011•' / r I( .__•. � _ - =lunnu _ :I�mm� iri•n■1 m�7=:11: 7�• 1■umnnnni Ini p L, \ ' nnial _ I_I� ..�::-_• ir:�■ii11111111= ���::ililii111111�iirnln1111r����� � \ _ A X11=_ _■anu■___ _ p•nn/1q �___unlU �OPnnnn " 1.�_ ==�=p =_ /111111/�.�__ I/l� !I � � �•.____: • •1111111•===7==1 -- _ :-111111. •_ 11111 .,.:1..1111.■•.., � P 1111.1111. �. •♦♦ ..•1111.•■.,. `------ �:•11111:O:=C= ::IItlU4111111111 �= '♦141i'�,III-mn�, � � �C_=--==-r �d\ �IIIIIP�__=O= _ IVIII • �1♦p 11.1.1-11111/� � ■- °•°I/iiliiiiiiii= ♦ ii: � d '- 11= 11j�9I11�111 \�II�_ �:III/. 11111.�I.i• - ,,....� _ . � ��=:== -=--- =-_II_ _- C � _ :•111111 •�_ _ - _ - _ i• \\ \I■: -I - _- �: _ __. ,�\1110 ■C�____ ___._� • ___ _I-�� -=.1111 ■ ____ ___•______ _ _• � �:1._ II rF eL ■ - En■l^., .I 1 I I �• I I I I ,'= I=1 le i::-1 1�:i��� I I q �-��il, :iiiiii .i:��Ull�■�( .� 7r• �Ir -__:■i��:. �:�:: :il i'- •011■01■ - 111. \ ./♦I■11111111//'����-■-_-_ ��___•_ --����� _; � �i�7-iiiiiiiii °°���/1'`� \ \ ,0��p;Ctn.__�C=_= n 7 p:� ■ 7•C:_____C� �) �.mnu1■ _ �� ■�•�•��O�i�••���1: - _=:1/:-15:'.-111.=== :P _ ���: � '.: ,r �ili 000.001: _____ :n.-'.i:-G-■• = -•• �n- �1 a��:OIIII i ' ■11■1111111■IIU IIi•L. _ �- ■ __■ 1�` "��:•111111►\✓��� �- .;.� i1-=i i'-Ili -__- °° ___ -- \_\ __:__ ____ - -- :� .►:t=%� nuuu'°� -- -_= 111-=__ -_ -- (l \ 11111 nuuuun=�:��� oo_____■-__ -- _'_ __:i•io ilnl sic _ Inn11111111'i:__ �\ `fir �U�II-.1���. - - • ••• ••• ••• .••• ••• � _IuB i 10:11■ wills�11�i 1 r��•U1111:11e'� • • TRANSPORTATION PLAN 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 TH 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 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 North/57th Avenue North located just east of TH 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; the City currently classifies this section of Humboldt Avenue as a local street,since it is not continuous through I-94/694. 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 JANUARY 2000 3-4 BRw, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN 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 Jurisdictional Classification Classification Sub-class Lanes Principal Arterials 1-94 State Freeway 6+ 1-94/694 State Freeway 6+ TH 252 State Other 6 TH 100 (south of 50th Ave. No.) State Other 4 TH 100 (north of 50th Ave. N.) State Freeway 4 A Minor Arterials Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) County Reliever 4/5 Bass Lake Road (CR 10) County Augmenter 4 Collectors 69th Avenue North (CR 130) County 2 (west of Brooklyn Blvd.) 69th Avenue North (east of B. Blvd.) City 4/2 Humboldt/57th Avenue North (CR 57) County 4/2 Humboldt Avenue North City 4/2 (north of 1-94/694) 57th Avenue North (east of Humboldt) City 4 Noble Avenue North City 2 France Avenue North City 2 (2 segments) June Avenue North City 2 (Bass Lake Road to 63rd Ave.) Indiana Avenue North/Eckberg Dr. City 2 JANUARY 2000 3-5 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN Functional Jurisdictional Classification Classification Sub-class Lanes 63rd Avenue North City 4 (west of Xerxes) Xerxes Avenue North City 4/2 Shingle Creek Parkway City 4 Freeway Boulevard (66th Avenue No.) City 2-5 Dupont Avenue North City 2 73rd Avenue North (east of Humboldt) City 2 53rd Avenue North (east of Oliver) City 2 51 st Avenue North City 2 (east of Brooklyn Blvd.) JURISDICTIONAL CLASSIFICATION, 1 997 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(1994)traffic counts are shown in Figure 3-1. Also shown in Figure 3-1 are the forecast 2020 average daily traffic volumes. Traffic projections are based on an average annual growth rate of 1%per year applied to existing (1994) traffic counts and calculated out to the year 2020. The 1% growth rate was considered appropriate based on growth rates used in nearby communities. JANUARY 2000 3-6 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN For example,the City of Minneapolis has established a citywide traffic growth rate of 0.5%per year. Recently,traffic impact studies completed in the City of Roseville have used a growth rate of 2% per year. Given that Brooklyn Center, like Minneapolis, is essentially fully developed, a growth rate of 1% per year was considered to be conservative. The growth rate methodology was used in place of a traditional trend line analysis because an examination of historical traffic counts shows a decrease in traffic over time. If these counts were used in a trend line analysis, 2020 forecast traffic volumes would actually be lower than existing counts. It is thought that the decrease in traffic over time is a result of the completion of the freeway system. This trend is not expected to continue because the regional highway system is at or near capacity and some trips now using the regional system will be forced back onto the local system as traffic on the regional highway system grows. New traffic generated by infill development or redevelopment in Brooklyn Center will also cause some increase in traffic on the local system. For these reasons, the growth rate methodology was used instead of a trend line analysis. (See the Appendix for a more detailed explanation of this methodology.) 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 (TAZ's). The boundaries of the TAZ's in Brooklyn Center have changed since the 1979 Plan. Figure 3-3 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. Because Brooklyn Center is a fully developed community, the trips generated within the TAZ's are not expected to change significantly during the period of this plan. JANUARY 2000 3-7 BRW, INC. #24531 r-noun----------- -:--:Ilq/II/ :'111111P1•- 1 nmmnm•_ ••• � ��. � p mn m m m�::���../p►V //OU11/ - - _.:IIIIIOU --------/I _�.�c, �uoi '.iilgiin:n Tl.: �ii� i�/i ��.nnn. �:■i 115 nd� iii��� r�/,.,,,,,.,,,., -,-�-=x.1111 = .ouulnl�� -- -fir:i.� '• : _ _ -- (_ i:__ ale :_ __ 7%/i'�i'li. �_•-- =eniiiiii-,�, .■ °e e gill J5---_-- ►�. :-:_:�"'V _ � --- :Imatm .III � ■ :i i__ _ ■���1,i= ,• •.III _ 11111■T�L7 =-= 111.1111.11111111.11:_1. �==�-r�,��.=-=-=-_�-.=:_-= :d11,►//„ ;;/�r � f��� ` -:- _-_ C-C- c�2 .1 : - c _111 _� ..11111unuun.°•••III •° __ /// II ............�I.n, 1liliilf liiiiiuuul..�.t:_::..__■..... =_:■:_ ►J 1 i? •■'■■'■■'■••►:q •�iiiiiiii iiiiiiiuiiii '''' iiii::�i'•V - -� 1111.1 IIIIOIIIIIO: . �=■■Ipplr .►. ■ :,ilrl :nOU:uin::OOi. Ilion/1/1111 OIIIIIIIII/.11/��• -____IIIU1b14r1 '• ___ � •■' i iiiV s_-1-__ 1'-_ I- ��ililliii••�i I'll IIIliliuu1111 _ __■ �_ -1 "1= 1 -�Iuu••--_:�::�'1ta• ppuay uu.�LIII , nunnpl.O� ✓• ` �_ � Llulll:ili i� .j1�1H1:___._-_ �� On1_■111 IIIp1Ur�-=.=� '11 :In Him-2111.1►G_C 1.1\�u'�_��::.: ����•- 111 IIO III O11 nnunu_1111111 ■ __■a e.e_�.=� m nn 111111■I.IIi.� Donn--. ■::___--_11.111111111 11= ■ ■u.. jl■.IImn.Ir.�. / i1111= 1111111:::.7::: 7 I:=���111111/I//IIOII/I , - iiiii�11L•�lll iiiiiili��•� ! �::-� 1� ■:nom::::::_ - :uap/11 -� e7 ►iii•bi I � �� __�it �11� __ _ 11111111 ► .11 nlu��•` �='�= -- :nui/uunun: 1_nu�p�11I•m mld� v __ =�e11= '•/i► ;our ♦ -� '� 1 � C:::- _ ells - /►11111111■_ -- Wm :►gym��nnnllril —_: - -- --■ - -- : :: ""' :•.11111 �1===-== �� �I .'� ' 1 == � �- ��.■111 �= =- � I __-- -•"--- ,• • ■-::- - /1■111� ,'�- .:: -C'=111111.•',.::= - � � � � -- � . nom:.♦ one'-'% � 1 � '_�%1'e-1111: l��n mo: � All. ■D�►i'.: - -- - '_: :- I1 OI �. 1111.' � . ® ��•�1.�.�:::�: �' � '- � Ii 111►.-,%.�! .��_ i=-'::.3:::J1:= __=_-= _�:'�€°_-_=_ _=__ ;: MZM 1t 111111.\ •i� —rr _______ ______._ e�_F-_ —� 111111111.fum=I- ■11111 ��••- �__!e-����:__e -- - .mnann111:i31. 11■'s"I' \�: _ ----�=I?_� i==1== ::io im nrndnw ImiC 1 .111111115 __- � ■1111111:'- �� - aunlllnl:- 1.11111111111 —.iii .•.1�._-', `11111► `���__� /` 1.7=- - .,rl�— Iloilo '11� ;%�_ __=� ___� X1.01 rIr1 (III P - -:C =n=313.nHnu.- •_ 3.. ♦• '..O4j IIIIIIIII: 33 3 nu....._ _. .1 �.::� ` - ��%.a; _� �__ ..nrrr/rVIp1 3 nnn.n.in ni 3 ___ -.� • _. ..,c; � _:: 7 7 "`r lei�►1.• 3:: _nnnnn. -�__ i 6 1 _ 3�■� 1�'� Ir'�,:f1i1i� � in ili iu in Iq::�- :.�ryd1�t• - �nnm.n C ��CS i.i:x 3�� p1p.� �� \'�,':•'-�/iS t\III��/I�/mnnw.��=_ �I���•��O .3_ mw �mwn. • '.����� FIB cis :�nnnli: _� .-o\I='=°a°• vi'�i n �_• _- :IUnm:'�,� _— �� ___-n.nu.n a T� 7 III ■ ■ O�= oml3:-:7_3_: 11� • 7-:: 31n.niii a� — � re]��.��=°O=" =3 3:_ .11 p.111//,.;•Ill ..,� 1�.`� == .7 1.... nunnnn.u..n� Still. IIIIIIIIIIH. `:_______ugrl ■ 111111.1,.111►-. ��11111/11 IIIIIIHIIII.� -_�.�-��-� 11Op�Ibpl � ` , � ` � iiu■... H.1 O 0111111 IIIIIIIHHO: � ______�.II.gr1./..■ .-� ��� „ ,,1C♦I = I/ .■ .11� HIIIIII IIIIIIIIII...: -----_-III.III rr4 ■ I "- ;iiiiiiii •in0. iui nn1111 IIIIIl1111U 7111/,����C: qlj;rr r. r .• _ __ ill 1 ___� .:�:7:37:7::7::::o .■l\■ Hirfi�11 11\Onmuull/ r 7 _--:- r• :--►/X11_ __ _ rIn HHIIIHIUUI 3 _ _ �y iii G�::7:_ I•n7:::a C: � \��Hlu��Ij�yn Ietfall H�.•'� �` _:: : • ®+� p ���iiii�n7►�X7:3::�1iw.22=7.0 7 �p�/�1111�1,_iiiii�iiliiiii iiiiiiii Innnn..ival,I C�u1\�.0; .- nnnnnuun OOOIII::111111111.I.0 11111 n6:7.11:3�._..__� IIIIIOOnnm I ns � __ .... ■ _ 1 11= _ nn/1I�1�1•m unn.... pl _ �3I�: 1111: 33 ml I..:°nano►. i ' �• 1'Hnii13� �a _ IIHHnu In nu.��. ' ��•���� _- _ _III_ �ml � Uuuum 7 n 3■- ••1011111111 . _. .. •■ --- - - (/11111111111 � �n4uuunmy�l.��=L►�///6.I�C� ♦ :■7:_ _ _ _ �I�� �I►/,....11111111.\1:3.■=_.. 3 + • �. =------- _:=__ CZ. am ON _ _(■111.�- _ ___ RE ME � 1: __ :.:_ -�-_•��_�ii.3 jai ZZ - i:iiiiii: •�� :�' ��,/;;.y��-�n':::_ _ u 'is ii 33_ _ ��� 7 � ' III IIIIIIIIHIO __ ii i1._ 3. _I -�•...111►���ii�C .�I� iC Vii. ..Ili7 �:::::: _�_==__fie ___ ill =.� -0110014�i■_ . ��___ �■ _�� _:■ -=_- -- c== ?- e.. ..-n........ _ TRANSPORTATION PLAN 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 Source: BRW, Inc. Table 3-3: Daily Roadway Capacities Daily Capacity by LOS Area Type Cross-Section A B C D E Developed 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 34,229_L 38,000 NOTE: LOS-Level of Service For Developed areas,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 JANUARY 2000 3- 10 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN 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 and,to a lesser extent,the City Center,and a few other isolated locations such as the Gateway area near 66th Avenue and TH 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 the City of Brooklyn Center. Traffic projections on I-94,I-694,TH 100,TH 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 City of 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 JANUARY 2000 3- 1 1 BRW, INC. #24531 IL TRANSPORTATION PLAN CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES Most of the capacity deficiencies and congestion which affect the City of Brooklyn Center today occur on the principal and minor arterial system. Congestion occurs in the peak hours on TH 100 south of Brooklyn Boulevard,on TH 252 north of 85th Avenue, and on I-694 west of Brooklyn Boulevard. There is also significant congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard north of 1-694 which can cause backups on the westbound 1-94 off-ramp to Brooklyn Boulevard. The traffic forecasts indicate that the traffic demand on these regional facilities will continue to increase and the congestion will grow worse without improvements to the regional system. The traffic demand on Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-694 is also expected to increase due to redevelopment and the growth in through traffic. This will increase the congestion that already exists on Brooklyn Boulevard. The 2020 forecasts anticipate low to moderate growth in traffic on the local and collector roadway system. Most of this increase in demand will be due to 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 Avenue East of Brooklyn Boulevard • 69th Avenue East of Brooklyn Boulevard • Humboldt Avenue North of 69th Avenue 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,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 which will occur. JURISDICTION Currently two of the collector roadways serving the City of Brooklyn Center are under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. These are 69th Avenue G" of Brooklyn Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue between 53rd and 57th Avenue. 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 can occur. JANUARY 2000 3- 1 2 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION The 1979 Transportation Plan classified Humboldt Avenue between 57th Avenue and 53rd Avenue as a local street because it did not have continuity north of 57th Avenue. However,Humboldt Avenue does provide connections to 57th Avenue which provides access to TH 100, to 53rd Avenue which provides access to I-94, and it continues south into Minneapolis connecting with Webber Parkway. As a result Humboldt Avenue has a forecast 2020 ADT of 5,700 vehicles per day,which is typical of a collector roadway. 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,existing roads can be improved to address capacity problems: • TH 100 • TH 252 • 1-694 • Brooklyn Boulevard North of 1-694 • 69th Avenue West of Brooklyn Boulevard FUNCTIONAL AND JURISDICTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS PLAN The proposed functional classification system is shown in Figure 3-4. The only proposed change from the current functional classification system is to identify Humboldt Avenue between 53rd Avenue and 57th Avenue as a collector roadway. In terms of jurisdictional classification two potential changes are the segment of 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue between 53rd and 57th Avenue. 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. SPECIFIC ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TRUNK HIGHWAY 100 A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was completed in 1996 for the reconstruction of TH 100 between Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley and 50th Avenue N. in Brooklyn Center. This section of the highway is the only non- freeway portion of TH 100. Safety problems and deficiencies are caused by at- grade intersections and access points,railroad bridges with inadequate clearance, and inadequate shoulders. JANUARY 2000 3- 13 BRW, INC. #24531 11.■��._■...■.....111.1■III-- -- -1-� t �_r..lnunnunnnuunll _��•5-01 r_■�r n■n:�n - p••axp//Ipu111 .. ;i111111Urr:C - �,''�� • - - --xrui rrrunx: _ ..u■n■u■.--- -_ 7.. •1 S �1 - ,�,��.��� _ Srni��ir�I/n -nmm�ri■i iu: �i 1♦ _ '■■�� •',0 1' �'- _-_-° �r III.►I�� • �■uu■nn•■n•_x._--•_� fini�i•yJ�iO ip in in ul:_-_� �►6666'' 3'�:_ -��mnnn':C :mnin • I ,j �i ]I�\ {{.. _ i.� 33: n■nun::p-p nl■u•nQ4 4� C-1,�x�-•-1_�=a111�•��I mnunn��___Go_�6�iJ♦ `�• -�- �-■_u=_�-_-_ 1 II� _'=�i �;`�_-- �' ��==-. � .. _ :.....■nm- :�== .. .F- ' 111 II�� � :'Ixllla: ��:-•=•.� "== -��:.'%�iri• -�■■ __ :1111x11: � ..■. r _ II__� - -� .,,:j�_=- -=C.n.•;hllrll�_ =� - -:1111x1111''!,�_,� L=-=-J= - �:.�?: ..11. __ - �..=x= :unnnn u,■� 1-- III', ___ I'll WN ZZ /���/• � . ----: : :_ �r1111111xxux•x°•••III 1 II/I/I/III�i ,' \�.�.f•.��, -��� ��, ME nunnnnx xn• / �IIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIL�r ■- ----.■.. Vf � --■■i 77 uuxxxp■11. d 11111111 I■IIIx11xAI 111_-_- 111111.� •/ ____ • ��11111111 1x1111111111: ♦� °111xj 4 r h `r� , I 7` , :uux■uxx61■■■11��111111111111111111111 C �•- •---��■x.11/1 141x■ .. ���.�' „7�,,:,�Ifi■� "� n�ono num-m-��n nnml=mnuunnili��•��-=�="nmuq��p4� •u� •r -_ .. ._ -- r •_-__---��:�°::::.7� � ■O nunli 4;ra•nunnnm.u/� ■ -- -�- _° .. I' Ian• - �:::;�\Iw°°_ :.: O♦��m� ■x.•.//inrnln■nluuu�: -- a.�_-_ X1111111:ni(;�- 1♦♦U■pp :__�♦ • mn_■Ilxx.•■nmunur,p 111x1111:-■■■►/►���■x\III --m:c--_ %� 'rnxxrxxlx■Ixxlxxxl., !,, :11111■■11_:�11■11111■�1i111■1■�O__-_ E II-_-__ _�• 1111111111�Ixli■/6161■1■1Ii.� I - 7 imilii-�--_��:- •�_::-'���-•i■ii■ii11111111=• ��•::liiililllllliili•nnnnn.T-� _ i1�I�= -■nnm::: __ :=I:::::�.nmgllllpp� ,�: nmIIIIN•n1•IUmv:. •,c_ - x11013::__: _ _ :'IIIOI/ __ OIIIrr ..:11.IO■x■1•. , �_ __: •P //„■1111. 1111,x1I ■1.■■Ir■■■. `- �:■xx1.:::::�1 7 _ C'OOxxxxUO111x xa Ilhii rrl.rnnl�,: \ -7■r .dam Op •11 11 utr I � �11xIP_-___- _ III 1_ 11r b■ � � ': � �:1���-- _ _\ :�nu nnulm: nx1 qr1 n•um� ✓ � ■ ,,,�11�'lull �il _ �:1:�:•..11111111. l.i•-�,..;,,,....:�-� .�: �7=:: - - --_II? x.111111111■�� ■.�■■r■■■111■r1■■■. I.' .. .: -- AS ME ME ME cm :i1//I11■nano.\'-�••= w-- == =7:111x1 0 ==-- = ===■ ��,•.,,•- t -= °ME 25 X7:7---:::I-=_ EF. _ 0111.i=■-:i. • 3 �- �il':iiriiii 6••i■x11=■�' .�� �'". --- Ir.G■�- --- _- -_ _ : : le 5 1116 �s 1.==iCce Mal•- �- �'I� � / �in.�6n.n11n1.n��lxAn♦;•.�� _ _=_:: 53 1 3 i: _ :i•::-:1�1 =nl �1 a - n nnnnxllm i■:■6._ _ _ _ o-�_-e■■ e. 1p` now -\..111111./6 ■ � ,■ -__- ---- L � •I- =����_ _ -111111111x11\\�� � -� --■��._��� :-_ °• - -- - xlxxxx� 1._iB aa3?e :__�:•i:6611 nnnlnm■iniG \ ':�:11111111111111- 1 %//61/x11■11=����: CO ��:■'el3 _ _ i !_ WIN --- ,,+ unolnnl.�: ■ ■i xxxxxxl:�?:: ..•.::: .•:1.1__ 1 1♦ �/1111-C1.= . . 111 .■• ,r.r r•• _ C=����� ' 11111Illlll��•• ■•II Y-.Ills �I�I�III�i r • - - • ��� TRANSPORTATION PLAN Only one alternative was considered in the Brooklyn Center portion of the study area: a four-lane freeway on essentially the existing alignment. Therefore no significant land use impacts are expected because of right-of-way widening. Three major improvements would occur at access points: 1. The Indiana Avenue access would be eliminated 2. The France Avenue access replaced with a diamond interchange. 3. The right-in/right-out access points at 50th Avenue would be eliminated. The reconstruction of the France Avenue interchange would enhance access to the adjacent industrial areas,some of which are currently underutilized.It would also result in safer but less convenient access for residents. Three options were considered for managing local access in the area: • An overpass of TH 100 at Indiana Avenue would convert six single-family residences and two duplexes to highway use and would not provide local traffic with convenient access to the TH 100/France Avenue interchange. • Lilac Drive could be extended north to France Avenue as a frontage road for local traffic. This would encroach upon open space and require one residential relocation,but would also provide more convenient access for residents and businesses. • An extension of 46th Avenue North(in Robbinsdale)west to France Avenue would require crossing the Twin Lakes drainage channel,converting some parkland to a city street. 1-694 Mn/DOT has conducted a number of studies which have looked at the feasibility of providing an HOV Lane on I-694 from Maple Grove to Downtown Minneapolis. The Mn/DOT Transportation System Plan shows the I-694 Corridor between the I-494 junction and the I-94 junction as an Expansion Corridor. Capacity improvements on I-694 would help to reduce traffic demand on the City's parallel collector roadways(69th Avenue and 63rd Avenue) and maintain the City's ability to access the regional highway system TH 252 Mn/DOT's Transportation System Plan also shows TH 252 north of 73rd 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 JANUARY 2000 3- 15 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN regional highway system. The Gateway area along TH 252 north of I-694 is one of the areas where the City of Brooklyn Center anticipates infill and redevelopment. The intersection on TH 252 at 65th 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 The City has been working with Hennepin County to widen Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-694. The plan would add an additional lane on Brooklyn Boulevard between approximately 63rd Avenue and 70th Avenue. The County received an STP grant to pay a portion of the construction costs of the project. An Environmental Assessment has been completed and FHWA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact. However, the roadway improvement plan is linked to redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard and reconfiguration of access to the existing car dealers just north of I-694. The project is currently on hold because of right-of-way issues related to the proposed redevelopment and reconfiguration of the car dealers' access and property. 69TH AVENUE The proposed 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 continue to work with Hennepin County on the capacity improvements that will be needed 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 was resolved in the EIS for the TH 100 improvements. 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 65th 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 JANUARY 2000 3- 16 BRW. INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN 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 also 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 1997, Brooklyn Center is in its fourth year of constructing neighborhood improvements. Since 1985,approximately 13.5 miles of residential streets and 5.75 miles of State Aid streets have been reconstructed. With over 100 miles of streets and utilities, even at an aggressive pace, it will take ten to fifteen more years to complete a cycle of infrastructure rehabilitation. 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. JANUARY 2000 3- 17 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN TRANSIT As shown in Figure 3-5,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 1-694, on Brooklyn Boulevard at the Brookdale Shopping Center, and on TH 252 at 69th Avenue. The Brookdale Shopping Center also serves as a transit hub where 8 different routes intersect to provide connections to other locations within the City. In 1995 service north of Brookdale was restructured to provide "timed transfer" feeder service at Brookdale. In June of 1997, smaller buses were assigned to these routes to better suit actual demand. Further expansion of timed transfer operations and other transit improvements are dependent on the construction of a full-scale transit hub,similar to the one recently developed at Northtown Shopping Center, which can accommodate additional customers and buses. MCTO has determined that fully 40 percent of the transit trips in the Brooklyn Center go to Brookdale, making it a logical location for a successful transit hub. However,negotiations between MCTO and the shopping center owners have yet to resolve issues of security and screening. 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 in 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 appears to fall 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 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. JANUARY 2000 3- 18 BRW, INC. #24531 `.nnunnunuunuln__--:1111//II_ '•1111111:•■•���■tw nm.qum-- �P �`������■u-:t-1��m m n�p�:�■ ••IUip/♦♦14mO '=:.�'�' :i1011ll.� S 3 •uvi♦•♦�i um: •7 �liiiiiiii :.glln: ♦ 11 � ['`eI,-�,/''/ ��%'. 7 _ � ___7tnry i♦♦♦IIPi�: - �uumu ��n ni: ___ .,� �1: � „�•:%f=,)�, :111 - �7 - :r♦�♦�11►10 :7� �.anon. 9n.n ni ni oP• _ _��p ��:nlll�•��Imun,,,,�.: _=�•�.�� - -°n�94 F/°n�In n.�•4 �-�'P``,�I gllllll, �lttttntnt' 111�1�� °='' °�1!- 94G' ��II��r=='=': ?_►._-,. . 22 =' 'ils; szss„%a���l �e -::---=_-=_°:, '� === � � ..///- i/•:" a 'ins 2 �% ffl la mot--=�•�' r„�p ====_ = 11I p 4�1-_ ����/ '� ,/, f✓"`.. nuuu■r:::_::_: � :: ___ �gl►ii//IIII��`� .� /, /i,�%/. .. x� ;i,;9 isy% •nnanmm�n... _ _�. // qi `V �/��%//,�/ % �sz's%%SH� .munnnnuum. IIIIIIII111111111111 ® `____ u.,.��� ` '::::::u::.°. �'•_.1 maul umm�m . ... :-_n11u;•.... / ���% i .; / / // `%p 7{�%, 1111111't':Illlllllina at.llllliiiiinririuii?lu/�4����r5_?31i...,�f�o;94K,, 94N �%°�,i ;' /i11��1�, :m:nn.l�n�m::ee::1°:::: :mn■i \\..Sd1 qy .1. ,�/ i,��/r�%/% % �� ��1 -- .. ..�� o:__- __ - _- \,\.tn..uiif♦h•11�linnu•°••1uI 94I' // '/%/i /'jG j / %/ smile �y9nC C=: -::°_I■ni ��\,� mnr♦�i� 41 {nonnnmr:� �`///�94 -�An■ - •,PU:: _ ���nn.lb nu.��I/ix. mnnumr.• / /� �.vipi�iU f�.':y..,......, .f�'.. nr1n. Honour.gyp` ( /f// ��iniio/.wrvSl//"..,!///Ui.l 1 %%!"l�$ Iltnnup-un/��G=n•d�nj 7T ::: �L%� nunuunt111 nnunllr� 4I n :--:. - :nnnnt.:uunU �u r ••n_� __,t�_� nnnnnuun nnuur.p'�jj 4v 84 blC' inuun r��■■■1111np nn Inuulr.� /%// ul ■Iona2-122,11 nm1 111111= �_:::ntn 110 m annu:• i :�nnm �� _�g__: 111111111 L - :nn/////���u uun. (j�' /��j� `I' ®�___-.� 1■ L 1-um°C==°= iniljlwn"'• -=■a°°♦ r83;.....��. _r' _ m°u =-- u4/ ■91(=� bb hii :nu Ono■ -.n uu ♦4 X41 nn■.�. Bunn :::: - h11 1_ •a un nm►. \ //, �• _ :■: -`III•7:::: I- :nu•♦mu■1111�-`��_�r••i:.._'LL� �� ,�� Z2 _ F. ---:e_11?.�7 oil :mu ♦�:1.►///Gn\��!7 //i�/ �/ // ' j ■:�. :117: IIIII '°••iiiiiiiii° 1■' ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,■ it/i/ i �. =Pnn�ummm _' '__ .-•:'':j,,j, '�,j j�G ♦� _= a e__ : __ ' =_fin. -unn:S`111T■_ h" // • °- ___ __ e:1 , r__ ■: ■p■ 94R Him .� S Em idimi 81 m �; />j '= ;)')"_ ■-" -__ , •=, 11,'94N e '% 2z/�////r �"ij 22 94G =p:'23 2 - 1.°:1::1111:94P nn,a maw "sr�/''f/ Arm. j/j j��i In�nii _ • __ _ �moon x_1111:111: tiy/�94K ��/�j� •. ; LE�==e ?=■e - :1 94T_. >immn I�%�/�/�j�",;f6y�83/ �:� `=._mf: no►� 2Z:._ 1_=_•:-_ - � � nnnnnnP _r=�C:.-n._:i::='■5 1 BIB 1.�• .:��non. . o%� • / �. �`:1■� s __:-: _ � lZ � 26 -:.non .JSa '� i.�.�•' :■ .9 -- � :=I=- ZZ -- �==1u1 txX6¢'4.4,j�aii� ltti�� •-'= =_=' _•-'a_--__-B=-_-__= 94F, ___ _ G_ : 14. .l ainnunie��\� == a _`=_ G-� iIi iii rTi mu■ �Alllllll� •■�� /j,,, ��mnntm ununnu■ - _;52K; 5 �I�I�III�i 1 22 .- . 0 - - - TRANSPORTATION PLAN 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 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 the MCTO on strategies that will enhance transit service to such mixed-use areas. Several incentives are now available to communities that wish to encourage the use and enhancement of transit service. The Transit Tax Incentive offers a ten to 15 percent tax credit to certain types of commercial and industrial development and redevelopment located within 1/4 mile of a frequently operating regular route transit line. In Brooklyn Center, this incentive currently applies along the 83 and 5 routes on Brooklyn Boulevard as far as Brookdale, and along the 28 route from Brookdale to Humboldt Avenue. 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 JANUARY 2000 3-20 BRW, INC. #24531 r -------------------- 7 :evil Ease ��� �♦. �1-■-■mmm.. C-. ••u� /II/�- I:e: . = _pw nnm■nm::� ������=� \4 ;%�` �,� -=- � - -�nii'4•Nalll ,.P- ____ ,d11OO1 __: =n. nnnmm- ' .�� .' ..r � IIIII IIIm .�: �� %■un"'• j:_: :\.Ilia:� =�`,I��1:�U 1111 ijl iii ni Ol' ___ _►�����/'4 : : --�- unn... ni■ it ., �\N i �'_-._ _ \I -C ::.;,ni' _- - -::111111117� _;:::■.J J�- -:=� 7\. . -=-n►1/11umD� �=- �- .1111111111 „= " 111 : C nl •- .�.11 :IIn11111111 ���■ (11� . � 111110::_ =-7 ■•_ �3 111■■,-.,;;/.., - 11. ° - �•� mall--a_�:� 11■ -- - _- :umigi n•� �i- _ _ - _ 11111111■. -r�� --�r®��1,,...:::;1j,�[[a��.. • � === -- � aunnnono■■■.nnli __-_ _ 11111/I//II//jet�. ����, �,���'. �ii' �� :■. .......nm��; IliliililiiiiinTunr. �_:�:::::=....• � - -.■■■■■■■■nln■►.-' �♦unnn mm�nmr. :m��:__unn., v • - ..........u.,d noon nnunum 7 _--77 mn..•,;..•4 � ,. 1,'!`' ,�,� �•• � [umnnn.nnll� mnm munlnal 7 �� 7�77 ma.ui•r�•� � • �'��1�Ir.1� '\ IN Ia1111111111111110711/Q� �� ::IIIIO■I,�.,�•• n� � l 11:1111 11111117111. __ - -_-__ � M ••I,••■ ■�\ •..� _7 __■_ _ 1.1'... ''I � r gip■uu.I. _ -p.-.____ -. 11111'•• •4 ■�'�'7 _ _ nlni •i mmmnua �i�,� •NI mn�Oj/�iiii mmnnuuii.•'� w `��y '�j°..� ��=� ==�♦1H1��?=�� �1j11111. i:i:i�illiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii/'� nnmlp pm►)►p��m�.a�e7 7r.:::..:' �°_ nnnnnmlll nnn!!upr..• __ m.■i nm'glllpm mnnnr.; � •A III -nnnlp__.■::- ---__ mnry � 77• mUi ♦�In unnur� . :_ mnn. 1 U4 4.•bl . -- - •••: i u■ Imam n 1 un '4•u un■_C ■�unD��---- - � nii Ouuw_ mif••b:� „:::� �-- _III �...._ _ .p _ _1 • •in nut► :■: .7:77 7 I '4111111101 p � �•h�i• �• ._-_ �/••111111111 i I'1_••• 1`=�/!/annul.�• ■� � 3- ,__S.3i _-- "5113 ........... 7I 7►nIr\nmmm�{ 7:7.-.-._ .7._7__ -• 7-C� =G=-'G:_ :11111,�; - - - - ♦ =;�_ _; ■ 31- zz ':e16'"1 � � :nun. �9••m ° . 1 ' �■ _=_ __°-" I'ele iiI111C= mono ��,■�, _ __ •• _ moon - SIR� G�■ulnnnq' _- ___ _-.- G noun■ �MINE:I`7 �������Cam.1: :_ 7 �_:__ ■_�77 77 1 _ uumn 44 1� ����♦�O P�♦ 7 _7 •_I Gr _ �■ _77- ' �' ��II 111�I � \ �, � -,7i-Illli=i►♦��� 7 __pl pp � 7 7�II�7-' m 1 ���,,,. :1 ', � _111 Illlllnnuli -- :I: _■.. _111 _II �\ n"'iii1111He= � mu■ iu - __- '-'_' =="=' '° 7°_==-== -■... __ um ..1_ I nnnun7�\�_ - �/ui ii ■C��- � - 111111111! 57 '-e � �p uunnr - III►...�inunnr :7:ma annlun : :101 ��°• ��,0" � 1� mn= \:Yc'lll ■13131111 .rh�ll�.111111 1 1 TRANSPORTATION PLAN 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. The City recently developed a paved multi-use path along the south side of 69th Avenue between Shingle Creek Parkway and TH 252. Trails are connected with sidewalks and cross most City parks. The extensive Shingle Creek trail system rings Palmers Lake and follows the course of Shingle Creek north to south through the City. At the City's southern boundary,the trail continues along the creek through north Minneapolis,eventually linking to Webber Parkway and the Grand Round of the Minneapolis Parkway system. Pedestrian bridges provide key links in the trail and sidewalk system,crossing I- 94/694 at Garden City Park, and crossing TH 100 from Summit Drive to Knox Avenue,and from Brookdale to Lions Park. 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. There is no suitable bicycle crossing of 1-694 west of Xerxes Avenue except for the sidewalk on Brooklyn Boulevard,which is substandard for bicycle use. The City should study the issue of whether an overpass across 1-694 is technically and financially cost-effective. Another alternative would be to direct bicycle traffic to Zane Avenue in Brooklyn Park. An off-street bicycle trail is proposed for construction beginning in 1997 along the Mississippi River from 53rd to Fifth Avenues, as part of the North Mississippi Regional Park. This will improve access to the riverfront and link other trails and sidewalks in the Southeast Neighborhood. Gaps in the sidewalk system still hinder pedestrian and bicycle movement in some locations, and should be filled when other street improvements are made. In particular, sidewalks should be completed along the full length of the three "loops" discussed in the Land Use,Redevelopment and Community Image Plan JANUARY 2000 3-22 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN (Figure 2-4). These routes are intended to link neighborhoods,parks,schools and the City Center. Sidewalks are currently missing in several locations: • Several segments of Dupont Avenue north of I-694; • Humboldt Avenue between 53rd and 55th Avenues and 57th and 59th Avenues; • The central section of 57th Avenue/Bass Lake Road at Shingle Creek Parkway; • Shingle Creek Parkway at 69th Avenue; • Most of 69th Avenue east of Shingle Creek Parkway. 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 • 69th Avenue • 57th Avenue/County Road 10 east of Brooklyn Boulevard • Shingle Creek Parkway The one roadway that presents particular difficulties for bicyclists is Brooklyn Boulevard. In its current configuration, this roadway is not really suitable 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 Brooklyn Boulevard,increased consideration should be given to providing wider off-street paths for shared bicycle and pedestrian use,as the City has done along 65th Avenue. JANUARY 2000 3-23 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN 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 ped-bike access. Brooklyn Boulevard,a Minor Arterial and the major non-regional roadway in this 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 with more intensive development the existing single-family detached housing that has direct access to Brooklyn Boulevard. The Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (1994)calls for consolidating and sharing access points,closing certain median openings, and increasing the use of intersecting streets for land access. 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; 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. JANUARY 2000 3-24 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN AVIATION Brooklyn Center is within the influence area of the Crystal Airport, which is a designated reliever airport for Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) Airport metropolitan system airports. The airspace over Brooklyn Center is also used by aircraft operating from Metropolitan Area airports and other airports. Only a small portion of the Crystal Airport is located within Brooklyn Center. Most of this small area is located in the Shingle Creek floodway and is not suitable for development;it is controlled by the City's floodplain zoning. 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, it 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 (see Figure , Appendix). 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 which would cause an assembly of persons are permitted. In Brooklyn Center,this area is partially airport-owned open space and is partially in single-family residential use. 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 JANUARY 2000 3-25 BRW, INC. #24531 TRANSPORTATION PLAN 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 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 they City of Crystal have maintained that relocation would eiminate hazardous situations caused by the proximity of the airport to surrounding residential development. Brooklyn Center still supports this policy. However,the Metropolitan Airports Commission has no plans to close the airport. The Crystal Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (August 1995)states that the airport's existing facilities will generally be adequate to accommodate the projected 20-year demand without major expansions. 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 noise. It is the FAA's single system for determining exposure of individuals to airport noise.) However, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) uses a different standard, the L,,65 contour,which identifies the area where 65 dBA (decibels) is exceeded 10 percent of the time (6 minutes) in a given hour. The projected 2013 L,,65 contour for the airport extends much further into Brooklyn Center, in a roughly triangular shape that ends at the I-94/694 and Brooklyn Boulevard interchange. 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. JANUARY 2000 3-26 BRW, INC. #24531 Comprehensive Plan 2020 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN INTRODUCTION This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following elements: ■ ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS — Describes existing housing conditions, neighborhood conditions, housing needs and current housing programs and issues. 0 HOUSING PLAN — Includes recommendations for new housing, redevelopment and rehabilitation programs,neighborhood improvements and official controls. BACKGROUND Several previous studies provide a good overview and introduction to housing issues in Brooklyn Center.The Year 2000 Report(1985)examined many demographic and social trends influencing Brooklyn Center and assessed issues that seemed the most significant to the City. Major trends 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 Maxfield Research Group report, The Brooklyn Center Housing Market:A Study of Trends and Their Impact on the Community(1989),provides some important insights into the City's housing stock, although conditions in the housing market have changed since that time. 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; JANUARY 2000 4- 1 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN • 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's 1996 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Action Plan provides a comprehensive picture of the City's existing housing, housing development, maintenance and rehabilitation programs, current and future housing needs and housing goals.These goals are part of the "Housing Goals Agreement"required for participation in the Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives Program. Much of the following discussion of City housing programs is drawn from this Action Plan. ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS This section contains the following elements: • Profile of Existing Housing • Neighborhood Housing Conditions • Housing Assistance Programs • Analysis of Housing Needs • Housing Issues PROFILE OF EXISTING HOUSING MIX OF HOUSING TYPES Brooklyn Center's housing mix has grown more diverse since 1980. Notably, the number of single-family attached units (townhouses) almost doubled. There were slight increases in detached units and in apartments, while the two- and 3-4 unit categories lost numbers, presumably through clearance and redevelopment or conversion to other types. According to the Maxfield Housing Market report, almost all of the apartment units added in the 1980s were senior-only rental buildings: Brookwood Manor (65 units), Maranatha Place (65 units) Earle Brown Commons (140 units),and Brookwood Estates (73 units). JANUARY 2000 4-2 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN Table 4-1: Housing Type, 1980- 1990 Housing Type 1980 Percent 1990 Percent Percent Change Single-family 7,248 66.0 7,351 62.7 1.4 detached Single-family 497 4.5 953 8.1 91.7 attached 2 units 104 0.9 73 0.6 -29.8 3-4 units 205 1.9 174 1.5 -15.1 5 and up 2,915 26.6 3,110 26.5 6.6 50+(1990 only)* -- 755 -- Total 10,969 11,661 6.7 *The "50+ units" category, not available for 1980, is shown as a subset of the "5 and up" category The City Assessor Records for 1996 show additional single-family detached development. However,the figures in the following table are not comparable with 1990,since "condominiums," "duplexes" and "triplexes" are broken out separately. (A "condominium" is a form of ownership rather than a housing type, and is thus enumerated elsewhere in the Census.)The total number of units is less than the 1990 totals,indicating that some clearance may have occurred.. Table 4-2: 1996 Housing Mix Number Percent Single-family detached 7,380 64.3 Townhouses 629 5.5 Condominium units 126 1.1 Duplexes 108 0.9 Triplexes 9 01 Apartment units 3,225 28.1 Total 11,477 JANUARY 2000 4-3 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN 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, and townhouses are slowly increasing in number. Table 4-3: Housing Mix in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1990 (percentage of total housing units) Single- Town- Two- 3-4 5+ units family house family units Brooklyn Center 62.7 8.1 0..6 1.5 28.5 Brooklyn Park 55.3 14.4 0.9 1.0 27.9 Crystal 76.3 2.0 0.9 1.5 19.0 Robbinsdale 70.6 5.0 4.5 0.5 21.3 Columbia Heights 64.4 6.3 6.8 2.4 19.3 Fridley 58.1 6.1 2.2 2.4 27.4 AGE OF HOUSING 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 in the 1980s,and it is anticipated that most new construction will take place through redevelopment. Table 4-4: Housing by Year Built Year Built Number(incl. Percent Percent Owner- Percent Renter- vacant) occupied occupied pre-1940 329 2.8 3.5 1.5 1940- 1949 611 5.2 6.9 1.9 1950- 1959 4,729 40.4 54.9 11.3 1960- 1969 2,999 25.6 19.8 36.5 1970- 1979 2,032 17.3 9.2 34.7 1980-3/90 1,013 8.6 5.8 14.1 JANUARY 2000 4-4 BRW, INC. #24S3I NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN HOUSING TENURE The City's housing tenure (ownership versus rental) mix changed very little in the 1980s, although numbers in each category increased. According to Metropolitan Council estimates,the ownership-to-rental ratio is currently at 68/32 percent. This is well within the Livable Communities Act goal for the city of 64 - 72 percent ownership to 28-36 percent rental. Table 4-5: Housing by Tenure 1980 Percent 1990 Percent Owner-occupied 7,438 69.2 7,806 69.5 Renter-occupied 3,313 30.8 3,420 30.5 Total occupied 10,751 11,226 AGE OF HOUSEHOLDERS The age distribution of householders--both homeowners and renters--is used by the Metropolitan Council as 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 1990 were in the 25-34 and the 35-44 age ranges,which can be characterized as "first-time home buyers" and "move-up buyers." In general, however, the distribution among the various age classes is fairly even, with the exception of the very small "under 25" group. Table 4-6: Households by Age of Householder, 1990 Age Group Number Percent of Total Under 25 years 574 1.1 25- 34 2,567 22.9 35-44 2,140 19.1 45- 54 1,608 14.3 55-64 1,983 17.7 65-74 1,509 13.4 75 + 845 7.5 JANUARY 2000 4-5 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN HOUSING VALUES - OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING Housing values for owner-occupied homes did increase during the 1980s, although they did not keep pace with inflation. Very few homes in 1990 were valued at less than $50,000; the vast majority fall in the $50 - 100,000 range. The Metropolitan Council has provided a more detailed breakdown of 1990 values,shown in Table 4- 7,which indicates that most houses fall into the$75,000 to$99,999 bracket. The 1996 median assessed value for single-family homes in Brooklyn Center is $77,701. The 1996 median sale price is$81,418. Retail sales average approximately 350 homes per year, according to the City Assessor. Table 4-7: Values of Selected Owner-Occupied Units, 11980- 1990 1980 1990 Number Percent Number Percent less than $50,000 1,394 20.2 85 1.2 $50,000- 99,999 5,451 78.9 6,749 93.1 $100,000- 149,999 53 0.7 368 5.0 $150,000- 199,999 6 -- 32 0.4 $200,000 and up 2 -- 15 0.2 Median value (1990 $) $61,800 $79,400 ($98,262) Table 4-8: Values of Selected Owner-Occupied Units, '1990 Number Percent less than $60,000 400 5.5 $60,000 -74,999 2,542 35.1 $75,000 - 99,999 3,892 53.7 $100,000 - 149,999 368 5.1 $150,000 - 199,999 32 0.4 $200,000 or higher 15 0.2 .JANUARY 2000 4-6 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN As Table 4-9 shows, a decline in median values for owner-occupied homes was universal in the 1980s among neighboring communities, and also in the majority of first-ring and even second-ring cities in the metropolitan area. This seems to have been a common pattern in the Twin Cities area and,in fact,throughout the Midwest, where housing prices tended to stagnate throughout much of the decade. This value is based on the homeowner's own estimate,and thus may reflect perception as much as reality. Another indicator of housing values is provided by Hennepin County,which has mapped the changes in median assessed property values for single-family,attached and smaller multi-family residences from 1990 to 1996. These maps show that in the northwest first-ring suburbs (Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Robbinsdale and Crystal) values generally increased from 0.1 to over 15 percent. However,certain areas showed declines in value.In Brooklyn Center,declining values were found on scattered single-family lots throughout the Northeast, Southeast and Southwest neighborhoods and in many of the City's townhouse developments. Interestingly, while riverfront lots in the Northeast neighborhood showed large increases in value, many lots in the adjacent tiers showed declines or minimal increases. Table 4-9: Median Values of Owner-Occupied Housing, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Communities, 1980- 1990 1980 (1990$) 1991) Percent change Brooklyn Center 98,262 79,400 -19.2 Brooklyn Park 106,212 88,400 -16.7 Crystal 96,672 78,000 -19.3 Robbinsdale 94,287 76,500 -18.8 Columbia Heights 91,902 73,600 19.9 Fridley 104,304 86,000 17.5 RENTAL HOUSING COSTS Rental costs increased relative to inflation in the 1980s. However,the majority of the City's rental housing market is affordable when compared to Section 8 fair market rents. According to the Metropolitan Council,46 percent of the City's rental housing meets the Livable Communities Act standard for affordability -- higher than the regional benchmark(and City goal) of 41 to 45 percent. JANUARY 2000 4-7 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN ZONING AND HOUSING 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 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 R3 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. Table 4-10: Rental Costs (Units by Monthly Rent) 1980 1990 Monthly contract rent Number Percent Number Percent Less than $250 1,281 39.9 246 5.1 $250 to $499 1,916 59.6 1,698 35.5 $500 or more 16 0.5 1,417 29.7 $500 to $699* 1,330 27.8 $700 to $999* 81 16.9 $1,000 or more* 6 0.1 Median rent (1990$) $265 $475 ($421) 'These categories are subsets of"$500 or more" NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING CONDITIONS This section summarizes information from the"Neighborhood Profiles"in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan and the 1989 Housing Market Report on housing conditions and other factors that influence housing in each neighborhood. CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD Most of this neighborhood's housing stock is well-maintained and well-buffered from I-694, its northern boundary. Among the multifamily complexes, the Summerchase Apartments were recently renovated (see below under Multi-Family Housing Acquisition and Rehabilitation Programs). Other complexes along Beard Avenue show signs of deterioration. .JANUARY 2000 4-8 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN The proximity of Garden City Park and the Shingle Creek trail system provides an important amenity for the eastern half of the neighborhood. The areas west of Xerxes Avenue, bordering Brooklyn Boulevard, lack similar amenities and are exposed to heavy traffic. NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD This neighborhood contains the largest number of rental housing units of any of the City's neighborhoods,as well as some of its most expensive single-family housing. As discussed above under Housing Values,riverfront lots show marked increases in assessed value,but lots directly inland show minimal increases or declines. The area around Humboldt and 69th Avenues North contains a large concentration of multifamily buildings, some in need of renovation. Multifamily buildings are also found on both sides of the Highway 252 corridor that parallels the river. Single- family areas west of Humboldt and between 66th Avenue and I-694 are generally stable and well-maintained. The trails and open space around Palmer Lake provide an amenity for the western half of the neighborhood. The riverfront areas,unfortunately,have no actual river access,with the exception of the trail crossing at Willow Lane and the I-694 bridge. NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD The Northwest neighborhood is divided into two distinct sections by Brooklyn Boulevard. The western section contains the City's largest concentration of townhouses: Unity Place, a recently renovated cooperatively-managed Section 8 development,Creek Villas and Island Ponds. While attractive and well-maintained, all these units in the latter two complexes declined in assessed value from 1990 through 1996. The Victoria Townhomes,another Section 8 development,are located along I-694 south of the Willow Lane School and Park. On the eastern side of Brooklyn Boulevard,newer townhouse developments include the Earle Brown Estates,adjacent to the Shingle Creek Industrial Area,and the York Place townhouse development. Marvin Gardens, a rental townhouse complex, is located just behind the large complex of automobile dealerships on Brooklyn Boulevard. The neighborhood's single-family areas are stable and generally show increasing property values. Palmer Lake Park provides an amenity for the eastern section of the neighborhood, while the Willow Lane Park and School provide both a neighborhood focus for the western section and a buffer from Brooklyn Boulevard. JANUARY 2000 4-9 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD The Southeast Neighborhood is dominated by single-family residences,with only a few multifamily complexes on either side of Highway 100. There is great diversity in the housing stock, with many older homes (pre-1950). There seems to be a perception within the City that low property values and decline of adjoining neighborhoods in Minneapolis are "spreading" to the Southeast neighborhood. However, property values as measured by Hennepin County seem to have remained stable or increased from 1990 to 1996, especially in comparison to the Minneapolis neighborhood. Three city parks serve the neighborhood:Lions,Grandview and Bellvue. Hennepin County's North Mississippi Regional Park (formerly the City's River Ridge Park) runs along its eastern edge,but the park is narrow and largely undeveloped, and access across I-94 is limited. SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD This neighborhood probably has the City's widest variety of land uses, and its housing is divided into many small "pockets," separated by highways, a railroad line, and industrial uses. The area bordering Upper Twin Lake is largely single- family detached residences,except for the Twin Lakes Manor multifamily complex. A new block of detached homes was recently constructed along 51st Avenue N. This area is served by the large Northport Park and school complex, and by the small Lakeside Park. The southwest corner of the neighborhood,bordering Middle Twin Lake,contains a large condominium complex and a mix of single-family and duplex residences and smaller four-plex apartments, many in need of renovation. The area is served by Twin Beach Park. On the east side of Highway 100, a large group of multifamily buildings, still in adequate condition,are separated by industrial uses and the railroad line from the largely single-family area to the north. This"triangle"includes Happy Hollow Park. WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD The West Central Neighborhood is a fairly homogeneous neighborhood largely composed of single-family residences. Multifamily housing is scattered along Brooklyn Boulevard and along County Road 10, where the Twin Lake North Apartments and the adjacent townhouses enjoy a private location backing up to Kylawn Park and a nature preserve in Crystal. The neighborhood's sheltered location and its many parks give it a quiet and protected character,with moderately increasing property values. Orchard Lane,Marlin and Wangstad Parks are located here, in addition to the large Kylawn Park/Haget Arboretum complex. The new JANUARY 2000 4- 10 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN Cahlander Park and adjacent park-and-ride lot buffer the neighborhood from the I- 94/694 and Brooklyn Boulevard interchange. HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS AFFORDABLE FINANCING FOR HOME BUYERS The City has participated in the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA's) Minnesota City Participation Program(MCPP)since 1992. The MCCP is a program designed to provide below market rate mortgages to qualified home buyers. The maximum income eligibility for the program is $43,000. Since 1992, the City has provided over 110 mortgage loans under this program. The City anticipates a continued strong demand for this program in the future, for several reasons: • The upper price limit for the MCPP is$95,000 for a single-family home.Over 90 percent of the City's single-family units are valued below this price range. • The aging of the City's population(over 24 percent is 55 or over)means that many people will be"turning over"their houses as they move to other living arrangements. In addition to the MCPP,first-time buyers can also obtain below market rate loans from the Minnesota Mortgage Program (MMP). The MMP is also offered by local lenders on behalf of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.The major differences between the two programs are a lower house price limit for the MMP ($85,000) and a lower income eligibility ($34,500). 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. According to Metropolitan Council information,there were 600 federally subsidized units in the City in 1994,comprising 5.1 percent of all housing units. These include households receiving vouchers and housing complexes that are subsidized ("project-based"). There are currently approximately 350 households with Section 8 certificates or vouchers within the City. These renters pay approximately 30 percent of their monthly household income for rent, with the Section 8 program making up the difference in market rents. JANUARY 2000 4- 1 1 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN 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.There are presently over 200 project-based Section 8 rental units in four separate complexes in the City: Unity Place, Ewing Square,Victoria Townhomes, and a small multifamily building at 67th and Emerson. MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS Brooklyn Center contains approximately 3,225 apartment units. In the past three years,the following acquisition and rehabilitation projects have been undertaken, affecting a total of 674 units,or more than 20 percent of the total number. • UNITY PLACE: In 1993 the City approved the issuance of $5.3 million in housing revenue bonds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of Unity Place, a 112-unit Section 8 project-based townhouse development in the Northwest Neighborhood. The 1993 acquisition changed its organization to a leasehold cooperative. The leasehold cooperative approach to rental housing provides that the cooperative association and governing board are made up of project residents,and that members of the cooperative can actively participate in the management of the property, including establishing budgets, screening prospective tenants,hiring and supervising a management agent, and other day-to-day management functions. The cooperative's participation is regulated by a lease between the owner and the cooperative. As required by IRS regulations for housing revenue bond financing, a minimum of 40 percent of the cooperative members must have incomes at or below 60 percent of the area median gross income, as determined by HUD. • SUMMERCHASE APARTMENTS: In 1994 and 1995 the City Council issued $9.7 million in housing revenue bonds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of 252 apartment units. Over $2 million of this amount went toward rehabilitation of this apartment complex in the Central Neighborhood. • TWIN LAKES MANOR: This complex (formerly named Brookdale 10) in the Southwest Neighborhood contains 310 units--308 one-bedroom units and two efficiency units. The City supported the buyer of this property in his application for funding under the federal HOME program. The buyer was awarded $700,000 in HOME funds which provided funding for the rehabilitation of one of the 12 buildings in the project and ultimately the creation of ten affordable HOME units.The remainder of the acquisition and rehabilitation cost was funded privately. .JANUARY 2000 4- 12 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN SCATTERED SITE ACQUISITION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS The City, through the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) conducts a scattered site acquisition program to acquire blighted and deteriorated single-family properties, clear these properties and market the lots for redevelopment of single-family homes. The EDA has acquired 13 properties under this program,nine of which have been redeveloped with new homes. All of these houses have sold or are for sale for less than the$115,000 affordability level set for single-family homes under the Livable Communities Act. The City anticipates continuing this program. PARTNERSHIPS AND REFERRALS Since 1992, the Brooklyn Center EDA has worked with Twin Cities Habitat for Humanity to develop three new single-family homes on lots acquired and cleared by the EDA. The City is a member of Co-op Northwest,a housing coalition that also includes the cities of Brooklyn Park, Crystal, New Hope and Robbinsdale. The group has developed its own subregional housing plan and has been designated by HUD as a Community Housing Development Organization, making it eligible to receive HOME funds for development of affordable multifamily units. Brooklyn Center has not been involved in the use of HOME funds,but it has worked with the co-op to provide remodeling information to single-family homeowners through Remodeling Fairs and other design resources. The City also refers residents to a variety of private nonprofit housing assistance programs, including the Center for Energy and the Environment (energy-efficient rehabilitation) and HOME Line (tenant advocacy and homebuyer assistance). 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. 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 JANUARY 2000 4- 13 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN 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. HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM Since 1979, the City has funded a deferred loan program for rehabilitation, providing persons of low and moderate income a means to make needed repairs to their homes.Over 230 homes have been rehabilitated under the program since 1979, and more than half of these were located in the Southeast neighborhood, the City's oldest and most affordable.The deferred loans are awarded to persons and families at or below 60 percent of median income;maximum loan amount is$15,000. The type of improvements done under this program are typically repairs or replacement of major systems in single-family or duplex homes, including plumbing, electrical, mechanical systems, windows, doors, ventilation, exterior, roofing,insulation, and other repairs. HOUSEHOLD OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE FOR THE ELDERLY (H.O.M.E.) PROGRAM The H.O.M.E.program,funded with Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) monies,provides persons 60 years and older or who are permanently disabled with reduced-cost home repairs.Repairs include interior and exterior painting and minor home repair, including minor carpentry and masonry repair and accessibility improvements. The H.O.M.E. program is operated by Senior Community Services, a non-profit organization specifically equipped to work with older homeowners. Part of the program's philosophy is to maintain independence for the elderly living in single- family homes by providing access to reasonable repair services. The program has been in place since 1992 and assists 15 to 20 households per year. ASSOCIATION FOR RENTAL MANAGEMENT OF BROOKLYN CENTER (ARM) In 1992 a rental property owners and managers coalition was formed to address issues in the multifamily housing community.The goal of the Association for Rental Management of Brooklyn Center is to improve the apartment community in the City by providing information to apartment managers and owners to aid in their professional development and awareness of opportunities for improving the management of their properties. JANUARY 2000 4- 14 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING FLAN The organization is a cooperative effort between the City and property managers to address problems in the rental community and to enhance the quality of rental property in the City. The ARM has enhanced communication between property managers and City elected officials and staff. CURRENT AND FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING The great majority of Brooklyn Center's housing stock, both owner- and renter- occupied,is affordable under the Livable Communities Act definition.Additionally, the rents in Brooklyn Center are affordable when compared to current Section 8 fair market rent limits. RENTAL HOUSING: It is anticipated that the rental housing market in Brooklyn Center will continue to remain affordable, particularly since the majority of the rental housing stock is over 20 years old;the majority having been built in the 1960s and early 1970s. If Brooklyn Center rents are compared to the Metropolitan Council's standard of affordability, the majority of the rental housing market would be considered affordable. The Council's standard is 30 percent of the income of a family earning 50 percent of the region's median income. This translated to a monthly rent of$683 in 1996.The average rent for a two-bedroom unit in Brooklyn Center is$600. The threshold for affordability under the Livable Communities Act is$115,000 for a single-family home. According to the Metropolitan Council, 99 percent of the City's owner-occupied housing is considered affordable,while the benchmark and goal for affordability is 77 percent. OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING:As discussed above under"Housing Values,"the majority of owner-occupied housing in Brooklyn Center is affordable. The threshold for affordability under the Livable Communities Act is $115,000 for a single-family detached home.Out of the 7,380 detached homes in the City,approximately 117 are valued over $115,000. The 1996 median sale price for single-family homes was $81,418. CURRENT HOUSING MIX AND LAND AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING Brooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb which experienced most of its development in the 1950s- 1970s period. Approximately 44 percent of the City's total land area is developed with single-family detached homes. Townhouses and duplexes account for almost 1.5 percent of the land area, and multi-family residential comprises approximately 6 percent. The remainder of the City's land area consists of commercial and industrial development,public and semi-public JANUARY 2000 4- 15 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN uses,parks and open space,utilities and streets (see Figure 2-1,Land Use Pattern). The amount of undeveloped land remaining in Brooklyn Center has been estimated at around 5 percent. Most of this remaining land is zoned commercial and industrial. The only substantial areas of vacant land that are suitable for residential development are found in the Gateway area north of I-694 at Highway 252. This area is discussed below under "Potential Housing Redevelopment Areas." The creation of new housing in other parts of the City will largely depend on redevelopment of existing housing or other land uses. DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES AND POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT WITH MIXED LAND USES As described in the Land Use,Redevelopment and Community Image Plan(Chapter 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 western section of the Gateway area (at 1-694 and TH 252) contains enough vacant or underutilized parcels that a well-integrated mixed-use center could be developed,to include retail and office uses along with mid- and high-density housing. The Land Use Plan(Figure 2-3)shows mixed use as one option for this area. • The City Center area,including and surrounding 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. EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND HOUSING AF FORDABLE TO THE WORK FORCE 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 housing, both in multifamily complexes and in a number of newer townhouse developments. JANUARY 2000 4- 16 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN CONCENTRATIONS OF LOWER-COST OR SUBSTANDARD HOUSING UNITS 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 was identified in the Maxfield Housing Report as presenting 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 $100,000 in market value. Most of the City's other multifamily complexes are scattered in and around the 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. The townhouse complexes in the northwest corner of the City,however,are in good condition and consist mainly of market-rate housing (with the exception of the subsidized Unity Place). COMPARISON OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES 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. According to the 1989 Housing Market Report,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. JANUARY 2000 4- 17 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN RELATIONSHIP OF LOCAL NEEDS TO REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES Metropolitan Council housing policies, as stated in the Regional Blueprint and the subsequent Regional Growth Strategy, stress 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 AND NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES The following issues were identified by the Comprehensive Plan Task Force. Most issues are closely linked to the preceding analysis of housing needs, and are addressed in the Housing Plan section which follows. • What is the most appropriate housing mix for the City? • What creative housing rehabilitation and zoning strategies should the City pursue to improve its housing? • How can the City encourage and foster housing maintenance? • Should the number of multifamily apartments in the City be reduced? If so, what should be the City's role in this process? • How can the City gain support for housing rehabilitation programs? • How should the City hold landlords accountable for their properties? • What are the most effective infrastructure investments the City can make to stabilize neighborhoods and the housing stock? • Is multifamily housing an appropriate and desirable use along Brooklyn Boulevard in place of the single-family detached housing there, given concerns about multifamily housing in other areas? JANUARY 2000 4- 18 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN HOUSING PLAN HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES As part of its agreement for participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives Program,the City has 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. 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 4-11. The following housing and neighborhood objectives build upon the Fundamental Goals presented in the Introduction. There is also some overlap with the Land Use and Redevelopment Objectives listed in Chapter 2,since housing needs are closely linked to redevelopment. 1. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted areas, commercial, industrial and residential,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 Corridor Streetscape Amenities Study). JANUARY 2000 4- 19 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN Table 4-11: 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-SFD) 37% 34-41% 34-41% Owner/Renter 68 : 32% 64-72 : 28-36% 64-72 : 28-36% mix Density: Single-family 2.9/acre 2.4-2.9/acre 2.4-2.9/acre detached Multifamily 11/acre 11-15/acre 11-15/acre • Replace inappropriate single-family housing with attractive 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 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 JANUARY 2000 4-20 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN 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. HOUSING STRATEGIES Table 4-12 is a matrix that lists the strategies below by neighborhood,identifying the strategies that are most appropriate in each neighborhood and within the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor. Its intent is not to limit certain programs to certain neighborhoods, since most programs can be applied anywhere in the City, but rather to set priorities for future neighborhood assistance. OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY PROGRAMS: The City will continue to participate in the MHFA's Minnesota City Participation Program, the major first-time homebuyer program available to cities in Minnesota. Although the MHFA's Minnesota Mortgage Program does not require municipal participation, it is anticipated that first-time buyers will continue to access this program in Brooklyn Center. ACQUISITION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS: The City's scattered site acquisition and redevelopment program will continue, although the City's efforts are currently concentrated on the 53rd Avenue corridor(see below under"New Programs"). The program is a cost-intensive one,since acquisition,demolition and relocation can cost $70-80,000 per unit,and the cleared lots are generally sold for around $15-20,000. JANUARY 2000 4-21 BRW, INC. #24531 Table 4-12: Housing Strategies by Neighborhood v = w CD 3 U o G L L N m U Z Z (A (n Ownership and Rental Assistance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Programs Scattered-site Acquisition and ✓ ✓ ✓ Redevelopment Rehabilitation Loans and Grants ✓ ✓ ✓ Remodeling Assistance ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Housing for the Elderly ✓ ✓ ✓ Reduce Multifamily Housing ✓ Concentration Street and Utilities Improvements ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Road Corridor Enhancements ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Specific Redevelopment Projects ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Zoning Initiatives ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN HOUSING REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS CONTINUING PROGRAMS: Both the CDBG-funded Housing Rehabilitation Program and the H.O.M.E. program will continue in the City, under the administration of Hennepin County. The County took over the administration of CDBG programs for the City in 1996 in order to increase staffing efficiencies and enable the City to concentrate its resources where it can be most effective. The City will continue to work with private nonprofit groups such as Habitat for Humanity and will continue to refer residents to other nonprofits that can provide assistance with rehabilitation and homebuyer education. REHABILITATION LOANS: Brooklyn Center is a "test market" for Hennepin County in the administration of the MHFA's Fix Up Fund. The Fix Up Fund is a longstanding MHFA program which provides up to$15,000 as a loan to homeowners for a wide variety of rehabilitation projects. Homeowners with incomes as high as$43,000 can quality for these loans, at interest rates that float between two and eight percent, depending on income. The loans are targeted to a ]higher-income group than is targeted with CDBG funds,and will increase the range of rehabilitation services in Brooklyn Center. REMODELING ASSISTANCE: The City is planning to increase 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 one and a half story 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. Several other first ring cities have taken the lead in assisting homeowners with resources and design guidelines for remodeling these homes. Richfield is well- known for its "Richfield Rediscovered" program, which includes a substantial remodeling component-- a Remodeling Manual, free in-home consultations, and HRA-financed zero interest incentive loans. St. Louis Park recently sponsored a design competition for rambler remodeling plans. Brooklyn Center already participates in remodeling fairs through Co-op Northwest and works with Realtors to inform them about marketing opportunities. The City is also considering adapting some of the strategies mentioned above to stimulate remodeling efforts. One possibility is for the City to provide write-downs on the interest rate for second or third mortgages, in cooperation with area lending institutions. The City could also provide assistance to homebuyers in developing a remodeling plan and obtaining purchase-remodeling loans. MULTIFAMILY HOUSING INITIATIVES There is a common perception among City residents that Brooklyn Center already has"more than its share"of multifamily housing. There are at least two factors that JANUARY 2000 4-23 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN contribute to this perception: • Much of the City's multifamily housing was designed and built in the 1960s and 70s. These buildings are aging, and have attracted low-income residents. The City has few examples of market-rate multifamily housing or contemporary multifamily design. • Multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in very large complexes or in specific geographic areas (i.e.,69th and Humboldt Avenues). Therefore,it tends to be highly visible and to appear "out of context"with surrounding lower-density residential areas. Therefore,the City's strategy for renewing and upgrading its multifamily housing stock encompasses both construction of new multifamily housing aimed at the growing senior population, and replacement of some multifamily housing with other land uses in selected areas where its concentration is highest. AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING: While it can be argued that Brooklyn Center has an ample supply of affordable multifamily housing, there will be a growing for additional senior housing to serve the many homeowners in the over-55 age group who may wish to sell their single-family homes while remaining in their neighborhoods. Both the City Center and the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor offer the proximity to retail and the good transit service that this population needs. Both areas present opportunities for additional senior housing in the form of multifamily buildings or single-story townhouses. REDUCE CONCENTRATION OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING: The City's future redevelopment efforts may 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. DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTIFAMILY AND ATTACHED HOUSING: The Design Guidelines that follow this chapter are intended to create medium-to high-density housing that embodies some of the good characteristics of single-family detached housing, including its continuum of private to public outdoor space and the sense of connection that it offers—connection to the surrounding street network,parks and other neighborhood amenities. By applying these or similar guidelines to new multifamily housing through its zoning ordinance or site plan review process,the City could encourage a higher quality of development, and a character that is more compatible with surrounding residential areas. NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT STREET AND UTILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: The 1989 Housing Market Report identified the upgrading of neighborhood streets with curb and gutter,beginning JANUARY 2000 4-24 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN with the Southeast Neighborhood, as a critical step in enhancing the image of the City's older neighborhoods and thus stimulating private reinvestment in housing. In 1992 the City began a systematic Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Program,through which streets are replaced,curb and gutter installed,and sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water lines are reconstructed or replaced. Since 1985, approximately 13.5 miles of residential streets and 5.75 miles of State Aid streets have been reconstructed. Results are visible in the Southeast Neighborhood north of 57th Avenue N. and along major streets such as 69th Avenue N. It is clear that reconstructing the public infrastructure often serves as a catalyst for private improvements such as driveway replacement, landscaping and housing rehabilitation efforts. The City is currently evaluating the direction of this program, which areas should be targeted,and how continued street improvements are to be financed. ROAD CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENTS: The Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan includes the recommendation that the City undertake a long-term road corridor enhancement program to beautify and visually unite the City Center and surrounding neighborhoods. As described in the plan,three interconnected loops would connect most neighborhoods and the City Center. This strategy,which may include coordinated,attractive street lighting,shade trees,sidewalks, bike lanes and directional and neighborhood signs, would help to improve the sense of neighborhood identity,and by extension,stimulate private investments in housing. SPECIFIC REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS A number of public infrastructure improvement and redevelopment efforts are underway or in the planning stages in specific areas: '553RD AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: As discussed in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan,in 1996 the City initiated a project to create a green buffer, pedestrian path and new higher-value housing along 53rd Avenue from I-94 to Bryant Avenue. Acquisition of existing homes is currently underway. The City will donate the land for new housing,or will heavily subsidize its cost, and will also specify minimum square footage and materials for these homes. It is expected that new housing will sell in the$95,000 to$120,000 range. If successful, this project could be extended west along 53rd Avenue as far as Humboldt Avenue. GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: The City is in the midst of redevelopment of a roughly ten acre site located north of I-694,east of Highway 252, and south of 66th Avenue. Through the Economic Development Authority, the City has acquired three parcels--a former service station, an 18-unit multifamily building and a 25- unit motel--and demolished the buildings,which were a blighting influence on the surrounding neighborhood. In order to gain control of the remainder of the site,the City would have to purchase an additional multi-family complex. JANUARY 2000 4-25 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN This area,which benefits from its proximity to both the riverfront and the freeway interchange,is designated in the Land Use Plan as being suitable for mid-density housing such as townhouses. The area west of the highway is identified in the Land Use Plan as being suitable for a large office campus-type development or for multi- use development, which might include housing as well as office and limited commercial uses. OTHER REDEVELOPMENT AREAS: Other areas that are identified in the Land Use Plan as potential housing redevelopment locations include: • Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor:In keeping with the recommendations of the Streetscape Amenities Study,various locations along the corridor are proposed for redevelopment, including the single-family residences that border the street. In general, these would be replaced with commercial and office/service uses on sites that are large enough to provide for adequate circulation and good site design;and medium-and high-density residential uses on smaller sites. High-density uses would mainly be geared toward senior housing. • City Center: In order to allow this area to evolve into a "town center,"the plan calls for gradual "intensification" of this area through addition of medium-density housing, structured parking, and public or semi-public outdoor spaces. • Northbrook Mall Area: This commercial area is in need of a complete renovation, which might be extended to include some of the surrounding residential areas and involve a mix of medium-density housing and office/service uses, as well as the existing commercial uses. • Northeast Neighborhood Locations: As mentioned above under "Multifamily Housing Initiatives," the concentration of multifamily apartments around 69th and Humboldt Avenues may be reduced by replacing some buildings with medium-density housing or industrial uses. The "65th Avenue Residential Area" just north of I-694 may also be a candidate for redevelopment to more intense residential or nonresidential uses over the long term. Both these areas are discussed in more detail under "Specific Area Plans" in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan chapter. • Upper Twin Lake Area: As an area with a great scenic and natural amenity that is not currently being used to its full potential, the lakeshore area presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment. Restoring the lakeshore as common open space or parkland,bordered by medium-density housing (such as small-lot singles or twinhomes) oriented toward the open space would upgrade the housing stock in this area while providing a valuable amenity. JANUARY 2000 4-26 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN • Riverfront Areas: Like the lakefront area discussed above, much of the City's Mississippi riverfront benefits only those property owners whose homes directly abut it. Redevelopment of residential areas along the riverfront with higher-value detached or attached housing could help to diversify the City's housing stock. Redevelopment of the area along Lyndale Avenue N. would capitalize on views of existing parkland, while redevelopment in the Willow Lane area north of I-694 could potentially restore public access and/or scenic views of the river, while increasing property values in surrounding areas. CITY-WIDE MARKETING AND PUBLICITY EFFORTS The City's"Discover the Center"initiative,started by the Chamber of Commerce in 1996, provides a focus for the marketing of the City as a desirable residential community. It has also expanded the role of the City's block clubs as a means for addressing many neighborhood-level issues. OFFICIAL CONTROLS CODE ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS: The City will continue its enforcement of the building maintenance code to address the exterior appearance of housing and the overall appearance of the City's neighborhoods. Housing maintenance standards are an important factor in overall neighborhood perception. The City will also continue to administer and enforce its rental licensing ordinance to assist in maintenance of rental housing. The City has dedicated a full-time housing inspector to this task. The City is also developing an ordinance instituting a Point of Sale Housing Inspection Program. The program would require that residential properties pass a housing maintenance code inspection before they are sold. The program would not require older houses to comply with today's stricter building standards. However, it would require correction of deficiencies that violate codes that were in effect when the house was built, and problems that pose health or safety hazards. ZONING INITIATIVES: The City has begun to develop an overlay district for the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor that would apply the development guidelines that were included in the Streetscape Amenities Study to new development or redevelopment within the corridor. The guidelines would apply to housing as well as to nonresidential development. Other zoning overlay initiatives may also be appropriate for the City Center area as a means of encouraging the addition of new and complementary uses, including housing, through mixed-or multi-use development in this area. JANUARY 2000 4-27 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN HOUSING PLAN APPENDIX: DESIGN GUIDELINES The following guidelines relate to the design and site planning of new,redeveloped or renovated housing. Many of these are adapted from the report Making Housing Home: A Design Guide for Site Planning Quality Housing, developed by the Design Center for American Urban Landscape at the University of Minnesota. The theme of that report, in summary, is that the goal of safe, high-quality housing can be achieved through careful attention to physical design at three scales: the house and yard;the residential block;and the neighborhood. By taking the good characteristics of the single-family house and the residential block and applying them to other housing types -- specifically to attached and multifamily housing -- a diversity of housing types can coexist compatibly within a neighborhood. Readers may refer to that report for more detailed guidelines and illustrations of these concepts. PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPACE AND SECURITY • Provide each housing unit with clearly defined private or semi-private outdoor space such as a yard, patio, porch or balcony, with direct access from inside the unit. Clearly define the boundaries of private outdoor space with elements such as fencing,sidewalks and vegetation. • Provide each unit with a front entry that faces the street and is visible and accessible from an adjacent public path. The"backs" of each unit should be reserved for private outdoor space and resident parking. Where individual entries are not possible, minimize the number of units that share a single entry. • Use semi-private outdoor spaces such as porches and patios to increase the sense of privacy and security within the home. Provide opportunities for surveillance of shared outdoor areas such as streets, sidewalks and play areas from within the home. APPROPRIATE EXTERIOR DESIGN • Ensure that building designs fit within the neighborhood context through the use of compatible scale,roof pitch,building massing and materials. • Design the front and back facades with appropriate levels of formality.The front,as the more public side of the house,should receive the more formal treatment, with trash/recycling storage, play equipment and outdoor storage located in the back. The main entry should face the street. JANUARY 2000 4-28 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN • Buildings should address the street with varied and articulated facades, frequent entries and windows. Porches and balconies should be encouraged, and facades consisting of long blank walls or series of garage doors should be prohibited. SHARED OR SEMIPRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE • Define all outdoor spaces, distinguishing between those reserved for residents and those open to the public. Enclose the shared outdoor space with buildings, low fences or hedges, and paths. Clearly define the boundaries and transitions between shared and private outdoor space. • Provide convenient access to shared outdoor areas,amenities such as play equipment, seating and tables to encourage their use, and vegetation for seasonal shade. • Control access by nonresidents via gateways, fences, plant materials or enclosed location. Locate outdoor spaces to allow for easy surveillance from inside homes. MIXING OF HOUSING TYPES • Discourage large housing projects that consist of a single building type; instead encourage a range of densities, housing types and building configurations. Encourage unity as well as diversity by specifying a common design vocabulary among the buildings, a clear pathway system and shared outdoor space that unifies and integrates the site. • Encourage the use of a single-family "vocabulary" in multifamily and attached buildings, as expressed by pitched roofs, articulated facades, visible entrances, porches or balconies, and a maximum height of three to four stories. Large high-rise buildings may be suitable for senior housing, but not as a rule for family housing. • If a multifamily building or attached housing is developed near single-family detached housing,ensure that the width of the building facade facing the street is similar to that of a single-family house. Attached units should be grouped in rows of no more than four or six units to avoid a monolithic appearance. • When combining housing types,it is preferable for the transition between types to occur at the rear rather than the front (i.e. across a courtyard or parking area rather than across the street). JANUARY 2000 4-29 BRW, INC. #24531 NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN SIDEWALKS AND PATHS • Provide a clear path system that connects each.house to destinations within the site and the surrounding neighborhood. Paths should be logical and predictable in their routes and should be linked to the public sidewalk system. • Keep public paths at the edge of the site;distinguish between public paths and private outdoor space;and make paths visible from shared and private spaces. STREETS, CARS AND PARKING AREAS • On large sites,extend the network of surrounding streets through the site to improve circulation, visibility, security and integration into the surrounding neighborhood. • Locate resident parking near each home,with a direct paved path to front or back door, while locating visitor parking near public spaces and public paths. Ensure that parking spaces are visible from within the resident's home and provide sufficient lighting. • In most cases,parking lots should be located to the rear of homes. If they must be located on the street frontage, they should be screened by a low hedge,fence, gate or similar visual buffer. • Use vegetation in and around parking lots to provide shade and visual relief. JANUARY 2000 4-30 BRW, INC. #24531 Comprehensive Plan 2020 PARK SYSTEM PLAN INTRODUCTION Brooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb with. a well-established park and open space system. No new parks are planned to be acquired or improved. Improvement is expected to 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 23 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 creates maintenance burdens for the City. Many park facilities,shown in Table 5-1,are in need of replacement. JANUARY 2000 5- 1 BRW, INC. #24531 PARK SYSTEM PLAN 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 ballfields,tennis courts and other facilities. Following these improvements, no formal plan was put in place for a systematic update. Almost twenty years since the last improvements, there are several "big ticket"items that are in need of replacement. Most recently,playground equipment in most parks has been replaced;five parks still await replacements. 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? JANUARY 2000 5-2 BRW, INC. #24531 � r IIIOp1111pIp11111111.�- ":11111 7 1 t1 _ ��� �� ♦ ■nm In°�°:- _: :X11 ii I IIm1 1111111_!?- �-� � .- 7���� !'�j��-��.._ _ "_ n/III 1 =" :iltttl•In: _r=== ■,\� / `��\'�-7:110 ::" �, ,� :iiiiiiii�ii:■77 -"_"_ " - {. �j"i Its.:.-.� _ S p I h •� ■p m w C•� �O._ _� ;nn I' IIV■il:in n��■ I•ih - • i���t� V1111111 • ■ _7_It11111P �, m Irrr �" ►%.X71 =" �• � N` _=:nnnnn'.. Pl�l,�i :i i=? 1111111:� --- ■__ �Op'111:/:••��' ` _- -.1..==- - =\O� - � nun?_-7--_7:_ 11� �7 7 - - 7 IIIhi'• •.,�- 'I -- - - = non.i7_7 7 .e 7 ---77 ° 7ii uggi 11j��^� ■ ti.1.\�° =° 7 7: .1111111..7_ , • - inlii�'.11���,�+� � � 7 uunnn1.11.nu_ In1�11 _ _ .__.■ - 7 - ..111n..11111._� �\111111 • • • �I� 7 , -• ` - 7 innunnOp•.�- _111111 _"� •• II I IN m.........ppp\I• •11 InnUMass....Op.i <X11111111111 IIIIIIIIIIU Y'. ��• _""IIIIIIIIi•'4.1 n1_ • _ _ 1'1��i iiini��'�77 77 77 7°_ ■■■IIIII//Iq•i••�1 uu. 1 �' _ ___ "- �� 7 ► �-"-__--_777__ ■■■11111111��•� 11 IIIIIIIIUlIO/1►. II . _ 7______ 7 � -C�"i:�_I���7��■■-�P 67 77 7_ •\/�iiiiii��0�I�ri iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii`� �„r` � �� � - _- - 77:� 7-I�n� �-� 77�__•Q.n”-- -7_ ;.,•p1111. 1111.E✓/�u1 Illanuluq� • � 7 .__ �� ,� Illlln.i tl:f.�___-������\�1 77 77 77 7,.,�� .. ulu_711111n.In.1n111.►�`` - -•nnnl7 77 7■ ■ 7 7 iiiiiin11111117 �=7=�iiiip Illll�iii iiiiriii:: t11 iO _uuul_77 77 7 7 11111111! _ uu1'IIIi��::1 nn.lur ���'�77 7-`�. ■'.iiiii7 7 7 7 7 iiiii�"I ,= 77 uuiiiiii'Ilai iii..•,•', �� � ��-_=■r .i�� �Initn�- _ ° _nliii • luriiii'a����luld� `y� � -_-7 7■7117 • •/ - I ni Sununu. n���'I�i//I%:i\v�Q=` � � • --"-- -_II_ 111111111117 � 011111111111111 ' -- --.111111_ - 7 ----- " -„11111 7:�-7 �� I.• � ------ • "--`_:x•.1111 _"__________ L ____-_ _ _ IInn 7__ _111 �� � ® ___ _■ __"_ - . -1i1 111111.111 ."'= M 11 Oct:.II Z_ - �m��n . �j•111111111��-°7 _ _C�__ a:�7 7-__ �i nulm �: �� • =J`,�O�O,�,�`1:7_ _ _!�I 7-�_- :..■_�77 77 7 I :-. � - 1111.•7 ■ - 7._Alli 1 �-�7 - "-ii ii :��:i� 7 - �� -�1111\\�• 1.11111111111 11, -• -7 -___ - �_� 11 iii 111111►����.� r � i■ __ 7 -•-- -_•_ -�_v 7�i� __ _ _01=11 �::nmlpl\•��%7= mmum ` :::- - �I'22:_?ve ?_ -- = - 11111111117717. IIIIIIIIIO.N a M• _7._ e 313 N IC7 7Co 7i i�101 IIIIII�IIIII.iniG ��IIIIIII •� _- ®1■L.....dnmml • • • • ° Ilpmm 1111111111111��'�! `� �' `111111 `�_�_� ��• . �11111/91 Table 5-1 Park Facilities, 1997 s E Li C� C4 a i c Arboretum 30 • Bellvue 7 • • 1 • • Brooklane 2 • • • A • • Central 48 • 1 2 L 4 Evergreen 20 • • 1 2 2 •L •L 2 1 L • • Firehouse 10 • • 1 2 • • Freeway 6 • 1 • A 2 • • Garden City 20 • • • • Grandview 13 • • 1 L 2, 2 • A •L • 1 • • • 1L Happy Hollow 6 • • 1 •A 2 • Kylawn 22 • • 2 2 •L • L • • • • Lakeside 2 Lions 18 • • 2 2 • • • Marlin 2 • North Mississippi(Hennepin Parks) 15 • Northport 25 • • 3 Z •L •L • • • Orchard Lane 7 • • 1 •L 2 • • Palmer Lake(East) • • 1 2 2 • Palmer Lake(South)and Nature Area 226 1 1 • • • Palmer Lake(West) • • 1 2 2 •A 2 • • • Riverdale 4 • • 1 • A 2 • Shingle Creek Trailway 10 • Twin Beach 3 • • 1 • • Wangstad 2 • 2 • Willow Lane 8 • • 2 • L •L • • • L-Lighted Rink A-Rink only,no attendant Archery available at Central Park,horseshoe courts at Grandview Park PARK SYSTEM PLAN • 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 more difficult to continue maintaining the park system at its current level. Staffing levels have actually declined since 1981, while the number of parks and trails have increased. Demographic and social changes also affect the park system. Both the City's population and the number of school-age children in the City declined between 1980 and 1990. While the number of pre-school children increased slightly in the 1980s, many of these children are now in day care on weekdays, and thus not using neighborhood parks and programming to the same degree as in the past. In response to these 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. PARK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Parks are classified and developed according to a functional hierarchy. This functional system suggests the types of facilities and development which 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,organized sports and specialized and community-wide recreation needs can be met by one or two larger parks in each neighborhood. 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 parks,and special use parks and open spaces. Neighborhood Parks include the following three types: JANUARY 2000 5-5 BRW, INC. #24531 PARK SYSTEM PLAN 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 1/ mile radius. Desirable Size: 1/ 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. 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 1/to 1/2 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 JANUARY 2000 5-6 BRW, INC. #24531 PARK SYSTEM PLAN 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 11/2 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 Park Relatively large parks serving as a recreational focus for a neighborhood of the City. Community 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. 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. JANUARY 200055-7 BRW, INC. #24531 PARK SYSTEM PLAN 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. JANUARY 2000 5-8 BRW, INC. #24531 Table 5-2: Park Classification and Improvements System Cz a., E 0 E Improvement U a a 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 • Archery • Lighting for Baseball • Softball • Football • Hockey • Skating • Trails, walkways • • • • • Picnic Areas: Pavillion • • Tables • • • • Restrooms • • • As needed j j3 i Table 5-3: Proposed Park Classifications x 7� Park ° Arboretum Bellvue • Brocklane Cahlander • Central Park • Evergreen • Firehouse • Freeway • Garden City • Grandview • Happy Hollow • Kylawn • Lakeside • Lions 40 Marlin • Northport • North Mississippi (Hennepin) • Orchard Lane • Palmer Lake (east) • Palmer Lake (west) • Palmer Lake (south) • Riverdale • Twin Lake • Wangstad • Willow Lane 40 � r-nmm�uumnu■m____:11 7C: :- _ n■p'�. _ _���_S ■1111111 -■"■'' o�, \" ,"� X111 X11 i1i iu ul� �ijQGI /ia noon•■: ni:n i■••, • iI••\Pry XM 15 R ME ``' =\III -- -I - - _ -u■_____�_ -.�:=/ unnnm a r 111111 LC - C °Ny�� ud►4n■Ii� • ` - �_:1111111111 ' :�iC L ol',I C n■1 �1.rl�� :umum'.I��7 �■� IVA _ '��-===-=== :,,.-•�. �-==_ = =U.::/ ' %'���• �� =� .- = =X11= = � :i:ii::i:unnnl �.�. ■ IN :nnnnnnnn• -_11111 i •• • ■■�•■r��� ,��.� urrl. al- -_mum nnnnum Ip■�■4. + ■ ,'��`, ,�O :::ii:iii:unnnnm •iu5 n■OII Illnunln 29di3O���-_ �• nnuryibq q .u_ - • m�IItI III■n�■.::::- _ :u■n�I- 11111111 rlilbrl•n■� • • :7 7,7 __ "= I - _�.■nn•��::::--l_' -- - -� ■■■1111■■�i..i 1j11 1111111u■■n11 .•� _�°�-___ _' 1 __-- _.__ _-/ ' n■■rj��i 4u nnnnnuu. • ::-•I.i5:. • •�,� \■■nn•.��ji�gn mnnu■uuu.`�-'. �.>< �� : y a e_■ ` :•I uiiii:ni i�■�:: - iiiiiiiii::iiiiinlS uu iiil�•i%°:11::7:=�:° -iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiriiii:i � I - - -Innnl-::e: ■ --nnu111111111= ��■o umg1111Uw nnnno • � X1111' noon:::-_ , 1 nn■■111 _ �_-_ Iunl// �.W mule � '�/1-::1 ?i, i ••" uu //i�In nnuur •� 00 , � : ■bQ n noon � r- _ - P , �1\Imp::� •• 1 w u n■■4llu nn■- ��� �_1 -:::__ • InIlluun■ �I nnr4r� m nod � «,. MM__ 1111111 ��_�■4111•- � � . � •i::G°:: ••A• - IIIIIIII- i��■l 1.1111181 ZZ 111■1.11111 - ::_ _ • _ 111111:.�::� : / .I _-- _:=- Z,'. - � ;;��•- x_11 -11.- --'--- - -- �� �■:°■a .� ME cc 2 ME .m idh■ �I .IIf -n.mu • •• •��111 =_=-- 1'i��� M_ ME – unmu ___ IN 1 ��noun■ .■.. .' � p�♦ 00 pi:■ ::_ 'r -::�:■i-�= - a _ � noon ` , �.�O�OHO p�.11 ill�■e::_a i7 _ -. _ �,nmm .1' ` ���.d00��.. ---- ■ 1 1 _ III 111■■: ■ _ -1►��•�'�: - - - 1?= • = _::� •, � 1J==�� �� � 1 • 11111\i -: 1 __:i i1-._.�. _■__- -111 �i 11111111 I■1■� _ __P ■■ I• � :ii11111\°i°i�� ...:� � :: i i,'••Ili_ _ __°__ __ :-e __-_a 5_=_3_ `_fl 11111■1►i II.� ■�■:---- - :L��-•_ _- --� 1111-- ___-1-- = �_::nuunit►\IC mm�nn :ii:== �■_I= : 1= =i= a 3=■:i9 iln Imnllnn uui� ral ME .nunun1111:.IC nnuun■e ' -- -_=a _ IIIIIIIIIZ ME NONE NONE!�� S�p�unnnl� ==_ • - Nil .r 1111111 ' '. • • IN IN IN IN • • • PARK SYSTEM PLAN 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 I-694 bridge, and then the proposed Hennepin Parks trail in North Mississippi Regional Park. East-west links include the 69th Avenue greenway, the Freeway Boulevard/65th Avenue trail; and the proposed 53rd Avenue greenway. 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. Two primary linkages are currently substandard and require improvement. 1) The on-sidewalk portion of the Shingle Creek Trail across the Brookdale Shopping Center site is unimproved and is not adequately separated from traffic;this segment detracts aesthetically from the overall feel of the trail,most of which travels through natural areas. 2) There is no suitable bicycle crossing of I-694 west of Xerxes Avenue except for the substandard on-sidewalk trail on Brooklyn Boulevard. 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 consists of a mix of facilities to provide a mix of opportunities for persons of all ages and abilities. JANUARY 2000 5- 12 BRW/, INC. #24531 PARK SYSTEM PLAN • 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 the school systems 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 and design 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. • 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. • 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. JANUARY 2000 5- 13 BRW, INC. #24531 PARK SYSTEM PLAN 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 which 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. 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 2020 population and number of households. Table 5-4 evaluates parkland needs based on the projected 2020 population of 30,500,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 playlots, 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. JANUARY 2000 5- 14 BRW, INC. #2453 1 PARK SYSTEM PLAN Table 5-4: Comparison of Park Acreage with National Guidelines Park Classif. Acreage, Guideline 2020 Target Surplus/ 1997 deficit Community Parks 141 5/1,000 pop. 177 (36) Neighborhood 117 2/1,000 pop. 61 56 Parks 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 playlots (see Table 5-5). Most parts of the City are within walking distance of a neighborhood park (playlot, playground or playfield) and within a short drive or bike ride of a community park. Table 5-5: Parks by Neighborhood Neighbor- Playlot Playground Playfield Community Special hood Park Use Park 1 - Central Brooklane Garden City 2- Northeast Riverdale Palmer Lake Evergreen Firehouse East 3 - Freeway Willow Lane Palmer Lake Palmer Northwest West Lake South 4- Bellvue Lions Central North Southeast Grandview Mississipp i Regional 5- Lakeside Twin Lake Northport Southwest Happy Hollow 6-West Marlin Orchard Lane Kylawn Arboretu Central Wangstad m RELATIONSHIP TO REGIONAL PARK FACILITIES Two regional park/recreational facilities are located within Brooklyn Center: part of the North Mississippi Regional Park,and a portion.of the North Hennepin Trail System. NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK .JANUARY 2000 5- 15 BRW, INC. #24531 PARK SYSTEM PLAN A section of North Mississippi Regional Park is located along the Mississippi River from 53rd Avenue to I-694. From 53rd to 57th Avenue,it includes the area between Lyndale Avenue and the river; 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 I-694 bridge. This path links to another in the regional park in Minneapolis. I-94 is a significant barrier between the residents of Brooklyn Center (and Minneapolis)and the Regional Park. Bridges over I-94 provide possibilities for City trail linkages at 53rd and 57th Avenues. The 53rd Avenue Development and Linkage Project underway in 1997-98 will begin the construction of the proposed 53rd Avenue Greenway. A partnership between Brooklyn Center,Minneapolis,and Hennepin Parks is being explored to provide for a trail linkage between the Shingle Creek Trail and the North Mississippi Regional Trail along one or both sides of 53rd Avenue. Aside from the linkage,it is expected that the greenway will"open up"the Mississippi riverfront to Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis residents,who do not currently have a pleasant, easy means of reaching it. No linkage is being planned at this time at 57th Avenue except for the existing sidewalk. At the park's north end at the I-694 bridge,a trail under I-694 provides a connection to the City's trail system at Willow Lane. As discussed in the Land Use Plan,it is proposed to continue the residential use of the properties along the west side of Lyndale Avenue from 53rd to 57th Avenues. NORTH HENNEPIN TRAIL SYSTEM The Shingle Creek Trail was identified a number of years ago for inclusion in the forty-mile North Hennepin Trail System loop. The Shingle Creek 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 Hennepin Parks to define maintenance and reconstruction responsibilities and to explore options for improvements. These might include: further amenities at the minimally improved Palmer Lake Park,which functions as a trail head;completion of the separation of wheeled and non-wheeled trails in the heavily-used segments; and correction of long-term issues such as continued trail settling along the creek, which contributes to periodic trail flooding. Except for the short segment across the Brookdale Shopping Center, the trail is located entirely on City-owned parkland or open space. Redevelopment of Brookdale would provide an opportunity to improve this important segment and to protect it with an easement for public use. JANUARY 2000 5- 16 BRW, INC. #24531 Comprehensive Plan 2020 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS T 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. An emergency interconnect with the City of Brooklyn Park is being constructed in 1997 at France Avenue and 73rd Avenue. Water is derived from the Jordan Sandstone aquifer via nine wells. Storage and system pressure 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. The City has completed and received Metropolitan Council approval of its Water Supply Plan. A Wellhead Protection study is currently underway and is expected to be completed by the end of 1997. Further study is anticipated in the next three to five years to consider the potential need for additional storage, and to evaluate water treatment needs. System storage is currently 3 million gallons,while average daily use varies,but can approach 3.5 million gallons. Using the informal standard that storage should equal average daily use,study is needed to determine whether additional storage would be beneficial, or if efficient system management and conservation measures would suffice. Water treatment is not considered necessary at this time,but continuous monitoring of the Safe Drinking Water Act standards is necessary to determine if a water treatment plant should be considered in the future. 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. JANUARY 2000 6- 1 BRW, INC. #24531 f UBLIC FACILITIES PLANS 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 main as necessary;paint and repair towers;and maintain the 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,monitored by a radio alarm system which is currently being upgraded and integrated with the water utility's SCADA system. The City is connected to the Metropolitan Wastewater System, and is served by Crystal Interceptor 1-BC-453. 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. Figure 6-1 shows the current wastewater system. The City's current wastewater flow generally ranges between 1,100 and 1,300 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 overall increases from redevelopment activities. There is a limited amount of additional industrial growth potential remaining in the City. In addition,the City is in the fifth year of a twenty- 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. Worksheet E further describes the City's efforts to reduce inflow and infiltration. Future improvements to the system will consist of continued maintenance through regular and routine projects to maintain the lift stations; repair or reconstruct sanitary sewer main as necessary;and maintain the SCADA system. WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT The storm drainage system consists of 80 miles of storm sewer,regional and local storm water detention ponds, wetlands, and storage areas. Brooklyn Center is located in two watersheds:the West Mississippi Watershed along the easterly third of the City, and the Shingle Creek Watershed. Each of these Watershed Management Organizations has completed an approved Local Water Management JANUARY 2000 6-2 BRW, INC. #24531 ;1 i 'j LiR M0 010 6t o` r-7--r-r-f �..�� 2000.1.69 mOd Tool MnneeDOns r Corrtst:Oms 2 r---p 2010.1.78 nVd 2000.0.18 mpd 201 mgd 2020 182 rtlpd 2010-0.18 rrod .21 mod mo 2020-0.i8 nqd i Lm Tolel Crystal In1.Cnnnentions BW 2000 0'4 mod A. 2010.0 14 mud 2020-`1.'4 mud �. _ Pipe Size Force Main ,a! N i N 12" N 21" N 24" N 27„ Figure b-1 4roo I Center Sanitary Sewer System P. PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS Plan. Brooklyn Center has also completed an approved Local Water Management Plan. The Local Plan identified numerous system deficiencies,consisting mainly of areas underserved by or totally lacking storm drainage systems. The twenty-year neighborhood street and utility program is the primary vehicle for the construction of improvements to the storm drainage system. The second most important means of improvement is the use of redevelopment as an opportunity to provide regional storm water treatment facilities. Future improvement to the system will consist of continued maintenance through regular and routine projects to repair or reconstruct storm sewer and detention ponds; implementation of a regular program to inspect private storm drainage systems; construction of regional treatment facilities; and continued study of the quality of surface waters,in conjunction with the two watershed organizations. JANUARY 2000 6-3 BRW, INC. #24531 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS APPENDIX: WORKSHEET D PROJECTING YOUR COMMUNITY'S FUTURE WASTEWATER FLOWS INTO THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER SYSTEM (BY METROPOLITAN INTERCEPTOR SERVICE AREA) Projected Households Projected Flows and Employees (Please show your calculations) (in millions of gallons) First Service Area First Service Area Year Households Employees 2000 11,300 18,800 1,100 2005 11,550 19,200 1,150 2010 11,800 22,400 1,200 2020 12,200 23,500 1,225 NOTES: Projected future flows were based on modest redevelopment over the next several years. 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 not expected to increase appreciably 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. JANUARY 2000 6-4 BRW, INC. #24531 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS APPENDIX: WORKSHEET E PREVENTING AND REDUCING INFILTRATION AND INFLOW INTO THE METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER SYSTEM 1. Please state your city's objectives,policies and strategies for preventing and reducing excessive infiltration and inflow into the metropolitan wastewater 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. 2. Please identify the extent and sources of existing infiltration/inflow problems and what can reasonably be removed. 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. 3. Please describe your city's program for reducing and preventing infiltration/inflow. An annual televised inspection program identifies many of the sewer main pipes and infrastructure with 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 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 JANUARY 2000 6-5 BRW, INC. #24531 PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS costly, but the reduction in I/1, 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. Finally,over time,utility employees conducting routine meter readings have identified and ordered removed all cross-connections which are visible and accessible. What few cross-connections which may remain would likely be burdensome to identify and replace. JANUARY 2000 F-6 BRW, INC. #24531 Comprehensive Plan 2020 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM Implementation 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 two categories: ■ Official controls ■ 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 the draft Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Overlay District, which was written to further the objectives of the 1995 Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Streetscape Improvements Plan. That zoning district would allow mixed land uses and provide design guidelines. • Adopt and incorporate the draft Shoreland District. 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 updating the Mississippi River Critical Area and MNRRA Plan. 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 and 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. JANUARY 2000 7- 1 BRW, INC. #24531 IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN The following table outlines the capital improvements proposed in this Comprehensive Plan, their approximate costs and a general time frame for implementing them. It is recognized that his 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 performing engineering or design studies and,therefore,are open to much refinement. Most of the activities listed in Table 7-1 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 table suggests general time frames for implementation of these activities,while recognizing that the costs and feasibility of each project must be determined individually. Table 7-1 does not include cost estimates for redevelopment activities in which the City 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. JANUARY 2000 7-2 BRW, INC. #24531 / 2mG emO 2mo 0 2 s E o � > 0I 2 = - 5 ° ~ Z ° = ° 0 / 0 9 / 0 \ § § 0 �_ \ s / & 7 / J s / § o 0 a ¥ m so = < ° _ / > = 3 © = 2 o » ° \ « f ® ° % o = < o - f o m 5 G • e 0 e * U ] _ e ) » } / � ) J \ \ ) / / \ (D q Q dm2 (D (D / ° 3 \ ( \ \ \ 0 / (D � _ , � / / ƒ / 77- / \ / ƒ / cn ƒ ) \ \ & p y 0 » 0 3 & » = s ( m 3 0 & s m / / / Cl) _3 0 \ & } 0 _ cn O \ / � \_ C 2 7 \ \ \� ] m a o u E + A s 00 -0 \ \ Cl) m E / I J ] _\ \ \ ; (D CL o \ CA 3 \ w / ƒ / � $ \ ° \ ~ / ƒ � 0 I � gU) _ °J = < < / Ul / / & R w E 0 2 E } § E K t t t t t & \ g t t t t \ 7 -n � § m t t t Ln § � q\ Irl / 0 = > c = > c = » 0 5 = cn c = 20 c 2 2 3 77m @Em (n oCf) m R = c / _ = m o CD ' = m - = m - = 7 m £ § / \ ® / \ d d § 7 c \ / J \ / J \ / / E »\ 2 ° � k \ \ \ 2 gs - ge - ge - :3 C, - § \ C ± \ � § \ c _ §! / / $ « 3 3 \ _ Jx = 7< = c g /x = n @ = m « e = a o m = c = s e = cn M = \ o o o 0 0 0 C ( » $ 7 7 / x \ e e CD 3 G @ _0 2 7 (n E E E \ w s E 3 3 x J m m I m » I ° 3 = e J g / — e o / m 77 o o 3 E e n = s = = ° / ® c a ® _ ). 7 nE » CD e e . = s m $ C c ] _ n m �o J m ] I e / / / ƒ q \ / \ / \ \ \ ¢ ® / \ / / & / \ \ \ « $ g 3 \ \ \ § \ m ) / E 2 § ° 7 / k \ w \ \ § $ 2 7 % CD m = 7 = & g = « ° § / gm < < < / e 2 0 2 e }. }. %. / e a / t t � Irl q\ t \ � t t L t 2 o -n 2 ] m t t t t t u g � t Ir. q\ t / 0 ¢ c ¢ aee s2 30 » S m 2 = 71 3J § \ / § o / $' 3 D j D j - m \ = s 4 = % \ / \ n \ / ® / $ / $ / 3 7 ƒ J \ \ $ \ / r- o } § E 3 \ § o = } § J § e § \ 0 7 C E g = J CD Comprehensive Plan 2020 MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR PLAN MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL AREA The State of Minnesota, pursuant to the Critical Areas Act of 1973 and Executive Order 79-19,requires 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 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 because of an oversight that draft ordinance was not adopted by the City Council. 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. JANUARY 2000 8- 1 BRW, INC. #24531 CRITICAL AREA PLAN 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 The plan update will aid 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. Brooklyn Center was, in 2000, in the process of updating its Critical Area Plan and its draft Critical Area Overlay Zoning District. Although that plan and ordinance were not ready in time to be submitted to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council with this Comprehensive Plan, the City expects to have them ready by the end of 1998 or shortly thereafter. The City has been in contact with representatives of the Metropolitan Council(for the Critical Area Plan)and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for the MNRRA requirements) and understands what is expected of it for these documents. Helpful suggestions and recommendations have been provided to the City by both agencies. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN When adopted,the new Brooklyn Center River Corridor Plan will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan by reference and will thus have the full force of the rest of this plan. The overlay district will be codified as part of the City's zoning ordinance. 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 I-694 and improvement of North Mississippi Regional Park (in conjunction with Hennepin Parks) south of I-694. An important new initiative in this comprehensive plan are the improvements to sidewalks, bicycle lanes, trees and lighting along 53`d and 57"'Avenues,which lead across I-94 to the regional riverfront park. These corridors will also link to the planned Humboldt Greenway in Minneapolis and the existing North Mississippi Regional Park. The updates to the River Corridor Plan will give the City another opportunity to elaborate on its policies for protecting and enhancing the riverfront, which will surely pay dividends to this community. JANUARY 2000 8-2 BRW, INC. #24531 Comprehensive Plan 2020 Appendix 1: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats The following list, along with a preliminary list of issues (see Appendix 2), was generated at a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in October, 1996. STRENGTHS Community attributes • Convenient location/proximity to large city • Freeway access and exposure • Scale and size are manageable • A good mix of commercial, office and industrial uses • Adequate commercial development-- good variety of retail uses • Good public schools • Affordable housing • Strong residential character--strong,close-knit neighborhoods • Strong residential real estate market • Tree-lined streets • Good park system • Good public transit • Natural amenities • Community center--Library • Earl Brown Center--Earl Brown theme • Community organizations Characteristics of residents • A diverse population • Good citizen participation • Multi-generational community • Intelligent,well-informed City management/fiscal characteristics • The ability to learn from other suburbs • A proactive City Council • Strong City staff • Good bond rating/low debt • Strong tax base • Flexible administration • Well-maintained streets and utilities;good snowplowing! • Code enforcement JANUARY 2000 A- I BRW, INC. #24531 APPENDIX 1: STRENGTHS,WEAKNESSES,OPPORTUNUIES AND THREATS • Volunteer Fire Department Activities • Community festival • Neighborhood Watch program • Recreation programs WEAKNESSES Image problems • "Weak" image--lack of a positive image • Perceptions of high crime rate • Negative media coverage • Negative perceptions of Brookdale, of housing problems Aging community and infrastructure problems • Aging infrastructure • Empty storefronts • Brookdale: tax value decline • Need for renovations to both housing and commercial development • Insufficient incentives for reinvestment(return on reinvestment) • Earl Brown Center loses money • Age of housing stock • Absentee ownership (residential,commercial) • Not enough"spread" in the housing market • Apartments: age,concentration,percentage of housing units • 20th highest taxes in Metro (3rd in 1995) • Services needed by growing senior population • City appears "old" • New development encroaching on housing • Cost of land development(versus other cities) Road,traffic,"linkage" problems • Congested freeways and arterials • Highway 100 (incomplete) • Brooklyn Boulevard • Brookdale is unattractive • "Too many exits [to City],not enough entrances" • Insufficient linkages between Brookdale and surrounding development • Palmer Lake is a barrier Deficiencies • No viable focal points--no "Main Street" • Few neighborhood gathering places • Lack of a supermarket JANUARY 2000 A-2 BRW, INC. #24531 APPENDIX 1: STRENGTHS,WEAKNESSES,OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS • Lack of coffee shops, bagel, yogurt shops and similar small-scale eating places • Inadequate fire-police facilities • Lack of riverfront access • Lack of funding Internal/attitude problems • Political nature of the community • Bias against renters • Ethnic/racial bias • Negative attitudes • Lack of focus to prioritize and implement projects • Not enough collaboration with Minneapolis OPPORTUNITIES Redevelopment/revitalization • Brookdale--mixed-use redevelopment • Brooklyn Boulevard • Brooklyn Boulevard/69th Street redevelopment • Earl Brown Center--attract conventions • Underutilized commercial properties • Strip mall redevelopment • Neighborhood street upgrading program • Remodeling incentives • Exploit access to Minneapolis--develop sites along 694/94 • Link to Minneapolis trails at river • Growth of hospitality industry • Expand City Hall Community-building efforts • Create identity with a unifying theme • Build community based on neighborhoods • Meet the needs of a diverse population • Create a crime-resistant city • Redraw school district boundaries--3 instead of 4 • Encourage winter sports activities New/expanded uses desired • Sports bar • More varied housing stock City management efforts • Broaden tax base • Revise T.I.F. Districts • Improve surface water quality JANUARY 2000 A-3 BRW, INC. #24531 APPENDIX 1: STRENGTHS,WEAKNESSES,OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS • Learn from other cities • Current comprehensive planning effort TH R EATS External threats • Unfair competition from outer suburbs • General economic downturn • Negative perceptions • Crime: media versus reality • Maple Grove mall (retail competition) • Natural disasters • Legislative actions • Loss of T.I.F. capabilities • Education taxes consume all funds • Federal cuts in social programs Internal threats • Facility bonds fail [in election] • Spending freezes,loss of revenue • Loss of recreation programs • Decline in housing values in Southeast neighborhoods • Resident flight • Crime • "Porno World" • Lack of influence with Legislature • Not aggressive enough in fighting blight • Brookdale becomes"sub-regional" mall • City fails to provide business incentives • Business flight • Loss of tax base due to Brooklyn Boulevard corridor widening Social,attitudinal threats • Failure to provide for diversity in population • Failure to learn(from the past,from other cities,etc.) • Apathy • Lack of socially acceptable activities for youth • Racism/classism • Single-parent households--lack of suitable programs for children,teens JANUARY 2000 A-4 BRW, INC. #24531 Comprehensive Plan 2020 Appendix 2: Issues The following issues have been identified based on a strategic planning workshop that was held with City Council and Planning Commission members in October 1996,as well as the observations and insight of City staff and planning consultants. This list is a summary and distillation of many ideas, combined and grouped together for clarity and impact. An issue is a question about the future of the community that reasonable citizens might debate and that should be addressed in light of the other issues and hopefully resolved through the planning process. The issues provide a framework for the plan and will guide the preparation of plan goals,objectives,policies,physical plans and implementation programs. THEMES The dominant theme in the discussion is that Brooklyn Center has many strengths that are not reflected in its public image,and that the City needs to improve this image,in terms of both physical improvements and public perceptions. Housing is another major concern--the maintenance and improvement of the City's housing stock,and whether the current housing mix should be changed. A related concern is that of neighborhood design, and how improved design can contribute to neighborhood cohesion and livability. Another theme centers on the role of the City's businesses, most particularly Brookdale Mall, and what the City should do to improve the prospects for commercial development. Finally,there are many concerns about the best ways to maintain and improve the City's infrastructure and municipal services. A related theme is how best to overcome the physical barriers that divide the City internally,and how to link the City to adjacent communities. ISSUES Workshop participants used a "dot-voting" method whereby they assigned one or more stickers to the issues of greatest concern to them.Asterisks indicate issues that received these "votes," with three asterisks indicating highest priority. JANUARY 2000 A-J BRW, INC. #24531 APPENDIX 2: ISSUES IMAGE AND APPEARANCE While Brooklyn Center contains attractive and well-maintained neighborhoods, an identifiable town center and an excellent park system, its visual image has suffered because of the deterioration of a few highly visible areas such as Brooklyn Boulevard. Meanwhile, the City's image in the region has suffered because of the perception of decline, exacerbated by negative media coverage. ■ What steps should the City take to improve its image?* ■ How can the City improve the appearance of "Auto Row" (on Brooklyn Boulevard)?* ■ How can the City best unify itself across the highways that divide it? ■ How can the City best exploit its natural amenities? BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT While the City has an extensive retail core, centered on Brookdale, both this and other commercial areas are showing signs of age. Issues center on the need to upgrading and reposition these areas,and on the City's role in business development. ■ What role should the City play in supporting/assisting private businesses?** ■ Should the City compete with private businesses(i.e.in running a conference center)?Should the City continue to operate a liquor store? ■ How should the City plan for the redevelopment or upgrading of Brookdale? Should the City assist Brookdale financially?** HOUSING One of the City's primary strengths is its strong residential character,and many key issues center on the need to maintain and upgrade its housing stock,and how to best respond to the changing housing market. ■ What is the most appropriate housing mix for the City?** ■ Should the number of multifamily apartments in the City be reduced? ■ What creative housing rehab and zoning strategies should the City pursue to improve its housing?** ■ How can the City encourage and foster housing maintenance?* JANUARY 2000 A-6 BRW, INC. #24531 APPENDIX 2: ISSUES ■ How can the City gain support for housing rehab programs? ■ How should the City hold landlords accountable for their properties? NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN AND ZONING Along with housing,neighborhood design is an essential component of strong neighborhoods. As expressed in a recent report by the Design Center for American Urban Landscape, housing value is directly related to the infrastructure that supports it,such as streets, trees, lighting, to natural amenities, and to anchoring institutions such as schools and places of worship. Creating stronger connections between these elements is the basis of neighborhood design. Zoning,while more technical in nature,is a primary tool for implementing land use change. ■ What role can New Urbanist design play in the City, especially in the integration of businesses into neighborhoods? ■ Should the City's grid street pattern be changed? ■ Should additional amenities be considered as part of routine street reconstruction,in order to improve the public realm? ■ How should the City zone adult entertainment uses? ■ Should the City rezone the area between Highway 252 and Humboldt Avenue (near High School)? ■ What is the best zoning classification for tax-exempt activities? INFRASTRUCTURE AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES Issues in this area range from the need for continuous upgrading of infrastructure(streets, utilities,etc.) to the role of the park system and the City's role in crime prevention. ■ What is the best pace(phasing,timing)for infrastructure improvements?*** ■ What are the most effective methods the City can employ for preventing crime?** ■ How should the City allocate its resources between infrastructure and social programs? ■ How much will citizens support in bond costs for capital improvements? JANUARY 2000 A-7 BRW, INC. #24531 APPENDIX 2: ISSUES ■ Is the City's park system adequate for its current population and recreation needs? Which parks need improvements or upgrading? TRANSPORTATION AND LINKAGES "Transportation"includes issues ranging from movement of traffic on key highway corridors to bus and light rail transit opportunities. Traffic movement along corridors also relates to the arrangement of land uses along these corridors and the other topic areas of"image"and "neighborhood design." "Linkages"encompass both connections between neighborhoods and between the City and its neighbors. ■ How should the City work to achieve upgrading of Brooklyn Boulevard,as proposed in the recent Streetscape Amenities Study? ■ How can the street system be improved to make it more "legible" and understandable,especially in the Brookdale area? ■ How should the City capitalize on its excellent highway access and visibility, while overcoming the"dividing" effect of these major highways? ■ Should the City support development of light rail transit(LRT)?Can existing transit service be improved? ■ How can the City best accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists in keeping with regional bicycle transportation plans and policies? ■ Should the City build "bridges" or "walls" to Minneapolis and its other neighbors? In other words, what kind of linkages or divisions across municipal boundaries are appropriate? ■ Should the City consider consolidation with Brooklyn Park? 1/30/97 JANUARY 2000 A-8 BRW, INC. #24531 Comprehensive Plan 2020 Appendix 3: Traffic Forecasts Methodology The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the process used to obtain Year 2020 average daily traffic (ADT) forecasts for Brooklyn Center. Year 2020 model assignments and historical ADT were examined. The model assignments for several road segments were found to be lower than existing traffic counts and therefore were not further studied. Historical ADT was compiled and analyzed for linear trends using least squares regression. Except for a few segments,historical ADT did not have a significant linear trend according to Mn/DOT guidelines. Also,growth in ADT for the road segments analyzed often did not increase over time and in a number of cases actually declined. Because a linear relationship for most of the road segments could not be established and because traffic growth over time was at best inconsistent,an alternative method of developing Year 2020 forecasts needed to be established. The alternative method involved basing ADT growth rates for Brooklyn Center on differences between 1994 ADT and previously developed 2010 forecasts. Examination of Year 2020 Model Assignments Year 2020 daily model assignments for road segments in Brooklyn Center were compared to 1994 ADT taken from Mn/DOT flow maps. Several of the 1994 ADT counts were found to be higher than the 2020 daily model assignments. The model assignments were not examined further because at this time they are not the "official" regional forecasts. Currently, the Metropolitan Council is working with the municipalities in the seven county area to determine whether or not the socioeconomic inputs currently in the regional travel demand model are satisfactory. Any changes to these inputs could potentially change the 2020 daily model assignments. Examination of Historic Growth Trends Historical ADT available for road segments in Brooklyn Center were examined. The ADT's were collected from Mn/DOT flow maps for the years 1978,1980,1982,1984, 1988,1990,1992,and 1994. The historical ADT's for each segment were entered into a program called MNESALS. The MNESALS program, developed by Mn/DOT, was used in an attempt to develop a year 2020 forecast for each road segment based on a linear projection of a least squares regression line. After the data was input into MNESALS,it was found in an overwhelming majority of cases that the regression lines were not reliable enough to develop forecasts. This was because the RZ values, which are used to assess trend line reliability,were almost always below 0.56 for each road segment regression line. According to Mn/DOT, the value of 0.56 is considered to be the minimum reliability indicator. Any historical ADT with an RZ regression value below 0.56 is thought not to have a "strong" enough linear trend to be used for forecasting future ADT. JANUARY 2000 A-9 BRW, INC. #24531 APPENDIX 3: TRAFFIC FORECASTS METHODOLOGY Development of Year 2020 Forecasts Because of the problems in developing Year 2020 daily traffic forecasts from the regional model and linear trend analysis,an alternative forecasting method had to be established. Given the limited options available,it was decided that an annual growth rate should be applied to 1994 ADT out to Year 2020. Annual growth rates for the various road segments were established by examining the annual growth rates derived from 1994 ADT and 2010 ADT forecasts taken out of the North Brooklyn Center Transportation Study written by SRF. The derived rates were first checked for reasonableness. If found reasonable, they were applied to 1994 ADT in order to obtain 2020 ADT forecasts. At times, the derived growth rates seemed unusually high. For some road segments,a lower growth rate(no higher than 2.25%)was used instead of the derived rate. This was done under the assumption that traffic growth for these road segments would level off somewhat after 2010 due to roadway capacity constraints. Finally,for road segments where a 2010 forecast did not exist, an annual growth rate of 1%was used. This was thought to be a reasonable rate given that Brooklyn Center is virtually fully developed. Overall, annual growth rates for the roadway segments ranged from 1%to 2.25%. For comparison,the City of Minneapolis has established a citywide traffic growth rate of 0.5%per year. I JANUARY 2000 A- 1 Q BRW, INC. #24531