HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008 11-13 PCPPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
NOVEMBER 13, 2008
REGULAR SESSION
Call to Order: 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes - October 30, 2008
4. Chairperson's Explanation
The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to
hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes
recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in
these matters.
5. Discussion Items
a. Review Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan (Dave Hagen - Loucks Associates)
b. Planning Commission term expirations. (Commissioners Leino and Young)
6. Other Business
7. Adjournment
Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2030
Table of Contents
Introduction and Summary of Goals
1) Community Profile (draft included)
Regional Setting
Population and Households
Employment
2) Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan
(Community Participation draft included)
3) Transportation Plan (draft included)
Street and Road System
Street and Road System Plan
Transit
Travel Demand Management
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Movement
Goods Movement
Relationship of Land Use and Transportation
Aviation
• 4) Neighborhoods and Housing Plan
5) Parks Plan (draft included)
Introduction
Existing Park System
Park Classification System
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail System and Park Linkages
Park goals and Policies
Park and Open Space Needs
Relationship to Regional Park Facilities
6) Public Facilities Plans
Water System
Wastewater System
Water Resources Management
7) Implementation Program
Official Controls
Capital Improvements Plan
0
Comprehensive Plan 2030
COMMUNITY PROFILE
REGIONAL SETTING
Brooklyn Center is located immediately north and west of Minneapolis, about 6
miles from the downtown. It borders north Minneapolis along 53rd Avenue North,
and this proximity stimulated its early development. To the east, the City's
boundary is the Mississippi River; to the north, the City of Brooklyn Park, and to the
west and southwest, the small cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale (see Figure 1-1).
Established in 1911 as an incorporated village, the area remained largely rural until
after World War I. Development up though World War II was confined to the
southeastern corner of the village, the area with direct transportation links to
Minneapolis. The population grew from 500 in 1911 to 4,300 by 1950, and then
exploded during the 1950s to 24,356. This was the City's strongest growth period,
during which most of its single-family housing was built.
As one of the Twin Cities metropolitan area's older suburbs, Brooklyn Center shares
many issues with other cities within this "first ring"-- for example, the need for
• renewal of their housing stock and infrastructure, increasing concentrations of poor
and elderly residents, and a lack of growth in their commercial/industrial tax base.
Brooklyn Center has been working throughout the 1980s and 90s to address these
issues, both within its own borders and, with other first ring suburbs, on a regional
basis.
The following sections examine recent population and employment trends for the
City and neighboring communities in the north and northwest suburban area. These
communities Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Columbia Heights and Fridley
share both a geographic location and many demographic characteristics with
Brooklyn Center.
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS
Brooklyn Center's population reached its peak in the mid-1970's, at approximately
35,300, declined during the 80s and 90 and began increasing again sometime in the
90s, as shown in Table 1-1. The Metropolitan Council's forecasts show a slight
increase in 2020 followed by a similar slight decrease by 2030.
Unlike population, the number of households continued to increase through 2000
as, household sizes decreased. The Council's forecasts assume that household size
has leveled off and will remain fairly constant (at around 2.5 persons per household)
through 2030.
Table 1-1: Population and Household Change
Year
1970
1980
1990 2000
2010
2020
2030
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Population
35,173
31,230
28,887 29,172
29,500
30,500
29,500
Percent Change
-11.2
-7.5 1.0
1.1
3.4
-3.3
Households
9,151
10,751
11,226 11,430
11,800
12,200
12,100
Avg. Household Size
3.84
2.90
2.57 2.55
2.5
2.5
2.44
The Council allocates population to individual cities based upon past growth trends, land
supply, and policies such as the Regional Growth Management Strategy. The council's
projections for the older developed suburbs assume a modest overall eight percent growth
rate, six percent of which is through complete build-out and two percent from
redevelopment. The growth rate projected for Brooklyn Center from 1995 to 2020 is slightly
lower, at just over 7 percent.
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Changes in age groups during the 1980s and 1990s show a pattern that is typical of many
first-ring suburbs that were settled in the 1950s through the 1970s. The first generation"
of homeowners is aging the over-65 population increased by 80 percent during the 1980s
and 27 percent during the 1990s --and some of them are moving out of their single-family
homes into "life cycle housing" such as townhouses, condominiums and apartments. The
single-family homes they vacate are becoming occupied by a new generation of young
adults. The school age population increased by 24 percent during the 1990s while the
number of children under 5 decreased by about the same percentage. Another group that
declined sharply is the age 55-64 group, "empty-nester" group. This may indicate that
suitable housing alternatives are not available for this group in Brooklyn Center. The
median age in the City is now at 35.3, slightly above the regional median.
0
Table 1-2: Age Distribution 1980-2000
Age Group
1980
Percent
1990
Percent
2000
Percent
Under 5
2,419
7.7%
2,597
7.3%
1,957
6.7%
6-17
6,457
20.7%
4,306
14.9%
5,353
18.3%
18-24
4,595
14.7%
2,849
9.9%
2,805
9.6%
25-34
4,919
15.7%
5,372
18.6%
4,330
14.8%
35-44
3,649
11.7%
3,986
13.8%
4,451
15.3%
45-54
4,244
13.6%
2,762
9.6%
3,395
11.6%
55-64
2,985
9.6%
3,488
12.1%
2,374
8.2%
65 and over
1,962
6.3%
3,546
12.3%
4,507
15.4%
Median Age
28.9
33.8
35.3
HOUSEHOLD
AND FAMILY STATUS
In keeping with the trend towards more and smaller households, the number of one-person
households continued to increase during the 1990s. Non-family households (two or more
unmarried persons) increased at a rate during the 1990s that was even greater than the rate
of increase in the 1980s. The number of families with children under 18 continued to
decline during the 1990s. The increase in families with no children during the 1980s was
more than offset by the decrease in such families during the 1990s. The number of female
single-parent households continued to rise during the 1990s, though at a somewhat slower
rate than during the 1980s. Likewise male single-parent households, though still a small
group, increased substantially. "Other family households" (i.e., single householder and
adult relatives) leveled off during the 1990s.
Table 1-3: Household and Family Status
1980
1990
% Change
2000
% Change
Households
One-person
1,763
2,445
38.6%
3218
31.6%
Non-family
509
640
25.7%
830
29.7%
Families
Married, no children
3,449
3,775
9.4%
3061
-18.9%
Married, children
3,784
2,568
-32.1%
2236
-12.9%
Single Parent, Female
815
963
18.1 %
1088
13.0%
Single Parent, Male 123 186 51.2% 328 76.3%
Other 397 649 63.4% 669 3.1 %
•
•
•
POVERTY LEVEL
The number of persons living in poverty increased somewhat during the 1990s. Of those in
poverty over one-third are under 18. About 7.3% percent of Brooklyn Center residents are
below the poverty level and about 22% are below 200% of the poverty level. The poverty
level was defined as $17,029 for a family of four in 1999. Generally, a greater number of
persons living in that Brooklyn Center have incomes that place them below the poverty and
below 200% of the poverty level than in other neighboring cities.
Table 1-4: Poverty Level
1980 % 1990
%
% change 2000
%
All Persons
1,686 5.4% 2,031
7.1%
20.4% 2143
7.3%
Persons under 18
860
3.0%
775
2.7%
Persons over 65
130
0.5%
243
0.8%
Persons < 200%
4,773 15.4% 5,381
18.7%
21.4% 6313
21.9%
Table 1-5: Poverty Levels in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities
1980
% in %<200%
Poverty of Poverty
1990
% in %<200%
Poverty of Poverty
% change
5.5%
-9.9%
86.9%
17.3%
2000
% in %<200%
Poverty of Poverty
Brooklyn Ctr.
5.4
15.4
7.1
18.7
7.4
21.9
Brooklyn Park
6.0
14.9
7.5
17.0
5.1
16.2
Crystal
3.0
12.1
3.8
12.8
4.4
13.2
Robbinsdale
3.8
16.3
5.0
16.7
4.7
17.5
Columbia Hts.
5.3
16.8
8.5
21.6
6.4
22.2
Fridley
4.2
13.9
6.1
17.1
7.3
18.6
RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION
The trend in the direction of more racial diversity accelerated during the 1990s.
The largest absolute increase again occurred among African Americans and the
number of Asian residents realized the largest percentage increase, more than 300%.
The number of persons who identified themselves as Hispanic also more than
doubled during the 1990s.
Table 1-6: Racial Composition, 1980-2000
1980
% of
1990
% of
2000
% of
Total
Total
Total
White
29,984
96.0
26,271
90.9
20,825
71.4
African
530
1.2
1,502
5.2
4,110
14.1
American
American Indian
201
.6
271
.9
253
.9
Asian and other
515
1.6
843
2.9
2,569
8.8
Hispanic*
273
.9
367
1.3
823
2.8
Total Minority
4.5
2,820
9.8
8,642
29.6
•
is
*Hispanic population consists of people of any race. Therefore, "percent minority"
includes all persons of minority races plus persons who identified themselves as
white and Hispanic.
As a percentage of total population, Brooklyn Center's minority population is more
than two times that of neighboring cities, except Brooklyn Park. Brooklyn Center's
minority population and minority population composition, as a percentage of total
population, is very similar to that of Brooklyn Park.
Table 1-7: Minority Population in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities
(as percent of total population)
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Crystal
Robbinsdale
Columbia
Heights
Fridley
MOBILITY
African
American
Asian
Hispanic
Total
American
Indian
and other
Minority
y
14.1%
0.9%
8.8%
2.8%
29.6%
14.3%
0.6%
9.3%
2.9%
29.7%
4.2%
0.6%
3.4%
2.5%
12.8%
5.7%
0.6%
2.1%
2.0%
12.0%
3.6%
1.6%
3.501o
3.1%
14.2%
3.4%
0.8%
3.0%
2.6%
12.5%
According to the 2000 census, among persons five years and older, 56 percent had
lived in the same dwelling for five years or more, while the remaining 44 percent
had moved from elsewhere. Mobility has increased since 1990 when 60 percent
had lived in the same dwelling for five years or more.
Of Brooklyn Center residents five years or older about 25 percent moved from
elsewhere in Hennepin County, 16 percent relocated from a different county and 3
percent moved to the community from outside the country. This shows a fairly
stable population; in Hennepin County, by contrast, about 50 percent had moved
from elsewhere.
EDUCATION LEVELS
Educational level attained by Brooklyn Center residents increases slightly between
1990 and 2000. Of the 2000 population aged 25 and over, 87 percent were high
school graduates, while 17 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. In
comparison, in 1990 84 percent of the population aged 25 and over were high
school graduates and 14 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. In Hennepin
County in 2000, by contrast, 88 percent were high school graduates and 32 percent
had a college degree.
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY INCOME LEVELS
•
•
Like many first-ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center household and family income
failed to keep pace with inflation in the 1990s. Also like other first-ring suburbs
Brooklyn Center saw marked increases in the elderly population during the
decade, paralleling the increase in residents living in poverty.
Table 1-8: Household and Family Income, 1990-2000
11989 (1999$) 1999 Percent Change
Median Household $45,925 $44,570 2.9%
Median Family $52,175 $52,006 0.3%
Real income, or income adjusted for inflation, declined for most neighboring cities.
Brooklyn Park and Robbinsdale where buying power increased were the exceptions
to this general decline in real income.
Table 1-9: Change in Real Household Income in Brooklyn Center
and Neighboring Cities, 1990-2000
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Crystal
Robbinsdale
Columbia Heights
Fridley
EMPLOYMENT
1989(1999$)
1999
Percent Change
45,925
44,570
-3.0%
53,788
56,572
5.2%
49,856
48,736
-2.2%
44,633
48,271
8.2%
40,953
40,562
-1.0%
49,536
48,372
-2.3%
Of the City's population, 70.1 percent was in the labor force in 2000, comparable to
neighboring cities and to Hennepin County. The unemployment rate for persons in
the labor force was 3.5%. (The "labor force" is defined as all persons 16 or over who
are employed or unemployed i.e., those who are actively seeking work and
available for work. It does not include persons in the military.) Low labor force
participation is generally correlated to a high percentage of retired persons.
Table 1-10: Employment Levels in Brooklyn Center
and Neighboring Cities in 2000
Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Park
Crystal
Robbinsdale
Columbia Heights
Fridley
% in Labor Force
70.1%
78.8%
72.0%
70.1%
66.6%
73.5%
JOBS OF RESIDENTS
% Unemployed
3.5%
2.6%
2.4%
3.2%
2.5%
2.2%
Brooklyn Center's employed population can be classified by the industry sector they
• work in and by their occupational group in other words, their individual job
classifications (managers, technicians, etc.). The industrial sector classification, as
compared with the Twin Cities region and the nation as a whole, is shown in the
table below. The percent of Brooklyn Center's employed population in
manufacturing is significantly higher than the percent for either the Twin Cities MSA
or the United States.
Table 1-11: Industrial Classification of Employed Residents in 2000
•
Brooklyn
Industry
Center
Ag/Mining
0.3%
Construction
4.9%
Manufacturing
18.8%
Trans./Comm./Utilities
6.0%
Trade (wholesale/retail)
16.7%
Information
3.1%
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
8.4%
Services
39.6%
Government
2.4%
Twin Cities
MSA
0.6%
5.6%
15.9%
5.4%
15.7%
2.9%
8.9%
41.7%
3.3%
United
States
1.9%
6.8%
14.1%
5.2%
15.3%
3.1 %
6.9%
42.0%
4.8%
The jobs of City residents can also be categorized by occupational category and
compared with jobs in the Twin Cities region. Compared to the region, Brooklyn
Center has higher percentages of production, skilled craft and administrative
support jobs and considerably fewer professional/ technical jobs. The relatively high
percentage of Brooklyn Center residents employed in a production, skilled craft
occupation is related to the relatively high percentage of employed residents in the
manufacturing industry.
Censuses prior to 2000 indicated that Brooklyn Center's job mix included
significantly more sales jobs than the region or other first ring suburbs; a function of
retail jobs centered around Brookdale. According to the 2000 census the percentage
of jobs in Brooklyn Center involving sales declined to less than the region. This
decline in percent of jobs in sales is indicative of Brookdale's decline as a retail
center within it's trade area.
Table 1-12: Occupational Distribution of Employed Residents in 2000
Occupational Group
Brooklyn Center
Twin Cities MSA
Executive/Managerial
11.5%
16.4%
Professional/Technical
16.4%
22.5%
Sales
9.7%
11.6%
Administrative Support
21.1%
16.5%
Services
13.7%
12.4%
Production, Skilled Crafts
18.4%
12.9%
Farmers, Construction
9.2%
7.7%
JOBS IN BROOKLYN CENTER
The number of jobs based in Brooklyn Center increased significantly during the
1980s and declined slightly in the 1990s. The Metropolitan Council has forecasted a
9% growth in jobs in Brooklyn Center during this decade followed by 2% job growth
in each of the next two decades.
Region-wide, developing suburbs took the lead in job growth in the 1980s, with a 63
percent share of new jobs. Brooklyn Center retained a high jobs-to-residents ratio in
2000: 96 jobs per 100 "working age" residents (18 - 61). This is typical of the fully
developed suburbs, although some communities (like Columbia Heights) have
relatively few jobs and others (like Roseville) have a plentiful supply of jobs per
working age resident.
Table 1-13: Jobs in Brooklyn Center
2010 2020 2030 Jobs/100
1980 1990 2000 Forecast Forecast Forecast Residents age
18-61,2000
90
•
Number 11,995
% Change 62.9 %
17,006 16,698 18,200
41.8% -1.8% 9.0%
18,600 19,000 96.2
2.2% 2.2%
Job growth in neighboring cities during the 1980s and 1990s shows no consistent
pattern. Of these cities Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and Fridley are significant
centers of employment. Among these employment centers only Brooklyn Park is
experiencing significant job growth, due to the large supply of available land for
development. As a fully developed community job growth in Brooklyn Center is
related closely to redevelopment.
Table 1-14: Jobs in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980-2000
1980
1990
% Change
2000
% Change
2010
% Change
Brooklyn
Center
11,995
17,006
41.8%
16,698
-1.8%
18,200
9.0%
Brooklyn Park
8,017
16,592
106.9%
23,256
40.2%
26,900
15.7%
Crystal
6,030
6,019
-1.2%
5,567
-7.5%
6,600
18.6%
Robbinsdale
5,348
6,813
27.4%
6,988
2.6%
8,100
15.9%
Columbia Hts.
4,618
4,536
-1.8%
6,419
41.5%
6,600
2.8%
Fridley
22,968.
23,821
3.7%
25,957
9.0%
30,200
16.3%
A Metropolitan Council study, Keenine the Twin Cities Vital (1994), classified
jobs in the first ring or "fully developed area" suburbs. The data complied in this
study showed some differences in distribution of jobs between the region's subareas.
While having a mix of occupations very similar to jobs in the developing suburbs,
first ring suburbs are slightly higher in their proportion of clerical workers and
lower in their proportion of operators/laborers than jobs in the developing suburbs.
0
40 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Participation of the community in the comprehensive planning process consisted of community
assessment and visioning meetings to which community leaders and neighborhoods were invited
and an online or hard copy survey which people were encouraged to fill out.
Community Meetings
Three community meetings were held to gather input for the comprehensive plan update. One of
these involved the leadership of the community and the other two of were intended for the
eastern one-half and the western one half of the community. People were invited to attend either
or both of the neighborhood meetings but were encouraged to attend the meeting of greatest
interest to them.
Community analysis and visioning processes in which attendees participated was the highlight of
each meeting. Participants were first asked to respond individually in writing to three questions.
Working in groups, participants were then asked to consolidate responses to the questions
through consensus and to record that consensus on a large piece of paper. The results clustered
into subject areas are contained in the appendix. Responses received at the meeting involving
the community's leadership was remarkably similar to responses received at the neighborhood
meetings. It should be noted that several people attended two of the three meetings and that
some attended all three.
0 Responses to the questions were as follows:
What do you consider to be the best features, characteristics, aspects of Brooklyn Center
that should be preserved and enhanced? (multiple responses listed)
• Parks (both local and regional), trails, schools
• Proximity and accessibility to downtown Minneapolis
• Small town atmosphere with strong sense of neighborhood
• Well-built housing, some in need of reinvestment, rehabilitation
• Earle Brown Heritage Center
• Commercial and employment opportunity sites- capitalize
• Hennepin County Library/Service Center
2. Of the issues identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, which have been adequately
addressed and which remain to be addressed? What issues not identified in the 2020
Comp Plan should be addressed in this Plan? (responses listed in order from strongest)
Issues addressed
• Redevelopment of Joslyn and Howe Fertilizer sites
• Brooklyn Boulevard north of 1694
• Brookdale, Northbrook and Opportunity Site under way
• 252/Regal Theatre
• Police Station north of 1694
• Street/Utility Improvement Program under way
Issues needing to be addressed
• Brooklyn Blvd. and single-family along- report recommendations,
overlay, redevelop, beautify and cooperate with County
• Opportunity Site vision, promotion, redevelopment
• Northbrook development- vision, redevelop
• Brookdale- vision, rejuvenate, daylight Shingle Creek
• Humboldt Square- improve and rejuvenate
• Multiple family housing- rehabilitate, redevelop
• Senior housing- support for and options to independent living
• Single family- deal with foreclosures
• School districts- funding and consolidation
• Elementary schools/parks- preserve
• Civic Center- improve, expand
• Post-auto transportation- vision
• Low income and poor- reduce
3. What is your vision of the ideal for Brooklyn Center in the year 2030?
• Sense of Community- comfortable, family friendly, strong sense of
community, empowered, low crime, cohesive, engage diversity, safe
(reduce speed limit on Br. Blvd.)
• Identity- establish unique, distinct identity from BP- create major
attraction, change name, improve reputation
• Aesthetics- city-citizen collaboration to improve and maintain streets
(including H100) and public spaces
Strategic Implementation- other city examples,
• Schools- create city-wide district, personalize, consolidate
• Surface Water- increase treatment, increase infiltration (rain gardens),
daylight (Shingle Creek through Brookdale), capitalize (Mississippi
River)
• Transportation- multi-modal, ease to downtown, pedestrian friendly with
trail access and shelters,
• Parks and Trails- maintain, redesignate Evergreen land as park and
connect with bridge to Riverdale
• Housing- increase move-up, owner-occupied, senior-accessible, new
rental
• Commercial- Town Center, Opportunity Site and other commercial
redevelop/develop; Brookdale- viable or redevelop
• Growth- 30,000 to 35,000 population
40
4 Comprehensive Plan 2030
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
B rooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb with a well-established roadway
network. No major new roads will be required as part of the Transportation
Plan. The plan will examine ways to upgrade or maintain the existing
transportation system, including transit, bicycling and walking, in. order to
accommodate changes in the City's land use.
The Transportation Plan will function as a guide to:
■ Identify the City's existing and proposed transportation network;
■ Rank in priority its major investments to meet transportation needs; and
■ Support the City's land use goals and objectives.
This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following elements:
■ Street and road system
■ Street and road system plan
• ■ Transit
■ Bicycle and pedestrian movement
■ Travel demand management
■ Goods movement
■ Aviation
■ The relationship between land use and transportation
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, 2 0 0 7
Functional classification is a tool used in transportation planning and traffic
engineering to categorize streets by the type of transportation service provided and the
roadway's relationship' to surrounding land uses. The purpose of a functional
classification system is to create a hierarchy of roads that collects and distributes
traffic from neighborhoods to the metropolitan highway system. in as efficient a
manner as possible, given the topography and other physical constraints of the
area. Functional classification also involves determining what function each
roadway should perform before determining street widths, speed limits,
intersection control or other design features. Functional classification ensures that
non-transportation factors such as land use and development are taken into account
• in the planning and design of streets and highways.
The Metropolitan Council, in its Transportation Policy Plan, presents a functional
classification system for the metropolitan area. The major classifications are:
• Principal arterial
• "A-minor" arterial
• "B-minor" or "other minor" arterial
• Collector
• Local Streets
The local street system is not included in the Metropolitan Council's Transportation
System. The function of each of these roadways is slightly different depending on
whether the roadway is in an urban or rural area. Only the urban characteristics are
applicable to Brooklyn Center.
The elements of the functional classification system are described below, along with a
listing of which roads are in each classification. These road classifications are
described in more detail in the Transportation Policy Plan. Figure 3-1 shows the 2007
pattern of road functional classification, and Table 3-2 lists roads by functional class,
number of lanes, jurisdictional class and sub-class.
Principal arterials are the highest roadway classification and are considered part of
the metropolitan highway system. These roads are intended to connect
metropolitan centers with one another and connect major business concentrations,
important transportation terminals and large institutional facilities. Brooklyn
Center is crossed by several of the region's principal arterials:
• I-94
• 1-694
• TH100
• TH 252
Principal arterials are further classified as "Freeways" and "Other Principal
Arterials." The latter category may be designed with high capacity, controlled,
at-grade intersections rather than interchanges, although grade separation is
desirable. In Brooklyn Center, TH 252 and TH 100 between the City boundary and
50th Avenue North fall into the ""Other Principal Arterial" category. All of the
principals within Brooklyn Center are under Mn/DOT's jurisdiction.
Map of Functional
Classification System Map
0
2
Minor arterials are intended to connect important locations within the City with
access points on the metropolitan highway system and with important locations
outside the City. These arterials are also intended to carry short to medium trips that
would otherwise use the regional system.
91
The Metropolitan Council working cooperatively with Mn/DOT, counties and
cities, defined a network of A Minor arterials that are intended to either relieve
traffic on the principal arterials or serve as substitutes for principal arterials. The A
Minor arterials were subdivided into relievers, expanders, connectors, and
augmenters.
In Brooklyn Center, there are two roads classified as A Minor arterials:
• Brooklyn Boulevard (County Road 152)
• Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) west of TH 100'
The Metropolitan Council classifies Brooklyn Boulevard as a reliever and Bass Lake
Road as an augmenter. Relievers provide direct relief and support for congested
principal arterials. They provide relief for long trips and accommodate medium
length trips. Augmenters, literally, augment the capacity of principal arterials by
serving higher density areas and long range trips. Both of the minor arterials are
under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County.
Collector roadways are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within
the City, and to collect and distribute traffic from neighborhoods and
• commercial/industrial areas to the arterial system. Brooklyn Center has identified
an extensive network of collector roads, all of which link neighborhoods with each
other, with neighboring cities, with the city center, or with the regional highway
system.
Currently two of the collector roadways are under Hennepin County's jurisdiction:
• 69th Avenue North west of Brooklyn Boulevard,
• Humboldt Avenue N 157th Avenue North located just east of TH100.
The remaining collector roadways are under the City's jurisdiction. The County
classifies Humboldt as a collector since it links to other collectors in North
Minneapolis. Figure 3-1 shows it as part of the collector system.
Local streets connect blocks and land parcels; their function is primarily to provide
access to adjacent properties.. Local streets can also serve as important components
of bicycle and pedestrian circulation systems. In most cases, local streets will
connect to other local streets and collectors, although in some cases they may
connect to minor arterials. All other streets within the City are classified as local
streets.
is
3
•
•
•
Table 3-1: Street Classifications in Brooklyn Center
Functional Jurisdictional Sub-class
Classification Classification
Princinal Arterials
1-94
I-94/694
TH 252
TH 100 (south of 50th Ave. N.)
TH 100 (north of 50th Ave. N.)
A Minor Arterials
Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152)
Bass Lake Road (CR 10)
Collectors
69th Ave N (CR 130)
(west of Brooklyn Blvd.)
69th Avenue N (east of B. Blvd.)
Humboldt Ave N/57th Ave N (CR 57)
Humboldt Ave N (north of 1-94/694)
57th Ave N (east of Humboldt Ave N)
Noble Ave N
Lanes
State
Freeway
6+
State
Freeway
6+
State
Other
6
State
Other
4
State
Freeway
4
County
County
Reliever
Augmenter
4/5
4
County
City
County
city
city
city
France Ave N
City
(2 segments)
June Ave N
City
(Bass Lake Road to 63rd Ave N)
Halifax Ave N/Eckberg Dr/France Ave N/50th City
Ave N/Azelia Ave N/Lakebreeze Ave N/55'h
Ave N/56'h Ave N
(Xerxes Ave N to CSAH 152)
53'd Ave NBrooklyn Blvd. frontage
City
(France to 55`h Ave N)
John Martin Drive
City
Earle Brown Drive
City
(John Martin Drive to. Summit Drive)
Summit Drive
City
59" Ave N/Logan Ave N
City
(Dupont Ave N to 53`d)
4
2
4/2
4/2
4/2
4
2
2
2
4
2
4
4
4
2
• t 00 310,0. -
3897 3897 t
O r '
1` C L
Shingie Creek N
Shingle Gree2pooo o ^
0
oM
Lake m ° I yo
d, b Patiner _ 3900
Qoi~oO 5200,. , 4903:.
o~
5 I 653! _
N o
102DG0
64 w
13000 1'2823' 9~6 J< a '60
JTS , 0
Q10~ - ti6343 b 8926 2p 1'y
Sy vO~~ 6 O \
11440 O - - 1
s ~N 1029° issiPO Riv
n . w - 12823 Miss
-a.-', g50oo~ - 14 10560' -
144'32:2 32
330 0 • 150000
c,~co, 767;203 N - ~1}:gUOfJ 0 1885-74
~ y
0
4000 ^ SD o o so'o
7800 _ 5029 ti ~ ac o coo i
7400
9806
_ 9305' - : I in r -
~ ~ Shingle Creek
~ n Eh
16' 7
cn n I ° ~
`r9Q p~o~ orn N1N x500
oN
12900 4 o ° 41 SO 8886
7150 5217 y}7
1,500 _ 76217 18700 ~ 1600`J17 000 •8989 -
o's'
14457 N z35Uy 20115' op -
N D nj O p h, 5;.,. ~ O
cb n
6400
5 Q0. ~ v
~~'(300. 1 N e 6100 1850\
177 3800. 76626
4777
,,Pper Twin Lake 130,
_'1634 oo~hw
o r
~1'D 3
4,149
CP
iS o
2150 ` ~
2703 e
C1ttJ o
I
L n CeiAeY
~roo ~
Fi$uxo 3 11
Functional -Road
Classi1 • cation and
~~ic
AVexa$oj)ailLJ T xa
Colints
L,e$encl
Principal Arterial
A Minor Augn""'tor
A Minor Reliever
Major Collector
00000 Daly TraNic counts,
2001 Average
00000 2030 Projected Daljy Traffic counts
1,600 Feet
1,600 800 0
. ~~77 (F~7iR c
Map Comprrhrncur Plan
023 0 ~ j~ h b
Middle Twin Lake a:.. 20
°o
ms's ° Ryan Lake
Functional
Classification
Jurisdictional
Classification
Sub-class
Lanes
2
Lyndale Ave N
City
67s' Ave N (Humboldt to Dupont Ave N)
City
2
63rd Ave N (west of Xerxes)
City
4
Xerxes Ave N
Shingle Creek Parkway
City
4
Freeway Boulevard (656-66th Ave N)
City
2-5
Dupont Ave N
City
2
73rd Ave N (east of Humboldt)
City
2
53rd Ave N (east of Oliver)
City
2
51st Ave N (east of Brooklyn Blvd.)
City
2
JURISDICTIONAL CLASSIFICATION, 2 0 0 7
• Jurisdiction over the City's roadway system is shared among three levels of
government: the State of Minnesota; Hennepin County, and the City. The Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) maintains the interstate and State Trunk
Highway System. Hennepin County maintains the County State Aid Highway
(CSAH) and County Road Systems. The City maintains the remaining streets.
Road jurisdiction is logically linked to the geographic area the roadway serves and the
level of government capable of administering and operating the road. Generally,
jurisdiction can be linked to functional classification as follows, although there is some
overlap between classes:
• Principal Arterials - Federal and State
• Minor Arterials - County
• Collectors _ City
• Local Streets - City
EXISTING AND FORECAST TRAFFIC
The most recent (2007) traffic counts are shown in Figure 3-1. Also shown in Figure 34
are the forecast 2030 average daily traffic volumes. Traffic projections are based on an
average annual growth rate of 1 % per year applied to existing (2007) traffic counts
and calculated out to the year 2030. The 1% growth rate was considered appropriate
is based on growth rates used in nearby communities.
For example, the City of Minneapolis has established a citywide traffic growth rate of
6
0.5% per year. Recently, traffic impact studies completed in the City of Roseville have
used a growth rate of 2% per year. Given that Brooklyn Center, like Minneapolis, is
essentially fully developed, a growth rate of 1% per year was considered to be
conservative.
The growth rate methodology was used in place of a traditional trend line analysis
because an examination of historical traffic counts shows a decrease in. traffic over
time. If these counts were used in a trend line analysis, 2030 forecast traffic
volumes would actually be lower than existing counts. It is thought that the
decrease in traffic over time is a result of the completion of the freeway system.
This trend is not expected to continue because the regional highway system is at or
near capacity and some trips now using the regional system will be forced back
onto the local system as traffic on the regional highway system grows. New traffic
generated by infill development or redevelopment .in Brooklyn Center will also
cause some increase in traffic on the local system. For these reasons, the growth
rate methodology was used instead of a trend line analysis. (See the Appendix for a
more detailed explanation of this methodology.)
The existing and forecast traffic volumes are compared to the size and capacity of
each roadway in order to determine where capacity problems exist or are expected to
occur in the future. Figure 3-2 shows the number of lanes and general configuration
of the City's major roadways in order to help identify potential capacity problems.
Roadway capacity problems arise when the roadway cannot efficiently handle the
traffic using it, particularly at intersections. Efficient traffic movement is described
in terms of "level of service" (LOS), categorized using the letters "A" through "F."
• Table 3-2 illustrates LOS characteristics. Typical roadway capacities for a fully
developed area like Brooklyn Center are as shown in Table 3-3.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES
For purposes of regional transportation planning, the Metropolitan Council divides
the region into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's). Figure 3-3 shows the Metropolitan
Council's TAZ boundaries and Hennepin County's further subdivision of these
zones. Regional population, households and employment forecasts are allocated to
the TAZs as a means of forecasting traffic volumes. Because Brooklyn Center is a
fully developed community, the trips generated within the TAZ's are not expected
to change significantly during the period of this plan.
0
7
Shingle Cr
el\
y Shingle Creek _
. an
5 2-U
Palmer Lake
Z -U Legend
err- 4 U
;f4-D
Upper Twin Lake
2U
4-U
Middle Twin Lake
City of
BrooLy n tenter
Figure 3 r 2
Functional Road
Classification and
Number of Lanes
Principal Arterial
A Minor Augmentor
A Minor Reliever
Major Collector
2-U
2 Lane Undivided
2-D
2 Lane Divided (median with left turn lane)
3
3 Lane (center turn lane)
4-U
4 Lane Undivided
4-D
4 Lane Divided
5
5 Lanes or More
1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet
481, n xxrxie~.~
IF:~TFR yyyyyyry~,,,,~^ ~ LC
-
2030 C'omprehFVFSi~r Plan r ACS
Ryan Lake 0
737 Q 739 , # v (z 4
,
I.n,l - 736
2
3 d
Mississippi
730 _ 731
735ShingleCreek
.
rll
~g'± 721
Middle Twin Lake
_a5a &vra ace
Ryan Lake
City Of
BrooLyn Center
Figure 3 -3
Traffic Analtjsis Zones
(TAZs)
Legend
721
722
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
1,600 800 0
1,600 Feet
'~i FRlNIFI.1\
203V Compmhracirc Pla.
Table 3-2: Traffic Level of Service Characteristics
Level of Service Characteristics
A
- Most Vehicles Do Not Stop At All
- Most Vehicles Arrive During Green Phase
- Progression Is Extremely Favorable
B
- More Vehicles Stop Than LOS A
- Good Progression
C
- Number of Vehicles Stopping Is Significant
- Fair Progression
- Individual Cycle Failures
D
- Many Vehicles Stop
- Unfavorable Progression
- Individual Cycle Failures Are Noticeable
E
- Limit of Acceptable Delay
- Poor Progression
- Frequent Cycle Failures
F
- Unacceptable Delays
- Poor Progression
- Oversaturation
•
Table 3-3: Daily Roadway Capacities
Area Type- All are developed
Daily Capacity by Le
vel of Service (LOS)
Cross-Section
A
B
C D
2-lane
6,600
7,900
9,000
3-lane
12,000
14,000
16,000
4-lane undivided
17,000
18,700
21,200'
4-lane divided
18,700
21,700
25,000
4-lane expressway
22,800
26,500
30,000'
Notes:
For developed area assume minimum acceptable LOS of "C".
For developing areas assume minimum acceptable LOS of "C".
For rural areas assume minimum acceptable LOS of "B".
F~ -UNACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
•
E
10
COMPARISON OF TRAVEL DEMAND AND REGIONAL HIGHWAY
40 SYSTEM CAPACITY
The City of Brooklyn Center believes that its land use plan is in conformance with the
Metropolitan Council's Transportation Guide /Policy Plan. Brooklyn Center is a
nearly-fully developed community in which increased traffic generation may occur in
two ways: increased per-capita trip-making and intensified land use. As described in
the Land Use and Redevelopment Plan, redevelopment and infill will be pursued
along Brooklyn Boulevard, Humoldt/65`t' Ave N/I694 and the City Center
Opportunity Site, plus few other isolated locations such as the Gateway area near 66th
Avenue and TH 252.
However, Brooklyn Center feels that it will be difficult to achieve the 2020
projections for households and employment that the Metropolitan Council has
established for Brooklyn Center and which are the basis for the regional travel
model. Opportunities for redevelopment are relatively limited given the young age
and sound condition of most structures. Increased traffic on the regional system may
be offset somewhat by possibilities for improved transit service resulting from higher
densities and more mixed land uses. Consequently, the City expects that its land use
plan will not result in auto trips on the regional highway system beyond those
forecast by the Metropolitan Council; the City also feels that its land use plan will
further Council objectives of increased transit ridership and travel demand
management.
While the City of Brooklyn Center believes they will not significantly contribute to
• traffic demand on the regional highway system they are concerned about the growth
of traffic on this system and its impact on the City of Brooklyn Center. Traffic
projections on 1-94,1-694, TH 100, TH 252, and Brooklyn Boulevard indicate
increasing traffic demand from outside the city which will have an impact on the
City's access to the regional highway system. The City believes improvements to the
regional highway system are important for economic development in the City of
Brooklyn Center.
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
The transportation issues in Brooklyn Center have been grouped into the following
categories for discussion.
• Capacity Deficiencies
• Safety
• Jurisdiction
• Functional Classification
CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
Most of the capacity deficiencies and congestion which affect the City of Brooklyn
Center today occur on the principal and minor arterial system. Congestion occurs in
• the peak hours on TH 100 south of 1694, on TH 252 north of 1694, and on 1-694 west
of 194. There is also significant congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard north of 1-694
which can cause backups on the eastbound and westbound 1-94 off-ramps at
Brooklyn Boulevard.
11
The traffic forecasts indicate that the traffic demand on these regional facilities will
q0 continue to increase and the congestion will grow worse without improvements to the
regional system. The traffic demand on Brooklyn Boulevard north of 1-694 is also
expected to increase due to redevelopment and the growth in through traffic. This will
increase the congestion that already exists on Brooklyn Boulevard.
The 2030 forecasts anticipate low to moderate growth in traffic on the local and
collector roadway system. Most of this increase in demand will be due to increasing
congestion on the regional highway system. This growth in traffic on collector
roadways is expected to begin to cause some congestion on some of these roadways,
including:
• 63rd Avenue East of Brooklyn Boulevard
• 69th Avenue East of Brooklyn Boulevard
• Humboldt Avenue North of 65`b Avenue
• Shingle Creek Parkway north of 1694
• Noble Ave north of Brooklyn Blvd.
• 66 h Ave N west of TH252
SAFETY
The major areas of concern relative to traffic safety in Brooklyn Center is on
Brooklyn Boulevard and on the collector roadways that are nearing capacity, such as
69th Avenue, 66th Avenue, 63rd Avenue and Humboldt Avenue. The high traffic
• volumes on a roadway that is intended to have a relatively high level of access can
become a problem because of the number of vehicle conflicts which will occur.
JURISDICTION
Currently two of the collector roadways serving the City of Brooklyn Center are
under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. These are 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn
Boulevard (CSAH 130) and Humboldt Avenue between 53rd and 57th Avenue/57`h
Avenue between Logan and Humboldt (CSAH 57). Hennepin County would like to
turn these roadways back to the City. There are capacity, maintenance and funding
issues that must be resolved before this can occur.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
A number of streets have been added as major streets to the Functional Classification
System map since the last comprehensive plan was completed. Most notable among
these are the following:
• John Martin Drive, Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive (between
John Martin and Summit); and stretches of 55 h and 56`h west between
Brookdale and Brooklyn Boulevard in City Center;
• Humboldt Ave N and Logan Ave N between 53'd and 59m, 59`h
between Logan and Dupont and Lyndale between 53'a and 57"' in the
Southeast Neighborhood; and
• • Halifax, Eckberg Drive, France 50d, Azelia and Lakebreeze and 53`d
between France and the H100 frontage road, in the Southwest
Neighborhood; and
• 67th between Humboldt and Dupont in the Northwest Neighborhood.
12
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM PLAN
40 Brooklyn Center is a fully developed city and its road system is in place. No new
roads are expected to be constructed. However, existing roads can be improved to
address capacity problems:
• TH 100
• TH 252
• I-694
• Brooklyn Boulevard North of 1-694
• 69th Avenue West of Brooklyn Boulevard
Functional and Jurisdictional Classification Systems Plan
The proposed functional classification system is shown in Figure 3-4. The only
proposed change from the current functional classification system is to identify
Humboldt Avenue between 53rd Avenue and 57th Avenue as a collector roadway.
In terms of jurisdictional classification two potential changes are the segment of 69th
Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue between 53rd and 57th
Avenue.
Hennepin County is interested in turning these roads back to the City. However there
are capacity, maintenance and funding issues which need to be resolved before this
can occur.
• Proposed Functional Classification
System Map- separate page
Specific Roadway Improvements
Trunk Highway 100-
The only non-freeway portion of TH 100 between Glenwood Avenue in Golden
Valley and 50th Avenue N. in Brooklyn Center was upgraded to freeway design
standards since the 2000 comp plan was completed.
I694-
An additional lane was added between 194 and 1494 to accommodate increased
traffic on 1694 and the traffic demand being placed on 63rd and 69d', the City's
parallel collector roadways.
TH 252
Mn/DOT's Transportation System Plan shows TH 252 north of 73rd as an expansion
corridor. The extension of TH 610 and expansion of the TH 610 bridge are expected to
cause an increase in traffic on this segment of TH 252. Capacity improvements on
• this segment of TH 252 would help to reduce traffic demand on the City's parallel
collector roadways and maintain the City's ability to access the regional highway
system. MnDOT and the Cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park are studying
13
the elimination of several signalized intersections north of I94/1694 to improve traffic
flow.
The City of Brooklyn Center anticipates additional infill and redevelopment in the
Gateway area along TH 252 north of 1-694. The intersection on TH 252 at 66th
Avenue represents a potential capacity constraint to development in this area.
Some additional improvements will be needed at this intersection (potentially an
interchange) in order to accommodate the additional traffic from additional
development in the Gateway area. The City of Brooklyn Center will work with
Mn/DOT to identify the improvements needed that are consistent with other
improvements Mn/DOT plans to make in the TH 252 corridor.
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
Brooklyn Boulevard north of 1694 has been widened and improved from 65m to
Noble/71S` since the last comprehensive plan was completed. As discussed below
and elsewhere in this plan numerous improvements to the section of Brooklyn
Boulevard south of 1694 need to be made.
69TH AVENUE
The improvements on Brooklyn Boulevard also included some improvements on
69th Avenue at the intersection with Brooklyn Boulevard. The forecast volumes
indicate that some capacity improvements will also be needed to the west to the
Brooklyn Center city limits. The City will continue to work with Hennepin County
on the capacity improvements that will be needed prior to turnback of this roadway
to the City.
• ACCESS MANAGEMENT
The access to Mn/DOT highways in the City of Brooklyn Center is largely fixed in
place. 1-94 and 1-694 are interstates with access only occurring at interchanges.
These interchange locations are set and the City does not expect these locations to
change. Access to TH 100 has been resolved with the the TH 100 improvements.
Access to TH 252 was set when the roadway was built. The City is not looking for
more access but does believe that additional capacity will be needed at the
intersection of 66th Avenue and TH 252.
Access to the minor arterial system (Brooklyn Boulevard and Bass Lake Road) will
require management in order to maintain the mobility function and safety of these
roadways. The Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study and the proposed
Brooklyn Boulevard improvements identified a number of access improvements
that should be made on Brooklyn Boulevard in order to improve the capacity and
safety of this roadway. Access to Bass Lake Road, especially east of Brooklyn
Boulevard, should be consolidated to improve safety. Hennepin County has guidelines
for desirable access spacing on minor arterials. Although it may not be possible to
achieve the desired spacing with the current land use and development patterns on
Bass Lake Road, the City will strive to consolidate access wherever possible.
LOCAL SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
• In Brooklyn Center, as in many post-war first ring suburbs, most of the infrastructure
was constructed in the late 1950s and 1960s. These systems, including local streets,
14
water and sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems, are now reaching the end of
their useful lives and need replacement. In 1992 the City undertook a Pavement
Management Study to document pavement conditions and determine the extent of
street reconstruction needs. The study showed that about 80 percent of the street
mileage should be overlaid or reconstructed.
In response, the City embarked on a program to address these needs in a systematic
manner. The Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Program is an
infrastructure rehabilitation program designed to serve as a catalyst for
neighborhood revitalization.
In 2008, Brooklyn Center is in its fifteenth year of constructing neighborhood
improvements. Since 1985, approximately 49.8 miles of residential streets and 18.4
miles of State Aid streets have been reconstructed. With over 100 miles of streets and
utilities, it will take approximately thirteen more years to complete a cycle of
infrastructure rehabilitation.
Local Traffic Control
The increasing level of traffic and congestion on the principal, minor, and collector
roadways causes increasing amounts of traffic that attempts to cut through
residential neighborhoods in order- to avoid congested locations and save some travel
time. The best solution is to make sure the principal and minor arterials have capacity to
serve the traffic demand so delays are minimized. However, on collector roadways it
may not be desirable to add capacity since it could encourage more traffic and higher
speeds through residential areas. On the other hand it also may not be appropriate to try
• to calm traffic because this may cause the traffic to divert to local streets. Problems on
collector roadways need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis to identify the most
appropriate solution.
Transit
As shown in Figure 3-5, the City of Brooklyn Center is well served by local transit
routes that operate on most of the City's minor arterial and collector roadways. The
City is also well served by express routes providing quick access to downtown on
1-94. The City has park and ride lots located on Brooklyn Boulevard just south of
1-694, one on either side of TH 252 at 73`d Avenue and one at 65th Avenue.
A transit hub where a number of routes intersect to provide connections to other
locations within the City is located north across County Road 10 from Brookdale at
Northdale Drive. MCTO has determined that fully 40 percent of the transit trips in
Brooklyn Center go to Brookdale, making the site across County Road 10 from
Brookdale an ideal location for a successful transit hub. Some timed-transfer feeder
service was instituted in the 1990s when the transit hub/park and ride facility was
located at Brookdale and this continued with the relocation of the facility. Further
expansion of timed transfer operations and other transit improvements are
dependent on the construction of a full-scale transit hub which can accommodate
significantly more customers and buses.
• The Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan identifies five transit markets
in the metropolitan area and the service characteristics and performance guidelines
15
that are appropriate for the different markets. The transit plan also defines four
transit service zones where the service is developed to be responsive to the markets
they serve. Brooklyn Center is located primarily within the Inner Urban/Suburban
41 Transit Zone. This zone has the second-highest service level in the Metropolitan
area. Service in this area should be available 12 to 18 hours a day, seven days a week.
A small portion of the northeast corner of the City falls into the Outer Suburban
Zone. Given the type of land uses and density of development in this area, the City
believes it should be part of the inner urban/suburban transit zone.
The Transportation Policy Plan identifies the primary factors that can influence the
creation of transit- and pedestrian-friendly communities. These are:
Concentrated, compact development patterns
Mixing of land uses within 40 to 160-acre neighborhoods
Pedestrian- and transit-oriented design, as expressed in building and
parking locations, transit shelters, sidewalks and paths, etc.
Figure 3-4
Transit Routes
As described in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan,
Brooklyn Center's goals include the revitalization and intensification of certain
areas, notably the City Center Opportunity Site and the Brooklyn Boulevard
• corridor, with a more diversified mixture of uses that will reduce reliance on the
private automobile and encourage walking and transit use. The City is ready to work
with the MCTO on strategies that will enhance transit service to such mixed-use
areas.
TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Travel Demand Management (TDM) is a set of techniques to reduce peak period
vehicle trips by 1) shifting travelers from driving alone into' shared ride
arrangements, such as ridesharing or transit, or 2) by encouraging alternative work
arrangements, such as flextime and telecommuting that remove trips from the peak
travel times.
In this metropolitan area and throughout the nation our ability to build our way out
of growing congestion and environmental problems is severely limited by the cost
of roads and the environmental and social impacts of new and expanded roads.
Brooklyn Center's road system allows for very little expansion if any, due to
constrained rights-of-way and established land uses. Therefore, the City supports
travel demand management as a way to alleviate increasing traffic congestion.
TDM techniques are best implemented through a partnership of cities, regional and
• state agencies, and employers to encourage travelers to change their behavior
through incentives, enhanced services and high occupancy facilities. For example,
employers can provide subsidized transit passes, allow staggered work hours to
allow travel outside of peak hours, and encourage telecommuting. The state and
16
• e
Citij of
Broody 11 Center
Figure 3 r 4
Public Transportation
Legend
• Transit Center
• Park and Ride
® Bus Shelter
Bus Route
777 Route Number
763i 1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet
$ed B Middle Twin Lake YRyanLake Rapid Transit '45J 2030r mprehrasirr P/an
\ 1*
region provide transit service and facilities such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes, metered ramps and meter bypasses to allow faster travel times for
ride-sharers and transit users. These type of improvements are important for
supporting drivers who choose alternatives to driving alone.
Most of the City of Brooklyn Center has been developed so that the City is
somewhat limited in what it can do to encourage transit-friendly design or to
encourage employers to provide incentives to employees that rideshare. In infill and
redevelopment areas the City will review plans to ensure transit is accommodated
and to encourage the development of TDM programs.
BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT
Although much of Brooklyn Center was originally developed without sidewalks,
the City has developed a system of sidewalks and trails that effectively link its
parks, schools, commercial areas and civic buildings. As shown on Figure 3-6,
sidewalks have been developed along most minor arterial and collector streets and
along an interconnected system of local streets.
Trails are connected with sidewalks and cross most City parks. The extensive
Shingle Creek trail system rings Palmers Lake and connects with the Three Rivers
Park regional trail system that follows the course of Shingle Creek north to south
through the City. At the City's southern boundary, the trail continues along the creek
• through north Minneapolis, eventually linking to Webber Parkway, the Grand
Round of the Minneapolis Parkway system and Three Rivers regional trail system.
Pedestrian bridges provide key links in the trail and sidewalk system, crossing
I-94/694 at Central Park, and crossing TH 100 from Summit Drive to Knox
Avenue, and from Brookdale to Lions Park.
SIDEWALK AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS
The on-sidewalk segment of the Shingle Creek trail system across the Brookdale
Shopping Center is unimproved, not adequately separated from traffic, and is
somewhat confusing because of a lack of directional signs. Improved signage and
landscaping along the trail would improve this segment.
A trail and sidewalk crossing has been constructed under 1694 on both sides of
Brooklyn Boulevard to improve access and safety. A trailway has also been
constructed by Three Rivers Park District from 53`d under 1694 to connect with
Brooklyn Center's trail system north of 1694 and the Minneapolis trail system to the
south.
Gaps in the sidewalk system still hinder pedestrian and bicycle movement in some
locations, and should be filled when other street improvements are made. In
particular, sidewalks should be completed along the full length of the three
• "loops" discussed in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan
(Figure 2-4). These routes are intended to link neighborhoods, parks, schools and the
City Center. In particular sidewalks are currently missing on the south side of the
section of 57th Avenue/Bass Lake Road from Shingle Creek Parkway to Xerxes.
17
Figure 3-5: Sidewalks and Trails Map
90 Bicycling is accommodated on the City's off-street trail system. However, bicycling
on City streets can be difficult, especially on arterial and collector streets with high
traffic volumes and insufficient width for bike lanes or paths. The
recently-constructed multi-use path along 66th Avenue is one example of a facility
that accommodates both bicycles and pedestrians. However, rights-of-way in
many locations are too narrow to allow on-street bike lanes or off-street paths to be
developed.
The most feasible solution would be a system of signed bicycle routes on the three
main "loop" routes identified on Figure 2-4. Most of these streets Dupont and
Humboldt, for example have two undivided travel lanes and two parking lanes. A
separate bicycle lane cannot be accommodated without removing parking.
However, where traffic volumes are moderate, experienced bicyclists can share the
road with occasional parked cars. Bicycle routes, or bicycle lanes where space is
available, should be located on the following streets:
• Humboldt Avenue
• Dupont Avenue
• Xerxes Avenue north of County Road 10
• 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard
• 57th Avenue/County Road 10 east of Brooklyn Boulevard
• Shingle Creek Parkway
• A bike route is under review with Three Rivers Park District for the section of
57th /County Road 10 east of Brooklyn Boulevard. In its current configuration,
much of Brooklyn Boulevard is unsuitable for bicyclists, due to high traffic volumes
and narrow sidewalks. However, in lieu of other alternatives, bicyclists can use the
existing sidewalk for short distances, although this creates visibility hazards at
intersections. As redevelopment occurs along the portion of Brooklyn Boulevard
south of 1694, increased consideration should be given to providing wider off-street
paths for shared bicycle and pedestrian use, as has been done north of 1694.
GOODS MOVEMENT
Most freight movement in the City of Brooklyn Center is primarily by truck on the
existing roadway system. Maintaining good access and mobility on this system will
be the best method of providing for goods movement in the City. There are no major
freight terminals in the city and most freight movement is related to delivery service
to commercial businesses in the city.
The Canadian Pacific Railway runs through the southern tip of the City providing
service to a small industrial area located in this area.
0 RELATIONSHIP OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
18
Brooklyn Center has a relatively dense pattern of residential development with
small lot singles and a high proportion of attached units. It also has a large and
centrally located retail-office-civic core that is supportive of transit and ped-bike
access.
Brooklyn Boulevard, a Minor Arterial and the major non-regional roadway in the
community, is struggling with the dual demands of traffic movement and land
access. There is a strong and growing demand for traffic from the north to use
Brooklyn Boulevard to access 1-94/694 and TH 100. At the same time, the City
wishes to make this corridor a more important location of office, retail and
multi-family residential development. This includes replacing the existing
single-family detached housing that has direct access to Brooklyn Boulevard with
more intensive development. The Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (1994)
calls
for consolidating and sharing access points, closing certain median openings, and
increasing the use of intersecting streets for land access.
PLANNED CHANGES IN LAND USE THAT MAY AFFECT TRAFFIC AND
TRANSIT
• Possible long-term City Center area intensification through redevelopment;
greater mixture of uses; more pedestrian emphasis.
• Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment and intensification; closing current and
restricting future access points to Brooklyn Boulevard south of 1694;
• additional transit shelters as part of streetscape improvements.
• Possible reduction in housing density in the Northeast Neighborhood.
• Infill commercial and industrial development north of 1-94/694 near Shingle
Creek Parkway.
AVIATION
Brooklyn Center is within the influence area of the Crystal Airport, which is a
designated reliever airport for Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) Airport metropolitan
system airports. Airspace over Brooklyn Center is also used by aircraft operating
from Metropolitan Area airports and other airports.
A small portion of the Crystal Airport is located within Brooklyn Center. Most of this
area is located in the Shingle Creek floodway and such is controlled by the City's
floodplain zoning and not suitable for development; it.
Brooklyn Center is a member (with Crystal and Brooklyn Park) of the joint Airport
Zoning Board, which regulates land use around the airport. This commission
functions under a joint power agreement. In the early 1980s, the Zoning Board
adopted airport zoning regulations which apply to each of the member cities. The
airport zones are shown on the Brooklyn Center zoning map but the text of the
• regulations has not been incorporated into the City's zoning ordinance.
Airspace zones are imaginary surfaces around the airport into which no structure or
tree is permitted to penetrate. The imaginary surfaces include approach surfaces,
19
primary surfaces, horizontal surfaces and conical surfaces.
Land use safety zones are established to control land uses near public airports for the
40 safety of airport users and persons in the vicinity of airports. There are three safety
zones: A, B and C (see Figure, Appendix).
Safety zone A extends outward from the end of the runway for a distance equal to
two-thirds of the length of the existing or planned runway. No buildings,
transmission lines, or uses that would cause an assembly of persons are permitted.
In Brooklyn Center, this area is partially airport-owned open space and partially in
single-family residential use.
Safety zone B extends outward from safety zone A, a distance equal to one-third the
existing or planned runway length. It covers an additional single-family residential
area.
Safety zone C contains all land within an arc drawn with a 6,000 foot radius from
the ends of all runways, excluding the areas in zones A and B. Uses are only
subject to general restrictions regarding interference with electronic
communications, airport lighting and the impairment of visibility in the vicinity of
the airport. In Brooklyn Center, this zone extends as far as Brooklyn Boulevard,
encompassing a wide range of land uses.
Structures which are 150 feet or higher above ground level and within
approximately two miles of the airport may be considered hazards to air navigation.
• Brooklyn Center has no existing structures of this height; does not permit such
structures under its zoning ordinance, and has no plans to permit such structures in
the future. Any applicant who proposes to construct such a structure shall notify the
city, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation
Administration at least 30 days in advance as required by law (MCAR 8800.1200
Subpart 3 and FAA form 7460-8).
The City's policy in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan was to encourage the eventual
phase-out of the Crystal Airport and its replacement with a new minor
classification airport. Both Brooklyn Center and they City of Crystal have
maintained that relocation would eiminate hazardous situations caused by the
proximity of the airport to surrounding residential development. Brooklyn Center
still supports this policy. However, the Metropolitan Airports Commission has no
plans to close the airport. The Crystal Airport Long-Term Comprehensive Plan
(August 1995) states that the airport's existing facilities will generally be adequate
to accommodate the projected 20-year demand without major expansions.
None of the land use changes proposed in this Comprehensive Plan will affect the
functioning of the Crystal Airport. By the same token, airport operations have
relatively few impacts on the adjacent neighborhood in Brooklyn Center. Noise
impacts are considered in the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan for the airport. The
Metropolitan Council suggests that the 60 DNL (day-night average sound level)
contour should be used for planning purposes for areas inside the MUSA. The 60
DNL noise contours in 1993 had minimal impact on Brooklyn Center, since most
• departures are to the northeast, into the prevailing wind direction. The projected 60
DNL noise contours for 2013 in the Long-Terra Comprehensive Plan extends just
beyond the airport boundary into Brooklyn Center, but should affect few, if any,
20
residential properties. According to FAA standards, the 60 DNL contour is
compatible with residential development.
(DNL is the average sound level, in decibels, obtained from the accumulation of all
sound events; it weights night-time sound events to account for the increased
disturbance resulting from night-time noise. It is the FAA's single system for
determining exposure of individuals to airport noise.)
However, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) uses a different
standard, the 1,1065 contour, which identifies the area where 65 dBA (decibels) is
exceeded 10 percent of the time (6 minutes) in a given hour. The projected 2013
L,065 contour for the airport extends much further into Brooklyn Center, in a
roughly triangular shape that ends at the 1-94/694 and Brooklyn Boulevard
interchange.
There are no heliports in Brooklyn Center, and heliports are not a permitted use in
any zoning district. The City should examine the issue of where heliports might best
be permitted, to ensure that any future proposals for heliports occur in appropriate
locations.
•
•
21
Combrehenslve Plan 2030
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
INTRODUCTION
B rooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb with a well-established park and'
open space system. No new parks are planned for acquisition or improvement.
Improvements will be confined to enhancement of the recreational facilities,
improvement of trail linkages, and possible acquisition of additional open space.
This section of the Comprehensive Plan examines Brooklyn Center's park and
recreation system, analyzes how well it meets the City's needs on both a
neighborhood and a citywide basis, and makes recommendations for changes and
additions to park facilities. This chapter includes the following sections:
■ The Existing Park System
■ Park Classification System
■ Park Policies
■ Park and Open Space Needs
■ Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail System and Park Linkages
■ Relationship to Regional Park Facilities
■ Park Profiles
• THE EXISTING PARK SYSTEM
The City's park system, as shown in Figure 5-1, is one of the most extensive
municipal systems in the region. The system includes 23 developed parks and a
municipal golf course, providing a variety of recreational opportunities for all
segments of the population. In addition, considerable undeveloped public open
space is held in the Twin Lakes area. Recreation and leisure opportunities range from
passive pursuits such as sitting, walking, picnicking, fishing, and enjoying music to
more active pastimes such as organized sports, pick-up athletic games, bicycling,
running, and in-line skating. Many parks are adjacent to schools or other open space,
and one park, Central, is adjacent to the Community Center, which houses an indoor
50-meter pool with a water slide and other indoor recreational opportunities.
The even distribution of parks throughout all areas of the City and the variety of
recreational facilities available enable the park system to serve all areas of the City and
all segments of the population. There is excellent coordination of programs and
facilities between parks and schools, and between parks and City and county
facilities. The trail system links parks, schools, and other activity centers. However,
like the rest of the City's public facilities, the park system is beginning to show its age,
and its size and scope create maintenance burdens for the City.
• Previous park planning efforts date back to the late 1970s: the Park and Recreation
Policy Plan of 1976 and the subsequent.Park Development Schedule formulated by the
Park and Recreation Commission in 1978. These documents established a
classification system for the parks, and set priorities for park system investments,
which have largely been followed to date.
r
Capital improvements to parks have followed a roughly 20-year cycle. In 1960 and in
1980 the citizens of Brooklyn Center approved bond referenda for financing the
development and improvement of park facilities. This included acquiring land,
installing new playgrounds, developing ballfields, tennis courts and other facilities.
Following these improvements, for a time no formal plan was put in place for a
systematic update. Following up on the City's practice of programming for street
reconstruction 15 years into the future, in 200X the City began developing a 15-year
capital improvement program for parks.
OTHER OPEN SPACE
The City owns much additional open space above and beyond the park system.
These areas include the following:
• Three trail corridors: Shingle Creek, 69th Avenue, and the new 53rd Avenue
Greenway;
• The Centerbrook Golf Course, a 65 acre public facility managed by the City;
• Additional undeveloped open space that the City retains in its natural state.
• This includes substantial areas around Twin Lake.
ISSUES
• Is it practicable to continue to maintain the existing park system at its current
levels.
• How can the park system best meet the changing needs of the City's
population? In other words, how can it keep pace with social and
demographic changes that affect the population?
Fiscal and staffing constraints make it difficult to continue to maintain the park
system at its current level. Staffing levels have declined since 1981, while the
number of parks and trails have increased. Demographic and social changes also
affect the park system. The City's population increased slightly during the 1990s
while the number of school-age children in the City increased significantly during that
decade. Meanwhile a significant decline in the number of pre-school children
occurred in the 1990s. These trends are opposite of the prior decade. In response to
the issues, Public Works staff and the Park and Recreation Commission have
developed a parks systems plan that revises the way in which parks are classified and
reallocates the resources that each classification of parks will receive.
•
2
Palmer Lake Elementary
e
11L
O
Shingle Cce
kkk~~~
. West Palmer Lake Park - CD
,
,
,
Shingle Creek `
T
East Palmer Park • NP
St. Alphonsus School;
> Evergreen Park Ci ^ Riverdale Park - NP
Eve€green Elementary
Brook-iin Center
Willow Lane Eler>mienta - Palmer Lake
_ _
-
Willow Lane Pant _N
k
SU
P
k
L
Flgllre 5 r 1
-
ar
South Palmer
a
e
' ~ agth-Av_ _
.
r, -
Parks,
Freeway Park NP
=
Park Classifications,
Shingle Creek Trail - NP
Orchard Park - I
u
Firehouse Park - NP
l
and Schools
.
s cahlander P I s
a 'W>..
Center High School
Brooklyn ,
Gar City Park NP
_ -
_ Fl Garde rty Elementary
k Marlin Park -,NW
tl
Legend
Central Park
r> , ~ - -
- I
Schools -
D Arboretum SU Shingle Creek
Parks
ssey. Charter School = W-angstad Park NP
North Mississippi R nal Park - SLI
Kyla+rm Park - CD
t
Grandview Park - CD
Park Type
' _
Earle Brown Elementary
NP - Neighborhood Park
CD -Community Destination Park
SU -Special Use Park
/11 A,
Northport P k - NP
m
Mississippi River
Northport Eleme --rX.
T
Litxi's Park - NP
i
Bellvue Park - NP
enterbr Golkoursa - Stil
Upper Twin Lake
Triangle Park - IaIP".
1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet -
Hollow rk - NP
Middle Twin tape`
f h or
fF NT[R
2030 Comprehensive Pisa
Twin Lade Park - Ryan Lake
Table 5-1: Park Facilities. 1997
I Arboretum 130 I I I I I
I Bellvue 17 I • I • I Ili
Brooklane 1 2 I I I I A I
Central 148 I 1 1 1 2 L 1 41
Evergreen 120 I I 1 1 1 2 12 I • L I• L
Firehouse 110 I I I I 1
I Freeway 16 I I' 1 i 1 I i A i
I Garden City 120 I I I
Grandview 13 1 L 2, 2 • A • L
1L
Happy Hollow ! 6 1' I' I I 1 I I• A 1
I Kylawn 122 1 1 I I 2 1 2 1 • L 1• L
Lakeside 1 2 I I I I I I I
Lions 118 I• I• 12 f l 2 1
Marlin 12 I I I I I I I
• I North Mississippi (Hennepin Parks) ! 15 I I i ( i 1 1
Northport 125 1 1 1 1 3! Z L
I L
Orchard Lane ' 7 I I I 1 1 1 L.
1 Palmer Lake (East) I ( I I I 2
I Palmer Lake (South) and Nature Area 1226 I I I I I I 1
Palmer Lake (West) 1 I I I i I 2 1 2 1 A I
Riverdale 14 1• I' 1 I 1 1 1• A
Shingle Creek Trailway 10
Win Beach 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
Wangstad 12 I I I 1 1 1 1
Willow Lane I g l I • I I 2 I I• L -L
L - Lighted Rink
A - Rink only, no attendant
Archery available at Central Park, horseshoe courts at Grandview Park
•
1L
I
I
I •
I
1 •I
2
2
2
21
i
i •
1•!
I I
1•
I
I•
I
I•I
I I
I•
I
I•
1
I I
1 • 1
I
1 .
I '
1
I2I
I•
I
21
I I
1 I
I•
•
I21
I• I
•I
I2I
I I
•I
I
1 •I
I I
I I
•I
•I
2I
1 1
•I
I•I
I•I
•I
•1
4
• PARK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Parks are classified and developed according to a functional hierarchy. This functional system suggests
the types of facilities and development which would be appropriate in each park, however, specific
improvements are individually tailored to each park based on neighborhood desires, historical presence of
certain types of facilities, and resources available.
Different types of parks are located and designed to serve different needs and populations. For example,
there should be a park in each neighborhood that is safely accessible to pedestrians, especially children, within
a reasonable walking radius of one-quarter to one-half mile. At the other end of the spectrum, organized
sports and specialized and community-wide recreation needs can be met by one or two larger parks in each
neighborhood.
The following classification system has been developed by City staff based on national standards. It is
similar to the system the City has used for park and recreation planning for the past twenty years.
However, the classification of parks within the system has been changed in order to make better use of park
resources, meet neighborhood needs, and address issues of demographic and social change.
The system is divided into three broad categories: neighborhood parks, community destination parks, and
special use parks and open spaces.
Neighborhood Parks
• Neighborhood Parks include the following three types:
Playlot
The smallest unit of the park system both in terms of size and area that it serves; its function is to provide
play facilities for pre-school children who are not conveniently served by larger parks. It may contain play
equipment, sandboxes, paved areas for wheeled toys, walking and bike trails, and seating areas.
Service Area: The sub-neighborhood level of 500 to 2,000 persons with a 1A mile radius.
Desirable Size: .25 to 2 acres
Acres per person: No set standard desirable in higher-density areas.
Site Characteristics: Should be located so that children do not have to cross major streets. Should
include or be combined with an adult seating or gathering area; can be
combined with a school.
Playground
Parks designed for use by children from pre-school to age 12. Often coincides with the service area for an
5
elementary school, and may adjoin and complement the school facility if intended to serve the same age
group.
Facilities and programs of a neighborhood playground should be designed to meet the particular
requirements of each individual neighborhood. May include a larger play area with equipment for older
children; an area for free play and organized games; minimum maintenance ball diamond, multi-purpose
hard surface courts; walking and bike trails, pleasure skating rinks, and seating areas. Some parks may
contain portable restrooms.
Service area:
Desirable Size:
Acres per 1,000 pop
Site characteristics:
Playfield
A population of up to 4,000 with a 1A to 1/z mile radius.
5 to 10 acres.
2.0
Geographically centered in neighborhood with safe walking and bike
access. Suited for intense development. Helpful if located adjacent to a
school.
Larger parks designed to provide recreation opportunities for all ages. They may contain all the features of
playgrounds, with groomed ball facilities suitable for adult play. Hockey and pleasure skating rinks are
lighted. May include portable restrooms and sheltered picnic areas.
. Service area: Neighborhood-wide; serves entire population with special emphasis on
organized adult sports, ideally within a 11/z to 2 miles biking distance.
Desirable Size: 20 acres or more.
Acres per 1,000 pop.: 1.0 to 2.0
Site characteristics: Direct access from all parts of the neighborhood or quadrant. Level terrain
with few water bodies or other environmental constraints. Easily accessible
by large numbers of vehicles. Physically separate from homes so as to
minimize light and noise problems.
Community Destination Park
Relatively large parks serving as a recreational focus for a neighborhood of the City. Community destination
parks are noted for having a wide variety of leisure and recreational options, and are fully accessible to
persons of all abilities. Lighted areas for evening play are provided. Daytime recreational programming and
playground supervision are provided in the summer months. Heated, enclosed park shelter buildings
provide for recreational spaces and warming houses.
Previously known as community parks the name for this type of park was broadened in 2000 to
incorporate the idea that these parks would contain the costlier types of facilities and that each would
•
6
have a distinct identity or theme. Central is the flagship park of the system, with substantial
improvements that serve the entire community. Evergreen focuses on team sports; Kylawn/Arboretum
builds on its nature areas of the Arboretum and the Preserve; West Palmer is seen as a prime family picnic
and outings area; and Grandview's focus is on youth and winter recreation.
Service area: A neighborhood or quadrant of the City
Desirable Size: 25 acres or more.
Acres per 1,000 pop.: 5.0
Site characteristics: Easily accessible from all parts of neighborhood or quadrant. Should be .
located on collector or arterial streets to provide adequate access for
residents, and should be well-buffered from adjacent {residential areas.
Special Use Parks and Open Spaces
These are areas providing specialized or single-purpose recreational or leisure activities. These parks
generally do not provide extensive permanent facilities, but may provide nature interpretation, trail and
greenway corridors, or walking/ biking paths. Trails or greenways should connect other components of
the recreation system, schools, community facilities or neighborhoods. Table 5-2 illustrates the facilities
and improvements that would be expected in parks of each classification. Table 5-3 shows how the City's
parks are classified, and Figure 5-2 illustrates the classification system.
Table 5-2: Park Classification and Improvements System
•
Improvement
Playground Equipment
Shelter Building
Baseball Field
Softball Field
Football Field
Soccer Field
Tennis Court(s)
Hockey Rink
Skating Rink
Basketball Court
Volleyball Court
Com- Play- Special
munitv Playfield around Playlot Use
• Storage
I
' As needed
•
7
Other:
Horseshoe
Archery
•
Lighting for:
Baseball
•
Softball
Football
Hockey
Skating
•
Trails, walkways
Picnic Areas:
Pavillion
Tables
Restrooms
As needed
Table 5-3: Park Classifications
Park
Arboretum
Bellvue
Cahlander
Central Park
Central Park West
Evergreen
Firehouse
Freeway
Garden City
Grandview
•
Com- Play- Special
munity ~Iayfield ground Plavlot Use
8
Happy Hollow
Kylawn
0 Lakeside •
Lions •
Marlin •
Northport •
North Mississippi (Three Rivers) •
Orchard Lane •
Palmer Lake (east) •
Palmer Lake (west) •
Palmer Lake (south) •
Riverdale •
Twin Lake •
Wangstad •
Willow Lane •
•
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND PARK LINKAGES
A comprehensive system of on and off-street bicycle trails has been developed and integrated with the park
system. The use of this system as a means of transportation is addressed in the Transportation Plan.
The City's bicycle and pedestrian trail system is anchored by the Shingle Creek Trail, an off-street separated
trail which runs from the north to the south City limits along Shingle Creek. For much of its length, separate
trails are provided for bicyclists and pedestrians; a short segment across the Brookdale Shopping Center uses
a sidewalk trail. The north end of the trail circles Palmer Lake; a portion of that trail is located in the City of
Brooklyn Park and is maintained by that city.
The other major north-south trail system is the Mississippi River trail system, which from north to south
consists of: the West River Road off-street trail; an on-street trail on Willow Lane extending to the trail link
under the 1-694 bridge, and then the proposed Hennepin Parks trail in North Mississippi Regional Park.
East-west links include the 69th Avenue greenway, the Freeway Boulevard/65th Avenue trail; and the
proposed 53rd Avenue greenway.
On- and off-street trails have been designed to link community parks and playfields to the major trail
systems. Within parks, trails continue to major facilities such as ball fields, playgrounds and shelters.
•
9
Two primary linkages are currently substandard and require improvement. 1) The on-sidewalk portion of
the Shingle Creek Trail across the Brookdale Shopping Center site is unimproved and is not adequately
separated from traffic; this segment detracts aesthetically from the overall feel of the trail, most of which
travels through natural areas. 2) There is no suitable bicycle crossing of 1-694 west of Xerxes Avenue
except for the substandard on-sidewalk trail on Brooklyn Boulevard.
PARK GOALS AND POLICIES
Development and improvement of the park and recreation system has been consistent with the Park and
Recreation Policy Plan of 1976. This document was reviewed and revised in 1997. The goals and policies
expressed in this document are excerpted as follows:
Base park and recreation planning on the needs and demands of all segments of the City's population.
• The Park and Recreation System consists of a mix of facilities to provide a mix of opportunities for
persons of all ages and abilities.
• New park and recreation services and facilities will be considered where recreational opportunity is
deficient or nonexistent, and where appropriate, they will be provided in cooperation with the school
systems and the private sector.
• Citizen surveys and interviews will be conducted periodically to evaluate the effectiveness of
existing facilities and programs and system deficiencies.
• Incorporate citizens into the planning process at every level.
• A citizen's Park and Recreation Commission is appointed by the City Council to advise the
Council on matters relative to parks, recreation and environmental planning.
Neighborhood groups are encouraged to participate in the planning of all major park
improvements.
Establish high-quality planning and design standards in the development and maintenance of the
system.
• Consistent with economic realities, innovative park and recreation development will be pursued.
• Park design and development will embody a balance between function and aesthetics, including
the conservation of natural resource areas.
• Creativity in park design is encouraged to stress variety and diversity from park to park.
• Where possible, park design may be used to establish a neighborhood improvement theme, or
complement redevelopment.
Maximize accessibility and use of park and recreation facilities by area residents.
• All park facilities will be connected and accessible using the City's system of bicyclelpedestrian
•
10
trails and/or collector sidewalk system.
• Volunteers and service organizations in the community will be afforded opportunities for service
in the development and maintenance of the park and recreation system.
• The special place of the Mississippi National Recreational River Area in the park and recreation
system will be promoted and further developed.
• Provide an identification system of all park areas, facilities and programs that is consistent,
functional and creative, and which identifies the total system as an attractive, identifiable
feature of the city.
• Through the use of signage, kiosks, and other forms of communication, a park system identity
that is aesthetic yet informational will be established and updated as necessary.
• There will be an ongoing information and education process to make residents aware and
knowledgeable of park and recreation facilities and programs.
Maximize the impact of resources dedicated for park and recreation facilities.
• A functional classification system for parks will identify the types of facilities appropriate for
different types of parks. Each park will be classified according to that system.
• Facility improvements and recreational programming provided in each park will be consistent
with the classification scheme.
• • The highest-priority improvements will be those which address health or safety concerns, reduce
maintenance costs, or address overall system deficiencies.
• Improvement and maintenance of the system will be pursued on a regular and continuous basis
through the operating budget and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) so as to avoid
development of a costly backlog of improvements.
PARK AND OPEN SPACE NEEDS
The City's current park acreage and facilities are sufficient to meet the needs both of its present population
and of the projected 2030 population and number of households. Table 5-4 evaluates parkland needs
based on the projected 2030 population of 29,500, using national guidelines. The table shows that although
the City falls somewhat short of land in community parks, it more than makes up for the deficit through the
large amount of land in neighborhood parks and special use parks. The "neighborhood parks" category
includes playlots, playgrounds and playfields. Under the City's proposed classification system, playfields
will fulfill many of the active, organized recreational functions of community parks, while the many
special use parks will be used for individual recreational activities such as hiking and nature study.
Table 5-4: Comparison of Park Acreage with National Guidelines
•
II
Park Classification Acreage, Guideline 2030 Target Surplus/
1997 deficit
Community Parks 135 511,000 pop. 148 (13)
Neighborhood 104 2/1,000 pop. 59 45
Parks
Special Use Parks 200+ no guideline
•
Furthermore, the distribution of parks across the City is such that each of the City's six neighborhoods has
one large community park or playfield and several playgrounds or playlots (see Table 5-5 and Figure 5-1).
Most parts of the City are within walking distance of a neighborhood park (playlot, playground or
playfield) and within a short drive or bike ride of a community park.
Table 5-5: Parks by Neighborhood
Neighbor-
Playlot
Playground
Playfield
Community
Special
hood
Destination
Use Park
1 - Central
Garden City
2 - Northeast
Riverdale
Palmer Lake
Evergreen
Firehouse
East
3-
Freeway
Willow Lane
Palmer Lake
Palmer
Northwest
West
Lake
South
4-
Bellvue
Lions
Central
North
Southeast
Grandview
Mississippi
Regional
5-
Lakeside
Twin Lake
Northport
Southwest
Happy
6 - West
Marlin
Orchard Lane
Kylawn
Arboretum
Central
Wangstad
Cahlander
RELATIONSHIP TO REGIONAL PARK FACILITIES
Three regional park/recreational facilities are located within Brooklyn Center: part of the North Mississippi
Regional Park, the Shingle Creek Trail and the Twin Lakes Trail.
NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK
A section of North Mississippi Regional Park is located along the Mississippi River from 53rd Avenue to
1-694. From 53rd to 57th Avenue, it includes the area between Lyndale Avenue and the river and from
57th Avenue to I-694 it includes the area between 1-94 and the river. The primary improvements within
Brooklyn Center are an off-street bicycle path and a DNR fishing pier at the foot of the 1-694 bridge. The
bicycle path links to another in the regional park in Minneapolis. At the park's north end the trail goes
•
12
under the 1-694 bridge, providing a connection to the City's trail system at Willow Lane.
1-94 is a significant barrier between the residents of Brooklyn Center (and Minneapolis) and the Regional
Park. Bridges over 1-94 provide possibilities for City trail linkages at 53rd and 57th Avenues. The 53rd
Avenue Greenway improvement enhanced linkage to the park from the Brooklyn Center's Southeast
Neighborhood immediately to the west. As discussed in the Trail System section below, improved linkage
to the park will result from the proposed Brooklyn Center-Robbinsdale Twin Lakes Trail that will provide
a connection to the park from both the Shingle Creek Trail and the proposed Crystal-Robbindale Trail as
well as the neighborhoods along those trails. Aside from the linkage, it is expected that the Twin Lakes
Trail will "open up" the Mississippi riverfront to Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis residents, who do not
currently have a pleasant, easy means of reaching it. As indicated in the Land Use Plan, the residential use
of the properties along the west side of Lyndale Avenue from 53rd to 57th Avenues are proposed to
continue.
REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM
The North Hennepin Shingle Creek Trail running generally along Shingle Creek is part of the regional trail
system and was developed as part of the forty-mile North Hennepin Trail System loop. This Trail was
constructed by Brooklyn Center in conjunction with the development of Central/Garden City Parks and
the Palmer Lake basin. It is a very popular and heavily-used trail year-round. Brooklyn Center is
working in partnership with Three Rivers Park District to define maintenance and reconstruction
responsibilities and to explore options for improvements.
Except for the short segment across the Brookdale Shopping Center, the trail is located entirely on
City-owned parkland or open space. Redevelopment of Brookdale would provide an opportunity to
improve this important segment and to protect it with an easement for public use.
The proposed Twin Lakes regional trail will connect the Crystal-Robbinsdale trail running along Highway
81 at a point near Lower Twin Lake, to North Mississippi River Regional Park. This trail will run along
the west side of Lower Twin Lake and the east side of Middle and Upper Twin Lakes, through or around
the Brookdale site and in proximity of 57`h Avenue North (perhaps in the transmission line easement north
of 57`h) easterly to North Mississippi Regional Park.
•
13