HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 12-03 CCP WorksessionCouncil Worksession
V I RT UA L meeting being
conducted by electronic
means in accordance with
Minnesota S tatutes, section
13D.021 P ublic portion
available for connection by
calling 1-312-535-8110
A ccess C ode: 177 291
6297
December 3, 2020
AGE NDA
The C ity Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy
of the full City Council pac ket is available to the public. The pac ket ring binder is located at the
entrance of the c ounc il chambers.
1.C all to Order - 5:00 p.m.
2.Roll Call
3.Work S ession D iscussion Items
a.Housing Study D iscussion
4.Adjourn
C ouncil Worksession
DAT E:1 2 /3/2 0 2 0
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:M eg B eekman, Community D ev elopment D irector
S U B J E C T:H ous ing S tudy D is cus s ion
B ackground:
O vervie w
H ousing and the policy is s ues related to hous ing have become some of the mos t pres s ing and important
ma/ers facing communi0 es today. For mos t s ubur ban communi0 es, hous ing compr is es a s ignificant
majority of a ci0 es land us e and tax bas e. M aintaining and pres erving a safe, quality, and desirable hous ing
s tock is cri0cal to a community's long term economic health and resiliency. F urther, a div ers e housing s tock
w hich offers a w ide range of hous ing choices and price points ensures that a community can be resilient
through economic ups and dow ns as well as prov ide housing op0ons for a divers e popula0 on throughout
their lives . I n addi0on to maintaining a quality and diverse s upply of hous ing, communi0es are more and
more becoming focus ed on concerns regarding liv ability and accessibility of hous ing.
T he Tw in Ci0es M etropolitan A rea is currently experience record low vacancy r ates . A ccording to
Marque/e A dvis or s ’ midyear report from A ugus t 2019, the average vacancy r ate acr os s the seven-county
metro area is 2 .3 percent. Experts agree that a balanced rental market will typically s ee an av erage vacancy
rate of around 5 per cent. T he effect of low v acancy r ates over 0 me is incr eas ing r ents , a growing interes t
from outs ide inves tors , and landlords in a pos i0 on to be choosier about w ho they r ent to.
Br ookly n C enter ’s C urr ent Rental H ousing
T he result of the r egional trends des cribed above ar e being felt in Brooklyn C enter. Vacancy rates in the
community remain low er than the regional average, hov ering around 2 per cent. T his is common in
communi0es w ith more affordable rental units .
T hirty-s even per cent of Brooklyn C enter's hous ing s tock is compris ed of rental units . O f the C ity ’s s ingle-
family housing, about 8 percent are rental. Near ly 100 percent of the mul0 -family housing in Brooklyn
Center are one and tw o bedroom units built between 1961 and 1971, and near ly all of it is naturally
occurring affordable hous ing (N O A H ). Aver age r ents in Brooklyn C enter ar e naturally occurring affordable
becaus e the mar ket r ents , based on the age and condi0on of the units make them affordable at around 50
percent A M I in the metr opolitan area. Rents in Br ookly n Center are lower than the regional av erage.
A pproximately 9 0 per cent of all of the hous ing units in Brooklyn C enter is N O A H .
W hile N O A H proper0 es are affordable, they can be at risk of being los t as market demand increas es and
rents con0nue to go up. They can also experience dis inv estment over 0me, caus ing deteriora0on, los s of
value, and mos t importantly poor quality or uns afe living s itua0 ons if they are not properly ins pected and
maintained. At pr es ent 4 .1 percent of all units ar e legally binding, or s ubs idized affordable units. 10.9
percent of rental units are legally binding affordable. S ubs idiz ed affordable units are hous ing units that are
required to maintain an affordable rent regar dles s of s hiGs in market demand. D ue to their financing
s tructure, they als o mus t be maintained to a cer tain minimum s tandard. O ne of the goals of affordable
hous ing advocates is to pres erve exis0 ng N O A H proper0 es by conver0ng them to legally binding affordable
units through N O A H pr es erv a0 on programs . W ith the cons truc0 on of S onder H ous ing, Real Es tate Equi0es
w ill be adding 2 7 0 units of legally binding new affor dable hous ing units to the city. T hese w ill be the firs t
new construc0 on mul0 -family housing units built in B rooklyn C enter since 1971, and will increas e the
percentage of legally binding affordable units to 6 .6 percent of all units and 17.1 per cent of rental units .
T he C ity's 2040 C ompr ehensive P lan iden fies sever al broad housing goals
2 040 H ousing & Neighbor hood G oals :
P romote a divers e hous ing stock that prov ides s afe, s table, and acces s ible hous ing op0 ons to all of
Brooklyn C enter ’s res idents.
Recogniz e and iden0fy w ays to match B rook lyn C enter ’s hous ing w ith the C ity ’s changing
demographics .
Explore oppor tuni0es to improve the C ity ’s hous ing policies and or dinances to make them more
res pons iv e to cur rent and future residents .
Maintain the exis 0ng hous ing stock in pr imarily s ingle-family neighborhoods thr ough proper
ordinances , incen0v e programs and enfor cement.
Explore oppor tuni0es to incorporate new affordable housing into r edevelopment areas that promote
s afe, secur e and economically diverse neighbor hoods .
I n addi0on to thes e goals , the 2040 Compr ehens ive P lan iden0 fies implementa0 on s trategies as w ell as
res ources and tools for achiev ing its housing goals . T hese are contained in C hapter s 4 and 9, of the H ous ing
and I mplementa0on chapters res pec0 vely (a/ached).
B ackground
I n A pril 2018, the C ity C ouncil dis cus s ed sev er al pos s ible policies to addr es s affor dable hous ing issues . T he
memo from that dis cus s ion is a/ached to this r epor t. Based on that discus s ion, C ouncil directed staff to
mov e forw ard w ith a Tenant P rotec0 on O rdinance, and in D ecember 2018, it w as adopted.
I n M arch 2020, T he C ity C ouncil dis cus s ed hous ing policy as it centers around two dis0 nct topic areas :
1 ) H ousing choice - W hat is the composi0on and condi0on of the current hous ing s tock? W hat are the
current market demands for hous ing? H ow does the city's housing s tock relate to the market, and does the
city have enough and the r ight ty pe to meet cur rent and future need?
2 ) A ffordable hous ing policies - W hat can the city do to improve livability and acces s ibility to quality
affordable hous ing for res idents? W hat bes t pr ac0 ces exis t to s upport an effec0v e approach to addres s ing
the need for affor dable hous ing in the community ? W hat policies are mos t effec0 ve to prevent
dis placement?
At the w ork s es s ion the C ouncil cons idered a w or k plan that would take a comprehensiv e rev iew of the
City ’s housing policy appr oach related to thes e tw o dis 0nct topic areas and pr ovided direc0on to staff. T he
s taff report from that mee0ng is a/ached.
T he work plan included the following ac0on items :
- A dopt a Fair H ous ing Policy (in proces s )
- Conduct a comprehens iv e housing s tudy (in proces s )
- Explore a N O A H P r es erv a0 on program
- Explore a mixed-income/inclusionary hous ing policy
- Rev iew rental licens ing through the lens of tenant protec0ons
- S ingle family hous ing s tabiliz a0 on
T he Fair H ous ing Policy has been draGed and is an0 cipated to come before the C ouncil on D ecember 14 for
cons idera0on. I n addi0on, s taff has draGed a N O A H pres erva0on program and gathered informa0on on
mixed-income hous ing policies that can be br ought to the Council for dis cus s ion and direc0on at a future
w ork s ession.
S taff has begun w ork ing with the City A/orney's office on rev iewing the rental licens ing and tenant
protec0on ordinance. T his w ill be brought forw ard for review and discus s ion at a future w ork s ession.
H ousing S tudy D is cus s ion
T he purpos e of the dis cus sion this evening is to prov ide an update and overv iew as it relates to the H ous ing
S tudy. The City enter ed into a profes s ional s er vices agreement with Res ear ch in A c0on and the C enter for
Urban and Regional A ffairs with the Univers ity of Minnes ota to complete the w ork . I ni0al data collec0on
has begun.
D r. Bri/any L ew is w ill facilitate a dis cus s ion w ith the Council this evening ar ound hous ing trends and
hous ing policy. Their pr es enta0 on and discus s ion w ill focus on regional and na0 onal trends affec0ng
Brooklyn Center and the current cos t of hous ing. They will discuss housing policy and what tools are
av ailable to addr es s the high cost of housing. T hey w ill also discuss the hous ing s tudy scope and proces s
and how it fits in w ith the city 's hous ing goals as well as the O pportunity S ite M as ter P lanning efforts .
A s part of the hous ing s tudy and in prepara0 on for this discussion, Jas on A ars v old w ith Ehler's w as as ked
prov ide a pres enta0 on at the w ork s ession w ith an ov er view of the financial impacts of mul0 -family
hous ing, the various funding s ources , who pay s for it and and how it relates to Br ookly n Center.
T he agenda for the w ork s ession:
5 :00-5:15pm Welcome, I ntroduc0 ons to C U R A par tner s hip & Work By M eg
5 :15-6:00pm C U R A /Res earch in A c0on pres enta0on
6 :00-6:30pm D is cus s ion
6 :30-6:50pm Br ookly n Center H ousing F inance/F unding P res enta0on
6 :50-7:20pm D is cus s ion
7 :20-8:00pm O pen D is cus s ion: N ext S teps for C U R A pr oject; forma0on of adv is ory council and
s ugges0 ons fr om the council
B udget I ssues:
- D r. L ewis w ill facilitate a dis cus s ion on hous ing policy with the City Council. The goal of the discussion is to
prov ide level-s eNng for the C ouncil on this topic and lay the groundwork for fur ther dis cus s ion as the
hous ing study pr ogr es s es .
S trate gic Priori es and Values:
Resident Economic S tability
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip0on Upload D ate Ty pe
M arch 9, 202 0 Wor k S es s ion Memo 11/30/2020 Backup M aterial
A pril 4, 2018 Wor k S es s ion Memo 11/30/2020 Backup M aterial
C hapter 4 - H ous ing and N eighborhood 11/30/2020 Backup M aterial
C hapter 9 - I mplementa0on 12/1/2020 Backup M aterial
MEMORAN DUM - COUN CIL WORK SESSION
DAT E:3/9/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, C ity Manager
T HR O UG H:N/A
BY:Meg Beekman, C ommunity Develo pment Directo r
S UBJEC T:Housing P olicy F ramework (45 minutes)
Recommendation:
- C onsider the proposed housing policy framework, and p rovide direction rela ting to housing efforts.
Background:
Housing and the policy issues related to hous ing have become some of the most pres sing and important matters facing communities today. F or mo st
suburban communities, housing comprises a signific ant majority of a cities land use and tax base. Maintaining and preserving a safe, quality, and desirable
hous ing stock is critic al to a co mmunity's long term economic health. F urther, a divers e housing stock whic h offers a wide range of housing choices and
price po ints ens ures that a community can be resilient through economic ups and d owns as well as provid e housing options for a diverse population
throughout their lives .
In addition to maintaining a quality and divers e supply of ho using, communities are more and more becoming foc used on conc erns regarding livab ility
and ac ces sibility of housing. T he Twin C ities Metropolitan Area is currently experience record low vacancy rates. According to Marquette Advisors’
midyear report from August 2019, the average vacancy rate across the s even-county metro area is 2.3 percent. Experts agree that a balanced rental market
will typically see an average vacancy rate of around 5 percent.
T he Twin C ities has been experiencing record low vacancy rates for several years now as are many metro areas throughout the nation. S evere housing
shortages are being caus ed from spikes in construction costs, combined with unprecedented demand for rental housing as millennial and baby boomer
generations are finding similar des ires for lifes tyles that offer more mob ility and convenience o ver the debt and maintenance of home ownership . In
ad dition, as the cost of living out pac es incomes, for many families, home ownership may feel out of reach, and renting b ecomes the only choice.
T he effect of low vacancy rates o ver time is increasing rents, a growing interest from outs ide investors , and landlords in a position to be choosier about
who they rent to. T his has borne out throughout the Twin C ities Metropolitan Area, with the average rent inc reasing nearly 8 percent year over year to a
current unprecedented $1,254 per month. In addition, the Metropolitan C ouncil continues to see a reduction in the number of landlords accepting S ection
8 vouchers. According to the Metropo litan C ouncil, landlords are citing the increased interest for their units from non-voucher ho lders as the primary
reas on for the change.
Yet another impact of the increasing value of rental property is the growing number of inves tors p urchasing C lass B o r C lass C rental p roperties, which
are renting for naturally affordable rents, making c osmetic improvements, and increasing rents so that the units are no longer affordable. According to the
Minnes ota Hous ing P artners hip, the sales of apartment buildings in the metro area jumped 165 percent between 2010 and 2015. O ften the change in
ownership will also c ome with a c hange in policy related to criminal history, acc eptance of S ection 8 vouchers, or minimum income requirements,
resulting in existing tenants b eing dis plac ed from the p roperty.
Bro o klyn C enter’s C urrent Rental H o using
T he result of the regional trends described above are being felt in Brooklyn C enter. Vacancy rates in the community remain lower than the regional
average, hovering around 2 percent. T his is common in communities with more affordable rental units.
35 perc ent of Brooklyn C enter's hous ing stock is compris ed of rental units. O f those, about 8 percent are single family homes . T he C o mmunity
Development Department is preparing a summary report on the rental licensing program which includes a deeper analys is of rental hous ing in the C ity.
T his will be pres ented as part of a separate memo.
According to the Metrop olitan C ouncil, the following table indicates what is considered affordable rents in the Twin C ities Metropolitan Area:
*Rents include tenant-paid utilities
According to the C ensus American C ommunity Survey indicates average gross rents in Brooklyn Center:
Average rents in Broo klyn C enter are considered naturally occurring affordable because the market rents, bas ed on the age and c ondition of the units
make them affordable at around 50 percent AMI in the metropolitan area. R ents in Brooklyn C enter are lower than the regional average. App roximately 90
percent of all of the ho using units in Brooklyn C enter are cons idered naturally occurring afford able housing (NO AH). While NO AH properties are
cons idered affordable, they can be at risk of being los t as market demand increas es and rents continue to go up. T hey can also experience disinvestment
over time, causing deterioration, loss of value, and most importantly poor quality or unsafe living situations.
At pres ent only 3.7 perc ent of units are cons idered legally-binding, or subsidized affo rdable units. S ubsidized affo rdable units are housing units which are
required to maintain an affordable rent regardless of shifts in market demand. Due to their financing structure, they also are required to be maintained to a
certain minimum standard. O ne of the goals of affordable housing advocates is to p reserve existing NO AH properties b y converting them to legally
binding afford able units through NO AH preservation pro grams. With the c onstruction of S onder Housing, R eal Es tate Equities will be adding 270 units
of legally-bind ing new affordab le housing units to the c ity. T hese will be the firs t new co nstruction multi-family hous ing units built in Brooklyn C enter
sinc e 1971, and will increase the perc entage of legally-binding affordable units to 6 percent.
The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies several broad housing goals
2040 H ousing & Neighborhood Goals
P romo te a diverse hous ing stock that provides s afe, stab le, and accessible housing o ptions to all of Brooklyn C enter ’s residents.
R ecognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn C enter ’s housing with the C ity’s changing demograp hics.
Explore opportunities to improve the C ity’s housing policies and ordinances to make them more res pons ive to current and future residents.
Maintain the existing housing s tock in primarily single-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentive programs and enforcement.
Explore opportunities to inc orporate new affordable hous ing into redevelopment areas that promote safe, s ecure and economically diverse
neighborhoods.
In addition to these goals , the 2040 C omp rehensive P lan id entifies implementation s trategies as well as res ources and tools for achieving its housing
goals. T hes e are contained in C hapters 4 and 9, of the Housing and Implementation chapters respectively (attac hed).
Issue Identificatio n
As engagement related to the comprehensive plan and various redevelopment sites have occurred throughout the c ommunity over the past few years , a
number of issues, concerns, and priority areas have bubb led up related to housing. Many of these issues are identified in the 2040 C omprehensive P lan.
As it relates to housing polic y within the C ity of Brooklyn C enter, these issues c an be categorized into two distinct topic areas:
1. Housing choice - What is the c omposition and condition of the current housing s tock? What are the current market demands fo r housing? How
does the c ity's housing s tock relate to the market, and does the city have enough and the right type to meet current and future need?
2. Affordable housing policies - W hat can the city do to improve livability and accessibility to quality affo rdable hous ing for res idents ? W hat best
prac tices exist to s uppo rt an effec tive approach to addres sing the need for affordable hous ing in the c ommunity? W hat polic ies are mo st effective
to prevent d is plac ement?
In o rder to address these to pic areas related to housing, staff is proposing a framework plan which takes a c omprehens ive review of the C ity's housing
polic y approac h, with an emphasis in key focus areas based on priorities iss ues which merit sp ecial attention.
T he overall review would include identifying those housing issues which are currently surfacing in the community and prioritizing those which are most
pressing. I ssues which have broadly been identified that merit special attention include:
Mitigating and p reventing d is placement of existing residents as the c ommunity redevelops
Tenant protections
C reating and expanding home ownership op portunities
F air hous ing policy
Maintenance and preservation of single family housing s tock
Expand ing hous ing options
Housing Po licy Framewo rk
In o rder to gather data and to identify the needs for additional housing choice in the community, staff is reco mmending working with a cons ultant to
complete a housing study. A p ropos ed s co pe of work for the housing study is attac hed to this memo. T he s tudy would include an analysis of regio nal
trends effecting Brooklyn C enter's housing, the city's existing housing s tock, current rent trend s, market demand and gaps analysis. T he housing study is
also proposed to include a tenant and home owner survey in order to ascertain whether residents are satisfied with their current housing options, and what
also proposed to include a tenant and home owner survey in order to ascertain whether residents are satisfied with their current housing options, and what
housing choices they anticipate needing/wanting over time. T he results of this analysis will assist with guiding land use and policy decisions as it pertains to
housing stock and choice.
As it relates to the needs around affordable housing, policy approaches fall into one of three categories: 1) C onstruction of new legally-binding units ; 2)
P reservation of NO AH units; 3) Tenant protections
In April 2018, the C ity C ouncil discussed several poss ible policies to addres s affordable housing iss ues . T he memo from that discussion is attached to
this report. Based on that disc uss ion, C ouncil directed s taff to move forward with a Tenant P rotection O rdinance, and in December 2018, the c ity
ad opted one.
Additional policies which addres s affordable housing topic s are describ ed below. S taff is s eeking direc tio n on which po licies C ouncil would like to move
forward with, would like additional informatio n on, or would like to wait on.
Inclusionary Hous ing P olicy (C reation P olic y) – T hese are a collec tion of policies whic h would either encourage or require new affordable units to b e
included as part of new market-rate res idential development projects whic h receive public subs idy or other d is cretionary C ity approvals . F requently it is
in the form of a req uirement that a percentage of units be affordab le in a new residential development in exchange for public s ubsidy of the project.
New developments such as thos e in the O pportunity S ite would be required to inc lude a certain numb er of affordable units .
Inclusionary Ho using policies ensure that new affordable units are added as market-rate units are built, thus ens uring mixed-income co mmunities .
C ities such as S t. Louis P ark and Minneapolis have found that in higher rent developments, a certain p ercentage of affo rdable units c an b e required
without increasing the need fo r additional public subsidy. T his is due to the higher than average market rents , which o ff-set the affordable units. In
Brooklyn C enter, as is true in communities with lower average rents, the cost of the affordable units would require additional public subs idies in
order for a project to be financially feasible.
Brooklyn P ark recently adopted an Inc lusionary Hous ing P olicy. As p art of their analysis they concluded that any amount of includ ed afford able
would create a financial gap in the p rojec t and require subs idy. T he policy acknowledges this and projects will b e looked at on a project by projec t
bas is to determine if the gap can be financed.
C ommunity input on the O pportunity S ite has identified many community benefits and goals for the redevelopment in addition to affordable
housing; affordable commercial space, a cultural center, civic s pace, event sp ace, and a recreation center to name a few. All of these us es wo uld
require public s ub sidy in s ome form or another, not to mention the infrastructure need s of the s ite. Identifying afford able housing as a singular or
primary goal of the development through an inclus ionary hous ing polic y inevitably elevates it above other community goals for the s ite.
NO AH P reservation P ro gram (P res ervatio n P olicy) – A preservation pro gram can be set up in vario us ways, but essentially how they work is to
incentivize existing NO AH property owners into setting aside a percentage of rental units as legally b inding affordable for a set period of time. T he C ity
would create a NO AH pres ervation fund and identify additional funding sources to grow it. S taff would work with exis ting property owners to provide a
modest s ubsidy for building rehabilitation, which would then be combined with a 4D tax class ification, als o known as the Low Income R ental
C lassification P rogram (LIR C ), to provid e a property tax b reak, c urrently amounting to 40%. T he res ult is the preservation of NO AH units through
legally binding contract.
T he tax break would be propo rtional to the percentage of units which would be affordable, and not apply to the entire building.
T he LI R C /4D statute d efines eligible properties as those which meet two conditions: the owner of the property agrees to rent and income
restrictions (serving household s at 60% AMI or below) and receives “financ ial as sistanc e” from federal, state or local government. T his pres ents
the possib ility of creating a “Local 4D” program in which qualifying properties receive the 4D tax break in return for agreeing to conditio ns which
meet certain local government policy goals .
T he reduc tio n in property taxes would no t dec rease the C ity’s revenue from property taxes, as the funds would be distributed to all other
properties; however, it would reduce that pro perty’s share of loc al property taxes.
T he amount of the tax break is a limiting factor as it equates to around $80/unit per year; however, the program may be an incentive for a property
owner in a community where the market rents are already c onsidered affordable, since they would not need to depres s their rent rates.
T he city is estimated to have approximately $320,000 of Housing T IF #3 funds when T IF #3 decertifies at the end of 2021. T hese funds could be
used to seed a NO AH p reservation fund.
NO AH preservation is a more c ost efficient fo rm of creating legally binding affordable units compared with new cons truction, and ensures families
are not displaced from their homes . A NO AH preservation program, combined with efforts to support tenant protections could be highly effective
at address ing community conc erns about displacement. F urther, staff could begin to work on setting up such a program in the near term, and begin
to identify p otential funding sources for it.
F air Housing P o licy (Tenant P rotection P olic y) - T itle VI I I of the C ivil R ights Act establishes federal policy for providing fair housing throughout the United
S tates. T he intent of Title VI I I is to assure equal housing opportunities for all citizens. Further, C ities as a recipient of federal community development funds
under Title I of the Housing and Community D evelopment Act of 1974, is obligated to certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing.
T he city of Bloomington's Fair Housing P olicy is attached as an example. Many other cities within Minnesota have Fair Housing P olicies that are
written very similar to B loomington's.
At present Brooklyn Center does not have a Fair H ousing P olicy. I t is staff's recommendation that this be addressed in the near term, and that the
H ousing Commission be tasked with reviewing and recommending a policy to be adopted by the C ity.
R eview R ental Licensing through the lend of Tenant P rotections (Tenant P ro tection P olic y) - Nearly a third of the City's housing units are rental. With
vacancy rates hovering near 3 percent, tenants are not in a favorable position when it comes to negotiating with landlords on lease terms or other
accommodations. N early all of the City's multi-family residential is considered naturally occurring affordable housing (N O AH ). T his is primarily due to its age
and condition. Brooklyn C enter hasn't had new multi-family housing constructed since 1971, and so this particular housing type, like most in the City, is aging.
M aintenance varies significantly depending on ownership, as does the quality of property management. T herefore, it is important to continue to monitor the
City's N O AH properties through a robust rental license program. However, when the rental license program was established tenant protections was not the
focus of the program. A review of the City's ordinances, policies, and procedures through the lens of tenant protections would ensure that the program is
serving residents as effectively as possible.
C ommunity engagement strategies would be necessary to identify problems and potential solutions. Suggested engagement strategies include lis tening
s ess ions with tenants and landlords; and engaging stakeholders s uc h as Homeline, Hous ing Justic e C enter, AC ER , etc
s ess ions with tenants and landlords; and engaging stakeholders s uc h as Homeline, Hous ing Justic e C enter, AC ER , etc
C ity s taff have met with AC ER , Homeline, and the Housing Justice C enter and d is cussed some of the iss ues affecting Brooklyn C enter res idents
already. In additio n, the city's housing inspec tors spend a significant amount of time interacting with tenants and landlords and understand the
complexities of the is sues. T hese resources can be drawn upon to further explore ways to make adjus tments to the C ity's ord inances, policies, and
procedures to ens ure existing residents are provided safe, s ecure, s table housing and tenants are afforded protections under the law.
S taff's rec ommendation is to move forward with reviewing the city's current polic y and ordinance, and to begin to implement impro vements.
Tenant input could be incorporated into the tenant survey that is part of the housing stud y.
S ingle F amily Housing S tabilization (P reservation P olic y) - Approximately 86 percent of Brooklyn Center's single family housing stock is more then 40
years old. T his is a significant portion of the City's housing, therefore it is important to track the condition of these older homes as they are at-risk of deferred
maintenance. At the same time, well maintained older homes can be an important source of entry-level housing. When considering the type and age of
housing in Brooklyn Center, the 2040 Comprehensive plan recommended the following programs:
Housing s tudy to ass ess the condition of the C ity's housing stock
Home O wnership P rogram Assistance P rogram
Down P ayment As sistanc e
Home O wners hip Education
Additional Low or No C ost Home impro vement funding
S taff reco mmends moving forward with a review of the city's single family housing programs. T he first part of whic h would be inco rporated into the
hous ing study.
R eview of Additio nal Best P rac tices to Mitigate and P revent Displacement - Ho using S tudy and Impact Ass essment - As was mentioned above, staff is
recommending moving forward with a housing study in the near-term. Because issues around the impact of significant development on the city's existing
housing, particularly around displacement and gentrification, have been raised in the community, staff is proposing to include within the housing study an
impact assessment to evaluate the potential impact of the Opportunity Site in this way. T he study would include a literature review of existing research on the
topic of displacement and gentrification as it may pertain to Brooklyn Center, as well as case studies and best practices from other places that the community
might draw from. T he study, as the scope is currently proposed, would assist with providing an informed basis from which policy decisions can be made. T he
outcome of the study would allow us to identify additional policies and best practices which may forward the city's priorities around housing policy.
Implementation
Housing policy is both an urgent and important need in the community; ho wever, staff c apacity is als o limited to ad dress thes e is sues in a timely manner.
S ome items identified above c ould be und ertaken immediately such as the ho using study and the creation of a fair housing policy. A NO AH preservatio n
program may be a policy whic h could als o be addres sed in the near-term. O ther items will take longer to addres s such as reviewing of the city's rental
licensing ordinance.
T he C ity of Brooklyn P ark currently fac ilitates a hous ing stakeholder group with many of the s ame s takeholders which Brooklyn C enter would very likely
ask to particip ate in similar conversatio ns. R ather than hold a sec ond meeting each month, Bro oklyn P ark s taff has suggested the two c ities combine
efforts with the group. T his also offers the opportunity to share research and resources on topics which are likely to be of a similar nature in terms of
hous ing is sues.
It may also be valuable to create subject specific Housing Task F orces , over time, as each housing area is addres sed. T his can be vetting as wo rk
progresses . Not only would this allo w greater community engagement, but also ensure that as various areas of focus are under review (i.e. tenant
protections, single family preservation, multi-family preservation) that the right people are at the table to provide inp ut and expertise. T hough, inevitably,
task forces and co mmittees take considerable s taff time to facilitate and manage. Ensuring that any engagement that is done is intentional and on topics
where input is warranted is critical.
S taff has identified 5 key areas to address over the next 18 months. Other priority areas may arise through continued engagement which would require an
adjustment to this framework.
Tentative Time Line
1. Q 1 2020 F air Hous ing P olicy
2. Q 1 2020 Housing S tudy and Impact Assessment - G aps analysis and identify best practices for anti-displacement
3. Q 2 2020 NO AH P reservation program
4. Q 4 2020 Tenant P rotections
5. Q 1 2021 S ingle F amily Housing S tabilization
Next Steps
S taff reco mmends moving forward initially with the Hous ing C ommission undertaking the review and d rafting of a F air Ho using polic y, which would then
go to the C ity C ouncil fo r final c onsideration. In addition, staff would recommend proc eed ing with the hous ing study and impac t as ses sment as the initial
step .
Policy Issues:
W hat housing-related iss ues /topics do you see rising to the surface in the community?
Are there any major elements you see needing to be addressed in the housing study in order to create a thorough baseline as sess ment of the C ity's
housing s tock?
S hould staff begin wo rking with the Housing C ommiss ion on developing a F air Hous ing P olicy?
Do you have any questions /concerns with the framework for a Housing P olicy P lan as it has been laid out?
Is the C o uncil comfortable with mo ving forward with the housing stud y and gaps analys is ?
Is the C o uncil comfortable with mo ving forward with the housing stud y and gaps analys is ?
S trategic P riorities and Values:
R es ident Economic S tab ility, S afe, S ecure, S tab le C ommunity
ATTAC HME N TS:
Description Upload Date Type
Housing F act S heet 11/19/2019 Backup Material
April 9, 2018 - C ity C ounc il Memo - Affo rdable Housing P olicy 11/19/2019 Backup Material
Housing S tudy S c ope of Work 11/19/2019 Backup Material
Example Housing G aps Analysis 11/19/2019 Backup Material
C hapter 4 - Ho using 6/10/2019 Backup Material
C hapter 9 - Implementation C hapter 10/22/2019 Backup Material
F air Hous ing P olicy Example 8/16/2019 Backup Material
Dis trib ution of Naturally O ccurring Affordable Housing Buildings in Hennepin C ounty 11/20/2019 Backup Material
R E VIE WE RS :
Dep artment R eviewer Action Date
C ommunity Development S uc iu, Barb Approved 3/4/2020 - 2:38 P M
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
DATE: April 9, 2018
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Jesse Anderson, Deputy Director of Community Development
THROUGH: Meg Beekman, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Policy
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding potential
affordable housing policies for the City.
Background:
In May of 2017, the City Council received copies of emails forwarded by Councilmember Butler
from African Career and Education Resource Inc. (ACER) requesting an opportunity to come
before the City Council to discuss concerns about the need for affordable housing in Brooklyn
Center. In addition Mayor Willson was in contact with a representative of Community Action
Partnership of Hennepin County (CAPHC) regarding the same topic.
On July 10, 2017, by consensus the City Council directed staff to invite representatives from
ACER and CAPHC to a future work session to present information and have a dialogue on the
issue of affordable housing.
On August 14, 2017, the City Council received a presentation from ACER and CAPHC
regarding the topic of affordable housing. At the presentation ACER and CAPHC advocated that
the City consider adopting policies that would address the region’s need for affordable housing,
protect tenants, and help preserve naturally occurring affordable housing. The Council directed
staff to bring the subject back to a future work session for discussion.
Regional Housing Trends:
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is currently experience record low vacancy rates. According
to Marquette Advisors’ midyear report in August 2017, the average vacancy rate across the Twin
Cities metro was 2.4 percent. Experts agree that a balanced rental market will typically see an
average vacancy rate of around 5 percent.
The impact of low vacancy rates over time has increased rents, a growing interest from outside
investors, and landlords in a position to be choosier about who they rent to. This has borne out
throughout the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as rents have gone up throughout the region. The
average rent at the end of July 2017 had increased 3.1-pecent year over year. In addition, the
Metropolitan Council is seeing a reduction in the number of landlords accepting Section 8
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
vouchers. According to the Metropolitan Council, landlords are citing the increased interest for
their units from non-voucher holders as the primary reason for the change.
Yet another impact of the increasing value of rental property is the growing number of investors
purchasing Class B or Class C rental properties, which are renting for naturally affordable rents,
making cosmetic improvements, and increasing rents so that the units are no longer affordable.
According to the Minnesota Housing Partnership, the sales of apartment buildings in the metro
area jumped 165 percent between 2010 and 2015. Often the change in ownership will also come
with a change in policy related to criminal history, acceptance of Section 8 vouchers, or
minimum income requirements, resulting in existing tenants being displaced from the property.
The region is also seeing a loss of smaller-sized rental properties (1-4-units). This is due, in part
to single family properties converting back into owner-occupied as the market recovers from the
recession, but also a growing number of local investors purchasing smaller properties and
flipping them. While some of the proposed policies would impact single family rentals, the
primary focus of affordable housing advocates and media attention has been on larger properties
(40-units or greater).
Affordable housing advocates have identified potential policies designed to address these issues.
The policies fall into one of three categories; 1) preservation policies designed to preserve
naturally occurring affordable housing and prevent it from being flipped; 2) tenant protection
policies designed to prevent or mitigate displacement; and 3) creation policies designed to create
new, legally-binding, affordable housing that will replace the naturally occurring affordable
housing that is being lost.
Brooklyn Center’s Current Rental Housing:
According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates what is considered
affordable rents in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area:
# of Bedrooms 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI
Efficiency $474 $791 $949 $1,265
1-Bedroom $508 $848 $1,017 $1,356
2-Bedroom $610 $1,017 $1,220 $1,627
3-Bedroom $705 $1,175 $1,410 $1,880
4-Bedroom $786 $1,311 $1,573 $2,097
*Rents include tenant-paid utilities
According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates average rents in Brooklyn
Center:
# of Bedrooms Survey 5-Year Avg
Efficiency $730 $744
1-Bedroom $869 $801
2-Bedroom $1,019 $925
3+ Bedroom $1,281 $1,147
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
Brooklyn Center currently has 834 rental license holders. 713 of those are for single family
homes. 71 of the licenses are for 2-4-unit properties. 24 are for properties with between 5 and 39
units. 27 licenses are for properties with greater than 40 units. There are approximately 4,300
rental units in the City. The average rents in Brooklyn Center are considered affordable for those
making around 50 percent of the Area Median Income. Of the 11,608 total housing units (both
rental and owner-occupied) in Brooklyn Center, 89.5 percent are naturally occurring affordable
housing. There are currently 402 Section 8 voucher holders in the City.
Brooklyn Center currently has five apartment building that are legally-binding affordable
housing, Ewing Square Townhomes (23-units), The Crest Apartments (69-units), Unity Place
(112-units), Emerson Chalet Apartments (18-units), and The Sanctuary (158-units). Also,
Lynwood Apartment (50-units) is currently applying for Certified Low Income Status, which
would make it a legally-binding affordable property. This equates to 3.7 percent of the City’s
housing stock is legally-binding affordable housing.
Anecdotally, a recent phone survey of 34 Brooklyn Center landlords found a current average
vacancy rate of 1.3 percent.
Rents in Brooklyn Center are currently very affordable compared to the region. Low rents may
be contributing to the low vacancy rates. If the vacancy rates are in fact below 2 percent, and
they remain that low over time, it would be reasonable to expect rents to increase. However,
given the current low rents, even an increase in rents of 20-30 percent would result in rents still
considered affordable for those making 60-80% AMI.
Affordable Policy Options:
Section 8 Ordinance (Tenant Protection) - Prohibiting discrimination against Section 8 voucher
holders and other recipients of government programs. The policy would prohibit landlords from
denying any tenants’ application based on the applicant receiving government assistance.
• Staff surveyed 34 Brooklyn Center apartments and found that 50 percent indicated that
they do not accept section 8 vouchers.
• Minneapolis recently adopted this ordinance, which allows applicants who feel they have
been discriminated against to seek damages through the city’s department of Civil Rights.
• The City of Minneapolis has an active lawsuit filed against them by 55 apartment owners
over the legality of this ordinance. The lawsuit argues the mandate conflicts with state law
and unfairly forces them to comply with requirements of federal housing voucher programs
for low-income residents. It also says the law violates the Minnesota Constitution because it
reduces their property values, forces landlords to enter into contracts and represents an
unnecessary government intervention in their businesses. Landlords also claim that this could
cause landlords to increase rent and/or application criteria as to price out Section 8
vouchers.
Staff feels that if the ordinance is upheld by the courts, it could be a useful tool to ensure
residents are not discriminated against based on their source of income; however
additional review would be necessary related to the enforcement of the ordinance. Staff
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
recommends that the City monitor the Minneapolis lawsuit then review pending the
outcome.
Notice of Intent to Sell (Preservation) – Rental property owners must give advanced notice prior
to the sale of a rental property. This gives a preservation buyer an opportunity to match the
purchase price. It would also give service providers additional time to relocate residents who
would be displaced as a result of the sale.
• Landlords would be concerned about delaying the closing of a property sale, which could
have a negative effect on price. Preservation companies such as Aeon have expressed
concerns that this could increase the competition for these properties, and thusly increase
sales prices.
• Enforcement would be difficult because the penalty would come after the sale has
occurred. If the property has sold, the seller no longer has ties to the property so
enforcing a citation could be challenging and may not be a deterrent. In a workgroup in
St. Louis Park landlords stated that if there was a $1000.00 citation for selling without
notice, they would likely still sell the property and pay the citation.
• It is unclear who the seller would need to notify of their intent to sell and what would be
done with that information once it was known. Who would decide what buyers could
have access to the information? Who would be responsible for disseminating the
information?
• It is possible that this ordinance would dissuade investors, who may opt to purchase
property in cities that do not have the additional requirements.
• St. Louis Park is looking at an alternative ordinance related to tenant transition/protection
would address the need for additional time to relocate tenants.
Staff recommends that the city consider other options such as the tenant transition
ordinance.
Tenant Transition/Protection Ordinance (Tenant Protection) – This would require a new owner
of a naturally occurring affordable housing property to pay relocation benefits to tenants if the
new owner increases rent, rescreens existing residents or implements non-renewals without cause
within 3 months after the purchase. The ordinance has the effect of freezing lease terms for 90
days after the sale of a property. The purpose is to allow tenants three (3) months to relocate if
necessary.
• This ordinance wouldn’t interfere with the sale of naturally occurring affordable housing,
however; it would provide assistance to the tenants if necessary.
• The ordinance would require new buyers to notify tenants within 30 days if substantive
changes to the lease are forthcoming, giving tenants time to relocate if necessary.
• St. Louis Park adopted the Tenant Protection Ordinance in March of 2018.
• The policy could dissuade potential apartment buyers from buying in Brooklyn Center,
who may opt to purchase a property in a city without this policy.
Staff recommends that the City review this policy further to determine the legality of it,
the enforcement mechanism, and what the specific impacts in Brooklyn Center might be.
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
Just-Cause Eviction (Tenant Protection) – Also known as Just-Cause Non-Renewal, this would
require a landlord to provide a reason if they were going to not renew a tenant’s lease that was
expiring. Currently landlords must provide a just cause for eviction, which a tenant can appeal in
court. There is no appeal process available to tenants who lose their housing due to non-renewal
of lease.
• Landlords see this as taking away a valuable management tool for dealing with problem
tenants and have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of evictions filed
and strengthening screening standards.
• When St. Louis Park conducted their meetings with landlords and the Multi-family
Housing Association, this ordinance received the strongest opposition.
• The enforcement of this policy would be through the court system and would require a
tenant to take legal action against their landlord via a lawsuit.
• Of the 34 landlords surveyed by staff, the majority of evictions or non-renewals are the
result of non-payment of rent or criminal activity.
• The intent of this ordinance would be to protect tenants from being non-renewed in the
event a new owner wants to empty a building in order to do a substantial renovation with
the goal of increasing rents.
Staff recommends that the City consider other options such as the tenant transition
ordinance to protect tenants.
Inclusionary Housing Policy (Creation) – These are a collection of policies that could be adopted
by the city which would either encourage or require new affordable units to be included as part
of new market-rate residential development projects which receive public subsidy or other
discretionary City approvals. Frequently it is in the form of a requirement that a percentage of
units be affordable in a new residential development in exchange for public subsidy of the
project.
• New developments such as the Opportunity Site would be required to include a certain
number of affordable units.
• Inclusionary Housing policies ensure that new affordable units are added as market-rate
units are built, thus ensuring mixed-income communities.
• Cities such as St. Louis Park and Minneapolis have found that in higher rent
developments, a certain percentage of affordable units can be required without increasing
the need for additional public subsidy. This is due to the higher than average market
rents, which off-set the affordable units. In Brooklyn Center, as is true in communities
with lower average rents, it is likely that the cost of the affordable units would require
additional public subsidies in order for a project to be financially feasible.
If the Council would like to move forward with this police staff would recommend
reviewing the feasibility of future development if an affordable housing policy is
adopted.
4D Tax Breaks (Preservation) – Also known as the Low Income Rental Classification Program
(LIRC), Minnesota provides a property tax break, currently amounting to 40%, to subsidized
rental properties under LIRC, commonly referred to as the 4D program. There is the potential,
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
however, to extend 4D eligibility to certain currently unsubsidized affordable properties, without
changing current law. This is because the LIRC/4D statute defines eligible properties as those
which meet two conditions: the owner of the property agrees to rent and income restrictions
(serving households at 60% AMI or below) and receives “financial assistance” from federal,
state or local government. This presents the possibility of creating a “Local 4D” program in
which qualifying properties receive the 4D tax break in return for agreeing to conditions which
meet certain local government policy goals.
• A government agency would need to provide a financial contribution to a rental
apartment with a low income agreement placed on the property. The property could then
be eligible to apply for 4D status. This would allow a landlord to make physical
improvements to the property in exchange for affordable rents.
• The reduction in property taxes would not decrease the City’s revenue from property
taxes, as the funds would be distributed to all other properties; however, it would reduce
that property’s share of local property taxes.
• The amount of the tax break is a limiting factor as it equates to around $80/unit per year;
however, the program may be an incentive for a property owner in a community where
the market rents are already considered affordable, since they would not need to depress
their rent rates.
• Hennepin County is looking into a rehabilitation program for rental properties which
would function similarly to the CDBG housing rehabilitation program, but be County
funded.
• The City could also look at funding a program for rental housing rehabilitation.
Staff recommends working with the County to determine the feasibility of a County-led
program. The City could also review EDA or TIF 3 Housing funds to determine the
availability of funds for a city program that would provide rental housing rehab
assistance in exchange for a 5-10 year affordability requirement. This could be set up as a
per unit matching forgivable loan.
Other Policies/Programs
• Identify buildings that are at-risk of being flipped. Reach out to owners of at-risk
buildings and gauge their short and long-term plans. Help connect them with preservation
buyers on a case-by-case basis.
• Comprehensive Plan – the City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. If
the preservation and/or creation of affordable housing are a priority for the City, it should
be reflected in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
• Education – Work with the Metropolitan Council to provide education on Section 8
voucher programs to dispel some of the negative perceptions of the program.
Policy Issues:
Does the Council believe that the information presented indicates a need for additional policy
actions to address the concerns raised regarding affordable housing and the protection of tenant
rights?
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
Does the Council require additional information regarding these issues before concluding if
further policy actions are necessary?
Which policies if any would the Council want brought back for further consideration?
Which policy does the council consider a higher priority?
Strategic Priorities:
• Resident Economic Stability
Attachments:
US Census Bureau Data
Metropolitan Council Land use Chart
August 14, 2017 Council Work Session Memo
August 14, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes
Housing Strategies Table Presented at Previous Work-Session
Mixed-Income Housing Policies among Neighboring Cities Table
Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Apartments
Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Single Family Property Management Companies:
US Census Bureau Data:
Metropolitan Council Land Use Chart:
Housing Strategies Table Presented at Previous Work-Session
Mixed-Income Housing Policies among Neighboring Cities
City Policy/Program Type Affordability Requirements Affordability
Period Opt-out (alternative) options Enforcement Tool Other Notes
St. Louis Park
(2015)
• City financial assistance for
new developments creating
at least 10 multi-family units
or renovation of an existing
multi-family development
with at least 10 units.
• 18% of total units in the
development required at 60%
AMI or 10% of units required
affordable at 50% AMI.
• Families may remain in the
dwelling unit as long as the
income does not exceed 120%
AMI.
• 25 year
minimum
(considering
an increase).
• Subject to City Council
approval:
o Dedication of existing units
o Offsite construction near
public transit
o Participation in construction
of affordable units by another
developer within the City
• Affordable Housing
Performance Agreement
between City and
Developer prior to Zoning
Compliance Permit being
issued.
• Implemented 2015 – 6/7 new
developments triggered policy with
1,073 units and 281 affordable units
produced.
• No development has used an opt-out
option.
• Units must be located within the
development and distributed
throughout the building unless
approved by City Council.
Edina (2015)
• Re-zoning or Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for all new
multi-family development of
20 or more units.
• 10% of all rentable area at
50% AMI or 20% of all rentable
area at 60% AMI.
• 15 year
minimum.
• Dedication of existing units
equal to 110%, must be
equivalent quality.
• New construction at a different
site.
• Participation in construction of
affordable units by another
developer within the City.
• Land use restrictive
covenant.
• PUD ordinance states
development must
consider affordability.
• City will consider incentives for
developments with affordable
housing including: Density bonuses,
parking reductions, TIF, deferred low
interest loans from the Edina
Foundation, and Tax Abatement.
Golden Valley
(policy
approved in
2017;
ordinance in
coming
months)
• Market rate residential
development with 10 or more
units and receive:
o Conditional Use Permit (ord.)
o Planned Unit Development
o Zoning Map Amendment
(ord.)
o Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
o Or Financial Assistance
• 15% of total project units at
60% AMI or 10% of project
units at 50% AMI.
• Families may remain in the
dwelling unit as long as the
income does not exceed 120%
AMI.
• 20 year
minimum.
• Equal or greater amount
dedication of existing units.
• Affordable Housing
Performance Agreement.
• Mix of policy and
ordinance.
• City will consider incentives
including:
• Minimum in 33% reduction in
required parking spaces
• Minimum of 10% density bonus
Brooklyn Park
• New market rate residential
development with 10 or more
units and receive:
o Planned Development
Overlay (ord. required)
o Zoning Map Amendment
(ord. required)
o Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
• Or Financial Assistance
• 15% of units at 60% AMI or
10% of units at 50%AMI or 5%
of units at 30%AMI
• 20 year
minimum.
• Consider an alternative
proposed by developer.
• Affordable Housing
Performance Agreement.
• Mix of policy and
ordinance.
• Units must be located within the
development and distributed
throughout the building unless
approved by City Council.
Minneapolis
(2002)
• City-assisted housing
projects of 10 or more units.
• City-assistance includes TIF,
condemnation, land buy
downs, issuance of bonds to
finance project, pass-through
funding, and other forms of
• Varies based on funding
source but generally is either
20% of units at 60% AMI or
20% of units at 50% AMI
(AHTF)
• 15 year
minimum.
• None. • Only 1-2 projects have taken
advantage of the incentive program
since 2002.
• Currently engaging a consultant to
develop an effective system.
direct subsidy.
• Density bonus and parking
reduction incentive
Saint Paul
(2014)
• City/HRA assisted rentals
and homeownership.
• Rental development in
selected zones – density
bonus incentive
• Rentals – 30% of units
affordable to households
earning 60% AMI, of which at
least one third will be
affordable to 50% AMI, and at
least one third will affordable to
30% AMI.
• Rental - 10
year
minimum .
• Development Agreement • Voluntary/incentive density bonus is
not being used so policy is currently
being revised.
Minnetonka
(2004)
• City Assistance
• Voluntary/incentive based for
all developments.
• Rentals – 10% of units at 50%
AMI for all developments, 20%
of units at 50% AMI if using
TIF funding.
• 30 year
minimum.
• Considered on a case by case
basis.
• Development Agreement. • Produced over 500 affordable units
since 2004.
Eden Prairie
• City Assistance
• Using a voluntary/incentive
based approach for all
developments; exploring
adopting a policy.
• City subsidy – 20% of units at
50% AMI.
• Voluntary/incentive – starts at
10% of units at 50% AMI.
Woodbury
(2012)
• Voluntary/incentive based –
density bonus policy
• 20% of units at 80% AMI or
negotiated.
• 15 year
minimum.
Chaska • All developments that need
City approval
• 30% of units at 80% AMI.
Forest Lake
(2014)
• Voluntary/incentive based –
density bonus policy
• Negotiable • 15% density bonus, flexible parking
requirements.
Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Apartments:
Apartment Name number of
Units
number of
vacant units
Rent for a
studio
Rent for a 1
bedroom
Rent for a 2
bedroom
Rent for a 3 bedroom Rent for a 4
bedroom
Do you accept
section 8
Has rent
increased
over the
past
2years?
How much
has rent
increased?
Most common reason for Eviction or
non-renewal
4819 Azealia 12 0 750 800 no new yes $15-50 non-renewal
5207 Xerxes 12 0 0 Ave: $750 Ave $850 Yes yes 8% Disturbance
5240 Drew 10 0 845-950 yes no police calls for service
The Avenue 36 0 755 929 1075 no yes 5% each
month
non-payment
Beard Ave 24 0 $895 1 fl-$1025, 2-3 fl
$1075
Yes (Typically
don’t meet
criteria)
yes 100 - 2bd -
1bd 75
smoke in units, police calls (pattern)
Brookside Manor 90 0 garden - $750 2-
3 floor $800
yes yes $20 police calls, disturbance, non-payment
Carrington Dr 128 0 $735 $835-855 $945-975 no yes $50 disturbance, illegal activity,
cleanliness, non-payment
The Crest 122 3 for end of
march
$755 $935 yes yes 50 non-payment, crime free addendum
Crossings - 6201 Lilac -
55+
81 4 (0 in past
few years)
1181-1275
(1bd + den
1081 1190-1750 No (inherited) yes 2-5% rarely - non-payment
Crossings - 6125 Lilac -
55+
65 1150
Earle Brown Farm 120 1 845-920 1010-190 No new ones yes 3% increase disturbance, non-payment
Emerson Chalet 18 0 737 870 yes no non-payment, 3 strikes
Gateway 252 3 775 850-875-895 995-1045 no yes 50 late payment, police calls, unit
maintenance
Granite City 72 0 849 949 1139 yes yes 34-55 smoking
Granite Peaks 54 0 849 949 1139 no yes 34-55 non-payment
Humboldt Courts 36 1 750 900-995 no yes 75-95 non-payment
Lynwood - mark 50 0 895-925 1050-1190 yes Yes 2-4% non-payment of rent
Melrose Gates 217 0 919-949 1129-1159 1159-1189 2bd+1.5ba 1209-1249
2bd+2ba
no yes 100 non-payment
River Glen 128 0 900 975-1000 1250 yes yes 50-75 non-payment/late rent
Riverwood Estates 84 2 929 999-1050 no yes 40 lease violation
Ryan Lake 22 1 800 800-1000 yes yes 75 non-payment
Summerset 36 3 700 800-850 1150-1200 yes yes $50 non-payment, lease violations
Twin Lake North 276 3 950+ 1105-1225+ yes yes 5% non-payment, behavior
Unity Place 112 2 904-909 970 yes yes 30 non-payment
Victoria Townhomes 48 4 1340-1400 no yes 40-60 tenant not renew
Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Single Family Property Management Companies:
Management
Agency
number of
Units
number of
vacant units
Rent for a
studio
Rent for
a 1
bedroom
Rent for a
2 bedroom
Rent for a 3
bedroom
Rent for a 4 bedroom Rent for a 5
bedroom
Do you accept
section 8
Has rent
increased
over the
past
2years?
How much
has rent
increased?
Most common reason for Eviction or
non-renewal
Prosperous 40 0
1050 1250 1450 1550 yes yes 2-3% non-payment
Urban homes 2
1300 1400 1500 Yes
NA
Juliana Koi 2 1
1350
no yes 50 NA
Kathleen Freitag 4 0
1235-1325 1410-1450
no no
non-payment; destruction of property
Tyang 1 0
1150
no no
NA
Michelle
Nyarecha
1 0
1170-1250
yes no
non-payment; police violations
Nazeen 2 0
1000 1200
no yes 5% NA
Tracy
Hinkemyer
7
1350-2000
no no
NA
Dan tan 4 0
850-950
yes no
non-payment drugs, noise
DRAFT CHAPTER 4:
Housing & Neighborhood
Comprehensive Plan 2040
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-1
INTRODUCTION
This Chapter evaluates Brooklyn Center’s existing housing stock and plans for future
housing needs based on household projections, population projections, and identified needs
communicated through this planning process. As required in the City’s 2015 System Statement
prepared by the Metropolitan Council, understanding and planning for the City’s housing
stock is a critical part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The City’s planned land use
includes three residential categories and residential components of new mixed-use designations
which together account for approximately half of the City’s land use area. Residential land use
will continue to be the largest land use in the community. A diverse housing stock that offers
neighborhood stability combined with access to open space, goods and services is essential to
a healthy, sustainable, and resilient community. It protects the community’s tax base against
market fluctuations; it builds community pride and engagement of existing residents; it helps
the community’s economic competitiveness by assisting Brooklyn Center businesses with
employee attraction and retention; it provides options for existing residents to remain in the
community should their life circumstances (e.g., aging-in-place) change; and it offers future
residents access to amenities and levels of service that support a stable and supportive housing
and neighborhood environment.
The first part of this Chapter focuses on the existing housing stock. It summarizes important
information regarding the overall number of housing units, the type of units, their affordability,
and the profile of their residents. These sections are a summary of more detailed socio-economic
data which is attached to this Plan as an Appendix and serves as a supporting resource to this
Chapter. Understanding the existing housing stock is key to determining what types of housing
products may be demanded over the next 10-20 years and where they should be located.
In conjunction to the statistical or inventory information collected, this Chapter includes
a summary of community, stakeholder and policy-maker feedback related to housing and
neighborhoods heard throughout this planning process. Additionally, this Chapter addresses
the projected housing needs during the planning period and presents some neighborhood and
housing aspirations as identified by the City’s residents and policy-makers. The final section
of this Chapter links projected housing need to practical implementation tools to help the
City achieve its housing goals and identified strategies. The list contained in this Chapter is
not exhaustive but provides a starting place from which the City can continue to expand and
consider opportunities to meet current and future resident needs.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-34-2
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY
Overview of Brooklyn Center’s Residential Neighborhoods
The City of Brooklyn Center’s residential neighborhoods are diverse and include a variety of
housing types from single-family neighborhoods to large-scale apartment complexes. Although
the City originally incorporated as a village in 1911, it wasn’t until the Post-World War II era
that the City began to develop on a large scale in which entire blocks and neighborhoods were
constructed with tract housing, suburban streets, and neighborhood parks. Like much of the
region’s first ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center took on the role of a typical bedroom community
where residents could get to their jobs in the downtown, stop for groceries at the retail center,
and go home and park their cars in their garages for the evening. This pattern of development
can be seen throughout the region, but Brooklyn Center had one significant difference for
many decades – the regional mall known as Brookdale. The prominence of the mall and its
surrounding commercial district played a major role in how neighborhoods were built and
developed, which influenced neighborhood patterns and housing types.
Even though the mall is now gone, it continues to have lasting effects on the existing housing
types and neighborhoods and will influence future housing as described in subsequent
sections of this Chapter. For example, in the decades that the mall and regional retail center
was operational much of Brooklyn Center’s multi-family and apartment development was
concentrated near the mall and its surrounding commercial district and provided a transition to
the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Therefore, even though the mall no longer exists,
the apartments developed around the periphery of its retail area in the 1960s continue to be in
high demand and provide a critical source of housing for many households.
2040 Housing & Neighborhood Goals
»Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and
accessible housing options to all of Brooklyn Center’s residents.
»Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing
with the City’s changing demographics.
»Explore opportunities to improve the City’s housing policies and
ordinances to make them more responsive to current and future
residents.
»Maintain the existing housing stock in primarily single-family
neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentive programs and
enforcement.
»Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into
redevelopment areas that promote safe, secure and economically
diverse neighborhoods.
* Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals and Strategies
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-54-4
While related to housing age, the size or square footage of single-family homes also plays a
significant role in the demographics of a community. Changes to family structure, technology,
and other factors alter housing preferences over time, which can lead to functional obsolescence
of homes and result in reduced home values because they no longer meet current buyers’
expectations. Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock is fairly homogeneous and the
overwhelming majority of homes in every neighborhood are less than 1,500 square feet – and
in many areas less than 1,000 square feet. This is a relatively modest single-family housing size,
and, therefore, the single-family housing stock lacks diversity, which results in lack of choice
for current and prospective residents. At the same time, these homes offer an option for small
families, single and two-person households, and first time homebuyers.
Because the majority of the City’s single-family housing stock is relatively small, older, and of
a homogeneous type as compared to newer larger homes or neighborhoods with more housing
variety, housing prices in Brooklyn Center tend to be affordable. Also, given the similar age, size
and styles of many of the homes, housing in the community has a fairly consistent price-per-
square foot. Affordability in the existing housing stock can be a positive attribute that has the
potential to provide long-term stability to residents and neighborhoods. However, as shown in
the Background Report residents of Brooklyn Center also tend to have lower median household
incomes, which can mean residents may struggle to pay for large-scale capital investments in
their homes such as replacing windows or a roof.
Additionally, within the region some communities with similar single-family stock to Brooklyn
Center have experienced pressure for tear-downs and major remodeling, and that market
trend has yet to reach the City. While that trend may eventually impact the community, at
the present time the change and growth impacting the single-family neighborhoods is mostly
related to the evolving demographics within the community. This change presents different
considerations and challenges
because it is not necessarily physical
growth or changes to homes
and neighborhoods. Instead the
community is challenged with
how to manage larger numbers of
people living within a household
such as growing numbers of multi-
generational households.
The following sections identify and inventory the existing housing stock in the community
including single-family, attached and apartment uses. Each of these housing types serve a
different role in the community, but each type is an important part of the City’s neighborhoods.
A summary of the City’s existing residential types and neighborhoods are as follows:
Single-Family Residential
Single-family residential neighborhoods are the dominant land use within the City and single-
family detached homes comprise nearly 63 percent of the City’s housing stock. The City’s
single-family detached neighborhoods were developed surrounding higher density and higher
intensity land uses that included the former regional retail center and the major freeway
corridors of I-94 and Highway 100. Most of the single-family neighborhoods are developed on
a grid system with traditional ‘urban’ size lots. Exceptions of some larger lots are interspersed
within the traditional block pattern and along the Mississippi River where a pocket of residents
have views and/or frontage of the river corridor.
The 1950s were the peak decade for housing construction in the City; a period in which owner-
occupied housing predominated. While other housing types began to emerge post 1950s, the
demand for single-family detached housing continued through 1980 as the remaining land
in the community developed. Given the period in which the majority of Brooklyn Center’s
housing stock was built, nearly the entire single-family detached housing stock is more than 40
years old. This is a major concern because at 40 years of age exterior components of a building
including siding, windows, and roofs often need to be replaced to protect its structural integrity.
Because the City became mostly built-out by the late 1970s, nearly all of the City’s housing
stock falls into this category, which means the City must be cognizant of potential issues and
proactively monitor the situation to ensure neighborhoods are sustainable into the future.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-74-6
Multi-family Residential
Nearly one third (29 percent) of the City’s housing units are in multi-family residential
buildings located throughout the community. Nearly all of these buildings were constructed
in the 1960s and 1970s, and are primarily located on major roadways or corridors, and
surrounding the former regional retail areas. This means these buildings are nearly 50 years old
or older. Just as noted within the single-family neighborhoods, the potential for deterioration
and need for significant investment in these aging buildings can pose a threat to the quality of
the City’s housing stock if the buildings are not properly maintained, managed and updated.
There has been some maintenance and
management of the multi-family housing
stock, and a few complexes have even
incorporated modest upgrades to the
interiors. In fact, the City has started one
large-scale rehabilitation of a building
that would bring higher-market rate rental
options to the community once completed.
However, this is one project and despite
these improvements the City’s multi-family
housing stock continues to be one of the
most affordable in the region with some of
the lowest rental rates in the metropolitan
area.
Many of the multi-family areas are near
major corridors and are adjacent to high
intensity uses that do not necessarily
support or serve the residential use with the
current development and land use patterns.
As a result, many of the multi-family areas
do not feel like an incorporated part of
the City’s neighborhoods. As discussed in
subsequent sections of this Chapter, the
City is planning for redevelopment in or
adjacent to many of the existing multi-
family areas that will hopefully reinvigorate
and reconnect the existing multi-family
uses into a larger neighborhood context.
Existing Single-family Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process
Throughout this planning process policy-makers and residents alike expressed the desire to
maintain the affordability of the existing single-family neighborhoods but acknowledged the
current challenges of helping residents maintain their structures, blocks and neighborhoods in
the face of compounding maintenance due to the age of the City’s neighborhoods. In addition
to the physical condition of the structures, residents and policy-makers also acknowledged that
as the City’s population and demographics become increasingly more diverse new residents are
changing how existing homes are being occupied and, therefore, it would be valuable for the
City to evaluate it’s ordinances and policies to ensure they align with the needs of residents.
The demographic considerations are identified in subsequent sections of this Chapter, but it
is worth noting that the demographic changes can have a significant impact the character of
existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Most recognized this as a positive change, but
also acknowledged and stated that the City must figure out how to pro-actively address some
of these changes to protect the existing neighborhood fabric. For example, multi-generational
households are becoming increasingly more prevalent within the City’s single-family
neighborhoods which can impact how rooms within a home are used, how many cars may be
present at the home, and how outdoor spaces and yards may be used.
Closely related to the demographic changes in the community is the City’s aspiration to
promote and maintain neighborhood stability. This objective emerged repeatedly throughout
this planning process as residents and policy-makers expressed the desire to identify strategies to
help promote and encourage sustainability, resiliency and accessibility within the single-family
neighborhoods. In part this objective is the result of several years of turnover within the single-
family neighborhoods as long-term residents begin to age and move onto other housing options,
new residents and families are moving into the neighborhoods. This life-cycle of housing is
common, but the City wants to find ways to ensure new residents want to stay in their homes,
their neighborhoods, and the community long-term and invest in making the City a better place
for generations to come.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-94-8
Housing Stock Statistics
The following existing housing stock characteristics support the previous neighborhood
descriptions through more detail. This information, coupled with the previous description,
provides a valuable baseline from which the City can evaluate and plan for the future of its
housing stock.
Total Housing Units
According to data from the Metropolitan
Council and the City of Brooklyn Center,
there are 11,603 housing units in Brooklyn
Center as of 2017. As a fully developed
community, new residential development in
Brooklyn Center has been limited since the
late 1980s. According to the Metropolitan
Council, around 100 new housing units
have been built since 2000 and these homes
were primarily small infill locations or small
redevelopment opportunities.
Housing Tenure (Owned and Rented Units)
Nearly 40 percent of the community’s residents rent, and the majority of those renters live in
apartment buildings which are integrated throughout the community. The Background Report
in the Appendix includes maps illustrating the location of rental housing and demographics of
renters. Given that a significant portion of the City’s population lives in apartments, the age of
such structures becomes critically important
to the overall health of the housing supply.
The majority of the apartments were
constructed prior to 1979 with the bulk of
the units being constructed between 1966
and 1969. This means that the majority of
the apartments is more than 50 years old,
and that structural deficiencies and major
capital improvements may be required in
the relatively near term in order for the
structures to remain marketable.
Multifamily Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process
Throughout this planning process the City’s residents were vocal about the existing multi-family
options available in the community and the lack of diversity within the multi-family housing
stock. Without a full inventory of all available multi-family units it is difficult to confirm some
of the anecdotal comments heard throughout the process, but nevertheless it is important to
consider since residents’ testimony provides valuable insight into the existing housing stock.
Several residents indicated that there are few options available for larger multi-family units with
at least three (3) bedrooms, making it difficult to find stable living options for families with
more than two (2) children. Residents also communicated a desire to have housing options that
were closer to supportive retail, commercial and services so that they could walk, bike or easily
use transit to meet their needs. Despite these challenges, the City’s parks, trails and open spaces
were viewed as an integral and important part of their quality of life.
Similarly, to the single-family neighborhoods, the community’s aspiration to create a stable,
accessible, and economically diverse multi-family housing stock was established as a short and
long-term priority. Though not discussed at length during this planning process, it is widely
known and understood that resident turnover, including evictions, is a serious problem that
is most concentrated within the multi-family neighborhoods of the City. While this Chapter
does not attempt to fully evaluate the causes for turnover and eviction in these neighborhoods,
it does acknowledge it as a significant challenge and issue which shapes the character of these
areas of the community. Turnover, including evictions, changes how residents feel about the
community whether the City is directly involved or not. It has lasting affects on how safe people
feel within a community, how invested in an area they want to become and how willing they
are to contribute and reinvest in the City. For these reasons, it is imperative that the City tackle
these issues and create a more stable, and integrated living environment so all residents feel a
part of a neighborhood, and the larger community.
11,603 Brooklyn Center
housing units as of February 2017
- Sources: Metropolitan Council
40% of community residents
are renters
- Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-114-10
Approximately 86 percent of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock (over 10,000 units) is more than
40 years old. This is an overwhelming portion of the City’s housing, and it is therefore important
to track the condition of these older homes as they are at-risk of deferred maintenance. This can
rapidly result in critical structural problems. At the same time, well-maintained older housing can
be an important source of entry-level housing because of its relative affordability when compared
to newer construction.
Table 4-1. Year Built
Housing Type
Related to housing tenure is housing type. Due to
Brooklyn Center’s peak time of housing development in
the 1950s, the housing type is predominantly single-family
detached homes. As of 2017, there are 8,270 units (71
percent) of single-family housing (attached and detached)
and 3,333 (29 percent) classified as multi-family housing.
The type of housing structure can influence not only
affordability but also overall livability. Having a range of
housing structures can provide residents of a community
options that best meet their needs as they shift from one
life stage to another. For example, retirees often desire
multi-family housing not only for the ease of maintenance, but also for security reasons. Multifamily
residences are less susceptible to home maintenance issues or burglary concerns because of on-site
management. For those with health concerns, multi-family residences often have neighbors that can also
provide oversight should an acute health problem occur.
The majority (63 percent) of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock consists of detached single-family homes.
This is above the proportion found in Hennepin County (55 percent) or throughout the metropolitan
area (59 percent). Nevertheless, the City’s housing stock is diversified, with many multi-family units in
large structures, as well as a significant number of single-family attached units. More detailed data are
included in the Background Report in the Appendix.
Year Built
The age of the housing stock is an important characteristic of the community particularly as it relates
to potential structural obsolescence and other limiting factors which correlate to housing values. As
described earlier, much of Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock was developed post-World
War II between 1950 and 1963 and many of the homes in this age range were dominated by rambler
architectural styles. As shown on Map 15, entire neighborhoods were all constructed in a relatively
short period of time which strongly defines a neighborhood pattern. As shown, most of Brooklyn
Center was developed on a fairly regular grid pattern and does not reflect a ‘suburban’ development
pattern. This is positive from the perspective that transportation and transit connections should be
easier to improve, where necessary, because of the relatively dense population of the neighborhoods.
However, aging neighborhoods can present a challenge as major systems (i.e. roof, siding, windows,
HVAC, etc.) reach the end of their useful life. This can be particularly difficult if residents are unable
to reinvest and maintain their properties, which leads to deferred maintenance and the potential for
more significant problems that would become widespread across entire neighborhoods.
71% of housing units are
single-family
- Sources: Metropolitan Council;
US Census; SHC
86% of housing stock is
more than 40 years old
- Sources: US Census; SHC
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-134-12
Map 4-1. Estimated Market Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Housing Affordability
The Metropolitan Council considers housing affordable when low-income households are spending
no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Households are considered low-income if
their income is at or below 80 percent of the metropolitan area’s median income (AMI).
The housing stock in Brooklyn Center is affordable relative to other communities in the Twin
Cities region. According to the Metropolitan Council, 93 percent of the housing units in 2017
in Brooklyn Center were considered affordable. Moreover, only a small portion (5 percent) of
this housing is publicly subsidized. Therefore, most housing is privately-owned and pricing
is set by the market. According to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, there were
480 home sales in Brooklyn Center in 2017 with a median sales price of $186,125. This was
roughly 25 percent lower than the Metro Area median sales price of $247,900. For rental
housing, according to CoStar, a national provider of real estate data, the average monthly rent
for a market rate apartment in Brooklyn Center in 2017 was $981 compared to the Metro Area
average of $1,190.Brooklyn
Center
Broo klyn Park
Columbia
Heights
Crystal
Fridley
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
-
Owner-Occupied Housing by Estimated Market Value
1/5/2018
.1 in = 0.55 miles
Brooklyn Center
County Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
Streets
Lakes and Rivers
Owner-Occupied Housing
Estimated Market Value, 2016
$243,500 or Less
$243,501 to $350,000
$350,001 to $450,000
Over $450,000
Source: MetroGIS Regional Parcel Dataset,
2016 estimated market values for taxes payable
in 2017.
Note: Estimated Market Value includes only
homesteaded units with a building on the parcel.
$186,125
2017 median home sale price
in Brooklyn Center
$247,900
2017 median home sale price
in the Metro Area
- Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors,
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-154-14
The high rate of affordability is largely due to the prevalence of smaller and older homes in the
single-family neighborhoods, and the age and level of improvements within the multi-family
rental neighborhoods. Such small sized properties are typically less expensive because they
have significantly less living space than newer homes (average construction square footage has
increased each decade since the 1950s). Age and level of update and improvements within the
apartment stock, coupled with the average number of bedrooms in the rental units is impacting
the relative affordability of the multi-family units. The condition in both the single-family
and multi-family housing stock is what is known as Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
(NOAH), because the physical characteristics of the properties are what makes them affordable
rather than the affordability being established through a legally binding contract. Although there
is a high rate of affordability for existing units, the Metropolitan Council identifies a need for
additional affordable units in any new housing construction added to the community through
2040. This condition would most likely be achieved by a legally binding contract, or some other
financing mechanism as new affordable housing product would be difficult to achieve without
some assistance given construction and land costs. Of the 2,258 projected new housing units, the
Metropolitan Council establishes a need of 238 units to be affordable to households at or below
80 percent AMI to satisfy the regional share of affordable housing.
Although nearly all of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock essentially fits within the criteria as
naturally occurring affordable housing, there are some observable trends that would suggest
the price of housing in Brooklyn Center could rise in the coming years. Most recently in 2018
the City’s for-sale housing median home sales price surpassed the pre-bust pricing. While the
median remains below the regional median, it does indicate growing demand and increased
pricing. Significant areas of redevelopment identified on the Future Land Use Plan, including
the former regional mall (Brookdale) location, present opportunities for higher-market rates for
new housing added. These opportunities have the potential to create a more economically diverse
housing stock within the City, which is relatively homogeneous at the time this Plan is written.
Given these opportunities, it is important to continue to monitor the City’s NOAH stock, and
to evaluate and establish policies to incorporate legally binding and protected affordable housing
as redevelopment occurs. This is a careful balancing act that requires concerted and direct
monitoring, study, and evaluation in order to ensure an economically diverse, sustainable and
resilient housing stock for the long-term success of the community.
Table 4-2. Existing Housing Assessment
Total Housing Units1 11,608
Affordability2
Units affordable to households with
income at or below 30% of AMI
Units affordable to households
with income 31% to 50% of AMI
Units affordable to households with income
51% to 80% of AMI
460 4,451 6,029
Tenure3
Ownership Units Rental Units
6,911 4,697
Type1
Single-family Units Multifamily Units Manufactured Homes Other Housing
Units
8,275 3,333 0 0
Publicly Subsidized Units4
All publicly subsidized units Publicly subsidized senior units Publicly subsidized units
for people with disabilities
Publicly
subsidized units:
all others
553 22 0 531
Housing Cost Burdened Households5
Income at or below 30% of AMI Income 31% to 50% of AMI Income 51% to 80% AMI
1,691 1,406 895
1 Metropolitan Council, 2016 housing sock estimate. Single-family units include single-family detached homes and townhomes. Multifamily units include units in duplex, triplex, and
quadplex buildings as well as those in buildings with five or more units.
2 Metropolitan Council staff estimates for 2016 based on 2016 and 2017 MetroGIS Regional Parcel Datasets (ownership units), 2010-2014 Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy data from HUD (rental units and household income), and the Council’s 2016 Manufactured Housing Parks Survey (manufactured homes). Counts from
these datasets were adjusted to better match the Council’s estimates of housing units and households in 2016 as well as more current tenure, affordability, and income
data from eh American Community Survey, home value data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and rents from HousingLink’s Twin Cities Rental Revue data.
3 US Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey five-year estimates; counts adjusted to better match the Council’s 2016 housing stock estimates.
4 Source: HousingLink Streams data (covers projects whose financing closed by December 2016)
5 Housing cost burden refers to households whose housing costs are at least 30% of their income. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010-
2014 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, with counts adjusted to better match Metropolitan Council 2016 household estimates.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-174-16
Cost Burdened Households
Cost burden is the proportion of household income spent toward housing and utilities. When
lower income households spend more than 30 percent of their income toward housing and
utilities this burden is considered excessive because it begins to limit the money available for
other essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and healthcare. According to data from
the Metropolitan Council, 4,114 (35 percent) Brooklyn Center households at or below 80
percent average median income (AMI) are considered cost-burdened which means they spend
more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. This percentage is well above
the metro area rate of 23 percent. Half of these Brooklyn Center households are lower income
households who earn at or less than 30 percent AMI. The high incidence of cost burdened
households is correlated with younger wage earners, lower-wage jobs, and a high proportion of
older households, many of which are in retirement and no longer working.
FUTURE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Projected Housing Need
As referenced in Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment and the following Table 4-4, the
Metropolitan Council’s 2015 System Statement forecasts that Brooklyn Center will add
approximately 4,169 new residents and 2,258 new households through 2040 and identifies the
following affordable housing allocation to be accommodated between 2020 and 2030.
Table 4-3. Affordable Housing Need Allocation
At or below 30% AMI 103
31 to 50% AMI 0
51 to 80% AMI 135
Total Units 238
Source: 2015 System Statement - Metropolitan Council
Housing Challenges inform Housing Needs
The Metropolitan Council’s System Statement identifies approximately 10% of the planned
housing units for some level of affordability as identified in Table 4-3. As described in other
chapters of this Plan, for the first time since the post-World War II housing boom the City
is expected to add a significant number of new households. These new households have the
opportunity to provide a more diverse housing stock, and add to the options of available for
existing and new residents in the community. Redevelopment can reinvigorate and revive
KEY DEMOGRAPHICS
Age Profile of the Population
The age profile of a community has important ramifications on demand for housing, goods
and services, and social cohesion. Tables and figures illustrating the City’s age distribution are
presented in the Background Report in the Appendix. Unlike the broader region, in which the
population continues to age rapidly, Brooklyn Center’s population grew younger between 2000
and 2010, and has stayed relatively stable since 2010. This is largely due to a significant increase
in people age 25 to 34, many of which are starting families and having children. Increases in
the number of young families place demands on schools, housing affordability, and the types of
retail goods and services needed.
The median age of residents in Brooklyn Center in 2016 was 32.8, which is consistent with
the 2010 median age of 32.6. This is younger than 2000 when the median ages was 35.3. With
such a young population, it is expected housing units may turn over more frequently. But, as
of 2016, more than 60 percent all households have been living in their homes for more than
five (5) years. More data about geographic mobility of households is found in the Background
Report in the Appendix.
Household & Family Type
Changing family and household structures can
also have a profound effect on housing and
other community needs. For example, decreasing
household size has a direct impact on the amount
of housing a household needs. As mentioned, the
presence of children not only impacts local schools
and parks, but also the types of retailers that can be
supported and the nature of housing demanded.
Since 2010, the number of households with children
in both single-parent and married couple households
has been growing significantly. Meanwhile, the
trend among households without children, especially
married couples (i.e., empty-nesters) has been on the
decline. The percentage of households with children
is approaching 40 percent, which is well above the
rate in the County and the metro area.
32.8 Median age of
Brooklyn Center residents
- Sources: US Census, SHC
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-194-18
• The City has discussed developing a more formal housing action plan to better
understand the needs of its residents. The plan would work to better understand
cost-burdened households, eviction rates and policies, home-ownership racial
disparities, and gaps in the housing stock.
• Continuing to revise, enhance and modify its policies and ordinance to respond to
residents needs. This includes monitoring best-practices in the region, being agile
and open to changes and enhancements. As an example of this type of ordinance
or policy response the City recently adopted a Tenant Protection Ordinance that is
aimed and protecting the City’s residents ability to maintain stable, safe housing.
The City’s projected housing needs are complex, and are likely to become more complicated
as redevelopment occurs. However, the City intends to continue to prioritize discussion
and action around creating safe and stable housing throughout the City. The following
sections specifically address the new housing expected to be develop in this planning period.
The new and redevelopment areas should be considered collectively with the City’s existing
neighborhoods to ensure an incorporated, integrated approach to the City’s neighborhoods is
achieved to create a dynamic community for generations to come.
areas of the community with vibrant, experience-rich areas that will benefit everyone in the
community. The City is excited for redevelopment to create a dynamic central hub of activity
in the community, but also acknowledges that it must be balanced with strong assessment,
planning and appropriate protection of its existing housing stock to ensure neighborhood
sustainability and stability in all areas of the community.
New housing stock brings the possibility of adverse impacts to existing single-family and
multi-family properties if proactive steps are not taken to protect existing naturally occurring
affordable housing (NOAH), single-family neighborhoods, and multi-family properties.
The City’s policy makers throughout this process discussed and acknowledged that bringing
new market-rate, amenity rich housing products could have deleterious affects specifically
on existing naturally occurring affordable housing if a plan to protect affordability is not
implemented. This is a huge concern as resident stability through access to safe and healthy
housing is one of the City’s adopted strategic priorities. If proper tools are not in place there are
no protections to keep rents reasonable for residents and to maintain reasonably priced for-sale
housing as redevelopment takes holds.
One of the positive aspects of the City’s identified redevelopment areas is that the land proposed
for redevelopment does not contain existing housing. In a fully-development community this
is unusual for a large redevelopment area, and is positive because no residents will be displaced
as a result of the City’s redevelopment aspirations. However, even though residents will not be
displaced directly, indirectly, redevelopment could increase the desirability of activities such as
flipping single-family homes and converting NOAH multi-family properties for higher-rents.
To address some of these concerns an extensive list of high-level tools have been outlined
in Table 4-5 of this Chapter. The City recognizes that this chapter is only the start of an
ongoing conversation, and it is the City’s policy-makers intent to continue to be proactive,
and to collaborate with non-profits and advocate for a broader regional approach to housing
affordability. In addition to the tools identified in Table 4-5, the City is also continuing
conversations about:
• Viability of a non-discrimination ordinance related to Section 8 acceptance.
Adjacent Cities, including Minneapolis, have attempted to include ordinances in
their tool-kit addressing this issue. While the issue is currently in court, Brooklyn
Center will continue to monitor the process and may consider adoption of a
similar ordinance depending on its outcome.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-214-20
Future Residential Uses in Planned [Re] Development Opportunity Areas
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a new land use and redevelopment concept in the City
that focuses on existing and planned transit as a major amenity and catalyst for redevelopment.
While previous planning efforts have acknowledged the presence of transit in the community, none
have embraced it as an opportunity for redevelopment. As this portion of the City redevelops,
the location of future transit enhancements has the potential to attract significant new housing
development. Therefore, this is where guided densities are the highest. This is purposeful because
the area has exceptional visibility and access from Highway 100 and I-94, and will be served by two
transit stops (one being a transit hub) for the C-Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and the potential
future D-Line BRT. The C-Line BRT is planned to open in 2019 and will mimic the operations
of LRT (light rail transit), offering frequent transit service that will connect residents to the larger
region. To best support the C-Line, and future D-Line, the City has planned to reinvigorate
and re-imagine this central area of the community as a more livable, walkable, and connected
neighborhood within the City. In addition, the potential for desirable views of Downtown
Minneapolis could result in pressure to build taller structures in this area. Any development of
this area should also be seen as an opportunity to support commercial users, improve multi-modal
service and access, and allow safe, pleasant, and walkable connections to transit, parks, and other
community destinations.
As this area evolves, the desirability of this area as an amenity-rich livable area is likely to improve.
As change occurs, the housing within the area is likely to be at market rates adding to a more
economically diverse housing stock than is currently available in the community. This would add
more housing choices in Brooklyn Center, and it could also support a mix of both market rate
and affordable units; provided proper policies are developed to ensure legally binding affordable
housing is incorporated into development plans. Communities oftentimes explore policies such as
inclusionary zoning as redevelopment accelerates which may become an appropriate consideration
in the future, but is likely not to be the best approach given current market conditions. However,
in the future if significant increases in the market occur it
may warrant further discussion in the City. Regardless of the
policy tool (whether regulatory or incentive based) selected,
consideration will need to be given to working with any future
developer in a possible partnership with the City to help deliver
affordable units as part of redevelopment. As described within
the Chapter 9: Implementation, the City will continue to explore
proper methodology and policies to ensure an economically
diverse housing stock is created as housing continues to evolve in
the community.
New Housing Opportunities in this Planning Period
Recognizing that the land use plan for Brooklyn Center identifies several key areas that are
envisioned for new development or redevelopment, this will result in an opportunity to
accommodate more housing and increase the City’s number of households. Based on guided
residential densities in the development opportunity areas, the City can accommodate the
Metropolitan Council’s forecasted households as well as meet the allocated affordable units as
shown in Table 4-3 above. As indicated in the Land Use Chapter, depending on how the market
responds to these redevelopment areas the City could accommodate anywhere between 2,658
and 3,836 new households by 2040 (Chapter 3: Table 3-5, repeated in the following Table 4-4).
Table 4-4. Future Land Use Densities and Projected Acres, Households & Population
Future Land
Use Density (DU/A)2020 Acres
(Res)b HH Popc 2030 Acres
(Res)b HH Popc
Transit Orient
Development
31.01-130
DU/A 9 279 619 26 814 1,807
Neighborhood
Mixed-Use
15.01-31
DU/A 13 195 433 19 285 632
Commercial
Mixed Use
10.01 – 25
DU/A 8 80 178 15 150 333
High Density
Residential
15.01-31
DU/A 212 3,180 7,060 212 3,180 7,060
TOTAL ----3,734 8,290 --4,429 9,832
Source: Metropolitan Council, Thrive 2040 Brooklyn Center 2015 System Statement, SHC.
a Acreages assume that some recently redeveloped areas within these land use designations will not experience
redevelopment until post-2040 and therefore households are not calculated. Please refer to Map 3-3 that identifies
areas planned for change within this planning period.
b Note, there are existing households in each of the designations today that would be re-guided for potential
redevelopment in the future. This accounts for existing households and those that my potentially develop over the
next two years.
c Calculation multiplies households by 2.22 persons per household (According to the 2016 ACS (Census), for multi-
family units (5+ units in structure)
There are three large districts identified in the City with guided land use that allows for
significant potential of new development and redevelopment through 2040. These areas have
the potential to greatly expand Brooklyn Center’s current housing numbers and choices.
Moreover, each opportunity area has the potential to not only provide new forms and types of
housing but to catalyze or rejuvenate investment into the City resulting in stronger linkages
between neighborhoods and districts that are currently isolated from one another. The following
section discusses these areas further.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-234-22
Commercial Mixed-Use Areas
The Commercial Mixed-Use areas generally surround the TOD area and are contemplated for large-
scale redevelopment but are equally as focused on supporting business and office users. These areas are
generally within one mile of the transit station that serves as a major hub for regional and local transit
services, and therefore new housing will still have opportunities to capitalize on this as an amenity.
Slightly less dense than the TOD district, these areas may provide exceptional opportunities to introduce
multi-family uses such as town homes, row homes, and small lot single-family uses that could cater
to larger families and incorporate more units with three or more bedrooms. As indicated in previous
sections of this Chapter, the City’s residents expressed a desire to have access to more rental units with
more bedrooms and larger square footages. While a detailed market study would likely be needed to
confirm the demand for these uses, if we can take the anecdotal information as true, this area has the
potential to support those types of uses. As with the TOD district, affordability is likely to become a
consideration in any redevelopment within these areas because new construction naturally costs more
and as the area redevelops interest and demand is likely to escalate costs. It is therefore important, just
as with the redevelopment of the TOD district, that the City evaluate and explore ways to incorporate a
range of affordable and market rate opportunities in new developments.
Neighborhood Mixed-Use Areas
The Neighborhood Mixed-Use is a new land use designation that responds to resident and policy-makers
desire to incorporate retail and services into the neighborhood fabric. One of the ways the City can
accomplish that objective is to create ‘nodes’ of mixed-uses that include residential uses, but protect
key corners for small retailers, shops, or restaurants that create a more vibrant streetscape. The City
acknowledges that these areas are less likely to redevelop with any regularity. Therefore, the number
of new housing units expected to come on-line in these areas is a little less tangible than in areas with
large contiguous redevelopment acres. However, the nodes have the opportunity to provide yet another
housing style and type, as these areas are not envisioned for large high-rises or extensive master plans.
Instead, these areas are contemplated to have smaller footprints with living units above a small store
front or restaurant for example.
HOUSING RESOURCES, STRATEGIES & TOOLS
Table 4-5 outlines a variety of resources, strategies, and tools to implement Brooklyn Center’s
identified housing needs and stated housing goals. There is a wealth of resources available to
assist communities in meeting their goals. The following table should be considered a starting
point. As the City’s housing needs evolve or become clearer, this set of tools should expand with
options.
Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies & Tools
Housing Goal
Tool/
Resource/
Strategy
Description Affordability
Target
Promote a diverse
stock that provides
opportunities for
all income levels
Housing
Demand
Market Study
Conduct a market study and gaps analysis to track housing
demand. This study and report could double as a marketing
and promotional piece about housing opportunities.
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
HRA/CDA/
EDA
Work with the County HRA and City EDA to protect and
enhance existing NOAH in the City. Use Market Studies
to help identify opportunities to meet housing needs in the
City and evaluate ways to partner with the County and
other program providers.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Site
Assembly
Consider strategies for assembling sites in high-density
or mixed-use districts that would increase appeal to
developers.
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
CDBG
Work with Hennepin County to use CDBG funds to help
low-and moderate-income homeowners with rehabilitation
assistance. CDBG funds will also be explored for use
to support redevelopment efforts that meet the City’s
goals towards a diverse housing stock (units and market/
affordable diversity).
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
Tax
Abatement
Consider tax abatement for large rental project proposals
that provide unit and income-mix within a single project.
The City is particularly interested in projects with market
diversity and units of different size to cater to a larger
market (singles, families, multi-generational, etc).
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
HOME and
Affordable
Housing
Incentive
Fund
Consider application, and utilization, of HOME and
Affordable Housing Incentive fund grants to support a
diverse housing stock. The City will prioritize projects that
include a unit size and income mix that meets the needs of
single-person and families in the City.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
Housing
Bonds
The City would consider issuing Housing Bonds for projects
that include units for large families, particularly in projects
with a mix of unit sizes and incomes. However, it should be
noted that there are limitations to the city bonding authority
and other programs may be more suitable
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
Brownfield
Clean-up
In potential redevelopment areas, explore EPA and MN
DEED grant programs that provide funding and assistance
with planning, assessment, and site clean-up.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
4D for NOAH
Properties
The City will continue use of 4D classification for the
purpose of protecting its Naturally Occurring Affordable
Housing (NOAH) uses throughout the City.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
Pooled TIF
Funds
Explore the use of TIF housing funds to create a revolving
loan program to support the rehabilitation of existing single-
family and multi-family NOAH properties.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-254-24
Housing Goal
Tool/
Resource/
Strategy
Description Affordability
Target
Identify ways to
match housing
stock with changing
demographic Housing
Coordinator
Position
The City would create a position that would serve as
a liaison to existing landlords to help them respond to
shifting demographics through training and access to city
resources. The position could also serve as a resource
for tenants to connect to support services in the event of
eviction notices, discriminatory practices, and other issues
related to housing access. The position would include
coordinating housing programs, including home ownership
programs, resident financial literacy programs, with the
intent to convert Brooklyn Center renters to successful
home owners.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Referrals
Review and update reference procedures and training for
applicable staff including a plan to maintain our ability to
refer residents to any applicable housing programs outside
the scope of local services.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Preserve
LIHTC
properties
The City will monitor expiring LIHTC properties and work to
find solutions to protect and preserve these affordable units
to meet the needs and demands of the City’s residents.
The City will approach owners with expiring properties to
discuss the possibility of 4d program tax breaks
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
Explore
opportunities
to improve City
housing policies
and ordinance
to make more
responsive
Expedited
Application
Process
Streamline the pre-application process in order to minimize
unnecessary delay for projects that address our stated
housing needs, prior to a formal application submittal
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Fair Housing
Policy
The City will work to incorporate a Fair Housing policy into
its ordinances and policies.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Existing
ordinances
The City will continue to operate its Rental Licensing
Program, and will periodically review and make
enhancements to support the City’s residents.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Update the
City’s Zoning
to support
new land
uses
The City’s future land use plan provides opportunities
to include high density residential uses in the areas
identified for redevelopment. The City will update its
zoning ordinance, including prepare new zoning districts,
to support the housing needs identified in this Housing
chapter.
<30% AMI
51-80%
Maintain existing
housing stock
in single-family
neighborhoods
through proper
ordinances,
incentives and
enforcement
Foreclosure
Prevention
In established neighborhoods, a rash of foreclosures,
especially in close proximity to one another, can have a
deleterious effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Be
aware of foreclosures and be able to direct homeowners
at-risk of foreclosure to resources that can help prevent
foreclosures. http://www.hocmn.org/
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Low or No
Cost Home
Loans
Providing low-or no-cost loans to help homeowners repair
heating, plumbing, or electrical systems helps preserve
existing housing. For example, Minnesota Housing’s
Rehabilitation Loan and Emergency Loan programs
make zero percent, deferred loans that are forgivable if
the borrower lives in the home for 30 years. Minnesota
Housing’s Community Fix Up Program offers lower-cost
home improvement loans, often with discounted interest
rates, remodeling advising, or home energy services,
through a trained lender network.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Home
Ownership
Program
Work with residents to provide education and programs
to make home ownership possible, particularly converting
existing renters to home owners through supporting down-
payment assistance programs.
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Code
Enforcement
The City will continue to operate a robust code
enforcement program that includes both complaint-based
enforcement and proactive sweeps.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Vacant
Building
Program
The City will continue to operate its Vacant Building
Program that tracks and monitors vacant properties in the
City to ensure adequate upkeep and maintenance.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Explore
opportunities to
incorporate new
affordable housing
into redevelopment
areas
Inclusionary
Housing
Ordinance
If the market strengthens in redevelopment areas to the
extent that policies would not deter investment, the City
could consider an inclusionary housing ordinance to
ensure that affordable housing is a component of any new
housing development. Since current market conditions
in the City are well below those of adjacent communities,
an inclusionary policy may deter short-term investment.
The City may want to explore this policy in the future if the
market rents rise to levels of at least 80% AMI.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Livable
Communities
(LCA
and LCA
LCDA-TOD)
Consider supporting/sponsoring an application to LCDA
programs for multi-family rental proposals in areas guided
for high density residential and targeted to households of
all income levels.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Tax
Increment
Financing
(TIF)
To help meet the need for low-income housing, the City
will establish a TIF district in an area guided for TOD and
mixed uses.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-274-26
CHAPTER 9:
Implementation
Comprehensive Plan 2040
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
2
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
1
INTRODUCTION
This Chapter is a critical part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process providing a roadmap
for the City of next steps and implementation strategies to help bring this Plan to reality. The
implementation strategies contained in subsequent sections of this Chapter are specific to
the individual Chapters in this Plan, goals and strategies, and feedback heard throughout this
planning process.
Throughout this planning process consistent themes and messaging emerged that became
the foundation for plan development, including the implementation strategies found in this
Chapter. At key milestones in this process the City solicited targeted feedback from residents,
stakeholders, commission members and the City Council in an effort to establish Brooklyn
Center’s top priorities for the next 10–20 years. The following top priorities, including those
characteristics of the community that are important to maintain, emerged from the planning
process (unordered):
• Our location is exceptional but a consistent brand for the community has yet to
be recognizable in the region since Brookdale closed. We have an opportunity to
reimagine and redevelop this area—we have to design and implement a plan that is
innovative, forward thinking and creative.
• Brooklyn Center’s population is diverse and will be into the future. The City
should embrace its diversity and use it as a differentiator that makes the City a
desirable, exciting and vibrant place to live, work, and recreate.
• Creating an economically competitive, accessible and strong business climate is
important to developing a stable, vibrant and sustainable community long-term.
• Brooklyn Center’s accessible regional location in conjunction with the available
redevelopment areas in the center city provide an opportunity to create a dynamic
and vibrant sub-regional job center that provides employment opportunities to the
City’s residents and the larger region.
• Our youth is our future and we need to focus on their needs today, and in the
future. We should partner with schools, work-programs, public and private post-
secondary institutions to ensure kids have opportunities to work and live in the
City as they become adults.
• The City’s housing stock is aging and lacks economic diversity. We need to find
ways to integrate a range of housing types, sizes, and prices (affordable and
market) rate into redevelopment to expand the choices available to new and
existing residents.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-2
• We need to establish clear standards and regulations for areas designated or
identified for redevelopment. It is important to consider massing, setbacks,
relationships with existing homes, open spaces, trails, and natural resources.
• We should capitalize on the transit improvements, particularly the C-Line, that
could be an amenity to any new development in the center city if designed and
planned for appropriately.
• The City should establish and enhance key relationships with partner agencies
such as the Metropolitan Council, DEED, MnDNR, Three Rivers Park District
and Hennepin County to create a more integrated region that provides improved
connections within the City and to the region.
• Safety of transit users was repeatedly mentioned particularly for users that would
like to use the main transit station in the community. Community members
identified concerns such as loitering, lighting, accessibility, and lack of consistency
with routes as concerns. The transit ‘hub’ will likely become busier as the C-Line
(and eventually the D-Line) opens, and it is important for the City to partner with
Metro Transit to plan for and ensure residents feel comfortable and safe at the
station.
Based on these guiding priorities and principles the following implementation strategies were
derived. Most chapters’ implementation strategies can be found in the following sections with
the exception of some the Housing Implementation Strategies that are partially included within
the individual chapter for consistency with the Metropolitan Council’s checklist.
The following implementation strategies are meant to identify a set of high-level steps and
considerations that will help guide the City to achieve the goals and objectives of this Plan. The
strategies are not all encompassing, but instead are meant to serve as a guide and roadmap to
describe the methods, steps and types of questions the City will tackle throughout this planning
period. Just as this list may not include every strategy, Brooklyn Center may not complete every
strategy on this list based on market dynamics or other external factors. But generally the City
will use the following strategies as a guide to work towards implementing the Vision and Goals
that this Plan has established for the City as it continues to evolve and change into 2040.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is a flexible plan based upon long-range physical
planning and financial projections, which schedules the major public improvements that may
be incurred by the City over the next five years. Flexibility of the Capital Improvement Plan is
established through annual review, and revision if necessary. The annual review assures that the
program will become a continuing part of the budgetary process and that it will be consistent
with changing demands as well as changing patterns in cost and financial resources. Funds
are appropriated only for the first year of the program, which is then included in the annual
budget. The Capital Improvement Plan serves as a tool for implementing certain aspects of
the City’s Comprehensive Plan; therefore, the program describes the overall objectives of City
development, the relationship between projects with respect to timing and need, and the City’s
fiscal capabilities.
The full Capital Improvement Plan is available at Brooklyn Center City Hall and on the City’s
website. It is also included as in Appendix D to this Plan.
Fiscal Devices, Public Programs and Timeline to Implement Major Zoning Update
In addition to the City’s allocated department and general funding sources, the City intends
to utilize a variety of fiscal devices and tools to implement this Plan. Some of the components
of this Plan are longer-term initiatives and therefore it is unknown exactly how the efforts will
be financed; however, generally the City will likely use similar methods and techniques in the
future as planned with its short-term initiatives identified in the following sections.
Fiscal Devices & Public Programs
The City intends to use the following fiscal devices and public programs to implement
this Plan. The City has identified the Zoning Ordinance update and overhaul as the
most immediate short-term initative to accomplish as part of its official controls update.
Concurrently, and subsequently, to the Zoning Ordinance update the City is actively working
on a redevelopment initative with a developer partner that was selected through an RFP process.
A summary of fiscal devices and programs related to each initiative is provided on the following
page. It should be noted that these funding sources and tools are intended to be used on these
two large short-term initiatives, and that future long-term initiatives would likely utilize similar
tools, but the list is not exhaustive because new tools may enter the market and the City would
explore available resources provided they support the vision, goals and strategies identified in
this Plan.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-4
Zoning Ordinance Update
The following funding sources have been identified to support the Zoning Ordinance update:
• 2019 City Budget allocated $160,000 for implementation of this Plan, specifically
related to zoning and master planning.
• Acquired a $60,000 grant that will be used towards creating TOD zoning district
to support the future Land Use Plan contained in Chapter 3.
• Applied for a $50,000 grant from Hennepin County through their Corridor
Initiative program for the creation of the Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay District.
Key Milestones:
- New zoning code and related ordinances (Shoreland, MRCCA, Platting, Sign) by July 2020
- Creation of new TOD and mixed-use zoning districts by July 2020
Redevelopment Funding Sources
The following funding sources have been identified to support the redevelopment efforts:
• Public-private partnership with selected developer for the Opportunity Site.
Preliminary development agreement stipulates that the developer will reimburse
the City for planning work on the EDA-owned portion of the site. This
agreement allows for an additional $50,000 of master planning work on the site.
• Plan to apply for LCA-TOD pre-development funds to assist with master planning
work on the Opportunity Site.
Key Milestones:
- Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment framework by May 2020
Other Funding Sources and Initiatives
The Zoning Ordinance update, Master Planning and Redevelopment initiatives are the most
significant components of this Plan. A few other initiatives of the City with respect to funding
implementation of this Plan include the following:
• City is in the process of creating a public subsidy policy and it should be adopted
by mid-2019.
• City will explore creating a housing coordinator position as part of the 2020
budgeting process for 2021.
• The City will work to identify a funding source, and will conduct a housing study
in 2020.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-5
Current Zoning Map & Districts
As referenced, the existing zoning ordinance and map will be amended and updated through
this process. The following map and summary of each zoning district is provided.
Adopted Zoning Districts
Residence
R1 One Family Residence
R2 Two Family Residence
R3 Multiple Family Residence (Townhouse/Garden
Apartment)
R4 Multiple Family Residence (1-1/2 and 2 Story)
R5 Multiple Family Residence (2 1/2 and 3 Story)
R6 Multiple Family Residence (4 and 5 Story)
R7 Multiple Family Residence (6 Stories or More)
Commerce
C1 Service/Office
C1A Service/Office (Allows for Transient Lodging)
C2 Commerce
Industry
I1 Industrial Park
I2 General Industry
Open Space
O1 Public Open Space Reserved
O2 Public and Private Open Space Reserved
o o o o o o o o o o o o o
o
o
o
o
o
ooooooooooooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
oooooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ooooooo
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
ooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooo
LOCAL STREETINDEX
ADMIRAL LANEADMIRAL PLACEALDRICH COURTALDRICH DRIVE N.AMY LANEAZELIA AVE.
4-B,C4-B1-F5-F1-E7-B
53RD AVE N
54TH AVE N
55TH AVE N
56TH AVE N
57TH AVE N
58TH AVE N
59TH AVE N
60TH AVE N
61ST AVE N
62ND AVE N
63RD AVE N
64TH AVE N
65TH AVE N
66TH AVE N
67TH AVE N
68TH AVE N
69TH AVE N
70TH AVE N
71ST AVE N
72ND AVE N
73RD AVE N
WILLOW LANE
RIVERDALE AVE N
200
DALLAS AVE N
300W. RIVER ROAD
MTH 252
5TH AVE N
600
CAMDEN AVE N
700
ALDRICH AVE
800
BRYANT AVE N
900COLFAX AVE N
1000
DUPONT AVE N
1100
EMERSON AVE N
1200
FREMONT AVE N
1300
GIRARD AVE N
1400
HUMBOLDT AVE N
1500
IRVING AVE N
1600
JAMES AVE N
1700
KNOX AVE N
1800
LOGAN AVE N
1900
MORGAN AVE N
2000
NEWTON AVE N
2100
OLIVER AVE N
2200
PENN AVE N
2300
QUEEN AVE N
2400
RUSSELL AVE N
2500
SHERIDAN AVE N
THOMAS AVE N
UPTON AVE N
2700
VINCENT AVE N
2800
WASHBURN AVE N
2900
XERXES AVE N
3000
YORK AVE N
3100
ZENITH AVE N
3200
ABBOTT AVE N
3300
BEARD AVE N
3400
CHOWEN AVE N
3500
DREW AVE N
3600
EWING AVE N
3700
FRANCE AVE N
3800
GRIMES AVE N
4000
HALIFAX AVE N
4100
INDIANA AVE N
4200
JUNE AVE N
4300
KYLE AVE N
4400
LEE AVE N
4500
MAJOR AVE N
4600
NOBLE AVE N
4700
ORCHARD AVE N
4800
PERRY AVE N
4900
QUAIL AVE N
5000
REGENT AVE N
5100
SCOTT AVE N
5200
TOLEDO AVE N
5300
UNITY AVE N
5400
VERA CRUZ AVE N
5500
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
A B C D E F G
BOULDER LANEBROOKLYN BOULEVARDBROOKLYN DRIVEBROOKLYN PLACEBROOKVIEW DRIVEBURQUEST LANECAMDEN COURTCAMDEN DRIVECOMMODORE DRIVEDALLAS ROADDUSHARME DRIVEEARLE BROWN DRIVEEAST TWIN LAKE BLVD.ECKBERG DRIVEELEANOR LANEEMERSON LANEERICON DRIVEEWING LANEFRANCE PLACEFREEWAY BOULEVARDFREMONT PLACEGREAT VIEW AVE.GRIMES PLACEHALIFAX DRIVEHALIFAX PLACEHILLSVIEW ROADHOWE LANEHUMBOLDT PLACEIRVING LANEJAMES CIRCLEJANET LANEJOHN MARTIN DRIVEJOYCE LANEJUDY LANEKATHRENE DRIVELAKEBREEZE AVE.LAKE CURVE LANELAKESIDE AVE.LAKESIDE PLACELAKEVIEW AVE.LAWRENCE ROADLILAC DRIVEMARLIN DRIVEMUMFORD ROADNASH ROADNOBLE LANORTHPORT DRIVENORTHWAY DRIVEOAK STREETO'HENRY ROADOLIVER CIRCLEORCHARD LANEOSSEO ROAD 5300-5800PALMER LAKE CIRCLEPALMER LAKE DRIVEPAUL DRIVEPEARSON DRIVEPERRY COURT - EAST/WESTPERRY PLACEPOE ROADPONDS DRIVE N.QUAIL CIRCLE - EAST/WESTQUARLES ROAD
SAILOR LANESHINGLE CREEK PARKWAYSHORES DRIVESUMMIT DRIVETHURBER ROADTWIN LAKE AVE.URBAN AVE.VIOLET AVE.WILLOW LANEWINCHESTER LANEWINGARD LANEWINGARD PLACEWOODBINE LANEXERXES PLACEYORK PLACE4TH STREET5TH STREET53RD PLACE58 1/2 AVE.59 1/2 AVE.63RD LANE67TH LANE68TH LANE69TH LANE70TH CIRCLE71ST CIRCLE72ND CIRCLE
3-A1-A,6-C3-D1-A5-D,E5-B3-G2-G4-C1-G7-C3,4-E5,6-B5-B3-A1-F5-D,E3-C4-B2-D,E2-F6-B2-B3-B4-B5-E2-A2-E1-E3-E3-B4-D,E3-B5-E3-B7-B4-B7-B6-B7-B3-C6-C,3-F3-B3-C,D3-C,D2-A,B4,5-C4-D6-B3-C,D1-F2-A5-C1-C1-C3-A4-B1-A1-A3-C1-A1-A2-C
5-C2E-4D4-B3,4-E2-C7-B1-C1-C1,3-G2-A,B1-A1-A1-B,C,F2-D
2-C5-G2-G5-C4-C4-B3-F2-D,F2-D,F2-D1-A1-A1-A
BELLVUE LA G-5
RIVERDALE ROAD 1-G2-GRIVERWOOD LANE
ISLANDS OF PEACE PARK
(ANOKA COUNTY)
WEST FIRESTATION
HENNEPIN CO.LIBRARY &GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER
P A L M E R
L A K E
P R E S E R V E
A R E A
U.S. POST
OFFICE
WATERTOWERNo. 2
EVERGREENPARK
LAKESIDE PARK(TRIANGLE PARK)
EVERGREENELEMENTARYSCHOOL
RIVERDALE
PARKEAST PALMERLAKE PARK
WEST PALMERLAKE PARK
PALMER LAKEELEMENTARYSCHOOL
WILLOW LANE PARK
ARBORETUM
O RCHARD LANE PARK
ODYSSEYCHARTERSCHOOL
M O UND
CEMETERY
FREEWAYPARK
GARDEN CITYELEMENTARYSCHOOL
MARLINPARK
WATERTOWERNo.1
EAST FIRESTATION
FIREHOUSEPARKBROOKLYN CENTER
HIGH SCHOOL
EARLEBROWN ELEMENTARYSCHOOL
BELLVUE
PARK
CENTENNIALPARK
CityHall
CENTERBROOKGOLFCOURSE
WATERTOWERNo. 3
KYLAWNPARK
NORTHPORTELEMENTARYSCHOOL
NORTHPORTPARK
HAPPY HOLLOWPARK
EARLE BROWNHERITAGE CENTER
GRANDVIEWPARK
LIONSPARK
N O R T H M I S S I S S I P P I
R E G I O N A L P A R K
CAHLANDERPARK
WANGSTADPARK
POLICESTATION
TWIN LAKEPARK
GARDENCITYPARK
PALMER LAKEPARK
CommunityCenter
AIRPORT SAFETY ZONE - B
AIRPORT SAFETY ZONE - A
AIRPORT SAFETY HORIZONTAL ZONE - C
R3
R3
R3
C1
PUD/C2
R3
R5
C1
R4
C1
PUD/C2
PUD/C2
R4 C2
R5
C2
R3
R5
PUD/R1
R4
R4
R4
R6
R3
R5
PUD/C2
PUD/R3
R5
C2
C2R3
R5
R5
R3
C2
C2
C1A
C1A
C2
C2
C2
C2
I1
PUD/I1 I1
PUD/I1
PUD/I1 I1
R5PUD/I1
R3
PUD/I1 R5
I1
O1
R3 I1
I1C1 I1
O1 I1
R5I1
I1
PUD/I1
C2
PUD/C1A
C1
C1PUD/C2
C2R4
C2
R5
C1 R5
C1
C1/R5/R4
PUD/C2C2R3
R3
C2C1
PUD-MIXEDR5/R6
O1
R5
I2 O2I2
I2
R4
PUD/I1I2I2
R4R4
I2
I2
I2
C1R4
I2
I2
PUD/R1O1
PUD-MIXEDR2/R3
R5
R5
R5
C2
R7
C1A
R4R4
R5
C2
C1
R4
R3
R4
O1
R4
R4C1
C1
R4R4PUD/C2C2
R4C2
C2
R3
C2
R4 C2
C2C2
PUD/C2 R5C1AR5
R3
C1 R4C1
C1
C2
C1
C2
C2
R3
C2
C1 O1 C2
R5 C2
C1
R7
O1
R5
C2
C2
PUDMIXED
C2
C1A
C2
C1A
C2
R5PUD/R1
PUD/C1
PUD/C2 R3
PUD/R1
O1
C2
C2
PUD/C2
PUD/C2
PUD/C2
PUD/C2PUD/C2
R5
R5
R3
PUD-MIXEDC2/I-1
R4
CRYSTALAIRPORT
SHINGLE CREEK
CREEK
PALMER LAKE
MIDDLE
TWIN
LAKE
UPPER
TWIN
LAKE
M I S S I S S I P P I R I V E R
M
I
S
S
I
S
S
I
P
P
I
R
I
V
E
R
SHINGLE
RYAN
LAKE
S
HIN
G
LE C
REEK
63RD AVE
BROOKLYN
BLV
D
B
ROOKLY
N
B
LVD
BROOKLYNDR
OHENRY RD
MUMFORD RD
64TH AVE
65THAVE
NASH RD
60TH AVE
59TH AVE
SHINGLECREEK
PKWY
JOHN
MARTIN
DR
HALIFAX
AVE
55TH AVE
SUMMITDR
LIL A C D R
69TH AVE
56TH AVE
SHORES
DR
ZENITH
AVE SHINGLECREEKPKWY
F
R
A
N
C
E
AVE
XERXES
AVE
65TH AVE
DREW
AVE
67TH AVE
53RD AVE
NORTHWAYDR
69TH AVE
70TH AVE
53RD AVE
66TH AVE
IRVING PL
73RD AVE
58TH AVE
68TH AVE
HIG H W A Y 1 0 0
TOLEDO
AVE
INTERSTATE 694
65TH AVE
KNOX AVE
THURBER RD
67TH AVE 67TH AVE
WING A R D P L
58TH PL
53RD AVE
UNITY
AVE
W
IL
L
OW
LN
58TH AVE
69TH AVE
52ND AVE
55TH AVE
UPTON
AVEYORK
AVE
S
AIL
O
R
L
N
ZENITH AVE
71ST AV E
67THLN
B
R
O
O
K
L
Y
N
B
LV
D
50TH AVE
67TH LN
NORTHPORT
DR56TH AVE
FRANCE
AVE
NOBLE AVE
OLIVERCIR
71ST AVE
F
REM
O
NT
PL
68TH AVE
A
L
D
RIC
H
C
T
DREW
AVE
CHOWEN
AVE
PAUL DR
G
R
IM
E
S
PL
68TH LN
PE
RR
Y
P
L
SCOTT AVE
LIL A C DR
57TH AVE
56TH AVE
FRANCE
DR
55THAVE
BRYANT
AVE
57TH AVE
66TH AVEEWING AVE
68TH AVE
ALDRICH AVE
COUNTY ROAD 10
EMERSON
AVE
56THAVE
COLFAX
AVE
FREMONT
AVE
HOWE LN
ECKBERG DR
62ND AVE
67TH LN
HIGHWAY 100
LILAC DR
GIRARD
AVE
BR
OOKLY
N
B
LVD
FREMONT
AVE
70TH AVE
WINCHESTER LN
71ST AVE
68TH LN
70TH AVE
65THAVE
62ND AVE
BEARD
AVE
PALMERLAKE CIR
FRONTAGE RD
MORGAN
AVE
WOODBINE LN
68THLN
57THAVE
68TH AVE
72ND AVE
COMMODORE DR
64TH AVE
61ST AVE
61ST AVE
69
T
H LN
SCOTT
AVE
59 1/2AVE
ELEANOR LN
70TH AVE
68THAVE
70TH AVE
CAMDEN
AVE
LEE AVE
VINCENT
AVE
73RD AVE
51ST AVE
VIOLETAVE
DREW
AVE
67TH AVE
65TH AVE
64TH AVE
SCOTT
AVE
HUMBOLDT
PL
URBAN AVE
72ND AVE
H ALIFA X DR
58 1/2AVE
71ST AVE
7 2 N D AVE
WOODBINE LN
72NDAVE
GIRARD
AVE
61ST AVE
59TH AVE
56TH AVE
54TH AVE
61ST AVE
ORCHARD
AVE
49TH AVE
ADMIRAL LN
60TH AVE
50TH AVE
VERA
CRUZ
AVE
EMERSON
AVE
70TH AVE
66THAVE
71STAVE
56THAVE
72ND AVE
70THAVE
51STAVE
72NDAVENEWTON AVE
XERXES
AVE
47TH AVE
53RD PL
LOGAN AVE
FRANCE
PL
ABBOTT AVE
ALDRICH
AVE
ZENITH
AVE
IRVING
AVE
LAKESIDE
PL
TWIN
LAKE
AVE
B R O O K VIE W DR
ALDRICH
AVE
70TH AVE
INTERSTATE 694
GRIMES
AVE
G
R
IMES
A
VE
ABBOTT
AVE
N
O
R
T
H
P
O
RT
DR
67TH AVE
BROO
K
L
Y
N
PL
7 0TH C IR
MAJOR AVE
LAKESIDE AVE
DREW
AVE
PENN AVE
DREW
AVE
REGENT
AVE
70TH AVE
ERICON DR
MORGAN
AVE
LAKE BREEZE AVE
CAMDEN
AVE
64TH AVE
QUAIL
AVE
71ST CIR
WINGA R D LN
LILAC D R
COLFAX AVE
INDIANA AVE
55TH AVE
XERXES
PL
JAMES AVE
68TH AVE
67TH AVE
NOBLE
LN
48TH AVE
QUAIL AVE
TOLEDO
AVE
EWING
AVE
ORCHARD
LN
PERRY
AVE
REGENT
AVE
SCOTT
AVE
BRYANTAVE
JAMES AVE
KATHR E N E DR
HUMBOLDT
AVE
NOBLE AVE
KYLE
AVE
CHOWEN
AVE
CAMDEN
AVE
IN
T
ERS
TATE
94
MAJOR
AVE
BRYANT AVE
MAJOR
AVE
NEWTON
AVE
DREW
AVE
WINCHESTER LN
EWING
AVE
COLFAX
AVE
MAJOR
AVE
GREATVIEW
AVE
ORCHARD
AVE
CAMDEN AVE
INDIANA
AVE
72ND
CIR
LYN
DA
LE
AVE
5TH
ST
REGENT AVE
RIVERWO
ODL N
EWING
AVE
CA
M
D
E
N
DR
54TH AVE
RIVERDALE
RD
NORTHWAY DR
57TH AVE
POE RD
PENN
A
V
E
BURQUEST LN
BOULDER LN
LILAC DR
63RD L N
GIRARD
AVE
GIRARD
AVE
J U D Y LN
FRANCE PL
LEE AVE WOODBINE LN
72ND AVE
BASS LAKE RD
IRVING LN
AMY LN
INDIANAAVE
JUNE AVE
PERRY
AVE
QUAIL
AVE
REGENT
AVE
LILAC DR
LAWRENCE RD
MORGAN
AVE
JAMES
AVE
JANET LN
67TH AVE
JOYCE LN
DREW AVE
62ND AVE
QUARLESRD
72NDAVE
66TH AVE
WOODBINELN
BEARD AVE
FRANCE AVE
PALMERLAKE DR
FREEWAYBLVD
LILA C
DR
UNITY
AVE
UNITY
AVE
NOBLE
AVE
LIL A C D R
HUMBOLDT
AVE
XERXES AVE
KYLE
AVE
VINCENT
AVE
INTERSTATE94
WASHBURN
AVE
ABBOTT AVE
QUEEN AVE
QUEEN
AVE
BEARD
AVE
BEARD
AVE
71ST AVE GRIMES AVE
GRIMES
AVE
HIGHWAY 252
HIGHWAY
252
TWIN
L
A
K
E
B
L
V
D
TWIN LAK E BLVD
TOLEDO AVE
66TH AVE
NOBLE
AVE
INTERSTATE 94
CAMDEN
AVE
CAMDEN AVE
HALIFA
X
AV
E
FRANCE AVE
LOGAN AVE
XERXES
AVE
XERXES
AVE
XERXES AVE
XERXE
S
AVE
OLIVERAVE
BRY
A
N
T
A
V
E
INDIANA AVE
INDIANA
AVE
JUNE
AVE
WIL LO W L N
ADMIRAL LN
DUPONT
AVE
HUMBOLDT AVE
COLFAX
AVE
COLFAX AVE
FRANCE
AVE
FREMONT
AVE
LAKEVIEW
AVE
EWING AVE
EWIN
G
AVE
BROOKLYN
BLVD
LN
EWING
AVE
HALIFAX
PL
AZELIA AVE
MAJOR
AVE
WEST
RIVER
RD
WEST
RIVER
RD
PERRY AVE
PEARSON
DR ADMIRAL
PL
YORKPL
OLIVER
AVE
P ERRY
C
T
HUMBOLDT
AVE
QUAI
LCIR
RUSSELL
AVE
EMERSON
AVE
PERRY AVE
BRYANT AVE
BRYANT AVE
LYNDALE AVE
JAMES
CIR
JAMES CIR
P ONDS DR
P O NDS DR
BEARD AVE
LEE
AVE
IRVING AVE
IRVING AVE
LAKE CURVE LN
KNOX
AVE
ALDRICH AVE
ALDR
ICH
DR
SHIN G L E CRE EK CR O SSIN G
INTERSTATE 94
LILAC DR
ORCHARD A V E
MARLIN
DR
E A R L E B R O W N D R
EARLE BROWN DR
EMERSON AVE
51ST AVE
QUAIL AVE
PARKWAY C IR
PARKW AY CIR
BELLVUE LN
66TH AVE
62ND AVE
OAK ST
4TH
ST
EMERSON
AVE
FREMONT
AVE
GIRARD
AVEHUMBOLDT
AVE
DUPONT AVE
DUPONT AVE
LOGAN
AVE
KNOX AVE
JAMES AVE
Brooklyn Center Zoning Map
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
This Zoning Map reflects council-approved zoning changes up to its effective date of September 5, 2015. The zoning designations shown onthis map must be interpreted by the City's Zoning Code and policies. These zoning designations are subject to changeas part of the City's ongoing planning process.
/
o o o Airport Safety Zones (refer to Minn. Rules 8800.2400)
Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Boundary Line
Private Roads
ZONING DISTRICTS
R1 One Family Residence
R2 Two Family Residence
R3 Multiple Family Residence
R4 Multiple Family Residence
R5 Multiple Family Residence
R6 Multiple Family Residence
R7 Multiple Family Residence
C1 Service/Office
C1A Sevice/Office
C2 Commerce
I-1 Industrial Park
I-2 General Industry
O1 Public Open Space
O2 Public & Private Open Space
C1/R5/R4 Office/Service & MultipleFamily Residence
PUD/R1 Planned Unit
Development/One Family Res.
PUD/R3 Planned UnitDevelopment/Multi-Family
PUD/C1 Planned UnitDevelopment/Office-Service
PUD/C1A Planned UnitDevelopment/Office-Service
PUD/C2 Planned UnitDevelopment/Commerce
PUD/I1 Planned UnitDevelopment/Industrial Park
PUD-MIXED
Central Commerce Overlay District
ZONING DISTRICT NOTES
ALL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES EXTEND TO THE CENTERLINE OF STREETS
842
846859816820856
856
100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATIONS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS
WATERWAY LOCATION ELEVATION (FT. NGVD)
SHINGLE CREEK
MISSISSIPPI RIVER
TWIN LAKESRYAN LAKE
AT 53RD AVE N ..........................AT 69TH AVE N ...........................
AT BROOKLYN BLVD .................AT 53RD AVE N ..........................AT 73RD AVE N ..........................SHORELINE ................................SHORELINE ................................
NOTE: SEE FEMA/FIA FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY DATED SEPT. 2004 AND FLOODWAY MAPS AND FIRM MAPS DATED SEPT 2004 FOR DETAILED INFORMATION ON FLOODWAY LIMITS AND PROFILES
I-1 - INDUSTRIAL PARKI-2 - GENERAL INDUSTRY
INDUSTRIAL
RESIDENTIALR1 - ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE (One Family Dwellings)R2 - TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE
(One and Two-Family Dwellings)
R3 - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
(Townhouse/Garden Apts./CondosR4 - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (1-1/2 & 2-Story Dwellings)R5 - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (2-1/2 & 3 Story Dwellings)R6 - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
(4 or 5 Story Dwellings)
R7 - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
(6+ Story Dwellings)
COMMERCIAL
C1 - SERVICE / OFFICE
(Min. 1-ac. lots/3-story max.)
C1A - SERVICE / OFFICE
(Min. 1-ac. lots/No Height Limitations)C2 - COMMERCE
OPEN SPACE
O1 - PUBLIC OPEN SPACE O2 - PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
The underlying zoning is designated afterthe "PUD/___" (e.g. "PUD/C2" equalsPlanned Unit Development/Commerce)
(Refer to City Code Sect. 35-2240 for
allowable uses and prohibited uses)
CC - CENTRAL COMMERCE OVERLAY
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is tobe used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to preparethis map is error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purposerequiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepanciesare found please contact (763) 569-3335. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2013),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees todefend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties whicharise out of the user's access or use of data provided.
Document Path: L:\Users\ComDev\Zoning\Zoning Map 2015.mxd
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-6
CHAPTER 3: LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals
and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
Land Use
1. The City will complete a full update of its zoning ordinance to support the modified
land use designations identified on the Future Land Use Plan.
a. The update at a minimum will include a full review of all residential, commercial,
and industrial zoning classifications that consider the following:
i. Setbacks
ii. Parking
iii. Height Restrictions
iv. Coverage
v. Performance Standards
vi. Permitted/Un-permitted Uses
vii. Conditional Uses
viii. Accessory Structures/Uses
ix. Fencing/Screening
b. To support the individual zoning district update process, a full review of the City
Code as it may pertain to the administration of the Zoning Code will be completed.
This process may result in changes and updates or may find that the existing
ordinances are adequate. At a minimum, the review will consider the following:
i. Sign Standards
ii. Public Nuisances
iii. Special Use Permit (SUP) will be brought into Compliance with Minnesota State
Statute requirements for Conditional Use Permits.
iv. Variance process and language will be updated and revised to reflect ‘Practical
Difficulties’ if not already completed.
v. Platting ordinance will be reviewed for platting process compliance and proper
reference to the revised zoning ordinance.
vi. PUD process and procedures will be reviewed for consistency with the City’s stated
goals and objectives, particularly as it relates to redevelopment areas identified within
this Plan.
vii. Addition of a Shoreland Ordinance to comply with MRCCA requirements.
c. The process to prepare the zoning ordinance update will be led by the City’s staff,
with support and assistance from a Consultant and input and direction from the
City Council.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-7
i. The City may establish a community engagement plan for the Zoning Code update
process. This may include a sub-committee or task force to provide feedback and
input on key issues throughout the update process to ensure a broad spectrum of
perspectives is represented and addressed within the process.
2. The City will continue to support and explore incorporating policies within ordinance
updates that address community resiliency and long-term sustainability.
a. As Ordinances are updated, the City will explore opportunities to encourage through
incentives or regulations energy efficiency in redevelopment and site design.
b. Addressing resiliency with respect to the City infrastructure and PTOS systems can
be cost-effective when incorporated into initial site design requirements. The City
will explore opportunities to address and incorporate such site design standards into
its ordinances, particularly within new zoning districts.
Redevelopment
1. The City will create zoning districts to support the new land use designations identified
on the Future Land Use Plan.
a. At a minimum seven new zoning districts will be developed for consistency with
the Transit Oriented Development (TOD), Neighborhood Mixed-Use (N-MU),
Commercial Mixed-Use (C-MU), and Business Mixed Use (B-MU) land use
designations.
b. The process to prepare the new zoning districts will be led by Staff and a Consultant
with direction from the City Council and City Commissions. The process should
be initiated immediately upon adoption of this Comprehensive Plan and should be
completed within nine (9) months of its adoption. Each zoning district will address,
at a minimum:
i. Massing and architectural design
ii. Setbacks
iii. Height restrictions
iv. Site design/landscape standards
v. Permitted, conditionally permitted and not
permitted uses
vi. Accessory structures/uses
vii. Transition of uses
viii. Mix of uses
ix. PUD process or other incentive process
x. Establishment of how mixed-use will be applied (i.e.
through a master plan approach, parcel-by-parcel
basis, etc.)
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-8
2. The City will develop a process and methodology for tracking the mixed-use and
redevelopment projects to achieve the mix of uses as contemplated within this
Comprehensive Plan. The ordinances should be developed with graphic representations
of the standards to be more user friendly. The process may include exploration of
ghost-platting, development of a database/tracking spreadsheet, and the development
of ‘cheat-sheet’ or development reference guides for developers and land owners that
describe the mix of uses contemplated and the process to ensure compliance with the
Ordinance and this Plan.
3. The City will establish guidelines and procedures for the sale of EDA-owned property.
This may include creating marketing materials and promoting revised ordinances that
highlight the ease of developing in the community.
4. The City will continue to evaluate opportunities for additional land acquisition
particularly within proximity to land holdings in the center city that may offer larger
redevelopment opportunities.
5. The City will participate as an active partner in any redevelopment effort that includes
City financial participation as the land owner, or TIF, tax abatement, grant partner, etc.
6. What has historically been known as the “Opportunity Site” is re-guided in this Plan to
allow for mixed-use development of the site. At the time of this Plan the City is working
with a developer on a master plan for the redevelopment that will add a significant
number of new households to the community. Understanding that this redevelopment
effort is in-progress, the new zoning districts that are created to support the land use
designation must be prepared for consistency with the anticipated development. In an
effort to minimize duplication of the process, the City will create a minimum of one
supporting zoning district that is consistent with the known redevelopment plans. The
zoning district will address, at a minimum, the following:
a. A minimum percentage of the project that must contain commercial, office or retail
uses that support and are consistent with any developed housing.
b. The ordinance development process should consider how to incorporate a range of
housing types, including considering incentives and/or standards that encourage the
construction of new affordable housing.
c. The ordinance will incorporate architectural and landscape design standards that
support the goals and strategies contained within Chapter 2 of this Plan.
d. The ordinance will incorporate incentives, and where applicable standards, that are
focus on sustainable site improvements and resilient infrastructure improvements
such as: transit, trail and sidewalk connections, pervious pavers and other innovative
landscape products, localized surface water management and other low impact
development techniques.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-9
e. The ordinance will require development that incorporates best practices for
creating transit oriented places, including density minimums, parking maximums,
pedestrian-oriented design, and must accommodate a mix of uses.
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD
The Implementation Strategies that support the Metropolitan Council’s checklist to achieve
the City’s Housing goals and objectives can be found in Chapter 4 of this Plan. The following
implementation strategies support those contained within Chapter 4.
1. As part of the zoning ordinance update process the City will evaluate the rules and
regulations to ensure that they allow existing and future residents to improve their
homes in ways that add value and are desirable, and allow for infill housing that offers a
range of housing types and products.
a. Residential zoning districts should be written to allow for a mix of housing types,
with various setbacks and massing standards to allow for diversity within an
individual development.
b. Ordinances should be written to define ‘family’ consistently with current
demographics. This may require additional study to fully understand the greatest
needs anticipated in the community over the next planning period.
c. Setback requirements should reflect existing conditions and allow reasonable
expansions and additions to homes.
2. The City will evaluate the housing stock for consistency with current and projected
demographics. This includes understanding appropriate mix of bedrooms, unit types,
etc., that match the changing needs of the City’s residents. The following examples may
require additional study:
a. Unit mix, such as studios, 1-bedrooms, 2-bedrooms, 3 and 3+ bedrooms.
b. Private entry rental opportunities such as townhomes, row homes, etc., versus
standard multi-family apartments and condominium development.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-10
3. The City will continue to operate its Rental Licensing Program, which has proven to be
highly effective in maintaining the City’s rental housing stock.
4. The City will continue to operate a robust code enforcement program that incorporates
both complaint-based enforcement and proactive sweeps. The City will continue
to engage residents and business owners to ensure code compliance and to provide
information in a way that is understandable and clear.
5. The City will continue to operate its Vacant Building Program, which tracts and
monitors vacant properties in the City, as well as ensuring adequate upkeep and
maintenance.
6. The City will explore programs and policies that promote home ownership in the City.
7. The City will explore programs and policies that provide assistance with single-family
housing rehabilitation and maintenance, including low and no-cost loans and grants,
project consultation, and other resources. This may include partnerships with outside
agencies as well as programs administered by the City.
8. The City will explore polices and ordinances, including incentives and standards, that
encourage the construction of new affordable housing.
9. The City will explore partnerships that provide sources of financing and incentives to
preserve existing multi-family housing, particularly ways to preserve naturally occurring
affordable housing that maintains its affordability.
10. The City will explore programs and policies that encourage landlords to invest in their
rental properties.
11. The City will consider creating a housing coordinator position to build relationships
with existing landlords and tenants, administer programs, seek funding opportunities,
and promote the City’s housing goals.
12. The City will consider adopting policies that promote further the goal of providing safe,
secure, and stable housing for renters. This may include adopting ordinances and/or
policies that protect the rights of renters.
13. The City will consider inclusionary housing policies that ensure that affordable housing
is a component of new housing development when the market strengthens to the extent
that it would not deter investment.
a. For example, if market rents rise to levels that are affordable to those making 80%
AMI then the City would consider adopting an inclusionary housing policy.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-11
14. The City will consider adopting a public subsidy policy that gives greater consideration
to projects that forward the City’s housing goals. This includes the option of TIF
Housing Set-Aside funds or new TIF Districts that support mixed-income and
affordable housing. The City will support grant applications to outside agencies to
benefit projects that forward the City’s housing goals.
CHAPTER 5: COMMUNITY IMAGE, ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS
& STABILITY
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals
and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
1. The City will work to create strategies and supporting resources to incorporate
affordable commercial, retail and office space into new redevelopment areas.
2. The City will actively pursue a branding and marketing strategy that leverages the
community’s diversity as a key asset from which new businesses can be developed.
3. To promote and support local businesses the City will explore the development of a
local procurement policy.
4. The City will form a task force or steering committee to study local entrepreneurial
needs, gaps and opportunities of residents. Study and research will focus on:
a. Identification of barriers to growing or starting a business in the City.
b. Review of existing ordinances and policies to ensure they support small, start-up and
pop-up businesses.
c. Understand what opportunities exist locally and regionally, and what strategies the
City might employ to further support local entrepreneurs.
5. The City will explore the feasibility of a commercial land trust model that promotes
perpetually affordable commercial space.
6. The City will review its existing business and industrial zoning district designations and
revise and update, as necessary, language and policies to ensure regulations support and
incentivize:
a. Local businesses to stay and grow in the City
b. New businesses to locate in the community
c. A mix of land uses that reflect current market needs and desires
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-12
7. The City will explore opportunities to enhance partnerships with local secondary and
post-secondary education institutions that support school-work opportunities, skills and
job training, and matching local companies with young talent.
8. The City will partner with DEED and Hennepin County to offer entrepreneurial
resource and support programs such as WomenVenture and Open to Business.
9. The City will create a Business Retention and Expansion Program to work directly with
the businesses within the community to ensure that their needs are being met.
10. The City will amend its Business Subsidy Policy to prioritize the creation of livable and
high wage jobs.
11. The City will create and fund a revolving loan/grant program to assist property and
business owners with expansions, interior buildouts, equipment purchasing, and exterior
enhancements.
12. The City will explore other economic development programs, including outside
agencies, which would incentivize business expansion and attraction.
13. The City will explore job training and career pathways programs and policies that would
benefit residents.
14. The City will explore options to connect the local workforce to employers.
15. The City will continue to support partnerships that promote workforce readiness and
removing barriers for existing residents to access education and workforce training, such
as the BrookLynk partnership with Brooklyn Park.
16. The City will explore partnerships and programs that promote financial literacy and
wealth creation amongst residents.
17. The City will continue to explore ways to reduce
racial disparities that exist as they relate the economic
stability of its residents, including access to livable
wage jobs, to home ownership opportunities, financial
literacy and wealth creation, and job pathways training.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-13
CHAPTER 6: PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE (PTOS)
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals
and strategies identified in Chapter 6 of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
1. The City will continue to prioritize the completion of the PTOS system within
redevelopment areas and will work with developers to identify appropriate and
reasonable opportunities to enhance and improve access to the system by all residents.
2. Redevelopment projects will be required to provide trail connections that align with
the surrounding local and regional trail system that are existing or planned within this
Plan.
3. Redevelopment projects will be required to plan for parks and open spaces consistent
with this Plan, and the City will work with developers to identify and prioritize
improvements to the PTOS system.
4. The City will continue to maintain and manage the existing parks, trails and open space
plan consistent with past and current practices. Current management includes:
a. Annual CIP budgeting and planning to support current park, trail, and open space
function.
b. Continue to support the City’s Community Activities, Recreation and Services
(CARS) division through appropriate capital investments.
c. Periodic survey of residents and stakeholders to understand appropriate and needed
parks, trails, and open space programming within the system.
d. Prepare and plan for system improvements that respond to the needs of the
community. This includes improvements such as park system component conversions
including transitioning baseball fields to multi-purpose fields.
5. Brooklyn Center will continue to support opportunities for community gatherings at
each of its parks, including, but not limited to the summer markets, pavilion rentals,
Brooklyn Center’s movie in the parks, and Central Park events that unite the community.
6. The City will continue to complete the
sidewalk and trail network consistent
with previous planning efforts. This plan
acknowledges that trails and sidewalks
are a critical component of the Park and
Recreation system but are equally as
important to the transportation system.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-14
CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals
and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
1. The City’s accessibility to the region, and within the region, is an important
differentiator and asset to the community. The City will continue to prioritize roadways
as an important part of the transportation network.
2. The City will continue to partner with Hennepin County and MnDOT on planned road
reconstruction projects to ensure safety and accessibility of the road system within the
City are prioritized.
3. Any roadway reconstruction or improvement will consider the incorporation of a
stormwater assessment, and any plans should incorporate and implement the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices to improve stormwater quality,
recharge local aquifers, and reuse and conserve stormwater where possible.
4. The City will continue to budget for regular maintenance of roadways approximately
every five to eight years and include such plan within the City’s Capital Improvement
Program.
5. Brooklyn Center will plan for completing the Regional Bicycle Transportation Network
(RBTN) that is currently planned within the City to connect to other regional and sub-
regional job centers. As redevelopment and reconstruction of roadways occurs RBTN
segments or gaps will be constructed to help complete the system.
6. Many of the City’s residents use Transit, and many more could if service were improved
in the City. Currently the City is divided into Transit Market II and Transit Market II,
which provides varying levels of services. The following summary of considerations is
provided:
a. The City will work with Metro Transit over this planning period to evaluate the
appropriate Transit Market areas for the City per the Metropolitan Council.
i. The mapping completed for this Plan demonstrates that some of the residents that
may benefit most from frequent and reliable transit may be underserved.
ii. The City is developed with a similar urban grid pattern for the majority of its
neighborhoods without much distinction. Therefore, it seems inaccurate to identify
some areas as more typical “suburban” development.
b. The City’s Future Land Use Plan has identified the ‘central spine’ for possible
redevelopment in this planning period. The redevelopment pattern contemplated
embraces the Transit Station and uses it as an organizing feature.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-15
CHAPTER 8: INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals
and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
1. The City will continue to plan for water and sewer infrastructure improvements to occur
concurrently with any planned roadway improvements and reconstruction projects.
2. The City prepared a full sanitary sewer plan and supportive modeling in conjunction
with this Plan update. As redevelopment occurs, the sewer plan will be used to guide
proper infrastructure improvements including sizing and capacity recommendations,
timing and consideration for future phases of redevelopment.
3. The City prepared an update to its water plan and supportive modeling in conjunction
with this Plan update. As redevelopment occurs the water plan will be used to guide
proper/necessary infrastructure improvements.
a. The water supply permit from the DNR will be updated once this Plan and Future
Land Use Plan are adopted to reflect projected housing and employment forecasts
contained in this Plan.
4. The LSWMP identifies several capital and administrative projects that are incorporated
into this implementation plan by reference. The City will properly manage and schedule
such improvements to be included within its CIP for on-going planning and action.
5. The City will continue to work with its regional partners, including the Metropolitan
Council, on sewer and water infrastructure planning and development so that regional
coordination is maintained throughout this planning period.
6. Consideration for how to incorporate sustainable and resilient infrastructure through
new development will be addressed at the specific site redevelopment level. This will
first be accomplished through the ordinance review, creation and update process and
described within previous sections; and will then be implemented through site and
redevelopment plan sets and engineering.
a. The City’s Public Works Department and its staff will work collaboratively with
the Community Development department to identify potential ordinance revisions
that would support the development of an integrated green network that not only
supports the PTOS system but the City’s infrastructure.
IMPLEMENTATION
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9-16
APPENDIX A: MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL CORRIDOR AREA PLAN
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the
MRCCA Plan contained within Appendix A of this Plan.
1. The City will develop ordinances to support the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MnDNR) requirements to regulate property contained within the MRCCA
overlay designations.
a. At a minimum the City will develop a shoreland ordinance for properties that abut
the Mississippi River and will structure the ordinance to comply with MnDNR
requirements.
b. The City will work collaboratively with the MnDNR to establish appropriate setback
and height standards based on specific parcel locations and potential redevelopment.
i. The City may seek flexibility from the MnDNR’s standard requirements,
particularly on sites identified for redevelopment. The City will work with the
MnDNR to identify appropriate standards.
c. The City will engage residents during the ordinance development to provide
education about the MRCCA standard requirements and ordinance development
process.
i. The public engagement process will also solicit feedback regarding specific standards
development include appropriate setbacks, height, coverage requirements, etc.