HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994 05 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STREETSCAPE AMENITIES STUDY BY BRW I
Brookiyn Boulevard
Streetscape Amenities St�udy
May 1994
Prepared for:
The City of Brooklyn Center
Minnesota
r
.n
0
r 4
k�
.t" �f
:i'
I i s
t y
I 1
1 �ii.
A
Prepared by:
BRW
Brooklyn Boulevard
I Streetsca e Amenities Stud
p Y
May 1994
Prepared for:
1'he City of Brooklyn Center
Minnesota
f
1
1
P'repared by:
BRW
j
1
PARTICIPANTS
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shin le Creek Parkwa
g Y
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
(612) 569-3350
City Council Planning Commission
Todd Paulson, Mayor Tim Wilson Donald Booth
Barb Kalligher Chairperson Debra Hilstrom
Kristen Mann Robert Mickelson Mark Holmes
Dave Rosene Chair Pro Tem Dianne Reem
Celia Scott Ella Sander
Brooklyn Boulevard Task Force
Lee Anderson Mark Holmes Dr. Duane Orn
Bill Bartram Marty Iten Phyllis Owens
Janis Blumentals Sharon McDonald Dianne Reem
Ron Christensen Robert Mickelson Don Rosen
Lee Cook, Jr. Dr. David Monson Frank Slawson
Joan Gilbaugh Dave Nelson Perry Watson
Charles Gustafson Uhde Nelson
City Staff
Gerald Splinter, City Manager
Brad Hoffman, Director of Community Development
Diane Spector, Darector of Public Works
Sy Knapp, Former Director of Public Works
Ronald Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections
Mazk Maloney, City Engineer
BRW, Inc.
Thresher Square Arijs Pakalns, AIA, AICP
700 Third Street So. Tony Heppelman, PE
Minneapolis, MN 55415 Bill Weber, AICP
(612) 370-0700 Candis Sheptak, AIGA
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amen(ties Study
COIVTENTS
Page
Ie SUMMARY 1
II. INTRODUCTION 7
Background 7
Review of Previous Studies 7
III. INVENTORY/ANALYSIS 13
Existing Conditions 13
i
Forces Issues 20
IV. PROJECT GOALS 31
V. FRAMEWORK PLAN 33
I VI. STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS 38
Streetscape Components 38
Recommended Streetscape Enhancement Plan 43
i VII. SPECIAL THEME ELEMENTS 45
Design Theme Alternatives 45
Definition of Theme Elements 47
i� VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 50
I Improvement Staging 50
Improvement Cost Estimate 54
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study ii
CONTENTS
Page
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 61
Redevelopment Issues 61
Redevelopment Case Studies 7�
Redevelopment Plan 83
X, IMPLEMENTATION g9
Implementation of Streetscape Enhancements 89
Implementation of Development Guidelines 89
Implementation of Site Redevelopments 96
Brooklyn Boulevard Amenities Study iii
FIGURES AIVD TABLES
Figures Page
Figure 1: Area Context 8
Figure 2: View Looking 14
Figure 3: View Looking 14
Fi ure 4: View Lookin 14
8 g
Figure S: View Looking 14
Figure 6: View Looking 15
Figure 7.• View Looking 15
Figure 8: View Looking 15
Figure 9: View Looking 15
Figure 10: Forces Issues Segment 1 16
Fagure 11: Forces Issues Segment 2 16
Figure 12: Forces Issues Segment 3 17
Figure 13: Forces Issues Segment 4 17
Figure 14: Traffic Volumes 19
Figure 1 S: Bus Routes 21
Figure 16: Sidewalks Trails 22
Fi ure 17.• Corridor Forces Issues 24
S
Fagure 18: Framework Plan 34
Brooklyn Boulevarcf Streetscape Amenities Studil
I
FIGURES AND TABLES
Page
Figure l9: Streetscape Configurations 39
Figure 20: Streetscape Lighting Alternatives 41
Figure 21 a Intersection Treatment Alternatives 41
44
Figure 22: Recommended Streetscape Enhancements
Figure 23: Image Theme Inventory 46
Figure 24: Recommended Theme Elements 48
Figure 25: Improvement Staging Plan 51
Fagure 26: Redevelopment Patterns 63
Figure 27.• Recommended Development Guilelines 63
Figure 28: Small Sate Development Option 69
Figure 29: Mixed-Use Development Option 69
Figure 30: I-694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Existing Conditions 70
Figure 31: I-694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative A 72
Fi ure 32: I-694 to 69th Ave. Area S ecial St Alternative B 72
g P �'Y
Figure 33: I-694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study m Alternative C 73
Figure 34: I-694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative C 73
Figure 35: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Forces Issues 75
Figure 36: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept A 75
Figure 37.• 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept B 78
Brooklyn Boulevard Am�nities Study
FICURES AND TABLES
Page
Fa ure 38: 69th Avenue Area S ecial St Conce t C 78
g P �'Y P
Figure 39: 71 st Avenue Area Special Study Forces Issues 82
Figure 40: 71 st Avenue Area Special Study Concept A 82
Fagure 41: 71st Avenue Area Special Study Concept B 82
i Figure 42: Corridor Redevelopment Plan 84
Tabies Page
Table 1: Cost Estimate Improvement Components 55
Table 2: Cost Estimate Development Phases and Summary 58
Table 3: Survey of Land Use Controls and Incentives 92
Brooklyn Boulevard Amenities Study v�
1. SUMMARY
Summary
The material presented in the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study
can be grouped under four major categories:
Back round and Framework
g
Chapters I. Summary, II. Introduction, III. Inventory/Analysis, IV. Project
Goals, and V. Framework Plan include backgr�ound information, set the
"stage", and establish the overall direction for Brooklyn Boulevard.
Public Streetscape Improvements
Chapters VI. Streetscape Enhancements, VII. Special Theme Elements, and
VIII. Improvement Cost Estimate identify and define all public streetscape
and specialty improvements and provide a cost estimate.
Private Redevelopments
Chapter IX. Redevelopment Program defines guidelines for private
developments and includes examples of prototypical developments as well
as three redevelopment case studies.
Implementation
Chapter X. Implementation outlines implementation strategies and steps for
Brooklyn Boulevard.
The summar includes an outline of ma'or issues presented in each Chapter, as
Y J
well as the key conclusions and recommendations regarding the Brooklyn
Boulevard Streetscape Amenities project design and development.
�ntroduction
Brooklyn Boulevazd, which serves many purposes commercial district, major
roadway, gateway to the City, and intra-community link is undergoing a major
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 1
1. SUMMARY
r n f rmati n from a lo n i r idential street to a ma'or commercial arterial
t a s v o w de s ty es
with City as well as regional significance.
The ose of this stud is to rovide a defuutive lan for
P�'P 3' P P
shaping the image and the utilization of the Brooklyn Boule-
vard Corridor over the ne�ct 20 years.
A review of previous studies reveals that much of the thinking in the past regard-
ing the future of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is in line and consistent with
the comments and recommendations of this study. Some of the major conclusions
and recommendations of previous studies are:
Brooklyn Boulevard is a modern suburba�t American road designed
for the automobile".
Development should be done in compact, functional districts which
contain related uses".
Single-family residential uses should be converted to higher densities.
There is some potential for additional residential developments.
Employment opportunities for area residents should be increased through
commercial development.
The office market is slow, but could strengthen in the late 1990's.
Attracting retail in the 1990's may be difficult, but restaurants and other
hospitality sector uses might present an opportunity.
Inventory/Analysis
An examination of the existing conditions and the forces/issues which impact the
project area reveals that there are three lc�y areas which need to be addressed:
Traffic Circulation. Regional, as well as local, vehicular traffic circula-
tion and access, which is one of the most critical elements for the com-
rnercial uses in the Corridor, needs to be improved especially in the
area north of I-694.
I
Brooklyn Bouievard Streetscape Amenities Study
I 1. SUMMARY
Land Use Patterns and Develo ment. The Brookl n Boulevard Corridor
P Y
contains many incompatible land uses and underdeveloped parcels which
should be redeveloped.
i Enhancements/Image. The Corridor has very few urban design or
landsca in amenities and it lacks a clearly identifyable image and focus.
P g
Project Goals
Five primary goals have been established for the Brooklyn Boulevazd Corridor:
1. Favorable Business Environment
2. Well Defined and Screened Residential Neighborhoods
3. Comprehensive Area Access and Circulation System
4. Capacity to Accommodate Regional Traffic
5. Enhanced Visual Environment
Framework Plan
The Framework Plan defines the major components of the Brooklyn Boulevard
Enhancement and Improvement Program. It establishes the general framework
for all the other planning, design, and implementation activities in the Corridore
�I, The major recommendations of the Framework Plan are:
1. Remove all single-family residential uses in the Corridor north of
Highway 100.
2. Establish clearly defwed land use districts with the central segment of
the Corridor developed primarily for commercial uses.
3. Increase the land use intensities by creating denser, multi- or mixed-
use developments.
4. Accommodate regional as well as local traffic by widening the Bou1e-
vard north of I-694 and by continually monitoring the rest of the
Corridor.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 3
i. SUMMARY
5. Enhance the general physical environment by implementing a street-
scape improvement program.
6. Develop special theme treatments in order to establish a distinct image
and identity for the Corridor.
Streetscape Enhancements
The Streetscape Enhancements component includes the following recommended
improvements:
A revised streetscape configuration to include landscaped medians and a
single left-turn lane
A random pattern of boulevard trees
A distinct streetlighting system
Intersection enhancemen�s which include transit shelters, where required,
pedestrian lights, and landscaping treatments with a heavy emphas�s on
evergreen landscaping materials
Special Theme Elements
The key recommendation, in regard to special treatments, is to develop a special
theme for Brooklyn Boulevard.
The recommendation is to adapt the "Earl Brown Heritage
Center Theme" for Brooklyn Boulevard, as well as for other
major thoroughfares in the City, in order to give the segment
of Brooklyn Boulevard, which is in Brooklyn Center, a stron-
ger identity and to reinforce the development of a more distinct
and unified overall image for Brooklyn Center.
Major components of the special theme element program are:
City Gateways at the northern and southern city limits
Freeway Entries at I-694 and Highway 100
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 4
I 1. SUMMARY
Corridor Markers at 58th Avenue and at 69th Avenue
A Focal Feature for the Corridor at 63rd Avenue
Improvement Program
Th Im r ve t Pr r 1 defines Corridor se ments which would receive
e p o men og am g
similar treatments, (2) provides a preliminary cost estimate of the proposed im-
provements, and (3) indicates anticipated sta.ging of the improvement program.
1 The general sequencing of the enhancement improvement program is from north
to south with the section of the roadway, which coincides with the proposed
Brooklyn Boulevazd widening north of I-694, to be irhproved first.
Redevelopment Program
The redevelopment of Brooklyn Boulevard will require the combined efforts of
the City and the private sector.
The public im rovement rogram and the private redevelop-
P P
ment efforts should be treated as a related set of tools wluch
complement and reinforce each other.
In redeveloping the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, three key issues need to be
considered:
Size and Shape of Redevelopment ParceLs. The parcels should be large
enough to permit higher-density developments, reasonable access and
circulation, and buffering for adjoining uses.
r r m for redevelo
Pro ram and Pattern for Redevelo ment. The o a
I g P P g P
ment should be tailored to the needs of the City and the adjoining neigh-
borhoods. The pattern of redevelopment should be steered toward higher-
density developments with buildings close to the street for easy access by
pedestrians and bicyclists and in order to establish a stronger, more urban,
frontage along Brooklyn Boulevard.
Development Guidelines. The Development Guidelines, outlined in this
report, should be used to promote the overall goals for Brooklyn Boule-
vard and to help reinforce a more urban character for the Corridor.
Brookiyn Boulevarci Streetscape Amenities Stucly 5
1. SUMMARY
The three case studies I-694 to 69th Avenue Area, 69th Avenue Area, and 71st
Avenue Area are presented in order to illustrate the application of the planning
and design development guidelines and recommendations to actual situations along
the Corridor.
The Redevelopment Plan identifies proposed redevelopment areas along the
Corridor and presents a recommended sequencing of the redevelopment program.
Implementation
The implementation of the Brooklyn Boulevard project will require three different
programs:
Streetscape Enhancement Program. The implementation of the Street-
scape Enhancement Program has already begun with the application for
a$500,000 ISTEA grant for Streetscape and Special Theme Element
improvements. Additional funding will need to be identified to complete
the Streetscape Enhancement Program.
Development Guidelines. The Development Guidelines, which are
outlined in this study, need to be refined and adopted into the Brooklyn
Center Zoning Ordinance. The recommendation is to use a Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor Overlay Zone to implement the development guide-
lines.
Site Redevelo ment Pro am. The im lementation of the Site Redevel-
P P
opment Program will require close cooperation between the City and
private developers. The City needs to identify programs, such as TIF
(Tu� Increment Financing) or other developer incentives, to promote the
desired design, developments, and improvements and to be able to
participate actively in the redevelopment process.
Brookiyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenYties Study 6
I1. INTRODUCTION
Background
The Brooklyn Boulevard study area (Figure 1) is located in Brooklyn Center
between the southern and northern city limits. It encompasses the roadway as
well as all immediately adjoining parcels. The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor
serves many purposes:
Commercial District. It is one of three key commercial districts in
Brooklyn Center. The other two aze Brookdale Mall and the Earl Brown
Heritage Center.
Major Roadway. Brooklyn Boulevard is classified as an "A" Minor
Arterial and it carries between 20,000 and 50,000 vehicles a day.
Gateway. It acts as the principal gateways to the City from the north and
the south, as well as from the highways.
Community Link. It serves as a primary link within the community
especially between the north and south sides, which are divided by I-694.
Over the years, Brooklyn Boulevard has been undergoing a major transformation
from a low-density residential street to a major commercial arterial. Along with
this change have come pressures to accommodate more traffic and to intensify the
land uses along the Corridor.
The purpose of this study is to provide a definitive plan for
shaping the image and the utilization of the Brooklyn Boule-
vard Corridor over the ne�ct 20 years.
The intent is to create a practical document which will help provide realistic and
comprehensive guidelines for the future development of the Corridor.
Review of Previous Studies
A number of studies have been conducted over the past fifteen years to address
various aspects of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. These studies have provided
valuable insight into how the Corridor has been viewed in the past and what its
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenitYes StudY 7
I
j Ar�a
101H •r�. N. I tOt�t Av�. M
J J s
C r
e
1] �7111 Ar� N. 7M ��r.
ii ..i w n
I� s 951� f6t� M•
�t i f 1
T� yr �r�;%i'x.�..me Y]r0 30 N 3Q f7N M.
.G. e �Braokiyn Par�C
N �N� A�• N.
1 7
u �a 03 i� 4 i n
J
�bf� N. �!M M i
ti� �07 "I
�v�. M.
�Q 81 Brooklyn �AV1.N.
Boulevard
Mapie M Corridor
G rove o ,s=
.cp Study Area
r� �a a.� n.� gr n.� �o 1 a
t
00
vl.� I .:%'<i �i:::;r
O
�nd ru� o ;•:::w :::r::>::;>:::::>:.:;F�;j�F':z:::»:�':>R x's>':'»:�»> 8>?:»:�»;:..
M :.r >'s.'.;3%
M r':� :i:��
i ::�>:;t•::::;Si:
i �....�iF. t..,...'yi
/N� �M• l ::;Aitk:�::it2>:+"•:'':.,•:
6
1
9
4
Eaql�
':<ai> »>:��>:i
�':::�r:E[[E
71 7! '�`:�:4"��$:i::::�>:�
������.�i :i:
af Lak� �:z:<';;: '•;;�..::':;':�5:�::�:::..
M I M *'%�'';rii''r,'•�.jG►i: <.,;;r;,;;:;�:;:::;::<:..���'
e re11u.�
E ��»�.�e �i:
.'•;:;:i
:?;�>::::�:v;�
a:>xi�:::5::�::::.
:n•::..:.:.:�::::.
•:>;:i;a<:::::i:::.::. ;;..�.:...�.::�`r :::::::'<i::.'
~;i:i 7t i:?:'� 'ti;i�[:�:i:ii
s sl ;::ra, fi:
G st �3�
y
i Al�po►t
.t:3i _•ii ::05:;;::;:;�:iii::: �:?i:ii;:;�?;
I
5 W� :62i1i X�fF +�%;li:
11 a'd 8
y n ii t:i:'::;;,
Pi 1� �1 ;;i?::2t;i;;3:;`:;:
i�1 t o
e �r
0
s
9
10
lak� i
�N Us� .1M�•'
�II� T •r: K f::
RO.. t;;;�;::i M
�N�� i 1
8 f
tl �s� t��s
e��n�at P.W I #�1 t��.
�ak. 5Z
Nope 'g� ry tal 9
Robbin Is
ost 9 c
L�k� a i
u
'o 5 j 57
yi 23
Piymouth
Minneapolis�
J
'e j
M�dieins o..
n 1 io
a
Lik� `e
r„� e
e� E
'O t �t J
M icine d e n�_ io� s 58
ake N
66
,s.Vaile
ti o i��. u Sw��Mr w �e� odor i� 52
S S 71� /I ��YI�
F v� �k,
e v ��N O9 I11�1 4
i
e �i V �k 2
Figure 1: Area Context
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study
I1. INTRODUCTION
future potential might be. The conclusions of the previous studies are generally
consistent with the conclusions of this study and thus form a strong base for
future actions.
1. Broolilyn Center Comprehensive Plan
The first study which addressed the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is the
"Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan", completed in 1979 by BRW, Inc.
The Plan identifies several key characteristics of Brooklyn Boulevard
which are still applicable today:
Regarding the general image of Brooklyn Boulevard, it states: "It
is a modern suburban American road tlesigned for the automo-
bile. Emphasis added Its scale, speed, and nearby land uses
also emphasize the auto over the pedestrian, the fast over the slow,
the active over the passive, and the modern over the historic. Its
nature is split between that of a minor arterial road designed for
moving autos through the City and a community commercial strip
serving as the destination for numerous local shopping trips.
It also sta.tes that: "However, the danger exists that the appearance
of Brooklyn Boulevard could deteriorate seriously and that traffic
problems could become a severe aggravation.
It also includes a number of specific development and circulation recom-
mendations for the Boulevard. Some of the key recommendations are:
•"Encourage the development of compact, functionl districts which
1 contain related land uses.
•"Encourage commercial development and redevelopment in
unified, functional patterns..
Convert single-family residential uses to higher densities, except
south of Highway 100.
Because traffic is a critical factor for Brooklyn Boulevard: "Up-
grade the arterial road system as necessary so as to accommodate
increased traffic demands and widen Brooklyn Boulevard north
of I-694.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities StudY 9
1
11. INTRODUCTION
are consistent with the commercial orientation of this heavil
Y
trafficked thoroughfare"; and
•"Work to increase employment opportunities to area residents
through commercial development.
3. Commercial/Industrial Market Stud
Y
"A Study of Commercial and Industrial Development Trends in the
Brooklyn Center Market Area" was completed in June 1991 by Ma�cfield
Research Group, Inc. The overall conclusions of this study are that:
The office market could strengthen m the late 1990's, however,
"Brooklyn Center will need to aggressively market its strengths
and improve its image in order to attract office development.
The 1990's will be relatively difficult times for attracting new
retail into small neighborhood centers, because the primary retail
additions are occuring at regional malls. The one exception might
be restaurants or other facilities related to the hospitality sector.
•"Brooklyn Boulevard provides the best location for new neighbor-
hood strip center developments. If sites were made available,...
developers would view the area favorably, given the high traffic
and visibility along the street."
•"The City of Brooklyn Center should facilitate a long-term plan for
redevelopment of the less cohesive seginents of Brooklyn Boule-
vard (in particular, the area south of I-694 to Bass Lake
Road), which would consolidate retail users and small neighbor-
hood office buildings, with shared parking and access. Single
family homes on this thoroughfare should be removed to allow
for new commercial development.
t 4. Redevelopment Study
The latest plan is "The Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study", which
was prepared in March 1993 by Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc.
This study addresses the general Framework for the Corridor and includes
a number of recommendations regarding:
Enhancement of the physical environment in the Corridor
Brooklyn Boulevarp Streetscape Amenities Stucly �1
II. INTRODUCTION
Improvement of traffic circulation
Creation of gateways
Upgrading of the facilities for pedestrian and transit users
In addition, the Redevelopment Study contains a number of recommenda-
tioris regarding redevelopment sites and standards. Major redevelopment
areas are identified at Brookdale Mall, 63rd Avenue, and at 69th Avenue.
Many of the concepts and recommendations presented in the previous studies
support the overall goals for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor and are incorporat-
ed in the current study.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 12
111. INVENTORY/ANALYSIS
This section includes a deta.iled inventory and analysis of the project area.
Although some of the inventory/analysis features have been documented in
various previous studies, it is believed that a comprehensive summary of the
existing conditions will be helpful, not only in understanding the current situation
but also in future planning efforts.
This Inventory/Analysis summary will serye as a reference
guide regarding the e�risting conditions and forces/issues for
current, as well as Future, site-specific planning and decision-
making.
Existin Conditions
g
The Brooklyn Boulevard study area includes that segment o� Brooklyn Boulevard
which is located within the Brooklyn Center city limits. The Corridor includes
a major four-lane roadway and a large variety of land uses located along the
Corridor. The photographs in Figures 2 through 9 illustrate typical existing
conditions in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. Figures 10 through 13 illustrate
the existing roadway configuration, land uses, and zoning along the Corridor.
The maps start at the northern end with Figure 10 and end at the southern end
with Figure 13.
General Corridor Characteristics
In general, the Corridor has the following major physical chazacteristics:
Four-Lane Roadway. The four-lane roadway has varying median
conditions including: no median south of Highway 100; a grassy median
between Highway 100 and 58th Avenue; and a mixture of protected left-
turn lanes and double, side-by-side, left-turn lanes in the rest of the
Corridor.
Minimum Public Enhancements. The roadway right-of-way contains a
limited amount of enhancements, such as street furniture, lighting, or
landscaping.
Brooklyn Boulevarcl Streetscaqe Amenities Stuqy �3
s��
���z '1c�. w/•
i
t
j
.,�z
r
,c' r.�. ',.7 I
�rt���,cM,..'�`-,a��.-
a y
I) J
k
Figure 2: View Looking South at 70th Avenue
r
f
Illa..0 t
y.
r fi
�,,,.r .'°:m �..,ra?
z=�:�._
€,f
:°'b°'^-r,«..,y,
Fagure 3: View Lookang South at 69th Avenue
i .Y
R
1
1
Figure 4: View Looking South at 66th Avenue
-Y�
,7 i �i
i
nr•
•r�'a t
a
�._s
3' k, f
Figure S: View Looking South at 62nd Avenue
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 14
I
1
I
•N
4 r� 1
•'�'-'+a'�
1r'
y
1
I� r� b
r
.,.•C:
Figure 6.• View Looking North at 61st Avenue
1
i�
Figure 7: View Looking North at SSth Avenue
�t�i�
w
�x�� ��'�r#'�
c
.r.----
I
Fi ure 8: View L okin II
g o g North at Haghway 100
1 :-w-,'�
F x t,
vf
j
_.�r�
Figure 9: View Looking North at SOth Avenue
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenitYes Study 15
1 r� Q r "�C L j i�f� il�r ��fN�
t a. O l� M'�� \s rl >'Z� .����iy�;�.°.� ��'i.....p ,i
:4 �`.'��,G t �i �i'� E c ��6_� �1�� ,<<�0 f y.i.
i�� �a v. '�p �e Y g �i
y` iLt,� y Sl`' o
y. r�� ti s c,,5'o �`e u, aac� �t;,
O y l �;o
e l -c �ty t d
`c f i i J v`'�
t i 94 Alp i Sdnol �t Q O y�
Q �,S ���Q �t,, a Und &itc/ A c Q
A pt'o 'i`v`_. R o cnt(t Q�,
i
p°'ed Q a r -Fnture a 4
�fF-Strecr 00 C q Otftcnl') i ,j 3
'r�u. 'r J 0 �ti ,w 1,��``ro `F,,. o �W�r
7 �r,4 k t
b v
i�_ p `G C ,,�p r'( Lnder�hll�ceil��- arki �^1� i ��2
�V''ro'�.,.�.IDX F':�rt�ICl) Iktl1a»d(p�' �1�.�.. �..�..-,A(
i4�� oo i o_ Lu�d Lu, r d.�i.,�1.:.`
`BnN kl I ��o �.Cl f A"tceFS� ����I��in�uc �r v ��i ��i ,/r
�'L�� ti/ �`7p C R O,�Y�� s�� c��.a`i�h,�� w�{, ,r n,. w�k M ,�a�ee�
�,y
y 3 ei 'v�, .1yn,r: tCi d�,;. Mh��.J i
t
-�1_ s W 1. i P��
__�_�.atrwic/nu
c_A �Uag[ti�i8]'h5vi.�rl�iia= tiY�l�. 1���H��- It��:�cf��� Itccoqf'E;�� [donC�
C�r�i�nK 71 tn��riimr_ Ar ��i l)
r� ,a ❑yp��p�b�aO�Da "siao�n �CID'�
,�a a e� ci L L o �i
Use ry p �,C r
t- I i i ,"i'• A' 4��c �CO E �Jcfe� �I�r�dr 0 g Ak+n f
tecb- b'�., dt'� d
c.l ►ana Q; t ��9 ;r a a- Q r
4� rroposed�� y��:� 4 0
(Nf-Sttect 0 y 0
[p`� t4 I 0 l��j i�p �i ti. P.ni C -Y
Trail 0 p �:4c.rola
Q��t� q�� E a 9,� �rQV s
R3'�
o
y i h� i Q0 q J Q A Y
f t r�� G�� �Q Qafitteet 0 �y
�North s ,7`rsu o 0 2
o �i�
{T o i �r
i o i v 4 �Y ip I:
e. 0 0 �`1 pp<.� �o�rP�'
t�
s 4
0 100 200 400 Rcdevelopn�ent(?)���.- �vutpa� ;O o J�. ��y"
i f T �r i�.
r
�s.._ .�i1�4' 3 b�` L s
�`ti
Figure 10: Forces i Issues Segment 1
`r fr� i -c` y o �0
.'.�€c� J ,t Y ti, f
i R ����.�r� o �y Q f ,f 1' v �3w
a
`F 1
f i hJ r ��r��Ji.�O ��j r.
s �1' i �g�J a x
fi
c, �..r cr -•?o I
U Y T u��� n 4 �.ap�
•�l
�"q'•.�. k Q
k i
b
:6 D iyrl� o O t �G'� u 'ap r�
w�.,� G t,' C2 V V l �ti
-t�:s O iRedr.edoprteentC%) J �"Ii�wpCFh`ttr •j� G+
,g B7cpandcd ion� s" J kr�lcvclypm[lttjf� f- I v�
i F Rcdeveiopmem 1 Q r 0
fi 7 r�dr Arc� l>) J i i, �Tt
W �d
11(a�UPl:npy C
I P ac ��(t,�k' Q Rm7d*n
a) :A�� �yn l.'�''� P_.•���b� �.s C,1 5
e
4n
a 4 0� -�4 „a.��� y �,�r.
.s P C� .s.� `r
��,4.
o
y L
o
m
��u
:��`�F�
-o r
r' pG��� i� c a �1 4� ��r�l7���� CV8
D� C r`� 0 d7��� s
o w ��j i�a,. u. i Q l_
e �0 SOorm WaOeePon �I .Irtfpa2L4/ j ���i. a�
t; �k �.a iva� ra l J i�.,�nk r
Acdevclopmrni ('t1� 0 J l y
Redevelo mmt(7) �e. ID..�.
P rru�inn�.
S
1'��r;�
r` J _i a
�r O `V r F CC c� cli�pn�it �f) �'g.t?
r� 0 5 r��'M O I' �i7�1
r
t
p O t t P ���e c v sr i
�p" I� .k,;� yo DO ea�ur.a �ti-
.North g �u
p r�,n D
r p g SQ'
f' v c
t� A O�
�a �M�
p ��4 b h�' O i p�al` F 4 �,p r
100 200 400 ��g F. 1�
Y b p� �b� �o: r i
p
d� y '�C ��z ..i� I� a�. �..a F
Figure 11: Forces Issues Segment 2
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study �6
.E �o �,w+.±r i� r ;r e' y 'y� y� 4
�1�r 1r r w �f> 4 a. F. 1
t n :A Y f
j� �N���� h� r f[., �y� �4 i,�. `�2 oy VD Q y f r 4
a� 3 a�.I�� `i` C� I Q Q 4 0 t i: �k� p� -ab
j o �0 3 �f£ o
a j 4 o o r., ',�a�
r� w f G x'�
i a. O 4 O
Q t o
t�� i .`t �j�` ,Y f ��n 1SedNll�p6 a 'Y F f pQ� r 3 'e-
"�!''r�, f ;„v�, 0 s \''i� s� u 4 �a°�
'F
f irs '=sr�� t Q y� ��'�t.. .p `J �'Oaoa�, �or a �ooma
F .�a`�,. a,; '�Y'�' �:'�i• f'
L �ii n,`` i:t1�� ."r�, f __.Q D i. t �3 J
�J 0 i ,li;, 7
C� '/lx i I 'V1 N U� a y� .'1 f �P
J f .i�
i 4 mk S 7 �:I t t
a��-�, �0. SiM G ..:s� Y:
f
p -O e rhraclY un tii �+.11zu1 ;l 'J
�y� crLne �R�on�
I ��Y1RIt tan atth Grecns acc
y� t
v 'i+f v =e�c�s...�.t-.,�.,r„�� -r-e`r�=�-�a:_ Y...�a j9�
7 �1 �dnriLOeomo�
a 1 �'f�Gb'y.' '�j D lC�t T cr n p.�c-6uffrr o i.�
Pm. �a R r �s 7
EW-}� 9 �'h:N�����ii�tt�� Y' �y �llaa r
'_d �%$�"4 O! s J�' j ta�W ii,� L s
p �i "C, r J
vA�� V e C ���neiff 7'� C� y QI�,J_ G�a J
W�4��f� (2)� �il�i't�incir[ riv� O� i L
W J
�North y j D .�sf�� �'�ac� c��cru�crua,�,� 9 p
avr. D Q c+ o
c i a�� v i vc.r Q a �.c� D�ve
C.��; �i p R i 1` Ot �C►S�
t 7 .l� 1. c �/4Q 9 "�.-Z...M r F': s'a�� j �I 1 -z, _s��i
0 100 200 4U0 iy Ga �"U D��aF Q
6. .!1ve a,
l�� �1' I a�L, ��Ave: t�`�` Q �i n �s
op
b f p �isa�� y
t i
'1r� �j�� fY �s` i V�-JICI'CI T�
e�� r B v 1 c j TiaiL i Y_ e 'tl i
4 y�� t.
,g, /f n
`1�.� t.a �n y i. 1,�3- r� a..yf
Figure 12: Forces Issues Segment 3
�"i� M
's�°
S
r
L�' �y. t i �,4�~ 4Y1 ��t B �t"•a
i �R�y:�a+wM�.��
s �`�.ZS
e� MII�OP e �C�
�<I: r-?wll:-_ EIl
Q I s Y' y
6 4. �l �'u
n. �r� Z y
tito y�
9 G Stn �Z�jk` a
i a t� Uu (c�
�r... a UHir�cd, "n t ,ic,,:i, rr�
d� .�Si�c �Wn Y
w
r��
IJ Si�.a( 1 e_._..'�•. C.
iv_i✓J:.�• Cim�L�Uo O i
Iwte++�
.r. °t iY i�
T
i i �-�j' ��,ke. E
r
i �A� a t� �r.��
f
a
i a y a r ��3,��,,�.:; 0 [A
i ���#4 7 r v
f h. ��`r R t.• rcapDY �ith
e
�i�` j� t, J pG ac `4 a
North B ,�;L V l yi` S ob i
p �ry
t ��.t: r� _M i t �i����.
y��. y
W 5'" T y t t:'�. �r �s r
�v' ��SL"'r` -f-��� i r' w e+
�00 2�0. :4�0 i' ts� �'��j
f 3 o}�' .E._: a,�'� .t.�.7�
�►i ,r:'� r f
y
v� .i.� d �.t� I '.i _l� 1 .'i+3a� 1...� MI u i -f V¢��
Figure 13e Forces Issues Segment 4
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 17
I11. INVENTORY/ANALY515
Overhead Utilities. The Corridor, except for a short segment at Highway
100, includes overhead power lines which parallel or cross the roadway.
Mixture of Land Uses. Except for a few segments where the land uses
are relatively uniform, most of the Corridor contains a wide variety of
land uses juxtaposed along the roadway. The land uses range from single-
family residential to a regional shopping center Brookdale Mall and
include: medium-density apartments; public and semi-public institutions
such as schools and churches; office buildings; and a variety of commer-
cial uses from home businesses to large automobile dealerships,
The appeazance and upkeep of the properties along the Corridor ranges
from well-developed and very well-maintained to dilapidated, especially
where properties are vacant or incompatible with adjoining uses.
Varying Edge Conditions. The landscaping and urban design treatments
and appearance of the properties along the Corridor also vary greatly
ranging from the well-landscaped to devoid of landscaping.
Circulation Systems
Brooklyn Boulevard is a key circulation route for Brooklyn Center as well as for
the northwest suburbs of the Twin Cities. It serves as a major intra-city link for
Brooklyn Center as well as a primary access route to I-694 for the northwest
suburbs. Besides vehicular circulation, Brooklyn Boulevard also serves as a
travel route for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Velucular Circulation
One of the key features and issues in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is
vehicular traffic circulation. Existing vehicular traffic volumes on
Brooklyn Boulevard, which is classified as an "A" Minor Arterial, range
from 18,000 vehicles a day south of Highway 100 to almost 47,000
vehicles a day just north of I-694 (Figure 14). The projections for the
Year 2010 are that the volumes will increase to 22,000 and 54,000
vehicles a day, respectively.
Besides through traffic, Brooklyn Boulevard also has to accomodate a
large number of street and private property access points. Figures 10
through 13 illustrate all the access points to Brooklyn Boulevard from
single-family residences and other uses along the Corridor.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study
�fTY J,� BROUn'L Y/t
y�:� v a �t
I Y
�.3 .�J��.Fj _t: i o., ti
h�: J_ '�x_�`1 PA MER CAKE PARK
J iI r
g i
..I P,�LMfR ;�XE x.�
�..�1� 0�1�0) ��5 OOf)) i
r� r
9J300 �G�9�n t�e. t1.(i110
sh�
000
f n
\N 11,10
ti `G� J Gj
�`J� y
.�C 91,0��,
—�------1• r
3 c i 'Q G .�C G
ti ��)�)Q� .t�l },�Qn� i Y
8�501) <3rci�;tiva x in� f'
l►lA0)
`1
I G-�W(1., I
J.
x I r' l y� 1
4 4
1 n .o O�
x,, i p p O C �e.
ry
N �G Q ��;y v ,�4�
ik 1 O k �-1
b
;=�3`3 I 1 �o
94.�0� >srn�.�: �.1f,000) L
16,i�0
\f I
w
i 1 ;F BROOKD.ILE
S=, i� ti G' p a;,�C�
g cs; r i ti
y O��✓ r �'TM
O 1 q ��1 1
i
I i1 1
V i i
r �,1^ �Q��`�?aiilg_'�'a'ulfie�.
.i i i
I
i i E��btu�{'�w�y x
I r s� �i e
UPPfR C =I
1 Ilr/N J� J
I LAKE p
li 3 I
r y
�^'t"`"rC ��:'x p� �I
6 N Legend
r
Existing Daily TrafFic
j' �010 Dail}
J.
t�.:� �r_-, ,.��E�,� I
woaE f
J1YIN e
CANE L
:I I
T
N rm
RY CAAF ti
�r �Z�. m.
�OF�{ O�SB tt �-G4�-c o soa �000 x000 �A
���a
Figure 14: Traffic Volumes
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenitPes Study 19
111. INVENTORY/ANALYSIS
Transit, Bicyclists, and Pedestrians
i Brooklyn Boulevard is currently served by Bus Routes 5, 14, 81, 94G,
and 94K (Figure 15). None of the bus routes is continuous along
Brooklyn Boulevard and there are very few provisions, such as benches
or shelters, for bus patrons.
The facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians (Figure 16) include sidewalks
along both sides of the roadway and a short designated bicycle route along
the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 66th and 68th Avenues.
The primary bicycle trails in Brooklyn Center are located east of Brooklyn
Boulevard, along Xerxes Avenue and the Shingie Creek greenway system
and west of the Boulevard along Upper Twin Lake and Lee Avenue.
Forces/�ssues
e
The Forces/Issues Analysis is one of the most critical steps in the planning and
design process.
Correct identification of key Forces and Issues is a basic re-
quirement for finding appropriate solutions.
Another reason for documenting the Forces/Issues is that as the planning process
e proceeds over the next 20 years, circumstances will change and recommendations
included in this study may need to be reevaluated. In such situations, the
Forces/Issues Analysis presented here, will serve as base information for
rethinking and redirecting the Corridor redevelopment process.
Forces are existing physical features or conditions which have a bearing on what
could happens in a project. Issues are trends or characteristics which need to be
considered in the planning process. Forces and issues can represent either an
opportunity or a constraint.
Sometimes, through creative planning, design, or funding, a
constraint can be turned into an opportunity.
For example, the requirement for a stormwater storage pond might be considered
to be a constraint and the pond relegated to the most undesirable part of a site.
On the other hand, the pond requirement could be looked upon as an opportunity
and, with the proper design, become an open space focal feature and a key
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 20
__�rw,
Q t
r f
a
f p�:
�`i�Yai�i �a,�� i
S
drp s
I
w
•il� �1 I-69 k
r
a
�E����� r
a�
,ti y�
i—!
I
e
�ri
�r� n.�.
���,�.�r
t
i
,.E��
r,�
s�,,,,,
u
;'{y�rdAee:
y
`r���a�a�
a�
k
��°�k�
x
Qr �J $toan9t
a
g
t f
ssui��:
..�..=r..�,����.,�„�
yr�
r
J
e L�� u_
A S
1
R
��Li��
I
I
^6nsy
I
y e
E
—TMwL,
�f.
fo
Legend
G Local Bus Routes
m Express Bus Routes
1 Bus Route Number
i rann
t'�
a Za� �ID R �I
Figure IS: Bus Routes
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 21
■��uquuu�l�
�,�sal_.� ..r
t
-.,Q, f
i��� ��,g�� °�j
ie A
1�/�A 4
a
,r.�,
Y ro
F
i
�rarr�
F
�s
i
47 a
�p a. �1
O _v ��a �-r
P� t O
g
l�L�r�[ q■ i ❑ooaaoo❑
..7_; ti�Y11V@. •1� �N����� �QQOAc3�FY[700Q�oOOqO
y�yg,,,,,� 0000...,.... a�oonnvuoa000q
o.,.r°.
.�r: c� ��p y
o Q
o0
oa'�i.d°o� '=z'y,
m
i, r
oo
i I-fi94 4 Q�
o ��ia
odnaa00000e \i�
1
o r ao
o o
0
o ap� �i
o ����r
Q
.O 1.
-Q'�
2
x
I I ,�>�3�'d t�9N.
i
y
e�otroar,anv�dnncss�nanaaononddnobaaaaci�oo iaoQOOnc7n �'a
9
r
U. O
4 Q O
'x C� 1 h
O n
C
A.�, O 1� ;•r 1�
�z� o p
x
,`i.�.,�_,-,r—:-_.�.�...:�._.�._.... o
�J
��ooaoaaoaoaoo �o
a=
1
���bo
a.
A
o SBEh d�e_ p
O
oo�.i000a
p p.
[L ��QQ CIC7rJ
ooaaaooaoo�os� pc�oa� ,�p ocl�
4 a .o �y� ap�`
A i �!�r r
i OARO00�� .��'ks. �p��1n�j
'O
,�3 ,�1��� ap� .o ��0 o
i .o �i p p q l�u�
a o o�
o�� o 'oo�apo� �,ro
o °o a�
F
r
q o d n0000
o oa00000n000`�
fr�-' �O
o .t o
o
0 Q
O �p,•
a
poa0000flo 000aaoo o jRgelld
w
o ��o�� p,xistingOn-StreetTrall
o o00o ProposedOn-StreetTrail
p ■u� ExistingOff-S[reetTrail
''Y°�r o00o ProposedOff-StreetTrail
r'"�
a Stdewalks
��oonoOQa¢o������
w
i �snu^.r ..c, c r Y
1 m Y
r ....._..1. Noetn
r
o���_
O d 0 500 t00U RWU
I
o R �I
0
a.
i
Figure 16: Sidewalks Trails
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 2�
11i. INVENTORY/QNALY5IS
element of a pro�ect. The point is that, as the Brooklyn Boulevard planning and
redevelopment process proceeds, all forces and issues need to be considered and,
whenever possible, consideration given to turning constraints it�to opportunities.
The Forces/Issues for Brooklyn Boulevard are summarized in terms of overall,
corridor-wide impacts as well as detailed area impacts.
Overall Corridor Forces/Issues
The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is in a transition phase from being primarily
residential to predominantly commercial. This transition, so far, has occured in
a piecemeal fashion and on an individual lot-by-lot basis. Following are the
primary Forces/Issues (Figure 17), which apply to the Corridor in general:
Re ional Commercial District. The Brookl n Boulevard Corridor,
g Y
which includes the Brookdale Mall at its southern end and a number of
large automobile dealerships at its northern end, serves as a regional
commercial district. This regional significance is an important attribute,
since it represents a large commercial ta�c base for the City and, by
attracting regional shoppers, it presents an opportunity to develop and
support additional City and neighborhood-oriented commercial facilities.
City/Neighborhood Service Center. Besides the regional significance,
Brooklyn Boulevard also serves as a major service center for the City of
Brooklyn Center and many of its residential neighborhoods located along
the Corridor. The Boulevard is ideally suited to provide commercial
services to the neighborhoods in the western half of the City. However,
the commercial services are poorly organized and grouped and do not take
advantage of this potential.
Regional Circulation Route. The Boulevard serves as an access route
from the northwest suburbs to I-694 and to Brookdale Mall. The large
traffic volumes on Brooklyn Boulevard present a problem as well as an
opportunity. The problem is that the traffic is projected to reach 54,000
vehicles a day north of I-694 by the Year 2,010, which is beyond the
carrying capacity of the existing four-lane roadway and, therefore, the
roadway needs to be widened. The opportunity is presented by the
potential to "capture" these potential customers and, in conjuction with the
roadway widening, redevelop a segment of the Boulevard.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 23
s
Gatew
—k--
r
[.ow I�nsity Residential
Protection (t)
I r[(gt.-Densin� tl
ItesidenMal Church
[,a�w'-Densu� I�#� cle�
I��developui� I
i i Office
s
'�ry .�f Redevelopment
�idenn:J ,y� e
��7 -Conunercia111�ode
A �9 mAye. o o p_
�Y�.om� o Q \l .�o�a
Q Low-Density Hesldential }tedevElopuient l e�C
Conversion/Procection i
co�.m�rcc,�- ��,���,ec�Y -:turoecuil Sh' <:cc��k v�rl`way
1
<1uro Retail
Major Entry
I.ow-Dr,ns��. l 0
�os, f1 �Profc�tion (7) 0 O
I Open Space/Low-Density Rcs tial t� L�nd Use 0 I
Pond/Park Ride/Redevelop�t offi�e. 4
ll
ora« s�h�,oi 0
HIKh-Dcnyirv— i
p e�-����,� Major Entry
Lo�v-Detisity Identia( RrAevelop nt Q i
G3rd nve. -�nversipn/Pr�ection P(�
��mw �oQevac r�e��.a�emc,eaQeo I
irausystem J �'li�wn Center�
Commcrcial h Q
I 0 3Low-DeqsityR�s iAentie
Converston/Pe{btectio l.
�1utd Retail A-
.H
k:nsity Resident��! O i
L. i •rslou/ProtectronC') -nc�nU/of�ce ..P
OFtice a
H h Densi
'b h' l�ndecutiltzedSite
Residential
'y -Density Residential
�nversion/Protcetwn H C� p i� �i
ci g
I �m .e Rin Refad I
Offci tii��,�ll i
Q ��.c_.
I [.i�a'-Densit�rResidential I Red��il
1 Con4rrsi�nAProtection �J
y or�o� 3acn avc. D
1 w U��s icy Resideqtial I
A Us� Ghangc (?l i 1 il
1 fi .P Q r Ma�kdul� 40 �i r L+t�
o�r I
�i 0
D
�o
p q o;
�55crip+` ��0 y I
.cnv- e��. Kt�iclential b�°p -7a
j u� c 'u Protectic>n (+l O/ 3f
I r t�
i [ua•-DenS h� esiclential �'p
Iand Use' 1 oge �d r
em �c�'��
Q� e�p- �--�`ra
i� :.c+� o s MajorL'ntn�--- I� ,�I�
t f"i' p "s�/ `4► l
ffighDensity�.�_. II
&ASldentlal q
Redevelop�t9ent i
I
L I
��1
i
rCo� Iry Rcsidsni�al I
1 �'I IR+titutlon:�l
GatYwa}t I
J��
l
,ao
r•.�`�
1 Narl�
L—� ..i.�-t �.FUV 1
I
saa i000 2ooa Ij
1�8, �_...__i
I
Figure 17.° Corridor Forces Issues
I
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 24 i
111. INVENTO RY/ANALY515
r ed volume of traffic Brookl n
In �rde t� acc�mm�late the pr���ct y
Boulevard needs to be widened to six lanes including additional turn lanes.
Hennepin County, in cooperation with the City, has obtained an ISTEA
(Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) Grant to widen
Brooklyn Boulevard from approximately 64th Avenue to 70th Avenue.
The widened roadway will accommodate the projected traffic volumes and
it will mainta.in the access to the regional retail facilities. Planning for the a
widening has recently started. Land acquisition for the widening will
commence in 1995 with the actual roadway reconstruction to begin in
1996.
I� Since the Boulevard widening project will require some land acquisition
I along the north side of the roadway, this presents the opportunity to
redevelop some of the properties in order to improve overatl area circula-
tion and access to the parcels and to increase the utilization of the
properties.
Intra-City Circulation Route. Brooklyn Boulevard also is an important
local circulation route as well as a link across I-694. The Boulevard
interconnects many of the City's neighborhoods and it provides the only
crossing of I-694 in the western half of the City.
Brooklyn Boulevard, in conjuction with 58th Avenue, Shingle Creek
Parkway, and 69th Avenue, could serve as an internal ring road for
Brooklyn Center. This loop would connect most of the City neighbor-
hoods as well as the majority of civic and commercial facilities.
Uncoordinated and Incompatible Land Use Patterns. The Brooklyn
Boulevard �Corridor has been undergoing a transformation from predomi-
nantly residential to a mixture of various land uses. The interjection of
new retail and office developments in various locations along the Corridar
on a parcel-by-parcel basis has resulted in a checkerboard pattern of
single-family residential, medium-density residential, institutional, office,
and service and retail commercial uses.
The primary land use issue, because of high traffic volumes and the
changing character of the Corridor, is that single-family residential uses
are no longer an appropriate land use for Brooklyn Boulevard north of
Highway 100. In addition, the many curb cuts required for single-family
access are detrimental to the overall traffic circulation in the Corridore
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 25
IIL (NVENTORY/ANQLY5IS
A second ma�or issue is the lack of conti uous, clearly identifiable, well-
J g
defined commercial districts. The lack of definition results in weaker
commercial developments and in poorly defined identity for the Corridor
commerciai uses.
Underutilized Parcels. Many parcels along the corridor are partially
vacant or poorly utilized and low-density developments, such as single-
family residential uses, do not take advantage of the commercial potential
and exposure that the Corridor offers.
Excessive Number of Access Points. The large number of single-family
homes and small commercial developments along the Boulevard require
an extraordinary amount of curb cuts and access drives. The result is a
reduced level of service for vehicular traffic and many dangerous conflict
points along the roadway.
Limited Urban Design/Landscaping Enhancements. The public right-
of-way contains very few urban design amenities, such as benches, litter
receptacles, or special features, and there is very little landscaping in the
street boulevards and the existing medians. Also, the overhead power
line, which is located along most of Brooklyn Boulevard, adds clutter to
the visual environment. The lack of amenities and landscaping and the
overhead power line contribute to a highly utilitarian and lackluster
appearance for the Corridor.
Lack of Image/Focus. The Corridor contains very few landmarks or
highlights, except for some of the larger commercial buildings and signs,
such as those at Brookdale Mall and the automibile dealerships. The
Corridor also lacks identification and a sense of place. One can drive
through the Corridor without truly understanding which City one is in or
how the Corridor relates to the rest of the Brooklyn Center.
L In summar because of its central location underutilized sites, and the lar e
Y, g
number of people passing through the Corridor each day, the Brooklyn Boulevard
Corridor has a lot of potential to become a well-coordinated regional, City, and
neighborhood-oriented commerciai district, but due to poor land utilization,
uncoordinated developments, and lack of enhancements or a distinct image, it is
not taking advantage of the opportunities.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 26
111. INVENTORY/ANALY515
Detailed Area Forces/Issues
Following is a description of the detailed Forces/Issues related to specific
locations or parcels along the Corridor. The descriptions begin at the nortli end
and finish at the southern City limits. The detailed Forces/Issues are illustrated
in Figures 10 through 13. A potential landscaped median is indicated on the
Forces/Issues maps. These medians will be discussed and referred to in section
VIII. Improvement Program.
North City Limits to 71st Avenue (Figure 10)
The land use and area access for the vacant parcel north of Shingle Creek
needs to be reevaluated.
Gateway at Shingle Creek? Pedestrian crossing for pedestrian trail along
Shingle Creek?
Single-family uses adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard at Wingard Lane.
Single-family use, undeveloped parcels, and small residential "pocket"
along 71st Avenue. Redevelopment potential?
Underutilized corner of Willow Lane School site.
Proposed off-street trail crossing at 71st Avenue.
Overhead ower line alon east side of roadwa e
P g Y
71st Avenue to 69th Avenue (Figure 10)
Small underutilized parcel on Brookdale Methodist Church property.
Future office expansion and parkmg supply/demand status for office
buildings?
Mixture of small apartment building, single-family houses, and small
office building just north of 70th Avenue. Redevelopment potential?
Underutilized sites on St. Alphonsus Church property.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Stucly 27
INVENTORY/ANALY515
III.
Required widening of Brookdale Boulevard on east side will impact area
north of 69th Avenue. Redevelopment potential? Size of redevelopment
site and buffering for adjoining residential uses? Access?
Single-family uses along west side, north of 69th Avenue. Redevelopment
potential? Size of redevelopment site and buffering? Access? Status of
Phillips 66 service station?
Overhead power line along east side of roadway.
69th Avenue to I-694 (Figure 10)
Required widening of Brookdale Boulevard on east side will impact area
south of 69th Avenue. Redevelopment potential? Reconfiguration of
automobile dealer pazcels? Access? Need for a stormwater storage pond
in this area?
Pro osed off-street trail alon south side of roadway.
P g
Potential for major entry statement at I-694
Irnage/Appearance/Safety of pedestrian/bicyclist paths under I-694 needs
to be improved.
Overhead power line along east side of roadway.
I-694 to 63rd Avenue (Figure 11)
Proposed stormwater storage pond and MTC Park-and-Ride Facility west
of Brooklyn Boulevard, just south of I-694.
Single-family uses along east side, south of I-694. Good proximity to and
visibility from I-694. Redevelopment potential? Access limitations
because of ramps to and from I-694.
Redevelopment potential of the Builder's Square site? Future °'Town
Center" development?
Single-family uses along west side, north of 63th Avenue. Redevelopment
potential? 5ize of redevelopment site and buffering? Access?
Brooklyn BoWevard Streetscape Amenities Study 28
1
IIl. INVENTORY/ANALY5IS
Overhead power line along east side of roadway.
63rd Avenue to 58th Avenue (Figures 11 and 12)
Single-family uses along the east side, south of 63rd Avenue. Redevelop-
ment potential? Site size? Access? Future "Town Center" development?
Single-family uses along the west side, from north of 61st Avenue to
Admiral Lane. Redevelopment potential? Site size? Access?
Underutilized site around funeral home at 60th Avenue. Use/redevelop-
ment?
Impacts on residential properties along 60th Avenue from through-traffic
to Little League ballfields.
Impacts from shortcutting traffic on residential properties along 59th
Avenue.
Single-family uses along the west side, north of 58th Avenue. Redevelop-
ment potential? Site size? Access?
Overhead power line along east side of roadway.
58th Avenue to Highway 100 (Figure 12)
i n f c mmercial area
Parkmg supply/demand status, complex s g s, image o 0
south of 58th Avenue?
Land uselredevelopment of single-family strip along the west side of
fronta.ge road?
Screening/buffering for residential area along west side?
Landscaping of existing median?
Overhead power line along west side of roadway.
Highway 100 to southern city limits (Figure 13)
Potential for major entry statement at Highway 100.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenitYes Study 29
I I I. INVENT� RY/ANALY515
Stormwater storage pond at the Highway 100 iriterchange?
Potential new connection from the Highway 100 southwest frontage road
to Brooklyn Boulevard.
Underutilized site on the east side, north of S lst Avenue.
Redevelopment potential of the greenhouse site west of roadway?
Through traffic to Minneapolis on Slst Avenue.
Redevelopment potential of small greenhouse site east of roadway, south
of Slst Avenue.
Shortcutting traffic on SOth Avenue. This situation may be improved with
the new frontage road connection.
Gatewa north of 49th Avenue?
Y
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenttYes Study 30
t IV. PROJE�T GOALS
Following is a set of goals for guiding the development of streetscape improve-
ments, urban design enhancements, development guidelines and standards, and
redevelopment of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor.
The goals represent a set of interrelated end results which the
City of Brooklyn Center wishes to achieve in the Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor.
The desired end results will be achieved only if the goals are utilized consistently
and comprehensively. All redevelopment proposals should be evaluated to assess
how well they satisfy, or fit in with, each and every one of the established goals.
This does not mean that each development needs to satisfy each goal one-hundred
j percent. It does mean, however, that development proposals should be evaluated
on how well they satisfy the majority of the goals, or whether there are ways to
mitigate or improve the proposed developments to achieve the desired end results.
1. F v r 1 B in Envir nment
a o ab e us ess o
The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor should have a settang which supports
desirable existing businesses and helps stimulate new commercial growth
and redevelopment.
Brooklyn Boulevard is the primary commercial corridor in Brooklyn
Center. Sound commercial developments along the Corridor provide the
I Community with commercial services and an expanded tax base. A
favorable business setting needs to be maintained in order to keep existing
businesses and attract new ones.
Desirable commercial developments means all commercial uses which: are
permitted under the current zoning ordinance, provide services for the
Community or the adjoining neighborhoods, support the financial objec-
tives of the City, and are not detrimental to other corridor goalso
2. Well Defined and Screened Residential Neighborhoods
Viable residential neighborhoods along or adjoining the Brooklyn Boule-
vard Corrzdor should be well defined and screened from adverse ampacts.
Brooklyn Boulevarcl Streetscape Amenities Study 31
i
w
IV. PROJECT COALS
Viable residential neighborhoods means residential areas or districts which
are located in a suitable residential environment, are not impacted by
adverse conditions, and are not a blighting influence on the surrounding
residential districts or other uses along the Corridor.
The residential neighborhoods, whether low-density or multi-unit, should
be well defined and screened from adverse impacts. Since high-volume
traffic arteries are not recommended environments for single-family uses,
portions of Brooklyn Boulevard which carry large volumes of traffic are
not suitable settings for single-family dwellings.
3. Comprehensive Area Access and Circulation System
The Brooklyn Boulevard circulation system should accommodate all
preferred modes of transportation and should provide convenient access
and circulation for all desirable uses along the Corridor.
Preferred modes of transportation includes means of transportation,
besides automobiles, which the Community wishes to support, such as
buses, trolleys, vans, bicycles, and pedestrian circulation.
4. Capacity to Accommodate Regional Traffic
Brooklyn Boulevard should be able to accommodate regional traffic
circulation needs through the Corridor.
Regional traffic using the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor provides exposure
and patrons for the corridor businesses. It is important to accommodate
regional traffic needs, in order to minimize congestion and. negative
impacts on local traffic and to maximize the potential for access to local
businesses.
5. Enhanced Visual Environment
i The visual environment along Brooklyn Boulevard should help project a
positive image for the Corridor and the Citye
t The Carridor should serve aesthetic as wetl as functional needs. An
enhanced Brooklyn Boulevard image and appearance will not only help
improve the business environment along the Corridor; it will also make
the City a more enjoyable place in which to live and do business in.
Brooklyn Boulevarcl Streetscape AmenitYes Study 32
V. FRAMEWORK PLAN
o
The planning for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor was conducted at two scales:
(1) at a corridor-wide scale; and (2) at detailed scales for streetscape enhance-
ments, special theme elements, redevelopment guidelines, and selected site
redevelopment case studies. This section presents the recommended Framework
Plan for the Corridor. The detailed plans are presented in the following sections.
e recommen e ramewor an represents responses to the forces and issues
identified i.n the analysis and to the goals established for the Corridor. The
recommendations included in the Framework Plan and the detailed plans are
meant to be general guidelines for setting direction and initiating action. They
are not intended to be final designs which should be implemented exactly as
conceived.
Circumstances change and therefore plans need to change. No
plan should ever be considered absolute or fmal.
Since this plan may be implemented over a period of 20 years, elements con-
structed at the end of this 20-year period may require modification from the ones
installed earlier. The hope is that even if details are changed, the major concepts
recommended in the Framework Plan will be preserved and will help shape the
overall form and image of the Corridor.
The recommended Framework Plan (Figure 18) identifies the key concepts for
redeveloping Brooklyn Boulevard. Following is an outline of the major recom-
mendations far the Corridor, which are d�scussed in greater detail in the rest of
the report:
1. Remove Single-Family ResidentiaL
All single-family residential units north of Highway 100 which abut the
Brooklyn Boulevard right-of-way should be removed.
2. Establish Clearly Defined Land Use Districts.
Developments should be grouped to establish districts with a predominant
character and purpose and with appropriate edge treatments to buffer the
districts from the adjoining single-family residential usesa In general, the
r
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape amenitYes Study 33
Cin� Trall Along
t..dr«ay- Shingle-F.-reek
�'t H ty
Il ReskientLll
1 -Ch�vch
H n-u B
,��a� N
xlux>I -Veighborhood 4
m O6 J aa
�.oc. �o��moeeooe o m. °Q O,,�o_ OQO �n..��
t -0 Cbff�Uf
"Crail AIonK Marker �I
Bn�klyn ���L: n
Auto Rcmil parlrn:�y
Boulevard Creek
xc Major Enlry I�I
e
r,�..m��.s �Commerclol ,A I I I
Open Space/Pond/Pa�c d Ride e O
orConmiercirl a �—�rrrri.��
a M,�,� j o
0 High.oeml�y .-'TOwn Cente�" IYei�hborhood
B an:t�nc�� com�uercial,¢tucea Ux Nr�de pp Major Entry I
High-Density R adential— ,'T��wn Center"Q g
�C,3r�d Ave. –J` »I P'eeeure� �r i�
mmo �vmommmmr�oeo i' ��wmseaQmaeaae�
Trail sq.tem ���•_oe 0
.–L h Center"p C1VIc ComplCx
�'��i�l.,�i U �I
a i Q d� D O
a Coqunpercial �w Ro�d Y� B
g
o
Church �'ti K� 0
0 osnce r,�nmu�rci:d,
Pf�Khlwrhood Corrid,0 l
1 5a�h �v� C�$unere�al 11ode Atarker Q
q d �GVqvnnyf qenvd
j o w�n r���,u.�
0 Residendul Trall Majer 6htry
6 13nk 0 Uroukdll� Q
�M•ill
D� om� 0 D
0 o I
mp D
1 n o
n s5�ytyf".
�a
t�igh-Depsloy
i �Rreldentlal i r
a S k
raefqvo
y Q o M )Of �:ilLf�'_ 'A T r 1 -�Y
I i
ch �P
iiiµh.(�ens�q•.�
ecz,iacnttal' p
1' High-Density
ResMmndal Legend
1 f a
�a Predominan[
d Land Use District
�tow- lry Ncsidcn[irl
In�cimiional 8sis[ing Use
City Gateway to Rem:�in
Proposed
Itedevelopment
I
N ._...r��� Nart�
ry
�z�� z� 0 �i Q
Fagure 18: Framework Plan
Brookiyn Boulevarcl Streetscape Amenities Study 34
I
i
V. FRAMEWORK PLAN
i
following land use groupings or districts are recommended for the
Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor.
Commercial Core. The central segment of the Corridor between
58th Avenue and 69th Avenue should be predominantly commer-
cial, Within this commercial core, neighborhood commercial
nodes should be established at 58th Avenue, 63rd Avenue, and
69th Avenue. The 63rd Avenue commercial node could be
developed as a"Town Center" and/or as a focal area for the
Corridor.
Medium-Density Residential Edge Segments. The southern edge
segment, between Highway 100 and 58th Avenue, and the northern
edge segment, between 69th and the northern city limits, should be
predominantly medium to high-density residential. Brookdale Mall
is a major exception in this district.
Single-Family South of Highway 100. The segment south of
Highway 100 should remain, for now, predominantly single-family
residential.
The purpose for establishing predominant use districts is to consolidate
developments into more compatible land use patterns and to strengthen
the commercial core area. The intent is, instead of allowing commercial
developments to occur all along the Corridor, to consolidate most of the
commercial uses, as much as possible, in the core area in order to
establish a clearly identifiable and marketable core retail district.
It is understood that some mixing of uses will occur and that none of the
districts will be purely one use or another. Some mixed-use or multi-use
developments, in fact, may be desirable, but the key idea here is "predom-
inant use", meaning that the largest proportion of uses should fit the
overall district classification.
3. Increase the Land Use Intensity.
Development and land use intensities should be increased in the Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor in order to take advantage of the favorable location
and access characteristics of the Corridor and to increase the commercial
tax base of the City. Every effort should be made to promote the
Brooklyn 8oulevarc! Streetscape Amenities Stucly 35
V. FRAMEWORK PLAN
development of higher-density retail, office, and residential uses in the
Corridor.
4. Accommodate Regional as well as Local Traffic.
The roadway should be monitored and, if necessary, upgraded to accom-
modate changing regional as well local vehiculaz traffic demands.
Access is one of the key ingredients for successful com-
mercial developments and therefore, if Brooklyn Boule-
vard is to become a viable and vibrant commercial
district, a good roadway system needs xo be maintained.
O The current widening project of Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-694 needs
to be completed, and continuous evaluations of the rest of Brooklyn
Boulevard should be conducted on an ongoing basis to quickly identify
traffic problems or issues and to correct them as soon as possible.
Another way in which traffic operations could be improved is by reducing
the number of curb cuts and driveway access points. This should be
accomplished through the removal of single-family residential uses and
through the elimination or consolidation of driveways as properties are
upgraded or redeveloped.
Another component of the circulation system is paths for pedestrian and
bicycle traffic. Although Brooklyn Boulevard itself is not viewed as a
primary pedestian or bicyclist route, pedestrians and bicyclists need to be
accommodated. A sidewalk should be provided on both sides of Brooklyn
Boulevard and the segment between 66th Avenue and 69th Avenue should
include an off-road bicycle path on the west side of the roadway, in order
to complete the north-south trail system which is located along Upper
Twin Lake and Lee Avenue.
5. Enhance the General Physical Environment.
The physical environment enhancement program should include removal
of unsightly elements, such as overhead power lines, and installation of
corriprehensive urban design and landscaping treatments including transit
shelters, benches, litter receptacles, general landscaping, and special
intersection improvements. The overall enhancement program should also
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 36
V. FRAMEWORK PLAN
include site improvements on private properties in the Brookly Boulevard
Corridor.
6. Develop Special Theme Treatments.
Special theme treatments should be developed to provide the Brooklyn
Boulevard segment in Brooklyn Center with a unique identity and imagee
This will help upgrade the overall appearance of the community and it will
assist in improving the identity of the Brooklyn Boulevard commercial
districto
The special theme elements should include gateways at the ends of the
Boulevard, entry treatments at Highway 100 and at I-694, corridor
markers at 58th Avenue and at 69th Avenue, and a major focal feature in
conjunction with the proposed "Town Center" at 63rd Avenue.
As part of the special identity program, the central segment of Brooklyn
Boulevard between 58th Avenue and 69th Avenue, along with segments
of 58th Avenue, Shingle Creek Parkway and 69th Avenue, should be
designated as the °City Ring Road". The purpose of this would be to
create an easily identifiable link between the major City civic and com-
mercial facilities and to promote a special, City-centered circulation
system, rather than treating major roadways merely as thoroughfares
through the Crty.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Stuqy 37
VI. STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS
The streetscape enhancement plan addresses four items: existing elements,
streetscape configuration and landscaping, streetscape lighting, and street furniture
and special features or treatments. In developing the streetscape enhancement
plan, a number of options and alternatives were investigated. Following is a
discussion of each of the streetscape components as well as the recommended
Streetscape Enhancement Plan.
streetsca e Com onents a
p p
Existing Elements
I� The existing streetscape contains very few urban design elements which would
impact the development of the streetscape plan. The one item which has a
significant impact is the existing overhead utility power lines, which extend
virtually for the whole length of the Corridar. The power lines detract from the
visual appearance of the Corridor and they restrict the planting of large street
trees.
e The recommendation is to remove all overhead power lines in
the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor.
Streetsca e Configuration and Landsca in
P P g
The streetscape enhancements can be arranged in a number of different configura-
tions. Items to be evaluated in streetscape configuration include: side-
walk/boulevard location, street light location, street tree arrangement, and median
configuration. Figure 19 illustrates two options for streetscape configuration,
which have the followmg characteristics:
I 'I Alternative A
The landscaping boulevard is located ad�acent to the curb with the
sidewalk next to the street right-of-wayo
The boulevard trees are evenly spaced along the Boulevard.
The street lights are located in the landscape boulevard.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Stuqy 38
1
a---
J
E �t� i �S'!�
J
e
I N1
i,
i iL
I Y' s
1
J'.'• V
L d
1
I
1 o I y
i��
a�
V
r� p�:p;
G Alternative A
l i "1
t y.
I I a I
`a
:s
j q
N) z
I
f'ti J
i
`4 y' i I
__t
S
t
t. 'i
r' �w,,.�^ i
J w `r
f
I s i
I 7 I
-s.t�'h ���:j1�.
r "y
S'
1
/r
^S1} \lU' L:�ncl�uiping li:iscmcnl
v
i
i .:i Alternative S
Figure 19: Streetscape Configurations
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 39
I VI. STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS
A landscaped median is introduced where left-turn lanes are not required
and the median is configured with two back-to-back turn lanes.
Alternative B
The sidewalk is located behind the curb with a narrow landscaping strip
adjacent to the street right-of-way.
The boulevard trees are grouped in clusters. This creates a more interest-
ing streetscape and it minimizes uneven appeazances where trees can not
be planted because of driveways, or if trees get damaged or diseased and
have to be removed.
The street lights are located behind the curb. In this alternative the street
lights could be located behind the sidewalk along the property line. This
would require a longer arm for the street lights;
A landscaped median is introduced where left-turn lanes are not required.
The median is configured with a single left-turn lane.
The recommendation is to use a combination of the two
options including: landscaped boulevards behind the
curbs; sidewalks adjacent to property lines; landscaped
medians (the landscaped medians are indicated in Fig-
ures 10 through 13); clustered groupings of trees; and
single left-turn lanes.
In addition to the general street landscaping, a number of other areas shonid
receive special landscaping screens and treatments. The areas identified for
special treatments are between Highway 100 and 58th Avenue, where special
landscaped treatments should be used to enhance the overall corridor image and
screen the residential areas on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard.
Streetscape Lighting
For streetscape lighting a number of alternatives and designs were evaluated
(Figure 20). Two types of lights were considered: street lights and pedestrian
lights.
Street Lights. The two major choices to make in selecting street lights
are the design of the light fixture and the light spacing. A key consider-
ation in deciding on street lights is the cost and the maintenance of the
Brooklyn Boulevarcl Streetscape Amenities Study 40
p
s c a c n
(F.xis[in}�) Ilixislin}�)
Street Lighting Options Pedestrian Lighting Options
Figure 20: Streetscape Lighting Alternatives 'I
J I
i i.
i
i
j
j i
Intersection Option A Intersection Option B
c a,
V�.�
�aR���
r i
�x u' i
h
x '`ri �U
i
Intersection Option C Intersection Option D
i
Figure 21: Intersection Treatment Alternatives
1
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Stucly 4�
VI. STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS
fixtures. The Cit antici ates that the street li hts will be maintained b
Y P g Y
NSP and therefore they will need to meet NSP standards. Street light
fixture A(Figure 20j, which is a basic "hatbox" fixure with a shroud
attachment on a 30-foot pole, was selected by the Task Force as the
preferred street light design. This is a relatively simple light fixture and
it is anticipated, based upon preliminary investigations, that NSP will
approve it.
In terms of street light spacing, the two choices are: uniform spacing
along the whole length of the Boulevard or varying spacing, depending
upon the significance of the roadway segment. Since the intent, as
discussed in the Framework Plan section, is to place special emphasis on
the central commercial core segment of the Corridor, having more
frequent and intense lighting in the central segment would reinforce the
overall concept for the Conidor of providing varying levels of treatments.
The recommendation is to use the Style A street light
fixture and to install the Gght fixtures at a more fre-
quent spacing (approximately 150 feet on center) in the
central, core commercial area including the Brookdale
Mall area, between Highway 100 and 69th Avenue, and
at a less frequent spacing (approximately 300 feet on
center) in the rest of the Corridor.
Pedestrian Lights. In addition to street lights, pedestrian lighting was
evaluated. The choices are: provide pedestrian lighting along the whole
length of the Corridor; provide pedestrian lighting only at intersections
and special areas; or include no pedestrian lighting in the streetscape.
Although Brooklyn Boulevard will not be a primary pedestrian circulation
area, it is believed that some pedestrian-scale lighting, especially where
pedestrians from the adjoining neighborhoods access the Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor, would be appropriate. From the options considered
(Figure 20), the Task Force selected Type B as the preferred pedestrian-
scale light. This light fixture is similar to the type used in the Earl Brown
Heritage Center area.
The recommendation is to use the Type B pedestrian
light fi�cture at intersections and in special areas to
provide emphasis and pedestrian-level lighting.
�rooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 42
VI. STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS
Street Furniture and S ecial Features
P
The primary areas where pedestrian amenities and special features would have a
functional purpose in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor are at the street intersec-
tions and in special areas, such as the "Town Center" A number of options for
intersection treatments were investigated (Figure 21). Consideration was given
to various pavement treatments including special pavers. Because of the large,
automobile-oriented scale of the Corridor, it was concluded by the Task Force
that using special pavers would be wasteful, but that including pedestrian lighting
and special landscaping accents at the intersections would be appropriate.
The recommendation is to use a modified version of Option D
for intersection treatments and to include pedestrian amenities,
such as transit shelters, benches, and Gtter receptacles, only at
the transit stops. In addition, the intersection treatments
shouid include e7,ttensive use of evergreen landscaping materi-
als, wluch will provide a strong visual emphasis and will help
to "green up" the Corridor.
Recommended Streetscape Enhancement Pian
The recommended Streetscape Enhancement Plan (Figure 22) is a composite
illustration of all the recommendations regarding streetscape enhancements and
intersection improvements for Brooklyn Boulevard.
The intersection enhancements will have to be evaluated on a case-b -case basis
Y
and, depending upon ti�e individual site circumstances or restrictions, such as
sight line requirements,existing private deveiopment landscaping or other factors,
may have to be modified.
i Also, in order to implement the intersection enhancements, landscaping easements
may have to be obtained from the adjoining property owners. It is anticipated,
based upon the concept design, that typically, a 20 foot by 20 foot landscaping
easement may be required.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 43
-...�-...-mw
�.,d�
4 r�/
I
1
r
J j v
t� w
1� e f I A<
S i..
I
r t r, Y
C' f l ri� t."
c' y a
+y r r
�:�Y�
q
r
t.�..,,�.-
f
Y `.J• .t' T5. /%f� y
f
i ..:��y 4
3
F �C`5�•�
�7 i
v
4 �•t4.i
M1
1 t ��,�.,�P„�.� r
y�`� k
j
3. r'` d,+f
i_. I'
i
i'' �'Z
1 ',y.� 1
1�
I '1 l o
y
7 I s
4f� i •1 .JJ
i"s L
ry¢ J
1' t lr'�i�
1.
I
Figure 22: Recommended Streetscape Enhancements
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study qq
VII. SPECI�4L THEME ELEMENTS
Special theme elements refers to those features which will help provide Brooklyn
Boulevard with a unique identity and image. As was discussed in the Framework
Plan section, special theme elements include: gateways, entry treatments, corridor
markers, and a majar focal feature.
Design Theme Alternatives
In order to provide a theme that identifies Brooklyn Boulevard as a part of
Brooklyn Center, the theme has to be unique and it has to have a strong relation-
ship to Brooklyn Center.
The first step in selecting a theme for Brooklyn Ce�ter was to explore a number
of design options in order to identify the types of design treatments that would be
available for Brooklyn Boulevard. The choices basically range from historical to
traditional to modern, and virtually any one of these design themes could be
adapted for Brooklyn Boulevard. The issue with general design themes is that
they are widely used and, unless they have a distinct local reference or they are
developed in a very unusual way that creates an individual statement, they may
not be effective in providing the desired identity.
The second step in deciding on a theme was to explore and identify unique
features or elements, existing or historical, that could be used in developing a
design theme for Brooklyn Boulevard. The conclusion of this explorat�on was
that the strongest, or most memorable, design theme that exists in Brooklyn
Center is the Earl Brown Farm theme which has been very successfully adapted
in the redeveloped Earl Brown Heritage Center complex (Figure 23). This theme
is unique to Brooklyn Center and it currenty forms the most memorable impres-
sion of the City.
After ex lorin a few traditional and modern o tions it was concluded that the
P g P
"Earl Brown Theme" would be the most appropriate and unique for Brooklyn
Boulevard. By introducing this theme on Brooklyn Boulevard and potentially in
other areas of the City, the theme treatments would reinforce each other and
provide a unified and distinct theme for Brooklyn Center.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenYties Study 45
j
1
:E$ ii
x s�,d�' �u
,r
uu �I�1� �rq f
i
i r
1 I «R 0 r
V.�
r
j
1 p c r
ti.�.� as so saaoe
r 1
��I-'.. �IJ�I�Fr,
MiM�
1 �NMUAL
INSi1TUTE
NW NENS/
8nY[ a� e
�a���: �111
�'!'1` i .�'`i
I
I
L �_k, I
1
F ti
t.
Figure 23: Image Theme Inventory
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 46
Vil. SPECIAL THEME ELEMENTS
The recommendation is to adapt the "Earl Brown Heritage
Center Theme" for Brooklyn Boulevard as well as for other
major thoroughfares in the City, in order to give the segment
of Brooklyn Boulevard wluch is in Brooklyn Center a stronger
identity and to reinforce the development of a distinct and
unified overall image for Brooklyn Center.
Definition of Theme Elements
A concept for the theme elements along Brooklyn Boulevard is illustrated in
Figure 24. The images represent a general idea which will need to be refined at
the time of implementation. The design for the special theme elements is adapted
from the "Earl Brown Heritage Center Theme"
The general concept for designing the theme elements is to use heavy timbers and
metal connectors to replicate the heavy timber construction used in the gates and
fences at the Earl Brown °Farm. Where needed, such as in the bus shelters or the
Corridor Focal Feature, meta.l roofs would reflect the shapes used for barns and
weather vanes could be used as accents a�d decorations. Rough stone cast in
concrete, such as is seen in old rural structures, could be used for bases and
foundations. Extensive use of landscape materials and, especially, evergreens
will recall the natural environment of the Farm.
Extensive and consistant use of evergreen material along
I Brooklyn Boulevard will help to "green up" the Corridor and
provide year-round color.
Followin is a brief descri tion of the intent di the theme elements and eneral
g P g
uidelines for further refinement:
1. City Gateways
The Framework Plan identifies two gateways for Brooklyn Boulevard: one
at the northern and the other at the southern city limits. The gateways
will demarcate the entry points to the City as well as to the Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor. Similar gateways could be used at other entries to
the City to reinforce the overall theme.
The gateways are envisioned as a segment of a gate with a sign board
suspended from a cantilevered bracket. The construction would include
heavy metal plates, angles, and bolts. The foundation could be cast
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape amenitYes Study 47
t
�«F-: _��1
s �i
s
i ���i:.� �q�� /J ��OaO J_
S t. r _�'.�i�' p�t
F l si s'` �:r
I I I
m� 4
��,.m>�'�` J I, ;H� u d ,Q
q '�v�'�
i O I
i
r
1
l I
City Gateway Freeway Entry
i
I
I
I�
F�
iTr, e� �t
�f��:._ I
i 1' �s 3
u� t t,�
g f v-��`'�`.�" r
A�� rA 5� d- A
I i i¢
A I /J +irw� F �Y �Y 1
i
�i 5 1-.. '�.l�� v
'_i ,r
d. V�
I I
I
Corridor Marker Focal Feature
Figure 24: Recommended Theme Elements i
1 I
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study a8
1 VI1. SPEClAL THEME ELEMENTS
concrete with embedded, rough-split field stones or granite blocks. The
edges of the roadway are defined with wood fences; spruces or pines are
used for emphasis and definition.
2. Freeway Entries
Two freewa entries have been identi�ed: one at Hi hwa 10(? and one
Y g Y
at I-694. Besides the gateways, the freeway entries also serve to welcome
travelers to the City. The intention is that the freeway entries perform a
similaz function as the gateways except that they would be designed
differently, due to the different environments. The freeway interchanges
are much more expansive and the treatments will have to be bolder and
larger.
The freeway entries will depend primarily on longer fence segments and
larger massing of evergreens to create the entry statements. In each
quadrant of the intersection, fences with rows of evergreens will define
the transition from the highway to the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. An
entry sign, similar to City Gateway signs, may be included at the termina-
tion of the fence on the entry legs of the freeway ramps to the Boulevard.
3. Corridor Markers
Whereas the City Gateways demarcate the entries to the City, the Corridor
Markers anounce that the traveler has arrived at the commercial core,
The markers would be an adaptation of a complete gate with a sign board
which could provide directions to major features or facilities in Brooklyn
Center. The primary functions of the Markers would be as symbols and
as decorative The construction and materials would be similar
to the City Gateways, except that the Markers might include more flowers
and ornamenta.l shrubs.
4. Focal Feature
The most significant of the theme elements will be the Focal Feature. The
Focal Feature for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor is envisioned as a
structure or large monument which would define the core or "the central
place" along Brooklyn Boulevard. The intention is that the Focal Feature
be developed m conjunction with a redevelopment pro�ect and that,
ideally, it serve more than just a symbolic function.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 49
I
1
V111. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Improvement Program for Brooklyn Boulevard involves many items and it
will have to be implemented over a number of years. Following is a description
of the recommended staging of the public improvements and the estimated costs.
improvement Staging
The Improvement Staging Plan (Figure 25) identifies the recommended streetscape
enhancement and special theme element public improvements in the Brooklyn
Boulevard right-of-way and the sequencing for implementing them. In addition
to the improvements shown in the Plan, there are two other projects currently in
the planning stages:
The widenin of Brookl n Boulevard north of I-694
g Y
The development of the storm water retention pond and MTC Park-and-
Ride Facility just south of I-694
In addition, the City may choose, in the future, to do additional public improve-
ments associated with private parcel redevelopment.
The Improvement Staging Plan identifies the improvement segments and the
staging phases.
Improvement Segments
The improvement segments define sections of the roadway with similar character-
istics and levels of improvement. The segment characteristics relate to the
intensity of adjacent land uses and signi�cance in the Corridor. The types of
improvement vary, based upon the desired level of treatments for the roadway.
This definition of levels of improvement will be signi�cant for the implementation
of future phases. If the available funding for future phases wiil not permit the
levels of improvements proposed in the Plan, the improvements could be scaled
back. The scaling back, however, should be done proportionately so that the
relative levels of improvement, among the different segments, stays the same.
Brooklyn Bculevard Streetscape Amenities Study 50
d��yc�c�a .::a�
A
__._i
x
z,� 4
�Y�Srf�'�B
z
�o a
M I P�se'�A Y
a
tl 4 �s. i. r
�eg�n.ent :ds::: K
aP
�69rcn.,�te
,�k
a
i
5 t�'���
orE try i�
3 2 O f aC I+69�4,
1 �T p
r
y ar fi
a'� I•6kj
g 'z k
i �i a.,
m w�
s r ��roaa cecicer^
s s Foba#,..fs+eudc j
A �rc..
y i`
a '��1@ilt B �a`' ,r d
���6�. m
r _.y
L
r f X'4
r 1 1 /j
T
r `k
�'s
Phase iC 9'
A I co�ao.�M��� a
a� sseh :�e,.u� a�in�r xoaa io _F
i�h�'v'�. a�iin /T _t` .x i;
1 �.r
1 y
I `;D �,�3 M:
s��� A
r
Ntnttme4t 1 9pec1al 1�•` x:
n
Yi I Landseapi�
clai Eph.:_ �nt �1
1 1 A T �,.k, `w
�i�'CCR D i I
C 1T�SP��� jC z
Ma�or Entxy a
Se��':Xlt asyt Hi w�y 1QU y
r r:
1
Legend
'�g1Ile1'k� i Corrldor Segnents
r
T Q Intersecdon Enhancemenks
a Ex3sting Median Landscaping Only
r t i T�;,� Narcow Median
W1de b➢edian wlth Landscaping
""��IC Special iandscaping
j rv
C eM1': 8Y
,f 4 I
s'\ K•• {-s'-t z C��''��r� r+ohn
n
t_ t_��
__.1
i� t'.-� o eoo ioao woo
Figure 25: Improvement Staging Plan
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study S�
VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The recommended improvements for the segments are as follows:
Segment A
This segment, from 69th Avenue to the northern city limits, is designated
as a primarily medium- to high-density residential district. The recom-
mended improvements include:
Street lights at approximately 300 feet on center, each side of the
street.
Construction of landscaped medians.
Landscaped boulevards.
Street intersection enhancements at 69th Avenue north side), 70th
Avenue (east side), and 71st Avenue.
A i hin 1 reeka
C ty Gateway at S g e C
Segment B
This segment, from 58th Avenue to 69th Avenue, is designated as the core
commercial district. This segment should receive the m�imum level of
enhancements in order to support the redevelopment efforts and to create
a strong focal area. The recommended improvement include:
Street lights at approximately 150 feet on center, each side of the
street.
Construction of landscaped medians south of 65th Avenue and
landscaping of the medians north of 65th Avenue, which will be
constructed as part of the road widening project.
Landscaped boulevards.
Street intersection enhancements at 58th Avenue (north side),
Admiral Lane (west side), 59th Avenue (east side), 61st Avenue
(west side), 62nd Avenue, 63rd Avenue, 65th Avenue, 68th
Avenue (west side) and 69th Avenue (south side).
Corridor Markers at 58th Avenue and at 69th Avenue.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 52
I
VII1. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
A Maior Entry at I-694.
The Corridor Focal Feature at 63rd Avenue.
Segment C
This segment, from Highway 100 to 58th Avenue, is designated as a
primarily medium- to high-density residential district. An exception in
this segment is Brookdale Mall on the east side of the roadway. The
recommended improvements include:
Street lights at approximately 150 feet on center, each side of the
street.
Landscaping of the existing medians.
I,andscaped boulevards.
Intersection enhancements at SSth Avenue, 56th Avenue (east
side), and 58th Avenue (south side).
Special landscaping treatments (low shrubs and groupings of
evergreen trees) along the east side of the roadway between
Highway 100 and 56th Avenue and along the west side, in front of
the commercial uses just north of Northrop Drive, in order to
enhance the corridor image.
Special landscaping screening (tall shrubs, ornamental trees, and
groupings of evergreen) along the west side of the roadway
between Highway 100 and 58th Avenue, except for the segment in
front of the commercial uses, in order to buffer the residential uses
from the roadway.
A Major Entry at Highway 100 (north side).
Segment D
This segment, from the southern city limits to Highway 100, is designated
as a primarily low-density residential destrict. This segment has a
different character from the rest of the Corridor since the adjoining
residential uses contain abundant landscaping. The recommended im-
provements include:
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenYtYes Study 53
VI11. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Street lights at approximately 300 feet on center, each side of the
street.
Landscaping of the existing median just south of Highway 100.
A City Gateway just north of 49th Avenue.
Improvement Cost Estimate
Following is a preliminary cost estimate of the proposed streetscape improve-
ments. The costs are estimated in 1994 dollars. The costs are presented by
improvement phases which relate to logical segments tif how the improvements
might be staged. Thus, Phase 1 includes the segment of Brooklyn Boulevard
which will be improved as part of the roadway widening project, as well as the
major theme elements which are deemed essential for establishing a theme for the
Corridor. Phases 2, 3, and 4 reflect the sequencing based upon significance for
completing the Brooklyn Boulevard improvement program.
Table 1 provides unit costs for the different types of treatments per lineal foot or
by area, Table 2 provides detailed costs for each of the phases and a summary of
all improvement costs.
t The preliminary cost estimate indicates that Phase 1 improvements will cost
approximately 1,000,000 and the total Brooklyn Boulevard right-of-way
improvements will be approximately 2,700,000.
In addition to the streetscape improvement costs, funding will be required to
remove the overhead power lines. A preliminary estimate by NSP, for removal
of all the overhead power lines in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, indicates
costs of up to 1,000,000. Further discussions with NSP need to be held to
re�ne these costs and to finalize funding programs and implementation.
1
i�
1
1
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 54
Vill. IMPROVEMENT PROCRAM
Table 1
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Improvement Components
I UNIT ITEM COST/L.F.
I NO. TTEM I UNTT bUANT. COST I OF ROAD OR AREA
A-1. STREET LIGHTS 300' O.C. EACH 0.007 $3,450.00 $23.00 PER L.F.
(2 LIGHTS 300 L.F.)
A-2. STREET LIGHTS 150' O.C. EACH 0.013 $3,450.00 $46.00 PER L.F.
(2 LIGHTS 150 L.F.)
B. BOULEVARD ENHANCEMENTS
1 KEMOVALS L'X15T. WALK S S.F. 10 $0.50 �S.UO PER L.P'.
(10 S.F. L.F.) I I
2 PAVEMENT 4" CONCR. WALK 6' L.F. 12 $2.50 $30.00 PER L.F.
�12 S.F. L.F.1
3 TREES 3" CAL. 40' O.C. L.F. I 0.05 $300.00 $15.00 PER L.F.
(2 TREES 40 L.F.) I
4 SOD REPLACEMENT S.F. I 12 $0.25 $3.00 PLR L.F. I
!12 S.F. L.FJ
B. TOTAL $53.00 PER L.F.
C. MEDIANS LANDSCAPING ONLY
1 GRADING S.F. 18 $0.25 $4.50 PER L.F.
�18 S.F. L.F.)
2 I MEDIAN APRON 4" CONCR. 2' S.F. 4 $2.50 $10.00 PER L.F. I
(4 S.F. L.F.� I
3 I TREES 3° CAL. 40' O.C. L.F. J OA25' $300.00 �7.50 PER L.F. I
i fl TREE 40 L.F.I I
4 SOD S.F. I 16 $0.25 $4.00 PER L.F.
(16 S.F. L.F.I I i
C. TOTAL $26.00 PER L.F.
D. MEDIANS NARROW (6' WIDE)
1 SAWCUT°T1NG EX1ST. PAVEMENT L.�'. 2 $6.00 $12.00 PEK L.F.
�2 L.F. L.F.)
2 REMOVALS EXIST. PAVEMENT S.F. 8 $0.50 $4.00 PER L.F.
(8 S.F. L.F.I
3 CURB-AND-GUTTER B612 L.F. 2 $8.00 I $16.00 PER L.F. I
(2 L.F. L.F.) I I
4 MEDIAN PAVEMLNT 4" CONCR. S.F. 5 $2.50 $12.50 PER L.F.
�5 S.F. L.F.)
5 I MISCELL. SIGNS, STRIPING L.F. 1 $0.50 $0.50 PER L.F.
D. TOTAL $45.00 PER L.F.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 55
I VII1. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Table 1 (Continued)
I UNIT �UANT. COST I OF ROAD OR I
NO. ITEM
E. MEDIANS WIDE (20'WIDE)
1 SAWCUTTING, EXIST. PAVEMENT L.F. 2 $6.00 $12.00 PER L.F.
(2 L.F. L.F.)
2 IZEMOVALS EX1ST. PAVEMENT S.F. 22 �0.50 �11.�0 PE�i L.F.
�22 S.F. L.F.)
3 CURB-AND-GUTTER, B612 L.F. 2 $8.00 $16.00 PER L.F.
(2 L.F. L.F.1
4 MEDIAN APRON 4" CONC. 2' S.F. 4 •$2.50 $10.00 PER L.F.
(4 S.F. L.F.)
5 `CIZEES 3" CAL. 40' 0.C. EACH 0.025 $300.OU �7.50 P�R L.F.
(1 TREE 40 L.F.)
6 SOD S.F. 16 $0.25 I $4.00 PER L.F.
(16 S.F. L.F.I ---._..1._
E. TOTAL $60.50 PER L.F.
F. INTERSECTION ENHANCEMENTS
(4 QUADRANTSI
1 S 2 I HTS QUpDRpNTjPED.) EACH 8 $3,500.00 $28,000.0� PER INT- i
2 WOOD FENCE THEME L.F. SO $40.00 $3,200.00 PER INT.
(20 L.F. QUADRANTI
3 TREES EVERGREEN, 12'-16' HT. EACH 12 $400.00 $4,800.00 PER INT.
(3 TREES OUADRANTI
4 SHRUBS AND FLOWERS L.S. I 1 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 PER INT.
i
F. TOTAL $38,000.00 PER INT.
I
G. CITY GATEWAYS
1 ENTRY SIGN �EACH 1 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 PER AREA�
(INCL. BASE LIGHTINGI I I
2 TREES EVERGREEN, 12'-16' HT. EACH 6 $400.00 $2,400.00 PER ARE.A�
I
3 SHRUBS AND FLOWERS L.S. 1 $2,600.0� $2,600.00 PER AREA�
G. TOTAL $20,000.00 PER
i
1
i
Brooklyn Boulevarcl Streetscape Amenities Study 56
VIII. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Table 1 (Continued)
NO. ITEM UNIThUANT. CO T I OF ROAD OR I
H. CORRIDOR MARKERS
1 CORRIDOR MARKER EACH 1 �20,000.00 $20,000.00 PER ARE
(INCL. BASE LIGHTING) I
Z I "�S EG'�"s�N, 12'-16' f�'T'. �E�HI 6 $400.00 $�400A0 �Ek AREAI
3 I SHRUBS AND FLOWERS I L.3. 1 I $2,600.00 i $2,600.00 PER AREA�
I
H. TOTAL $25,000.00 PER AREA
I. MAJOR ENTRIES HWY.
(4 QUADRANTS)
1 GRADING SEEDING L.S. 1 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 PER ENTRI
2 ENTRY SIGNS EACH 4 I $15,000.00 $60,000.00 PER ENTR�
Si SIGN OUADRANTI
i 3 FENCE THEME TREATMENT C,.F. 480 I $40.00 $19,200.00 PER ENTRI
�120 L.F. OUADRANTI I
4 I 10 TREES OUADRANTI 16' HT. EACHI 40 I $400.00 $16,000.00 PER ENTR�
Ie T01°AL $100,000.00 PER ENTI�
I
J. "TOWN CENTER" FOCAL FEAT.
1 FOCAL FEATURE L.S. 1$100,000.00 $100,000.00 PER AREAf
I
J. TOTAL $100,000.00 PER ARE�
I K. SPECIAL LANDSC. ENHANC.
I i
1 SHRUBS L.F. 1 $30.00 $30.00 PER L.F. I
(1 SHRUB L.F.. INCL. IRRIG.I
i I
K. TOTAL I $30.00 PER L.F.
I
I
i L. SPECIAL LANDSC. SCREENS
i
I 1 SHRUBS L.F. 2 �30.00 �60.00 PER L.F.
l �(2 SHRUBS L.F.. INCL. IRRIG.1 i
L. TOTAL $60.00 PER L.F.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 57
I
VI11. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Table 2
Preliminary Cost Estimate
Development Phases and Summary
N0. ITEM UNITDUANT. COST ITEM COST i
i I PHASE 1(SEGMENT A)
A-1 STREET LIGHTS 300' O.C. L.F. 3,000 $23.00 $69,000.00
I B BOULEVARD ENHANC�MEN'1S L.F. I 3,000 $53.00 $159,000.00
i
D MEDIAN NARROW (6' WIDE) L.F. 1,000 $45.00 $45,000.00
E MEDIAN WIDE (20' WIDE) L.F. 1,500 $60.50 $90,750.00
F INTERSECTION ENHANChM. EACH 2 $38,OOQ.00 $76,000.00
G CITY GATEWAY EACH 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.��
PHASE 1 (SEGMENT A) TOTAL $459,750.00
II PHASE 1(SEGM. B- PARTIAL)
A-2 STREET LIGHTS 150' O.C. L.F. 3,400 $46.00 $156,400.00
B BOULEVARD ENHANCEM. I L.F. 2,600 $53.00 $137,800.00
C MEDIAN LANDSC. ONLY L.F. 1,300 $26.00 $33,800.00
F INTERSECTION ENHANCEM. EACH 1.5 $38,000.00 $57,000.00
H CORRIDOR MARKER EACH 1 $25,000.00 �25,000.00
I MAJOR ENTRY HWY. EACHI ]$100,000.00 $100,000.00 I
PHASE 1(SEGM. B- PART.) TOTAL $510,000.00 I
I
PHASE 1(A B- PART.) TOTAL $969,750.00
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenitYes Study 58
VI11. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Table 2 (Continued)
I UNIT�UANT. COST ITEM COST
NO. ITEM
III PHASE Z(SEGMENT B- PARTIAL)
A-2 STREET LIGHTS 150' O.C. L.F. 4,800 $46.00 $220,800.00
B BOULEVARD BNHANCBM. I L.F. 4,800 �53.W �254,4W.00
D MEDIAN NARROW (6' WIDE) I L.F. 1,300 $45.00 $58,500.00
E MEDIAN WIDE (20' WIDE) L.F. 1,500 560.50 $90,750.00
I i
F 1NTERSECTIOI�f BNHANCLM. IBACH 5 �38,000.00 �190,OOO.QO
I H CORRIDOR MARKER IEACH 1 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
I
J"TOWN CENTER" FOCAL FEAT. EACH 1$100,000.00 $100,000.00
PHASE 2(SEGM. B- PART.) TOTAL $939,450.00
IV PHASE 3 (SEGMENT C)
IA-2 STREET LTGHTS 150' O.C. L.F. I 3,600 �46.00 $165,600.00 I
I B I BOULEVARD ENHANCEMENTS L.F. 3,200 $53.00 $169,600.00
I C I MEDIAN LANDSCAPING ONLY I L.P. 2,000 $26.00 $52,0170.00
I
F INTERSECTION ENHANCEM. IEACH 2 $38,000.00 $76,000.00 i
i
I MAJOR ENTRY HIGHWA�' EACH 0.5 $100,000.00 $50,000.00
K SPECIAL LANDSC. ENHANCEM. L.F. 1,300 $30.00 $39,000.00
L SPECIAL LANDSC. SCREEN L.F. 2,400 $60.00 $144,000.00 I
I
PHASE 3 (SEGMENT C) TOTAL $696,200.00
1 i
V PHASE 4(SEGMENT D) i
�A-1 STREET LIGHTS 300' O.C. L.F. 2,000 I �23.00 $46,000.00 I
i I i
C MEDIAN LAND3C. ONLY L.F. 600 $26.00 $15,600.00
G CITY GATEWAY EACH 1 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
I MAJOR ENTRY HIGHWAY IEACH 0.5 I$100,000.00 $50,000.00
PHASE 4 (SEGMENT D) TOTAL $131,600.00
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenitYes Stucly
59
VI11. IMPROVEMENT PROCRAM
Table 2 (Continued)
NO. ITEM IUNITbUANT. CO T COST
A V L� KAITL'
SUMMARY BY PHASE COST
PER L.F.
PHASE 1(A B- PART.) TOTAL L.F. 6,400 $152.00 $969,750
PHASE 2(SEGM. B- PART.) TOTAL L.F. 4,800 $196.00 $939,450
PHASE 3(SEGMENT C) TOTAL L.F. 3,200 $218.00 $696,200
PHASE 4(SEGMENT D) TOTAL L.F. 2,000 $66.00 $131,600
GRAND TOTAL L.F. 16,400 $167.00 $2,737,000
SUMMARY BY ITEM TOTAL OF
AMOUNT TOTAL
�A-1 STREET LIGNTS 300' O.C. $115,000 4%
A-2 STREET LIGHTS 150' O.C. I I $542,800 20%
B BOULEVARD ENHANCEM. $720,800 26%
C MEDIAN LANDSC. ONLY I I $101,400 4% I
D MEDIAN NARROW (6' WIDE) $103,500 4% i
I
E MEDIAN WIDE (20' WIDE) �181,500 7%a
I
I
F INTERSECTION ENHANCEM. $399,000 15
I G CITY GATEWAY $40,000 1%
H CORRIDOR MARKER $50,000 2%
I MAJOR ENTRY HIGHWAY I $200,000 7%
J"TOWN CENTER" FOCAL FEAT. I $100,000 4%
K SPECIAL LANDSC. $NHANCC�M. $39,000 1`90
III I
L SPECIAL LANDSC. SCREEN I $144,000 5% I
GRAND TOTAL $2,737,000 100%
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 60
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
A second major component of the Brooklyn Boulevard upgrading program,
besides the public streetscape improvements, is the redevelopment of private
properties in the Corridor.
The public improvement program and the private redevelop-
ment efforts should be treated as a related set of tools which
complement and reinforce each other.
Redevelopment Issues
In redeveloping properties in the Corridor, three key issues need to be addressed:
1 The size and sha e of the ro ert to be redevelo ed
P P P Y P
The program and pattern for redevelopment
Development guidelines for redevelopment
Size and Shape of Redevelopment Parcels
In the Inventory/Analysis section a detailed evaluation was presented of all the
parcels along the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor which should be or might be
considered for redevelopment. The two key issues in most of the cases is how
large the redevelopment parcels should be and how they should relate to the
adjoining uses.
In terms of size and shape of parcels, the two key consider-
ations in redeveloping properties in the Brooklyn Boulevard
Corridor slxould be to:
Assemble parcels wluch are large enough to permit
higher-density developments and reasonable access and
circulation patterns; and
Identify desirable boundaries between the proposed
developments and e�risting adjoining land uses.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape AmenitYes Study 61
I IX. REQEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Currently, Brooklyn Center has the one-acre minimum lot size requirement for
redevelopment. This is a good tool, but larger development parcels might be
more desirable and more marketable. Also, changing land uses along back
property lines is preferable, in most cases, over changing uses across streets.
This is especially applicable if single-family uses are invoved.
Pro ram and Pattern for Redevelo ment
g P
Redevelopment Program
The program or types of uses which should be considered will vary based upon
the location and market forces. As is recommended in the Framework Plan, the
central segment of Brooklyn Boulevard should be developed primarily as a
commercial district with the rest of the Corridor to be developed for either
higher-density residential or, south of Highway 100, for single-family residential.
More specifically, the Framework Plan includes recommendations that neighbor-
hood-oriented commercial uses be developed at 58th Avenue, 63rd Avenue, and
69th Avenue. It would be in the City's interest to steer developments in these
three areas to include at least some neighborhood service and retail facilities.
Development Patterns
In terms of development patterns, the key issue is the arrangement of the
buildings on the site and the corresponding relationship of the developments to
the street and to parking. The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor developed
primarily in the post World War II era as an automobile-oriented, suburban
strip. This has resulted in the generally suburban pattern of buildings set well
back from Brooklyn Boulevard and surrounded by parking. However, in order
to service the adjoining neighborhoods and reduce the number of automobile
trips, pedestrian circulation systems should be a priority.
One of the rinci al uidelines for redevelo ments alon
P P g P g
Brooklyn Boulevard should be to provide a comfortable and
convenient internal pedestrian circulation system, in order to
mm�m»e multiple trips by car and to encourage walk-in use
from the adjoining residential neighborhoods.
In this regard, because Brooklyn Boulevazd is a very wide roadway which carries
large volumes of traffic and therefore is difficult to cross, developments should
be located primarily in one quadrant of an intersection or, at least, on one side
of the Boulevard (Development Location Concept diagram in Figure 26).
Brooklyn Boulevarq Streetscape Amenities Study 62
i
I c. a�a
I Rcdcve �pmcnt Rcdcvc ipment
S c i S�c
i IOnc Qu:iJnnqt�f Intcrviti•cion) I i O I
P
�+r_+o�oo`� p� �.,,.�....e��.�����.� Parkin� A 0�
1 i
"Intcrnal 0 I (Across ollcctor ,F`
Sitc frum Prigiary Sitc) i
I Circulatio�$ i i
l tiqstcui p l o i y A� ,t j
U ------J ''��o�
hc
I Alinor Arterial i3rcxikl}'n &xdcvard I n '�I
Development Development
Location Conce t I Alternative B 1 ,i e�,�
i
i
f� �lul[i-Level,
Parkin+� Alixed-Use
Pc:destrian/ K��n�P Developmen[
f Bicyclis[ .r 1 i% d•
/i Access I' i
/i� I j/ i�
a
��i
0 Parki�ig
.1�+��
4r .k tehiculac .Ij
`�rt 4s Access �:��i
�h,e/ �0.�� �h�T< Parlwig
Below
Developuicut Develo��ment Grade
Alternative A Alternative C
Figure 26: Redevelopment Patterns
1
j. Corridor Should Ha��e —lj. Ou[d�n�r E.�LLing Pacili[ies 1_ Redevelopment Projects Should be Located in Onc
Physicai Design Con[inuilv and Senting Should be 1� uadranl of Incerseclion
Promu�ed C�
C. Uevelo �ments Should—
Have Visual Focal 9. R�fs Sho� F". 2 Developmen[ Densities Should
Fcah�ces H:rve Var i be High as Ikissible
J
Shny��., n (7h�.�L�ampleReprCSents
12. .UI Sides of i--_ r L wcr-Ihnsity Development)
a I3uild'u1g Ur
ShouldHave ..��u �-4 ScreeningShouldbeProvided
Consis[ent °v��T'�? t .\djoining Sipgle-Family
.frea[nie�[ .i�,hbo;hoocls
'L�
'p i� 16. Signs Should
��i Coniplement
U I�r��elopments
1� C .y� '�1.. /r
p j
i ��y
i
K;� i
P R t T�d�6i� i.
-�l• v'" eo i i
i4
j f
Y i
i
8. \Valls Should i 14. Facilities For
be Treated H i Bi
Not Blanl: t i Should be
7. Gdges of Corridor— i�l i Provided
T�'
Should be Wc11 UePined N� —3. Velucul:u�ACCess
(I3uildings, tandscaping, �ences) N y Pouits Should
i be as Far from
ll. il1aterials ancl Cobrs 10. Parl:ing Lo[s Intersecuons
Should be Compatible Should Have as Possible
Landacaped islan�ls
Df.VelOpIllCilt and Gdgcs —13. Pedesvian W.11ks Should
E11�1�111Ce1IIe11t Linh eW Developments
Guidelines
Figure 27: Recommended Development Guidelines
Brooklyn Boulevarcl Streetscape Amenities Study 63
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
A second issue for Brookl n Center, in terms of develo ment patterns, is whether
Y P
to continue with the "suburban model" or whether to promote a more "urban
model" with buildings set closer to the street and street frontages developed with
more urban amenities and facilities for pedestrians. Three prototypical models
for retail site developments are illustrated in Figure 26.
Development Alternative A. In this model, a smgle-story development
faces the street with a free-standing building on the corner. This allows
�i relatively good visibility of the front doors of all facilities and relatively
good site circulation. In this model the primary building extends to the
streets allowing convenient and direct access into the development for
pedestrians. This is preferable to models where the buildings are located
at the rear of the site, requiring pedestrians to cross parking lots to reach
the facilities.
Development Alternative B. In this model, the buildings are located
along the property line and the parking is in the back of the development.
This creates a more urban look along the street, however, since the entries
are in the back and because most small businesses can not afford two
entries, the facades toward the street are treated as the back sides of the
buildings and frequently have no access from the street and little public
amenities, such as windows or enhancements.
Develo ement Alternative C. This model re resents a hi her-densit
P P g Y
mixed-use development, which could include retail on the first level and
either housing or office uses on the upper level. This type of development
would allow a more urban frontage along the street, but it would require
a parking structure or underground parking, which greatly increases site
development costs.
In order to increase the land intensities in the Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor, to provide for more convenient
pedestrian access and circulation, and to develop a more
distinct image for Brooklyn Boulevard, the recommen-
dation is that efforts be made to promote and encourage
higher-density developments which are located closer to
the street.
As a general rule, if a building does not earttend to the
street, no more than one row of parking should be
placed between the building and the street.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 64
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROCRAM
mm n d D ve n i elines
Reco e de e lopme t Gu d
In many cases, the City may not be able to select, unless it is a participant in the
redevelopment process, the types of developments which occur or the site layouts.
However, the one area where the City can exert some control is in development
guidelines which could be applied to the Brooklyn Boulevard Conidor.
Development guidelines, applied to redevelopment projects or
new developments, could help mitigate undesirable features and
create the type of environment the City desires for the Brook-
lyn Boulevard Corridor.
The proposed development guidelines are illustrated °in a sample development
(Figure 27), which consists of a single-story commercial retail complex located
at an intersection. This exampie is not meant to represent a recommended
development. It is being used to demonstrate how the guidelines might be applied
to a typical situation in today's marketplace. Following are the recommended
development guidelines for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor.
1. Redevelopment Project Location at Int�rsections. Redevelopment
projects should be, preferably, located in one quadrant of an intersection,
or at least on one side of Brooklyn Boulevard, not both. A project should
not try to link both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard with pedestrian circula-
tion.
2. Development Densities. Development densities and site coverage in the
Corridor should be generally increased. The appearance of the corridor
should become somewhat more "urban. The increased densities should
be complemented by improved design deta,ils, -landscaping, lighting and
signage.
3. Velucular Access Points. Vehicular access points should be set back
from major street intersections and other driveways as far as possible,
according to individual site conditions and accepted traffic engineering
standards. As a general rule, driveways on� Brooklyn Boulevards should
be at least 150 feet from ma�or mtersections. Vehicles should be able to
circulate, as much as possible, between adjoining sites so as to minimize
congestion on the public streets.
4. Adjoining Single-Family Neighborhoods should be Protected. Any
single-family residential neighborhoods, which abut the developments
along Brooklyn Boulevard, should be protected or screened from adverse
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 65
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
visual impacts. Building heights and massing should be reduced adjacent
to single-family housing. In all cases, landscaping, berming and/or
fencing should separate commercial and residential activities; commercial
traffic should be directed away from residential streets; and commercial
lighting should be directed away from housing. Hours of business
operation near housing should be regulated in cases where they may have
a negative impact on the housing.
5. Physical Design Continuity. There should be physcial design continuity
along the Corridor within the public right-of-way as well as the private
developments. This should be achieved primarily through the public
landscaping and lighting improvements, but should be supplemented by
private landscaping, parking lot screening, �nd facade and roofline
treatments.
6. Visual Focal Features. Major private developments should include a
visual focal feature, such as a clock tower, entry arch, or other architec-
tural element, to serve as memorable and meaningful landmarks.
7. Corridor Edge Treatments. The edges of the Brooklyn Boulevard
Corridor should be clearly defined. This can be accomplished by several
means:
Locating buildings or parts of buildings close to the edge of the
street right-of-way
Locating a building at the point of each intersection corner
Buffering the edges of parking lots with berming, plantings, and/or
fencing
When a building is set back from the street right-of-way, there should be
no more than one bay of parking between the sidewalk along the street
and the building. Also, building setbacks not separated from the street by
parking should be landscaped.
8. Building Wall Treatments. Building walls along Brooklyn Boulevard
should not be blank. All walls facing streets or walkways should include
windows, doors, openings, or other treatments which would help mitigate
the "unfriendly" appearance of blank walls. At a minimum, display
windows should be used. This will improve the aesthetic environment for
both motorists and pedestrians.
Brooklyn Boulevarcf Streetscape Amenities Study 66
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROCRAM
9. Roof Shapes. Roofs of buildings in the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor
should not be flat. Sloping, peaked, gabled, or shed roof designs would
add visual variety and would help to reinforce the "Earl Brown Heritage
Center Theme", which has been selected for the Conidor.
10. Parking Lot Treatments. Islands in parking lots should be landscaped
for visual relief and enhancement. All parking lots which adjoin Brooklyn
Boulevard, including the lots of automobile dealerships, should be
screened with a continuous row of dense landscaping, at least two feet
tall, or an ornamental fence or railing.
11. Materials and Colors. A degree of compatibility, but not uniformity,
should be brought to new private developrrients through the use of
materials and colors selected from a recommended common palette. The
major concern should be regarding low-quality materials and garish
colors.
12. �Treatment Consistency. The appeazance of all sides of a building should
be consistent in terms of the quality of materials and finishes. Screen
walls and landsca�ing may be used as a substitute for a change of materi-
als on rear walls, or walls which may not be visible by the general public.
13. Pedestrian Circulation. Pedestrians should be able to move with comfort
and security between the public sidewalks and private developments and
between buildings on the same site. As much as possible, pedestrian
walks should be provided directly between adjoining developments to
encourage more pedestrian use.
Pedestrian routes from the street to the building entrances and through
s each site should be clearly defined using building massing and architec-
ture, sidewalks, landscaping and lighting. Awnings and arcades over
windows and doors should be employed to protect pedestrians from the
elements.
14. Bicyclist Facilities. Each development should include a bicycle rack(s),
and sidewalk ramps should be installed at curbs for both bicyclists and the
disabled.
15. Outdoor Eating and/or Seating. Developers should be encouraged to
incorporated, whenever possible, outdoor eating facilities, such as
sidewalk cafes or outdoor eating for restaurants, and outdoor seating.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 67
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROCRAM
16. Si ns. Si ns alon Brookl n Boulevard should be designed to comple-
g g g Y
ment and enhance the Corridor.
Freestanding signs should have a limited number of names and/or
logotypes (a maximum of three). They should be designed to
appear as a single sign from a distance through the use of a
framework of materials consistent with the building facade.
Wall signs should not be white backlit plastic; individual letters are
preferred; colored plastic panels with white or colored letters may
also be acceptable. No bulletin signs (either portable or perma-
nent) should be allowed.
In addition to the relative large site used in the above example, consideration
needs to be given to the development of smaller sites, which most likely will
become more available along the Corridor, as well as mixed-use developments.
Small Site Developments. Figure 28 illustrates how a small, linear site
along the Boulevard might be developed utilizing the recommended
development guidelines. The site is approximately 2.5 acres and the
development represents a small neighborhooci-oriented retail strip and a
free-standing restaurant.
The example illustrates desirable building massing, vehicular circulation,
pedestrian circulation with an internal link between the buildings, screen-
ing for adjoining single-family residential uses, a site focal feature, and
extensive landscaping and edge treatments along Brooklyn Boulevard.
Muzed-Use Developments. Figure 29 illustrates a mixed-use development
on a 3-acre site with commercial retail facilities on the lower level and
residential units or offices above. The development has enclosed parking
for the residential units or offices.
This example illustrates the same desirable site development features as
the Small Site Development and in addition it shows how a taller develop-
ment could be stepped down towards adjoining single-family usese
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 68
i
I
a
0
v ��p
P
e
p
w �v
i
LV �_WI
Figure 28: Small Site Development Option
�c„�� �L� m
mn
Q
o mm
o
i�.'� o �m
j N
�o
i mmo �o�� i
�m o c N
m m� p Q
i i
i i
oA i'
�1
p
�1 J
K�
Figure 29: Mixed- Use Development Option
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 69
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROCRAM
Redevelopment Case Studies
In order to provide examples of the application of the development principles and
guidelines to the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, three special case studies were
prepared: the I-694 to 69th Avenue Area; the 69th Avenue Area; and the 71st
Avenue Area.
I-694 to 69th Avenue Area Special Study
The area on the east side of Bro kl n
o y Boulevard between I-694 and 69th Avenue
will require some redevelopment due to the widening of the roadway. Here the
issue is whether to do only the minimum and try to preserve the area, as much
as possible, as is or whether to consider some redevelopment in order to improve I,
site configurations and access to the parcels.
Existing Conditions (Figure 30). The widening of the roadway will
require acquisition of portions of the parcels on the east side of Brooklyn I
Boulevard, which will result in inadequately sized parcels for the current
uses. In addition, the multiple access points on Brooklyn Boulevard create
y ��;l�► *�I�• f
,L ��i� ti� °o
1' q�' f:
r t �i f
t `����s�
4 V
a
t \�I�, �ti f��
ti
,t f
r �-'r,?�,� �Ilr
"c ,.r �wnlrA�41bj�y�{�
2I I�. (Nd�mobile s�j�,+
o`
`�,i. ��t 0♦ f
��e 1f,' Ih�l�y< ����F•'..�?L� w,.d '!'�rti a .�y e
d �:17, �titbnK� 222 _;S f`�
L i' I ar� 1�;cy�icda
i
�[1 t�4dg4
-'-�l f� �..^i±`��=
i�, A r 1►��
1aL""'��On� I Q
;�tl_t �Y�I�Ip �t� �y,-.'..�. _�r .,.c_
`64�� IfaO[�i+ 7. �-�1�
"�s. 't Io �.w'r�.�:.. i
r ���f�Mds�aQO�� rlrnJa ,w..t..w s
�i 4 1-� V� 4 �T� �a ���a�
i Is�. ''�'j "�T c2
�R�,�� ��IR�r��.t oftkc T C'�'•.� i
f �..�(,r�� �K7. 4. I[rn
nwm �i •'a`r G i 1 R;1.! 'c:l�evrolec�'��
ft ���1 `I
'M1 �.Wa 1ao f i r
4 `Y 'S.�� -1� ,�i� I
4- A% ;f Y i
�i .c
c
i _�t:.''�
Figure 30: I-694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Existing Conditions
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenittes Study 70
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROCRAM
traffic conflicts. The plan also calls for construction of a median with a median
break only at 68th Avenue. This requires changes to the circulation in the study
area. There is also demand to create a stormwater storage pond in the vicinity
of 69th Avenue and the auto dealerships have expressed interest to acquire
additional land for expansion.
Alternative A Fi e 31 This alternative calls for ac uirin the
q g
smaller parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard including the Brookdale Pontiac
site and reconfiguring the parcels to provide larger sites for the two large
automobile dealerships as well as a 2.7-acre site for a stormwater storage
pond. The access point at 68th Avenue would be shared by both automo-
j bile dealerships and each would have one additional acces point (the
second access for Bob Ryan Oldsmobile would be right-in/right-out only).
Alternative B(Figure 32). This alternative is similar to Alternative A,
except that a 1. 8-acre parcel for general commercial uses would be created
at the corner of Brookdale Boulevard and 69th Avenue and the stormwater
ponding site would be only 1.8 acres. The commercial parcel would have
its primary access from 69th Avenue.
Alternative C(Figure 33). This alternative has a larger commercial site
2.2 acres), but a still smaller stormwater ponding area 0.6 acres). The
access point would be shared by all three parcels and there would be room
for a major sign for the whole development.
Alternative D(Figure 34). In this alternative the commercial site is still
larger 3.1 acres) and there is no room for a stormwater storage pond.
The largercommercial site would allow more flexibility in site design,
which might improve its marketability.
In all four alternatives, the reconfigured commercial site could be used to relocate
some of the displaced businesses. The four alternatives present clear choices and
more detailed evaluation, assessment, and discussions need to be held before a
plan is finalized.
69th Avenue Area Special Study
The second case study deals with the quadrant east of Brooklyn Boulevard and
north of 69th Avenue. This area, similar to the area south of 69th Avenue, is
also impacted by the roadway widening and questions arise about how this atea
should be redeveloped.
Brookiyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 7�
1
I �`t'^� ti. 1
r q
w /h ��i► n,t y�
roea+
'y w. i�'�,� :b,.�..�
a f y I
bC" A v t
a�� l \J O a ^a s
s
�t, :4 'f�� ''Yt�r`� *i+ 5
or s i i T,; ,,:r ��1au�
r i�� 1�.
F
?R �,.h� j c7�n r< ���'�'.�b� e
M,
M`^ �o. y ,olt4siilcT,h�lf.�" aa;, x
l `�3,Me����. r
wu"
i ar ,f,,, R.
a� �t�. t.r
f
1nL�n oa 7� j/
j �46 r Frolld t 7 p�
i� 1 V
d,��' pµ �roo�ad�� efena' I •�'yr
C r 4 f f�� •I►
t j �'Vf �a� ,y "'�'!X f C 7 .e��
a� [1AS�PoFt Uft7cC t. *a i I
t
t
�t f nonn d Y Z q. '�j; �j�� _'c�.r i ti��l
i� r r A�
'0 W 100 200
.y' 'd *i�.._ Y
V C'.� i
1 e'` l�
4. r
Figure 31: I-694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative A
�D,R'
^i� y
�'�r� y"'� jI"`Po u»�
s
Arc� 7
l ij ���.x.acveT
��a��� :�s
17► YSttc F �E'
i.- wN)xklon
i
c
'�;b F °S�'
w� a
,�l� J �r- 4!�. J
C i. e l'`,'� ,,5, r vS�.K x-
v�
e� ,i r,i
O� r �ti a'�� Bob Rvan'
.f y, /f a� �x.n r.. O
W m(U iM.�. 9 hn'eeq „x
��,�d i +Ke..� 3
L J i j i'° Y f���
�.o
�a�' l u p; �1
a'k.. �L �1 Holid� �F
Y..�r�il�� �o �bl� Handa �r Y i�" S`
C f �f..,� �r'� �+4xc E
-r ,l �s d y� i
d
%Y i l �I
f` j Ts� mn Q 4 j'�� Ix
�f �t r' i ros� o R�' "•7t ��ew F b� i
s C j- w�m O a„ r�^ b ,�C .�ua� chev.nle��� ti i
fArs.
r. `°�i
.'ro o �m mo t W `p '���a f� �x I
t f` �y t, f
Y l �S. .i ��t�J
I
Figure 32: I-694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative B
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Stucly 72
s I
�I�,� E
I� y ..-.�-r� Po����
�1' 1. i� fI ytorQ wrt
y T� �i.' M 14i7��
�„a1iID
L F s;► r
1.s f yj
���q�ttlun
y aOa��..' �Y F �R'+��
r l` s j 4
i `X #��rl� t' 'y .�il►
's� v,.y �ra :n�„ x° r ;:�`a5�' 2 l..�
Q` MiF 1 ll3�b Ryan
O r r r�� Ol �obile f I
,i t l Aw.�..s�.�nn," 0� a'
iI f
c� Co 'aL 4u. yP
i
�l �17n ry�� �urM�* u .`;��de-�� i
L A
-t I
4Na
�il.��L7.QO.L._� V I�
�,,i, Pw��,�.. j�, /�j�,�,w�; M 1
t
�.,pi`°updd��0at Henda �'r r�` �i
i r 1 .:7� c �4�' l a r y�, f�
i ti'r� J C
.5 7i S.`royi ora�c �j �`C�/ .1� �„e r\ F bq b`
f` �'�f r��'� f ��P' tren
I rronn G' bf 4 chev�oteo,�` J�
r� R �si'� i
,oa
r ,y y '�1►
s v� a:
1 Figure 33: I-694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative C
1 .s f
�.'�w�.�
V� �i i �oqulaitlon y�,•. F
.r /f"'•
R'
c��� I
s s 4 iv<�kd91/ I
b�.� �s 7 y t„ °r� �I
klcrea J E
,I `t,�y,. T .t• +y 4 I',
Qp �i 'r `_X1i��� .,�7,
o Q' 4 4 9 'J Bol��
r Yri Oldsmob'
r
�Y L i'. i n�na�:
i/ C crcc� �t.
Rc�h, aunt
.C, y5.�.• (3. t.\ �r�1 ,t .���uy M�niy�jeui 5 I
Y r
T'► y 1...4— a�y�i�
--n,_--
111.��L�.QO.L di 'r y-
ruuPY i+,— �r•_. D
GG i �Ho I
r �V ud J is 1 r a,,,�� i� �I
'T E
7 .��Poac� H�,a� �1� z; �r I
�l eti'_ t a �'+6�c F,�, I
l�s: ros� ofa« i I,� Q'� b� �!r I
�M L I�� t''., Ilew
r,e,m 4, r'�Y' �'cnev�o�a.� r,� i
f� ti s�.
i �p�,
`0 l�iw �DO r �4 �.+P Y,
4 r C—�� f �L�ti� f
m .-_1 t _��1. .Rh.
Fagure 34: I-694 to 69th Ave. Area Special Study Alternative D
Brooklyn Boulevarcl Streetscape Amenities Study 73
IX REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The 69th Avenue area ty ifies a situation where the immediate
P
needs or impacts may appear to be relatively small, but the
opportunities for redevelopment and enhancements may be,
upon closer inspection, much greater than anticipated.
Forces/Issues
Figure 35 illustrates the Forces/Issues which impact this area and which should
be taken into consideration in preparing any plans for the 69th Avenue area. The
key Forces/Issues are:
Redevelopment Site Configuration
The site immediately adjacent to the corner, between Brooklyn Boulevard,
June Avenue, and 70th Avenue is the most likely candidate for redevelop-
ment. Parts of this area will need to be acquired for widening of Brook-
lyn Boulevard and some of the buildings are showing their age. There has
been infringement, as the commercial parking needs have grown, on the
residential area along June Avenue.
I The o timum solution in order to establish a clear bound with the
P �'Y
residential areas to the east and to utilize the median break on 69th
Avenue, would be to acquire all the houses on June Avenue for redevelop-
ment. This would create a arcel of a roximatel 4.5 acres.
P PP Y
An additional factor in determining the size of the redevelopment area is
the St. Alphonsus Church site north of 70th Avenue, which is underuti-
lized and a prime candidate for redevelopment. Also, the two residential
units on Brooklyn Boulevard, north of 70th Avenue are incompatible with
the character of Brooklyn Boulevard. The overall potential redevelopment
area, including the small office building and the small apartment complex,
could be 15 acres, or more.
Area Vehicular Circulation and Site Access
The two key access points to the larger redevelopment site would be from
Brooklyn Boulevard at 70th Street and from 69th Avenue just west of
Indiana Avenue.
These access points need to be coordinated with access
needs across Brooklyn Boulevard to the west and across
69th Avenue to the south.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenittes Study 74
��•c:.�. w �+m
°d ,j..�� `y T i k .:;I
v 1 r�i,
:f '�i� i:�K
,r:c M
U°der �'c�
utlltaed i �'rtr�� R€
Iu t Sitt i' 0l I *O` r. s 1' ,x
I) Rclootbeof I ��-f�rc� a s�
A ent 1 F wd schoolj
�(?3� �`--JL--�°�'-�J 1 y� 3
y
—�i�r—
I I IJ' s d
�,I u� I I �.s
�n�ro`,�� �'�,`S` I r 4
I I v� sn��-.
`nr I
o� J i c�� r 'v«m n�
�mn�
�1�� r F u.. Y�� ��a-� �C`�.
J Y ��,I rimnry Q?� �ul �vsc� �..i+'�. d6 �da..
.���rdln:it�. Red�v�lopnutit[ d .q� pedestrian .r
qra�p,ss n f Ar�a j n i' �csa _f u r y
p- S�ro �'R .�i .,I 4s..� x d A i
��'$�Mcvard..,. aW ,'�`�"-'�'•'l°�°`«RC�/ �aUe�
$Sr w 0 G�1`-D�S�c�,� af�� E
F �+e�l� r� �i i: Lacli:uuAv�
c
P w r't/` ^f 4
q�developument R1�ht tN-r c.. 1� and Movt 3tce 6
e- �te Acu.'ss R1�ht Out .1���: I ^�i e� ,'f. 1':t .Waea��r �i
l o R .J ..���Y� I a+l tht F�S[ (tJy Y i� y
L�
i„.
�-ASenue J s
�'r+.Y4 O
.v1:... i �t,�_ v+w�..�l..l PO� ACCG43 �O S�IC .i.... .:.i�!,i
u �o ,at ano r ien� Ea sad �j
�.sM i¢pmeut D,4�[ P iax Needs [op�
y+w. 4 �w,-� �1 ry -"�"s� g
Figure 35: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Forces Issues
y f�
.f igy j i'',:� S
`.I i i,, I r'� f1+r �,J k
t i 1 ;m�
,,vi a� D r ;;ak` y' �J v -�si
<r e�.
Bou'i�i�ta
;�i. I '.n���
4.4.Acies tt �a,
I�3gh-Density I r-- an.� j�
llesidential ,i 1�� Y' �h�
100:UailS I
22 Unies/e��e g r'� �S,�
i
"m� a r�.
a- f; `s a�y y�
1.4 acres: I ^9u,
Rest��urant f�� �OO l�rking SP� �r��?'
80 kartdn S es C�J °SS/1i900)
S P�
(10/1,000)� I I i;:�
i l�� r°�
L�r�-. v��
I d
ay
a, b6E s r.� 'SR
H7c�sHn ��;P.� �..c'- 5
OfHceBail¢Ing a i
T
i n k a' P
i �r �l _I
6 3 Acrei"
�t F T
4 70 $�SP
Y I 2�5rarkm�s�� s I �._,a i
,r Y I l, C�f/100�), i I,,, 7 s
Nqw'
`y R �'.A 4�s�.�'�� ti7
M, 0 BO 100 Z00 Y n�-_ x �„��1 rl 'r i V Y i m'/i�Y �.,.1 "�i
�r G s� a �Y M �r^� Y+
Figure 36: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept A
i
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amentties Study 75
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROCRAM
Other traffic issues concern the status of 70th Street (should it stay open
or should it be closed), access to the Church parking lots, circulation
through the adjoining residential neighborhoods, and additional right-
in/right-out access locations.
Area Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
All plans for the area should provide for convenient pedestrian/bicycle
circulation to and from the adjoining neighborhoods and within the
developments thernselves.
St. Alphonsus Church Site
Although St. Alphonsus Church may have an underutilized site, it still
needs to accommodate all required functions such as a play feld, recre-
ation areas, and parking.
t Buffering and Screening
The adjoining residential areas should be buffered or screened from
intrusive visual impacts.
Redevelopment Program
The redevelopment program should take into consideration the needs of
the neighborhood and the City. Since this area has been identified as the
site for a neighborhood-oriented commercial node, the developments
should be geared, at least partially, towards providing services and retail
facilities for the adjoining residential areas.
Another development component might be multi-family or senior housinge
St. Alphonsus Church representatives have expressed an interest in senior
housing and this might be included in the program. Currently, the City
is undertaking an economic study for this redevelopment area which will
help establish the level of demand for retail and housing facilities.
Phased Developments
Because the total site ma not become available at one time the develo
Y P
ments should be able to be staged and be able to operate as self-sufficient,
independent units.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Stuqy 76
IX. REDEVE40PMENT PROCRAM
Redevelo ment Conce ts
P P
Based upon the Forces/Issues Analysis, four concept diagrams were prepared for
how the site might be developed. All the concept alternatives represent rnulti-use
developments including medium to high-density housing, offices, restaurants, and
retail and service commercial uses. The tota.l assumed redevelopment site is
approximately 18 acres.
Concept A
Concept A(Figure 36) represents a multi-use development with its
primary orientation and statement at the corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and
69th Avenue. The project includes the following: a multi-tenant retail
1 complex at the corner with one row of parking along the street fronta.ges
and additional parking in the back; the existing small office building north
of 70th Avenue; a free standing restaurant north of the office building; a
single-tenant or multi-tenant retail complex north of 70th Avenue, adjacent
to the Church property; and a medium to high-density residential complex
at the north end of the site. Major features or issues of Concept A are:
It places a neighborhood-oriented commercial complex close to the
intersection thus establishing a"strong" presence on Brooklyn
Boulevard and providing easy access to the retail from the adjoin-
ing neighborhoods.
The large retail facility north of 70th Avenue may be set too far
back from the Boulevard and it creates a barrier for St. Alphonsus
Church.
The lan calls for vacatin arts of 70th Avenue re uiring all
P gP q
traffic destined to the residential neighborhood or to St. Alphonsus
i Church to use Indiana and Halifax Avenues.
Concept B
Concept B(Figure 37) represents a multi-use and/or mixed-use develop-
ment which is totally oriented to Brooklyn Boulevard. Although it curves
back from Brooklyn Boulevard in the vicinity of 70th Avenue, a large
civic plaza or small park at 70th Avenue and the fact that all front doors
and access faces the roadway, give it a strong "presence" on Brooklyn
Boulevard.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 7�
4 q rs ',yy
�l�r� -"t�.��} M�� l� .��qf" M5 t .�.I
��tti .r� .f t t "ii d �ii. g v. �5�:
c u s� °�Mr +�c..
7 �.�t� b� r� �M�
I
F `.N�V T
K
W( Y I $tlf��eel�
i BeQ�$� '�*�e
i;� i f
4.vAcrea �.�`H'` "i6a'�k" '<:�h. "r.:
D I
y ��`°slty r-- i a °x
A b 3.� wcm
1 �i A.._._ r i
&v�IT/ .+r`
g i
.$e53denlf2�l) g
�C. I �M1,p__ �^'0'
a �;F.•
c.�. r �.+1
o
rt y� r. i 1
�c i i ...t I
,yy7 8 �'F t �o� !C�-
i� "�i. 9� d+�o y 3 I pY
"T" v
i ga �Y �R t j .�a�.
t=; t S I f C7�s.
„a.. r j ,i I
L
'�q I y i ,1;! .1
c-.. a 7
�i ey� pa �t tr �:I I"1 BetafUEesid4Pd� ��F
or Otfice
i �..---lE t
�.�I y I
*.<l_;:w.-J�G� �9
a+�=c¢
4 r,------a� r a 1 ^r- s-,
0 9p 700�� 200 .,�w.... k�:..�.. Q, Y 7
�t�� �1
4 u� a4Y'�'�,-._.f „a f� c F A
Figure 37: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept B
s
�i.� fi i `�1� �1� �T 3 �a
t
t .a._..
j
t.� e�M t li I i +.'a.�.
r i Rau�nrea
x`: i Ball Firld• 4 �Gt,'
ms
'Y I x
I I a.�
I
,4.4 Acres I
��'Drnslly I
....esidenHal u I, d
J/ f���
f �J t NI�yJArra i d F
T 2 0A il rs es I S
�.a actu S�csiddntlal .�y,�,-
P nt ay I
j
4 Acres-.
Fxic ting C�. '�Ok:; '��....:�'.�h
i
OfHccBuildhig i. i� v� �6
5^
v N I
9 n S
I 9 Acres I' i►"�"
a a.� r._�.AfIIce
�r 5 5 Acree'' f z
Retall Y f� 7. MFA- L f �i� i ci
q t v, �+1 �.�r i d T W
t 4 �''t� iy,
3� i PRC r, i
^��C 'k ���V 1 A 11
s .5 .Y ��-T E, i f
y
y II� I
+K, aj
N i',/ I
l __..s; 7 u
-..G _�=-fr' '%A`6AnUe
m w r P 9 i ,.�t T e�+
.u, e 1 -S ..r `s s �f
Figure 38: 69th Avenue Area Special Study Concept C
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenitles Study 78
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROCRAM
In addition to the uses listed in Concept A, Concept B also includes office
uses and, potentially, a greater vaziety of residential unit types.
The complex at the corner could have retail on the ground floor and
residential or office uses above. The building east of the plaza could have
retail on the ground floor and offices above with the office parking on the
east side of the building. The office parking could then be used as a
shared parking facility with the Church, thus reducing the overall parking
requirements. The building north of the plaza could have retail or a
restaurant on the first level with market-rate housing or a special assisted
living complex on the upper levels. The northern parcel would be
residential.
Major features ar issues of Concept B are:
It provides convenient shopping for the adjommg residential
neighborhoods and it has a strong "presence" on Brooklyn Boule-
vard.
The developments would be interconnected by a direct and conve-
nient pedestrian circulation system, which also provides links to
the adjoining neighborhoods.
The plaza could be a focal feature for the development and an
amenity for Brooklyn Boulevard.
Keeping 70th Avenue open would provide convenient access to the
developments as well as to the Church, reducing traffic impacts on
the adjoining residential areas.
The shared parking would be a benefit to the developments and the
Church.
Concept C
Conce t C Fi ure 38 re resents a multi-use and/or mixed-use develop-
P g P
ment which is oriented to a plaza located, approximately, at the intersec-
tion of 70th Avenue and June Avenue. Concept C could include all the
uses listed under Concept B.
In order to m�imize density, the development includes a small parking
ramp in the southeast corner. The ramp would not be necessary if the
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Stucly 79
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
development intensity is lowered. In this alternative, 70th Avenue is kept
open to traffic, but it also serves as a parking mall with perpendicular
pazking on both sides of the street.
Major features or issues of Concept C are:
The laza creates a stron focus for the develo ments. However,
P g A
the focus is located away from Braoklyn Boulevard. Because the
primary front facades would be oriented to 70th Avenue and the
internal north-south pedestrian way, the impression will be that the
developments have the "back sides" to Brooklyn Boulevard.
Although 70the Avenue is not expected �o carry a large volume of
traffic, the perpendicular parking on 70th Avenue might create a
conflict with through-traffic.
There is less opportunity for shared parking with the Church,
unless the parking ramp is designated for Church use. The
distance from the ramp to the Church might be an issue.
This type of a development might prove to be hard to market,
since many of the businesses would not have direct exposure to
Brooklyn Boulevard or any other major roadway.
The three alternatives for redeveloping the 69th Avenue area present three
relatively distinct choices:
Concept A is closest to a typical suburban model where the developments
are free-standing and fronted by large parking lots
Concept B represents a somewhat "traditional", or historic, model where
the developments have a strong orientation to the street
Concept C represents a model of a small town or node where the major
roadway has bypassed it and the focus no longer is og the roadway
An evaluation of the three alternatives, resulted in the selection of Concept B as
the most desirable model for development in the 69th Avenue area. Concept B
represents one layout for developing the area. There might be numerous other
configurations which could fit the desired model.
Brooklyn Boulevarc! Streetscape Amenities Study 80
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The City should work with developers to aclueve a plan which
incorporates the characteristics represented by Concept B, yet
is feasible to achieve ia today's market environment.
71st Avenue Area Special Study
The third special study area is located along 71st Avenue west of Brooklyn
Boulevard. This area consists of a small residential "pocket", consisting of
eleven single-family homes located between the medium-density housing complex
to the north and west and Willow Lane School to the south.
Forces/Issues
Following is a description of the Forces/Issues (Figure 39), which impact this
area:
Through Traffic. The through traffic on 71st Avenue/Perry Avenue is
a negative impact on this single-family residential area. The City has
considered various alternatives for discouraging through traffic.
Underutilized Sites. The area has a number of vacant parcels including
the two parcels at the corner of Brooklyn Boulevard and 71st Avenue. In
addition, the corner of the Willow Lane School site adjacent to Brooklyn
Boulevard is underutilized and could be used for development. However,
if this corner of the School site is developed, it may have to be replaced,
in kind, somewhere else.
Incompatible Use. The single-family residence adjacent to Brooklyn
Boulevard is too close to a high-traffic artery and should be removed.
Higher-Density Housing Potential. A close examination of the medium-
density housing complex to the north reveals that there are two dead-end
streets which are inconsitent with the rest of the development pattern.
Itappears that the original plan must have included a loop extension to the
south with additional units located along the school property.
Redevelopment Concepts
Concept A
r Concept A(Figure 40) represents a plan where the single-family residen-
tial pocket is converted to medium-density housing. The medium-density
Brooktyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 81
'J
'a t h., �1
�a �y�,.
"V/rcl7!l'wll. 41Q�ulb.ed "t'.1 4' �i 3'
InleniYtlan.
SlnFinPNIPIh'rteRlMntlal. J k�-
�n Ileooklyn tlwkn[d flnw�WS'n Ibukvud
d
;r RZI J '�I
�g RS
t t «u i Lr-�"
ta '9' B
u4aww�aQ, i
�a eR�� i
o�arts�.�n `r
i ..1 0 I '.1
y
,n
F w 7�,�_- �H,H, s
LI:�'�
r
3� "a./ ��1
r� �i a
i i
Figure �y: 71st Avenue Area Special Study Forces Issues
F f
x 3..
LT
T y� 3 f s
��',r�lA'+If� v
z
1!'
6fouY1 u tloulc�wd
1°&'�'�
y �4
n j�'�} s n ,l
�w!W" M RO1�a;�� q
_r.. �oR�.c�ar�
t-
f� a
Figure 40: 71st Avenue Area Special Study Concept A
r
i
(Ofllce/RCttlll -A 1�
R Iit.flf k- Sitr(LSMe!)� sY.
rnF Pn.�n+eed C7
U�1�SIrzc�TrW tlniukl�'i�li�ii�li.:�rii
�.S 4 T i dfifun e U �1I
n`� _�Y 1
O ��7 o
f q s 1
Y 3
.Vn MalrWln
%WNSpr p� y
A�c.ee J/
�W� W�e
1
�l.�
a
w y='+
'�c.+ ic:Y'
Figure 41: 71 st Avenue Area Special Study Concept B
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 82
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
housin com lex would ain a second access point at the 71st Avenue
g P g
intersection and the circulation within the complex would be vastly
improved, due to the completion of the loop system. Perry Avenuewould
be terminated in a cul-de-sac at the edge of the Willow Lane School
property.
The Willow Lane School property would remain as is. This option
resolves most of the issues and replaces a low-density residential develop-
ment with a higher-density residential development that is much more
compatible with the Brooklyn Boulevard environment.
Concept B
Concept B(Figure 41) also replaces all the single-family houses, except
one, with higher-density developments. This option adds fewer medium-
density housing units, but it maximizes the opportunities along Brooklyn
Boulevard by creating a new, two-and-a-half-acre commercial parcel just
south of the 71st Avenue intersection.
This plan takes advantage of the underutilized corner of the Willow Lane
School site by trading it for a same-size site on the north edge of the
School property, which creates a better parcel configuration for the
School.
This option also resolves most of the site development forces and issues
and it takes better advantage of the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage and
exposure.
Both options present reasonable redevelopment choicesa A key issue for the 71st
Avenue area is the question of funding and what process should be used to
acquire the properties and redevelop the sites.
Redevelopment Plan
1
The potential redevelopment parcels and their staging is illustrated in Figure 42:
Corridor Redevelopment Plan. The recommended redevelopment staging
priorities are based on current City plans and on the anticipated needs in the
Corridor and are as follows:
Brooklyn Bouievard Streetscape Amenities Study 83
,s
t
F.� K
a
i'�� ti
k Y.� r' ��.0 h{ r!N F e K f A F K
z
1 P t 1 1
1� �J y Y
i y i�--��
g �l�� J 1. �a•:.tF ��_s
E."'n'a�' A _�;�f t,�_�
rt p o x i�� „o-.
v �f�M.I�FH- \�d
�A
T v
i
.r' a t`�'�n 'ti,, .�a,
q�
Y z `t �1.�.
a� t 'o Y '�5 3
v
Y yl
.a6. +'�f�'-..- 1Y.x.�.T` t
I n. v a n
c i .`�l u-
i
S
F Q
y j
3 r X X
4 i z i
1 a u r
��rdAVe i
a
1 s �j�,�
C 4 'f 1' a fJt
y/ f q
��k �����LG�
c C i�
Y
n
i
4..
F
Q ti
S7� x.
k a A �,.r l
1 M� 3 Z .4
t ��F s ',J 1 rI 1 y
l� 5
i �fY
8A s�
�t
�A
a
t a'
a
I �1�''� t�. zt M
y f
''V
1 1 t r
�Fr '1��- ��+v t
a. t x
i r Z
f �s r�' t�'� t�
a" `,t-
1 x �l
fi
s,F
S 4�:
U
h.. t
s,
`t
Legend
�i, Redevelopment Predominant
Q� gtagin8 Land Use
una cs< ore�u
3 mtemaln cnmmernal
r`.:' 1 T prym�ry Highe .Deneity
f Rcdevelopment Arce Raldcntiil
i E:p�oded or Sccondery WbUc�
....Y Redcvebpmea[ Area Imtimtbnal
1 s�,p„ r�w�+ty
r
1
J 9 ��i' F, NerM
-+r�.-�-'�{ L�._=� q a.
�i
3 o !oo t000 1a00
Figure 42: Corridor Redevelopment Plan
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROCRAM
The first area to be redeveloped will be the stormwater pond/MTC Park-
and-Ride Facility just south of I-694, which is already in the early
planning sta.ges.
The next highest priority for redevelopment is the sites north of I-694,
because of the widening of Brooklyn Boulevard. The redevelopment of
the parcels in this segment should ideally occur at the same time as the
roadway widening project. That way there will be less disruption and the
disruption in the area will occur for a shorter period of time.
The next group of sites to be redeveloped should be the ones in the central
segment of the Corridor, between 58th Avenue and I-694. Redevelopment
of these sites will help strengthen the commercial core.
The sites south of 58th Avenue should be redeveloped laste
Following is a list and a brief description of the issues for each of the redevelop-
ment sites identified in Figure 42. The grouping of redeveloprnent areas under
one number, such as 2A and 2B, indicates redevelopment parcels with interrelated
or similar issues that should be redeveloped in approximately the same timeframe.
The issues and forces impacting the redevelopment areas are illustrated in greater
detail in Figures 10 through 13.
1. Stormwater Pond and Park-and-Ride Facility South of I-69A. This
will require the acquisition of seven houses on Brooklyn Boulevard and
fourteen houses all together. This will dramatically improve the traffic
circulation on Brooklyn Boulevard by eliminating six residential curb cuts
in the very critical roadway segment around I-694.
2A. Commercial Redevelopment and Stormwater Storage Pond. This area
I needs to be redeveloped due to the widening of Brooklyn Boulevard. A
stormwater pond shouid be developed as part of the redevelopment.
The area is discussed in greater detail in the previous section under I-694
to 69th Avenue Area Special Study.
2B. Commercial/Residential Redevelopment. This area needs to be redevel-
oped due to the proposed widening of Brooklyn Boulevardo The key issues
are: 1) the size of the redevelopment site and whether the housing along
June Avenue should be included in the redevelopment project; 2) redevel-
opment of the properties along Brooklyn Boulevard north of 70th Avenue;
and 3) redevelopment of portions of the St. Alphonsus Church srte.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 85
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The area is d.sc in reater deta.il in the revious section under 69th
ussed
g P
Avenue Area Special Study.
3. Redevelo ment of Sin le-Famil Residential Stri The ke issues are:
P g Y P Y
1) firture widening of 69th Avenue; 2) size of parcel and inclusion of
houses along Lee Avenue; 3) site access; and 4) buffering for the adjoin-
ing residential area.
4. Commercial Use/Access. The key issues are: 1) land use and 2) access.
5. Redevelopment of Single-Family Residential "Pocket". This area could
be redeveloped to mitigate some of the adverse impacts and to intensify
i
the site utilization.
The area is discussed in greater detail in the previous section under 71st
Avenue Area Special Study.
1 6A. Commercial Redevelopment. This area could be redeveloped to a
higher-density, multi-use or mixed-use development. This area has been
identified as the potential "Town Center" commercial site, which would
serve as a neighborhood-oriented commercial center and as the focal area
of the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor.
B Red v 1 me Thi includes sin le-famil houses alon
e e�r nt Site. s area g y g
Brooklyn Boulevard which need to be redeveloped. The key issues are:
1) size of redevelopment site and how much of the single-fa.mily area
should be considered for redevelopment; 2) whether the City Fire Station
and Liquor Store should be included in the redevelopment; and 3) what
the redevelopment program should be. This area has been identified as
a higher-density residential area for the "Town Center" complex. Other
uses could be retail or office. If the use is residential, the redevelopment
could extend to Beard Avenue. If it is commercial, a boundary should be
established at the back line of the houses facmg Beard Avenue.
I�� 6C. Redevelopment of Single-Family Residential Strip. The key issues are:
1) size of the parcel and whether the houses along France Avenue should
be included; 2) whether the access to Brooklyn Boulevard at Halifa�c Drive
should stay; and 3) development program. This could be a higher�density
residential or a commercial/office redevelopment project.
7. Redevelopment of Single-Family Strip and "Pocket". The key issues
are: 1) because of its proximity to and visibility from I-694, this would be
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Stuciy 86
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROCRAM
an ideal commercial redevelo ment site, however, it could also be a
P
higher-density residential site; 2) size of redevelopment parcel and
whether it should extend to Ewing Avenue; and 3) access to Brooklyn
Boulevard. Because of the weaving distances and access requirements to
the ramps at I-694, the only full access point would be at the signalized
65th Avenue intersection, which means that site access from the north
would be on 65th Avenue/Ewing Avenue only. A right-in/right-out only
access point might be permissible at the current France Avenue access
point.
8A. Redevelopment of Single-Family Strip. This site would be an ideal
location for a neighborhood-oriented small commercial center, which
could service the residential areas to the west. The key issues are: 1) size
of parcel; 2) whether houses along Drew Avenue should be included; and
3) site access.
8b. Redevelopment of Single-Family Strip. The key issues are: 1) size of
site and 2) access at 61st Avenue.
9. Future of Single-Family Strip. The key issues are: 1) the corner site,
which is zoned C-1, is too small a site for redevelopment; 2) the houses
facing 59th Avenue are impacted by the traffic which uses 59th Avenue
as a shortcut; and 3) whether this strip of land could be better utilized for
I commercial ex ansion.
P
10. Redevelopment "Pocket". This area includes a funeral home and some
adjacent parcels which are underutilized, but which have been considered
for the funeral home expansion. The area needs to be reevaluated,
including the issue of traffic which uses 60th Avenue through the residen-
tial neighborhoods as a route to the Little League Ballfields to the east.
f
11A. Redevelo ment of Sin le-Famil Residential Strip. In the uture,
P g Y
because of its location and visibility, this area may be under great pressure
to change. The key issues are: 1) its proximity to Brookdale Mall and
great visibility from Brooklyn Boulevard make this area a potential
candidate for commercial expansion (already, the area at 56th Avenue has
been converted to office uses); 2) in spite of a great location and visibility,
the area lacks good vehicular access (the only access point is at SSth
Avenue); and 3) the existing uses are located on a frontage road which is
separated from Brooklyn Boulevard by a buffer strip.
I 'i Brooklyn Boulevarcl Streetscape Amenities Study 87
i
IX. REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
In light of the recommendation, discussed in section V. Framework Plan,
to concentrate new commercial developments in the central portion of the
Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor north of 58th Avenue, this area should not
be considered, at this time, for commercial uses. However, it might be
considered for higher-density residential uses, which could be screened
from Brooklyn Boulevard by introducing a landscaped screen along the
frontage road, as discussed in section VIII. Improvement Programe
11B. Redevelopment of Single-Family Residential Strip. This area is similar
to Redevelopment Area 11A and the same issues and recommendations
aPP
12. Redevelopment of Nursery Site. The nursery site has been considered
for redevelopment to higher-density residential. This use would be
appropriate for the location, especially, because it adjoins Happy Hollow
Park.
This Redevelopment Staging Plan represents a rough estimate of how redevelop-
ment might occur. Site-specific conditions and development pressures may dictate
otherwise. Although it is recommended that the City respond to the situations
where the redevelopment pressures are the greatest, this Plan will help set some
priorities and should help in situations where clear choices are not obvious.
Brooklyn Boulevarci Streetscape Amenities Study 88
X. IMPLEMENTATION
Followin is a brief outline of the ke ste s for im lementin the streetsca e
I g Y P P g P
enhancement program, the development guidelines, and the site redeveloptnent
program.
impiementation of Streetscape Enhancements
The City has already taken the first step in the implementation of the Streetscape
Enhancement Program. An application was submitted by the City in March,
1994, for a$500,000 ISTEA grant to fund a portion of�the Phase 1 improvements
(see Section Vlli. Improvement Program). In addition to the ISTEA grant,
additional funds will be required to fund the total Phase 1 project. Other funding
which might be considered includes TIF funds and special assessments.
t The City will need to evaluate these funding options and establish a specific
funding program. Future phases of the Streetscape Enhancement program will
have to be funded in a similar way.
Implementation of Development Guidelines
Following is a description of potential methods for implementing the development
guidelines, an overview of the status of discretionary controls, and recommenda-
tions for implementation.
Methods for Implementation
Many of the design guidelines recommended for private developments, listed in
I section IX. Redevelopment Program, probably can not be accomplished by using
I only the zoning regulations and districts currently in place in Brooklyn Center.
This is because the proposed development or design guidelines are either different
(e.ge, building setbacks), ambiguous (eeg., compatible building materials and
colors) or novel (e.g., pitched roofs). Therefore, a ne�v approach may be
required.
Available Methods
Methods for implementing the recommended development and design
guidelines could include one or more of the following:
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 89
I�
X. IMPLEMENTATION
Peer and community pressure.
Negotiated agreements as part of the development approval
process.
1 Rezoning to another existing zoning district, especially the Planned
Unit District.
Creation and use of new zoning districts.
Creation and use of an overlay zoning district for the Corridor.
Overview of Zoning Controls
Zoning regulations for the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor (or any other
location) should have the following characteristics if they are to withstand
legal challenges.
1. Relationship to the PubGc Interest
The public interest must be defined and agreed upon (at least in
consensus). There must be a clear and understandable connection
between the public interest and the regulations. The regulations
must be written to serve the public interest but not overstep those
bounds.
The public interest is often a balance between the collective
property rights of the community (eeg., safety economic develop-
ment, beauty) and the private property rights of individuals (e.g.,
quiet enjoyment, economic return). The definition of the. public
interest must be negotiated in each case with those who would be
affected by the regulations. Consequently, the level of accepta.ble
regulation will vary from one situation to another. It may, for
example, be lower in a rural setting than an urban neighborhood
with historic and architectural importance.
2. Due Process
The public interest must be defined through a process that is
logical, is reasonable, and involves the public in a meaningful and
constructive way. Plans and policies should serve as the basis of
the regulations, and the public should be mvolved in their prepara-
Brooklyn Bouievard Streetscape Amenities Study 90
X. IMPLEMENTATION
tion, review and adoption. Any policies, maps, illustrations or
other guiding features of such plans should have minimal ambigu-
ity if they are referenced in the regulations and used to give
direction or wisdom to the interpreters of the regulations. The
regulations must be administered in a way that treats each affected
landowner fairly relative to other landowners. Interpretations must
n n
not be arbitrary and capricious.
Approaches of Other Communities
A survey was conducted of other suburban Twin Cities communities to
i discover what approaches they are taking to corridor design and planning
regulations. Most have corridor plans in place and are using standard
zoning districts and site plan review. Tu� increment financing is used to
assist redevelopment in many cases. Richfield expects to adopt overlay
zones for their several corridors. A description of the various approaches
is presented in Table 3.
Status of Discretionary Controls
Over the years, courts have upheld the right of communities to pass zoning laws
that go beyond nuisance control and protect community aesthetics. While local
governments must still proceed carefully in enacting and implementing aesthetic-
based laws (just as they must with any land-use regulation), particularly where
they might impinge on forms of communication protected by the First Amend-
ment's guarantee of freedom of speech (as in sign ordinances), they have great
leeway in acting to protect community aesthetics.
There has also been a trend toward zoning regulations giving greater discretion
to the public. Early zoning was rigid and specified about what was allowed and
where. The system was supposed to be neat, orderly, and efficient. While
continuing to pay homage to conventional zoning wisdom, communities have
modified many of its elements and tacked on a whole, often uncoordinated, array
of devices that allow greater flexibility to developers and/or give greater power
to the public. a
What exists now is the widespread use of "wait and see" techniques that provide
t communities with an opportunity to make final development decisions at the time
development occurs. The old flexible techniques variances, special use permits
and rezonings remain, but their use has been expanded. To them have been
added many new devices designed to accommodate special development consider-
ations. Such techniques include:
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 91
X. IMPLEMENTATION
Table 3
Survey of Land Use Controls and Incentives
in Arterial Corridors of the Twin Cities
Site Corridor
Zoning Plan Plan in TIF
City Corridor Used Review Effect Used Comments
Brooklyn Brooklyn Stan- Yes Yes Yes The City is not satisfied with the
Park Boule- dard economic development or aesthetic
vard districts results achieved in recent years.
Seeicing to implement a major land-
scaping effort consistent with the
general corridor piane
1 Crystal Co. Propos- Yes Yes; Pro- The recent corridor plan is expected
Road 81 es uses 1992. posed to be implemented using PUD pro-
of PUD cess and site plan review for subjec-
tive interpretation and applicaHon of
the corridor plan during redevelop-
ment.
Crystal Bass Stan- Yes Yes, Yes Corridor plan has been implemented
Lake dard 1985. using extensive public property
Road districts acquisition and resale with design
agreements; major public invest-
ments in lighting, landscaping and
roadways.
Robbins- Co. Stan- Yes No Yes Site planning controi has been exer-
dale Road 81; dard cised through City financial partici-
West districts pation in redevelopment. The City
Broad- staff feel that the cunent zoning
Way pattern is not appropriate in all cases
and that redevelopment has succeed-
ed in spite of the zoning controls.
New 42nd Stan- Yes Yes Yes The corridor plan includes public
Hope -t�venue dard- and private design guidelines. Pub-
districts lic lighting and landscaping im-
provements were accomplished with
TIF. Private aestheHc improvements
during redevelopment (or modem-
ization) aze promoted with TIF
funds and negotiation. Zoning was
changed from a mixture of commer-
cial, industrial and residential to a
°'shopping center" distric.
1
Brooklyn Boulevarc! Streetscape Amenities Stucly 92
i
X. IMPLEMENTATION
Table 3 (Continued
I
Site Corridor
Zoning Plan Plan in TIF
City Corridor Used Review Effect Qsed Comments
Fridley Univer- Stan- Yes Yes, No The City has not accomplished many
sity Ave- dard 1985 aesthetic improvements nor made
nue dishicts any extraordinary strides with eco-
nomic development along University
Avenue. Possibility of LRT has put
streetscape improvements on hold.
Council has taken a conservative
approach to the corridor.
Richfield Lyndale, Stan- Yes Yes Yes Richfield is updating its comprehen-
Penn, dard sive plan and devising specific
Nicollet, districts guidelines that will address parking,
66th St. now; access, signage, landscaping, lighting
expect and site planning for each of several
to use corridors. The City expects to use
overlay overlay zoning to implement the
in fu° guidelines of each of these planning
ture. dlstricts, which will be individually
tailored for each corridor. The cur-
rent underlying zoning will be re-
tained.
St. Louis High- Stan- Yes Yes, Yes Some public landscaping and light-
Pazk way 7 dard 1984. ing improvements have been made
districts using TIF. Private improvements
have been accomplished during city-
assisted redevelopment. Plan ele-
ments have been used to guide pri-
vate improvements.
Sto Louis Exeelsior Stan- Yes Yes, Yes Excelsior Boulevard has a mixture of
Park Boule- dard 1990. commercial and residential land
vard distrlcts uses, often with shallow lots abut-
ting single-family neighborhoods.
The roadway is five-lanes with a
raised median. The'corridor is con-
sidered the city's "downtown.�' Pre-
existing zoning is being used. The
zoning ordinance was completely
overhauled in 1992. Some lighting
improvements have been installed
using TIF, and landscaping improve-
ments are contempiated. A major
medical-commercial mixed-use pro-
ject has been approv�d near T'f-I 100
in the TIF District.
�r°ooklyn Boulevarcl Streetscape Amenities Study 93
X. IMPLEMENTATION
Table 3 (Continued)
Site Corridor
Zoning Plan Plan in TIF
City Corridor Used Review Effect Used Comments
St. Louis Minn- Stan- Yes No Yes A small portion of Minnetonka
Park etonka dard Boulevard was addressed in a 1990
Boule- districts plan. There have been no special
vard lighting or landscaping improve-
ments nor any extraordinary public
effort ro redevelop land in this
wrridor.
Apple Cedar Stan- Yes Yes Yes Th�,City has devoted lazge amounts
Valley Av, and dard of TIF and other funds to sidewalk,
CR 42 districts lighting and landscaping throughout
their "downtown" district around
this intersection. TIF incentives have
also been used to implement private
improvements consistent with the
plan.
Maple- White Stan- Yes No No T'he current approach of careful
wood Beaz dard administration of zoning districts
Avenue districts through site plan review is said to
be working acceptably. The City
would like to hold the line on the
amount of land zoned for commer-
cial use in this corridor,
Eden TH 212 Stan- Yes No No Ttus corridor has a variety of very
Prairie near dard attractive, auto-oriented commercial
Prairie districts developments< They feature exten-
Center sive landscaping and berming as a
Drive result of the City's strong landscap-
ing ordlnance and a very good mar-
ket. Slgns are also very attractive
because of municipal controls.
4Vhite High- Stan- Yes Yes Yes The City has replaced an abandoned
Bear Lake way 61 dard railroad siding area with an attrac-
districts tive bank and a City hall. Deterior-
ated property has been cleared for a
park along the lake. The landscap-
ing, lighdng and other improvement-
s proposed in the corridor plan have
not yet been installed. Some bike-
ped improvements have been done.
Muute- I-394 Special Yes Yes No Mntnetonka uses its Planned I-394
tonka District District to regulate land develop-
ment in this corridor to (1) control
the amount of PM peak-hour traffic
that each site may generate and (2)
establish higher site development
standards than normally required.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 94
X. IMPLEMENTATION
Overlay zone. A mapped zone that imposes a set of requirements in
addition to those of the underlying district. The additional requirements
can be the guidelines adopted as part of a corridor or other plan. The
ordinance can be written to allow Cit y discretion in the application of the
requirements so that special circumstances can be addressed and trade-offs
made. A major benefit of an overlay district, compared to "standard'°
districts, is that it avoids the need to create several new standard districts
for the various elements of a corridor plan.
Floating zone. A floating zone is the same as a conventional zone,
except that it is not designated on the zoning map. It is affixed to a
particular parcel by amending the zoning map, following the approval of
a landowner's application.
Planned-Unit Development Ordinance. This allows variations in many
of the traditional controls in exchange for a higher quality result. This
technique is in place in Brooklyn Center.
Conditional Rezoning. Conditional Rezoning is a change in zoning given
in exchange for a promise to develop the land in a particular way.
Each of these control devices allows the community some degree of discretionary
authority to respond to the realities of development by postponing its decisions
until development is about to occur and then, in response to a proposal, to
establish in detail how the land is to be developed.
These zoning techniques could be called special public interest zones. They fill
gaps where other controls are ineffective. They are often broad and flexible
devices, legally grounded in the requirements that zoning regulations must have
a substantial relation to the public interest. The key requirement for implement-
ing these special zoning techniques is thaf there be an expressed and demonstrated
I r special and substantial public interest and that lawful zoning controls be used to
promote and defend the public interest.
I Recommendations
The recornmendations for implementing the Development Guidelines are as
follows:
1. Establish a New Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Overlay Zoning
D�strict. The Corridor Overlay Zoning District will supplement the
current zoning regulations, overriding the current regulations when there
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenittes Study 95
X. IMPLEMENTATION
is a conflict. It should mclude a formal list of the private development
design guidelines, as presented in section IX. Redevelopment Program,
supplemented by the applicable illustrations. The Corridor Overlay
Zoning District will allow the City to express broad design aims and
achieve them through a negotiated site plan review process.
2. Amend the Comprehensive Plan. The City's Comprehensive Plan
should be amended to bring the Land Use Plan into conformance with the
Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Concept Plan.
3. Amend the City Zoning Map. The City's Zoning Map should be
amended to reflect the changes to the Land Use Plan and to incorporate
the proposed Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Overlay District.
Implementation of Site Redevelopments
The implementation of the redevelopment of the sites identified in Figure 34:
Corrzdor Redevelopment Plan can proceed on many fronts. Following are a few
of the techniques the City could use to begin the redevelopment process:
1. Housing Acquisition. The City should begin the acquisition of the single-
family houses along Brooklyn Boulevard, north of Highway 100, under
existing City programs. The houses could be acquired for immediate
redevelopment, assuming a developer has been identified. The acquired
sites could also be "land banked" for future redevelopments.
2. Establishment of TIF Districts. The City should select the most critical
redevelopment areas, as defined in section IX. Redevelopment Program,
and start establishing TIF Districts in order to promote and assist the
redevelopment process.
3. Identification and Selection of Developers. The City should issue an
RFP (Request for Proposal) for each project, to identify potential develop-
ers for the redevelopment areas. Based on their experience and their
ability to meet the City's needs, the City should select the most qualified
developers prepare redevelopment proposals.
4. Coorduiation and Implementation of Redevelopments. In a pub-
lic/private partnership with the developers, the City/Developer Team(s)
can start refining and finalizing the site development programming,
financing, and redevelopment scheduling and construction.
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study 96
AADR
0
s� S� I� ,_.:I
�i t�R I f
�+1DR� �`S f
r i
R �-3
SF
o
RB 5F �MDit �`t-� p�n Space
�F O/HbR
.,.,.,�r O�VI
ti
,RB ��-0 i
R'�
�fMDR �.,f�"=,� �DR
A
'�'�T�. S
ti ��MOa r j
�2, g I
j
Refw also ro tha policiss �F
ond plans of Nw 8rooklyn �1( 1
1'.
Bo�ievard Sfreetscape i i�
Ainenilies Sfudy (1994). r�' t k
tR�� �--5a
I� `-o�
('c
k� E �.�iw arF�.. .7f G
26/MDR/A�f1�C �j�; �.+��-8
-T, y"�� i
5F '�G� P� r�!
Open Space P'� v-Sf_� 4 1�`�' --�,-'�r"--�`r:�_`_�'� m. a
I
H DR f DR
7 I +W,
—r_'!
y- i n
Ft
�TF
i �tN-; �i.:' �:E .4N�NE`.
rr '=my%tur.,6, RrmJenm.:
Fmn =amdj kfv�re-�t,n� S� i�ng�e fnmih�
'f L..:i F�mib�
?esid�r�u .^�>k :.t��i:u o-p�nsin-kea,i=nna�
�'�i7 In+r. ry $x:ider�tia, "1[1Q i qrl.acs Rpsnl.?chn��
4a aii s r R5 ..eN I:�.,:: �ess
U N c Ser�i-e 8�s�nass
��'1 Okicc� �3rvice Bu;ir.ex I �na;;cnial
�o;ta anJ CJaei� Sp:i,. °crks �;ncl i:�pen �¢�ce
':�11: '.4xe�i lise
�''�U I �l� O flfrcff�� YCC1C' C�Q(�rn:�N �.fG•[I
FWI c u�� .:em �orl Red„veioprent =rer,
Jn�e�•ek.c-d rJ :ja� �ssue hnn�
.�Irr TP.V��
i..r _:n"_� &.�anian�
F �eierence
III
8�k yl1-�-, t r� 2-.3
�r.-�'4 Land
Use Plan
i
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
SPECIFIC SiTES 1N THE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR
Recommendations for specific sites along the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor are
presented below and keyed to Figure 2-3, Land Use Plan.
General priorities for redevelopment staging are:
i. The sites north of I-694, in coordination with the proposed roadway
widening, when and if i# occurs.
2. Sites in the central portion of the corridor between 58th Avenue and I-694.
Changes to these sites would help strengthen the Brookdale area.
3. Sites south of 58th Avenue.
SrrE A
This was one of three sites specially studied in the Brooklyn Boulevard Study. Issues
include: cut-through traffic; vacant and underutilized property; single-family
housing closely abutting Brooklyn Boulevard; the potential to change the stree#
pattern and extend the medium-density housing complex; whether the Willow Lane
School site has excess land that could be redeveloped; and how to finance and
impiement acquisition of the ten houses. Two reasonable options were presented
in the Brooklyn Boulevard Stud�.
SrrE B
These single-family housing areas abutting Brooklyn Boulevard could evolve to
attached housing. Excess land from the St. Alphonsus Church site could be
consolidated with the small pocket of single-family lots on the east side of the
corridor to create a nice infill site.
�I
1
1
JANIlARY 2000 2-24 eRw, ir,c.
#Z453�
i
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNiTY IMAGE PLAN
SrrE C
The northeastern quadrant of the intersection at 69th is underutilized, creates
conflicts between housing and businesses, has inappropriate access to Brooklyn
Boulevard, and would lose some land if Brooklyn Boulevard is widened. T'he
Brooklyn Boulevard Study included a detailed analysis of the site, several alternative
development concepts and a recommended design. The preferred redevelopment
scheme (Concept B) involves removing the existing properties from 69th to just r
north of 70th Street and creating new high-density senior housing north of 70th and
either retail or office south of 70th.
Srre D
The proposed widening of Brooklyn Boulevard would probably necessitate
redeveloping these #rontage properties to other commercial functions. A surface
water pond should be incorporated into the site along 69th Avenue. These sites,
including the adjacent auto dealerships, were examined in detail in the Brooklyn
Boulevard Study.
SirE E
This site would be favorable for either offices or high-density housing because of its
proximity to I-694. Problems are posed by its size and whether it should extend to
Ewing Avenue, and its access to Brooklyn Boulevard. Because of the weaving
distances and access requirements to the ramps at I-694, the only full access point
would be at the signalized 65th Avenue intersection, which means that site access
from the north would be lixnited to the intersection of 65th and Ewing Avenue. A
right-in right-out access point might be permissible at the current France Avenue
access point.
S�TE F
The former Builders Square site was undergoing redevelopment in 1997 to a
community-level shopping center.
Sn G
This site includes several deteriorating single-family houses along Brooklyn
Boulevard, a fire station and #he City liquor store. Issues include the site size and
how much of the adjacent single-family neighborhood should be included; whether
the fire station and liquor store should be included; and
JANUARY ZOO� 2-25 BT��/, INC.
#24531
L4ND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
what the new uses should be. This area has been identified as a higher-density
residential area for a"#own center: complex. Other possibilities for the site include
retail or office.
SiTE H
These are two of several sites #hat include single-family houses with driveways onto
Brooklyn Boulevard. As with other sites, the key issues are whether they are deep
enough by themselves to accommodate new functions, and how the access should
be controlled. If single-family housing to the rear is not included (the possibility of
which would generate considerable controversy), site design will have be carefully
handled. The Brooklyn Boulevard Study included a sketch and guidehnes for this
situation.
SiTE 1
The Brooklyn Boulevard Study questioned whether the row of houses along the south
side of 59th Avenue shouid be converted to commercial use. The Comprehensive Plan
recommends that only the two parcels abutting Brookiyn Boulevard plus, possibly,
one or two more parcels to #he east undergo that change. The two parceLs along the
arterial may be too small for commercial re-use by themselves.
SrrE J
This location remains under economic pressure to change froxn single-family
housing because of its location near Brookdale, access and visibility (already the area
at 56th Avenue has converted to offices). The major issue, once again, is how to
make the transition #o #he residential neighborhood.
SRE K
This circumstances, issues and recommendahons for this site are very simi�ar to
those of Site J.
SITE L
The plant nursery site has long been considered for redevelopment to higher-density
housing. This would be appropriate because the site is among a church, a park and
iwo highways.
2. GATEWAY AREA �HIGHWAY 25Z AT 6GTH AVENUD
Beginning in 1995, the City began working toward the redevelopment of the area
east of TH 252 near 66th Avenue, having acquired and demolished a block of
substandard commerciai and multiple-family residential land uses. The City has
a special interest in the quality of this vicinity because it is highly visible and an
JANUARY 2000 2-26 BRW, �NC.
�k2453 1
LA.ND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
entrance to the Northeast Neighborhood. Townhouses or similar housing taking
full advantage of riverfront proximity would be suitable types of development if
designed to be compatibie with the larger neighborhood.
On the west side of Highway 252, the pattern is one of scattered retail businesses
surrounded by vacant land and a few large multifamily and townhouse complexes.
This area is not ideal for large-scale retail business use, given its somewhat difficult
access and the large amount of retail business elsewhere in the city. Rather, it
would be well-suited for a large office complex ar"corporate campus" which could
take advantage of its visibility. Another possibility for this area is a mixed- or
multi-use development that wouid combine mid- to high-density housing (possibly
including the nearby multiple-family housing), office-service uses, and limited
neighborhood-scale retail businesses.
3. HUMBOLDT AND 6JTH AVENUES
The concentration of aging multiple-family housing in this area makes it worth
considering for redevelopment. Although a good argument can be made for the
presence of multipie-family housing in this location, the current buildings and sites
suffer from inadequate original design, marginal upkeep, shortage of useable open
space, and, consequently, disfavor in the current market. Replacement or
substantial updating of the present buildings should be seriously considered in the
near future to end the negative influence that is being fel# by nearby properties.
Therefore, the City will evaluate the possibility o# replacing some of the multiple-
family housing with housing of moderate density, that can provide a much higher
percentage of market-rate along with some assisted units in a more attractive setting.
A higher rate of individual ownership would be a related objective.
Renovation of the Humboldt Square Shopping Center should also be encouraged,
to include a variety of retail and small service businesses. The viability of this retail
center depends in part on the quality of the nearby housing.
4. 65TH AVENUE RESIDENTIAL NEiGHBORHOOD
As discussed under "City-Wide Land Use Issues," this neighborhood is likely to
experience increasing pressures for redevelopment as the nearby Gateway area is
redeveloped. Since the neighborhood's housing is sound, a strategy of continued
stabilization should be pursued until conditions change substantially. The City
should continue to monitor #raffic volumes within the neighborhood and to consult
with residents regarding any issues or problems.
The other single-family neighborhoods that border I-94 j694 do not share these
redevelopment pressures, since they generally lack the direct access to and from the
freeway and nearby office/industrial areas that are present in this neighborhood.
JANUARY 2000 2�Z7 BRW, 1NC.
#24531
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
S. CITY CENTER
As mentioned above under "City-Wide Land Use Lssues," this area has experienced
much new development in the 1980s and 90s. The long-term strategy for
strengthening this area as a true "town center" involves gradual "intensification"—
adding complementary land uses such as medium-density housing, adding
structured parking to reduce the amount of land in surface parking lots, enhancing
transit services and facilities, and adding more pieasant outdoor public or semi-
public spaces.
SA. NORTHBROOK SHOPPING CENTER AREA
Like Humboldt Square, this neighborhood shopping center could benefit from
redevelopment. While its current retail use is appropriate, this location may aiso be
suitable for a more comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment that would include the
surrounding retail and residential uses.
6. 53RD AVENUE COf2R1DOR
$rooklyn Center initiated in 1996 a project to create a green buffer and pedestrian
path along 53rd Avenue from I-94 to Bryant Avenue. One north-south locai street
would be shortened and looped, creating a new road parallel to 53rd, bordered with
new housing parcels and green space. The project will also improve pedestrian
access to the riverfront parkland. If this project is judged a success, the City will
discuss with other residents the possibility of extending it further west, perhaps to
Humboldt Avenue, which is also proposed for improvement in both Brooklyn
Center and Minneapolis. There may be an oppartunity to coilaborate with the City
of Minneapolis to implement further improvements.
7. SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD
A. �IOSLYN SI'rE AND VICINITY The level of cleanup this site has undergone and the
amount of monitoring it will require make it suitable for continued industrial
rather than residential use. Furthermore, its proximity to the rail line and
other industrial uses seem to point toward continued industrial use.
However, the lakefront portion of the site, consisting mauily of wetlands and
floodplain, should remain as undeveloped open space.
The Ci should continue to assist in the removal of the small multi le-famil
P Y
buildings between Lake Breeze Avenue and the Joslyn site, and their
replacement with new duplexes or possibly single-family units.
e. 4�rH AvEr,u�: The row of apartments on the sou#h side, although sandwiched
between industrial uses on the north and a channel of Ryan Lake on the
south, are in sound condition. In spite of their proximity to industry, they
JANUARY 2000 2 BRW, INC.
�F`2453 I
L4ND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY 1MAGE PLAN
seem to be viable sources of affordable housing, and, as such, should remain
in place for the time frame of this plan.
S. RIVERFRONT AMENITY AREAS
The City's Mississippi riverfront o#fers opportunities for upgrading
surrounding neighborhoods and increasing housing values. When
waterfront properties extend to the shoreline, as they do today, the amenity
value of the waterfront is reflected only in the values of those properties,
while residents just inland have no access to the waterfront, and share none
of the increased value it brings. Redeveloping these areas with common
amenities spreads their value over the ent�re neighborhood. For example,
redevelopment of residential areas along the riverfront on #he west side of
Lyndale Avenue with higher-value detached or attached housing could help
to diversify the City's housing stock while capitalizing on views of the river
and parkland on the east side.
9. ROAD CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENTS
It is proposed that the City undertake a long-term program to beautify and visually
unite the City Center and surrounding neighborhoods by creating three distinct but
interconnected road corridor "loops" as shown on Figure 2-4, Road Corridor
Enhancements.
coMMERCw,� c�vic LooP: This loop includes segmen#s o# Brooklyn Boulevard,
69th Avenue N., Shingle Creek Parkway, and County Road 10. It links mos#
of the City's commercial and civic uses within the City Center.
e. NEicHeoRHOOOS �ooP: This loop offers an alternative route around and into
the City Center, using the largely residential north-south streets o# Xences and
Dupont Avenues and the eas#-west connecting segments of 69th Avenue and
County Road 10/57th Avenue N.
C. $OUTHEAST �IEIGHBORHOOD PARKS �ooP: This loop would act as an internal
circulation system and public amenity within the Southeast neighborhood,
linking parks, schools and the riverfront, along 53rd Avenue, Humboldt
Avenue, 57th Avenue and Lyndale Avenue. Improvements #o Humboldt
Avenue as part of this loop would be coordinated with proposed
improvements to that street in Minneapolis. This project would have the
added benefits of supporting housing values and pride in the Southeast
Neighborhood and of extending the effects of the other proposed streetscape
improvements.
One of tite themes of this plan is to improve the sense of a civic core surrounded by
a ring of residential areas. This would be achieved by a strategy of uniting the
JANUAftY 2000 2 BRW, INC.
#zassi
�I, LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
neighborhoods more strongly, linking them to the City Center area, complementing
the improvements proposed for Brooklyn Boulevard and minimizing the barriers
posed by the highways. Other benefits include better linkage to the riverfront park
and neighborhood enhancement.
Physical elements of the loops may include coordina#ed, attractive street lighting,
boulevard trees, seasonal flower plots, continuous sidewalks, bike lanes when
feasible, corner curb "bump-outs," directional signs, and neighborhood en#ry signs.
Work on 57th Avenue couid also be part of a
program to improve the community's access to an enhan�ed riverfront park.
It is anticipated that these and related streetscape improvements would be
conducted over 20 years, in conjunction with local street ixnprovements. This loop
system should be #ormally incorporated into the City's Neighborhood Street and
Utility Improvement Program.
SOLAR ACCESS POLICIES
Since 1978, in response to the energy shortages o# that decade, state legislation
requires that local comprehensive plans include a solar access protection element.
Solar energy can supply a significant portion of the space heating and cooling and
water hea#ing requirements of the individual home or business, through the use of
active or passive solar energy systems. About half of the local s#reets in Brooklyn
Center, mainly in the City's western neighborhoods, run east-west, giving many
houses a sou#hern orientation. However, the City's extensive mature tree cover
partially shades the typical house.
The City can protect solar access on individual properties by:
Requiring tha# builders of units of two or more stories requiring setback
variances or requesting Pianned Unit Development designation demons#rate
that their proposals will not reduce winter solar access to the second story or
roof of the adjacent building to the north. Solar access should be explicitly
reviewed in each variance case, and in all PUD proposals.
Exem tin solar collectors from hei ht restrictions if necessa rovided that
P g g P
they do not block solar access to the adjacent building's roof.
JANUARY ZOOO Z'.3O SRW, aNC.
#2453i
r u�nunan��muune _e "'�n� I 'e :iI1111P� �C': C :u� nunemmp C
�4 m m ■n -a _e "�unp���hmn� .7 d�l��iln w umm.nnu
���up i�� i 6 m ��muni:
um�S i: uun.u._ 1
e ��uny��ouunp u m.nu.. e Ci i� �1:
p4�Vbrr n�u�n�� 7�9 Cu i
i�n �i11 q� P�i i�i n17 7 C :��ri i i�r.• �un��n� �u u� �7
puiiui��
i....
�lll� -���vu�u�n�� r�� ip �b�
�im e �9
�y
e� L:' e' e_
='��tI11111►� '`�.-.-.e '..u...n..
.\I�� ��.•:/i� I ���p�� _:��u�lll:,�,
l� udiu�m��_. :mume� I�'.�i :i ia�
'�6 1 iul 'y� 1 r T�
�����1��.. r r
,'''�+<►����iir II 'S
,a,,. nn iT3 I7
uunp C� I/11 O
�nu� i� a -nn�U �p� 1���
-r
mn►► �mri;,'� �i
�W�mm� I/� '_ii' 1
�ni �I�II Illlllt Illln �uq� �V
n uumn�u►� I 1
n.nnunn nmm mmuuuri �e nuu.
c i:iu.u.u.u...•� nnnn �muv�m� �m■...;.. i�
�n.u.u.u..�. n1� �u�m� �uuunuu ��De uunqi ��4�� 1�, �p•�
aanuuuunni. nn mutm m�muu C/1//�� �o�u� m� tn�
m Gu�� �nuu� u� u. pp n� Illlllry pi�p���� '7
��ur�C pp I ,..�'.Ilillllii��i� �If 11111uuu1p
�''.�o��e= :L'.=���'��� nnn h4u uu�nnuur��
�i i i� P 67 �e �i i,� nwqOj��ym m�nunnu�: �.t �`y 7�
7�I�uui� iu i� i��pii pp pp 7� ��0�� iiiii� iiiiiiii iiiii�.ii i►.
i �III�I�ISi i �I�lllln i�n Ilil �11 tll�lllll�l�l�lf�
�munp �C �e u�mn111ll11= �uu�111111�m uuuur: A �1�'
-.inuu� e nmU1111{ill� �C umryl mmvi j 1�
...:.:=:=:::1
U �q��am� q �ni��ba� nu�� i�! d�
�IIIIPj 77 �7 7 0 npI 7� O nuli �ry i
i �e �e uqinuunm mqihq� e�r uu-i .�'G7e ell�
!I/l11111111 �II �I•.
�1������� 111111111111.��„� II►����/I�\��I -��C
��IIIIIII�111�1 �I
'e1/um�m�muA�-. y.. 't�.
�puo�nmunn �7 �I.�
�ll1111
:111�11 1�
'1� L�
p�� iiii C e e� ���I z �1' I�
I�
�I
��nt :1:�� �I i� ii
Iinu �III I� i= i� ii i:�
��u idlunn
w nmm�n �1���e :i��!�I
i ����unny '��21 i ���=1����
�nm� .�%6:.� i0 �y+:�'I: =1{11=��
unm:� ���n�� .r,
r ��nnn� `t�i -it �A
unmu 7' R pruumri/' e.
mnuu i C�5' n
r
'.nnnn
p s.
�mnn� �p��0 p��J i� �C 1� CI�.
unum i�d�p���0:��.�=' �G��e
S�n nln �AI�: A�� �i7 p
s �111 ItIl111f111��i �i i1� 1� C II
11111� II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII lli� �a
�I�,���:�
iinflO��i�.���1 .w� i= i�� /1� =s gc o
���11 I�� i����� �L•_�-�
11��1��►i C�:
�::�u�u�nnll'.� '-:.__�"e:-g'I::
�e�nmu1111� �iC.� =i='-!'. =in :C G� im nunlwn �nn�
u7 ii 9� 9
`�Illllllle
�'�unun: c? =e
��uunm: 52
muumn
Iu111111111
■i Gi •.1�� =o
1l11I
:r ��Tu'
i ���7
i
IB=
_�_nn�._
o �(o ,o
:Yc :111\ ■f,�i"
nnua�
I LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
HISTORlC RESOURCE PRESERVATION
The City's major historic resource, the Earle Brownn Farm, is listed on #he State
Register of Historic Places as "Brooklyn Farm." The City's stewardship and
�I development of this property as the Earle Brown Conference Center has resulted
in the preservation of several important buildings on the site, as well the
construction of modern conference facilities, office towers, and parking. Little
remains of the farm's original setting.
A 1988 reconnaissance surve of otential National Re ister sites in Henne in
i Y p g P
County found a scattering of older farmhouse-type buildings, mainly in the City's
Southeast neighborhood, dating back to the pre-World War Ii period when it was
an area of small truck farms. These buildings are now surrounded by the more
I I typical post-war housing stock. Althou h the Ci has not been heavil involved in
g tY Y
preservation issues, an effort shouid be made to inventory these old�r buildings and
to encourage their restoration, as a way to stimulate the revitaiization of the
Southeast neighborhood.
JANUARY 2000 2-32 BFZw, iNC.
#24531
Com�prehensive Plan 2020
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
Brooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb with a well-estabiished roadway
network. No major new roads will be required as part of the Transportation
Plan. The plan will examine ways #o 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 #ransportation 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
I STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, I 997
Functional classification is a tool used in transportation planning and traffic
engineering to categorize streets by the #ype of transportation service provided and
the roadway's relationship to surrounding land uses. The pur}�ose of a functional
classifica#ion 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 iimits,
intersection control or other design features. Functional classification ensures that
JANUARY ZOOO 3' I BRW, INC.
#24531
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
non-transportation factors such as land use and development are taicen 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 xninor" 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 1
whether the roadway is in an urban or rural area. Only the urban characteristics
are applicabie to Brooklyn Center.
The elements of the functional classification s stem are described below, alon with
Y g
a listing of which roads are in each classification. These road classifications are
described in more detail in #he Transportation Policy Plan. Figure 3-1 shows the
1997 pattern of road functional classification, and Table 3-2 lists roads by functional
class, number of lanes, jurisdictional class and sub-class.
Principal arterials are the highest roadway classification and are considered part
of the metropolitan highway system. These roads are intended to connect
metropolitan centers with one another and connect major business concentrations,
important transportation terminals and large institutional facilities. Brooklyn
Center is crossed by several of the region's principal arteriais:
I-94
I-694
TH 100
TH 252
At the time of the 1979 Comprehensive Plan, the northernmost segment of I-94 and
TH 252 (formerly U.S. 169) were still in the planning stages.
Principal arterials are further classified as "Freeways" and "O#her Principal
Arterials." The latter category may be designed with high capaci#y, 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 in#o the "Other Principal Arterial" category. Ali of the
principals within Brooklyn Center are under Mn/DOT's jurisdiction.
JANU�aY 2000 3'Z BRW, INC.
#24531
�ii
:'1111I11S�':'�p• na�.nnmm�n�:
�\s u �u m ..I��Ui ��III1110� i�l��1�6�''� ��li4ununn�u�: p■� C
�i mnnni C' m•�n -,q n ii'
1 ..�nn� ���m�n� ��n�u�.i e� C �r
.�mr �1'.
p ��I��lli�ry� n�nu�n•�n i�i �O
�.w „n.�„��,���� 1 �q��I ��nn�n�•n� i Pn G�i�
n9 ni Ti 7 mm�nr AN
�I� ��6� N� �7 7 �nunn�; n�.utl �i
.�i�R11{� i♦ �m. �t��
�i�'O- \i1� `I
i i�� ii �i a
:i�,,�unn 1 I 1 1 I 1 '�G u e e:
I :mum: n`.:
I f I i _�uu�nu :i ir=
I I I r_ �T.i�• �i =n_ :uunnn �11�'�
'f_��'� __�n�
::�1.-..
1 I f 1 I n �nnq
�m�u::._ e. _�e
unu�-� „11■ i .m�iii��y r.n� �1 i
unu:.� uilf �I�Iq i /0'
u�neu.C= l l l l tn►iiii�Ilt�F'i 1 p
�uui� ���i4 V
un [f� 1
p.�unom� ���q�
u........0 nn� liln Weminu�.+� 1 e:
p i�nnnuuniit 7 t
�IUnu���n► 11111�11 ��IIIIII�It1►I �t� �7 0 11 pII�p ��I
.ti_�
nn...n ua�l m�m� �mmunn C s�� mm�r� ���i�� i �ni
p mmmiiiinnuti� Tui ntnm �e�nnmu �I►//��� �auu�i Q m
:mp�mn�uu�mC�� 7n�n�i� ��UIIIIy��ifi�� nu� .:e7 'i
p L-' :i U wnuii;••,��u•� :w I I 1
'I�. �.n p_ .un.y q,�iu. �nu..�
ini C '/i u. 7 1 nnq��I� ��u. nn��.
Inu� ���u �p u� u�u� /Inu• nu�� y e I I
C Iuuw 1 1 i���o�'e p mn� nmm• ur.��•
lunnu mQ�trj f 1 muumuun_ nr� t I
.uun��� i� mO.n�'�'!�` ��unnumm uo.�•
7 ijniu� C� '.i�ii�ii111111ii� ii ni�ii111111iiir�nuu�v� ��f'
.�u�u�� _e e �'�nnu1/111111� I muryf C ��I
pnmu� '•�nnUN �7' nbii ���u.unuur.
�IU�i' �C 7 �IIIIII I���ul� S IIII IIp u.�n1�n�,�.
II/IIIIIII q��b��rmu��. �=•�����?ir d\
�m�� e' e ?'i►1p�UUUm� ii ��q ��nrm�dC °_II-
hunuun :1{�
i ?.m�� a� Ce ='•ee �(j;j�
IIIIIIII i b�nO�
uu�. nuuu�ni 7' �7 �7
�u�nmA7 �7 �C
I ��nn-mn a eo
mm
?nnn'
iiii ee
11 1 �II�- I�'_=.'�'
?fa I 1 I 1 1 I ,'e B _e
:F��n E�ir.a, 1 1 1
'._...•.����mv":�= I I- I l f I
i :�•nnnry 1iY+� �f I f I I
i
�'I".:iiiiii�•� y� i "�e�el��
mi= :.i i" �ii i'
-nnm��' e e
��mm�� Y�i. l ��U�nuri/i i' OC e�
4� nnun� �uu
••�u �un .o. e i'. 77 7"� ae a
����I' �yll�t��t� !11 S: P ��1 i�
�-nnn�n �t� i�0 �O�O.O• C v
i�i� �iii�.. �Gnll: A��y::' I�'1='
�In ��Iinmm�::�'� in e::i' u e n C
a 1;�\� munm�uu mi' e �p
��:n� i ao•°'
�•nn6 �i r
7m111C �i�� �_'�in...11i e�= "_o
�ii. �'�I 1 I n
ii ��1:� :.uumuu r I l I
Illla unnnun=��� a i :i•i: i�n
���ii�'
,��1��������
'��fllllll:'�'
�1�. .��nmup�_ �'e `m.:�.
unmufii'_' ri
I�mI111B!!
'iiii .::1��=='=
d1111I
�a?u:=�==�`
�=�s���� ��IIIII�nqnq�j�
�rm�
�-'r_:nii�- ��I�I�Iti�
��/�:2.���U1 1
f I
TRAtJSPORTATiON PLAN
Minor arterials are intended to connect important locations within the City with
access points on the metropolitan highway system and with important locations
outside the Ci#y. These arterials are also intended to carry short to medium trips
that would otherwise use the regionai system.
The Metropolitan Council working cooperatively with Mn/DOT, counties and
cities, defined a network of A Minor arterials that are intended to either relieve
traffic on the principal arterials or serve as substitutes for principal arterials. The
A Minor arterials were subdivided into relievers, expanders, connectors, and
augmenters.
In $rooklyn Center, there are two roads classified as A Minor arterials:
Brooklyn Boulevard (County Road 152)
Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) wes# 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, literaily, 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 desi ed to serve shorter tri s that occur entirel within
Sn P Y
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 Brooiclyn Boulevard,
Humboldt Avenue North 57th Avenue North located just east of TH 100.
The remaining collector roadways are under the City's jurisdiction. The County
classifies Humboldt as a collector since it links to other collectors in North
Minneapolis; the City currently classifies this section of Humboldt Avenue as a
local street, since it is not continuous through I-94/694. Figure 3-1 shows it as part
of the collector system.
Local streets connect blocks and land parcels; their function is primarily to provide
access to adjacent properties. Local streets can also serve as important components
of bicycle and pedestrian circulation systems. In most cases, iocal streets will
JANUARY 2000 3'4 BRW, INC.
#24531
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
connect to other local streets and collectors, although in some cases they may
connect to minor arterials. All other streets within the City are classified as local
streets.
Table 3-1
Street Classifications in Brooklyn Center
Functional Jurisdictional
Classification Classification Sub-ciass Lanes
Princinal Arteriais
I-94 State Freeway 6+
194/694 Sta#e Freewa 6+
Y
TH 252 State Other 6
TH 100 (south of 50th Ave. No.) State Other 4
TH 100 (north of 50th Ave. N.) State Freeway 4
A Minor Arterials
Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152) County Reliever 4/5
8ass Lake Road (CR 10) County Augmenter 4
CoHectors
69th Avenue North (CR i 30) County 2
(west of Brooklyn Blvd.)
69th Avenue North (east of B. Blvd.) City 4/2
Humboldt/57th Avenue North (CR 57) County 4/2
Humboldt Avenue North City 4/2
(north of I-94/694)
57th Avenue North (east of Humboldt) City 4
Noble Avenue North City 2
France Avenue North Ciry 2
(2 segments)
June Avenue North City 2
(8ass Lake Road to 63rd Ave.)
Indiana Avenue North/Eckberg Dr. City 2
JANUARY 2000 .3'S �RW� �NC.
#24531
TRANSPORTATiON PLAN
Functional Jurisdictional
Classification Classification Sub-class Lanes
63rd Avenue North City 4
(west of Xences)
Xerxes Avenue North City 4/2
Shingle Creek Parkway City 4 1
Freeway Boulevard (66#h Avenue No.) City 2-5
Dupont Avenue North City 2
73rd Avenue North (east of Humbold#) City 2
53rd Avenue North (east of Oliver) City 2
51 st Avenue North Ciry 2
(east of Brooklyn Blvd.)
JURISDICTIONAL CLASSIFICATION, 1 997
Jurisdiction over the City's roadway system is shared among three leveis 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 #he remaining
streets.
Road jurisdiction is logically linked to the geographic area the roadway serves and
the ievel of government capable of administering and operating the road.
GeneraIly, jurisdiction can be linked to fiznctional classification as follows, although
there is some overlap between classes:
Principal Arterials Federal and State
Minor Arterials County
Collectars Ciiy
Local Streets City
EXlSTING AND FORECAST TRAFFIC
`The most recent (1994) traffic counts are shown in Figure 3-i. Aiso shown in Figure
3-1 are the forecast 2020 average daily traffic volumes. Traffic projections are based
on an average annual growth rate of 1% per year applied to existing (1994) traffic
counts and calculated out to the year 2020. The 1% growth rate was considered
appropriate based on growth rates used in nearby communities.
aJANUARY 2000 3-6 BRW� INC.
#2a531
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
For example, the City of Minneapolis has established a citywide traffic growth rate
of 0.5% per year. Recently, iraffic 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 me#hodology 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 coun#s were used in a trend line analysis, 2020 forecast traffic
volumes would actually be lower than existing counts. It is thought that #he
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-s�stem-will be farced back
onto the local system as traffic on the regional highway system grows. New traffic
generated by infill development or redevelopment in Brooklyn Center will also
cause some increase in traffic on the local system. For these reasons, the growth
rate methodology was used instead of a trend line analysis. (See the Appendix for
a more detailed explanation of this methodology.)
The existing and forecast traffic volumes are compared to the size and capacity of
each roadway in order to determine where capacity problems exist or are expected
to occur in the future. Figure 3-2 shows the number of lanes and general
configuration of the City's major roadways in order to help identify potential
capacity problems.
Roadway capacity problems arise when the roadway cannot efficiently handle the
traffic using it, particularly at intersections. Efficient traffic movement is described
in terms of "level of service" (LOS), categorized using the letters "A" through "F."
Table 3-2 illustrates LOS characteristics. Typical roadway capacities for a fully
developed area like Brooklyn Center are as shown in Table 3-3.
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES
For purposes of regional transportation planning, the Metropolitan Council divides
the region into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's). The boundaries of the TAZ's in
Brooklyn Center have changed since the 1979 Plan. Figure 3-3 shows the
Metropolitan Council's TAZ boundaries and Hennepin County's further
subdivision of these zones. Regional population, households and employment
forecasts are allocated to the TAZs as a means of forecasting traffic volumes.
Because Brooklyn Center is a fully developed community, the trips generated
within the TAZ's are not expected to change significantly during the period of this
plan.
JANUARY 2000 3'7 BRW, INC.
#tas3i
�umnmmmnm p' e a ��"e �u�uq�nu' G�C
♦v •p mu m m m �p :•ar �I�I 1111111 �pm nnun�nut. �p''
�t!i '����a :�niiiij4�nnit ua�n.... =n m ��mnm�
.ii:upi�qpnn� ..uuun 7�'� i(Vu
C� ��i�4b�fN unuun i�i i�i �C i�� :7
;;lnc Ii �I�►� .�nu�n ���7� ��i
�r��S i�i 7n' r7�= �j�� 4 u�nn� �u m u 1����
.r�� ull _�i�awnm��'- i: 7unm� ?�'dSn n��4, '���.P
;`'1"'= �m
7��,. �"�i C' t f
�l p� e:
-"��unmi E `�::o e n....u.0 u: ni i
a\I3 "�ii ��P. _�u�em:' m -e e
L J? i:► en�enun T :i irn
w 1 :e •�=u2=_ m����� 7 II� �:G
r�= =:_liil°
i
i uun�u�� ��1�{1���1111111 un� ��7
p i iiiiiiiiuu�n�. I O �p
.a�......un►:q mwu m�nmmr� n= uu.... •..�i 1
i��n........u... nI1u11 ��ununn� 'p �Inp�: I
�t� ��f�� �t1111�1 �11111111111� ��I��IIII ���i�
���\I��1\��l���Illllii �1�� I�i��111 ��III�IIIII� C/1��;�� 1111�1111 �4
�1� �III� ��11���� �1� �I I�IIIflI ��Ij�1� �I��� -'t� ;.I
��t1�I� �IIIII �4 Vl
7 �rr p 1 Ill��l��ru f
I i: i i S" iiii� �I �ij4.. .d���tln�„�� 'a
Si p nmu ui: p i�
�Au��� �1�n7 ��m.��y �ne���I/ uu�uuu.
p�imm.7�iN p�.�,�� nnu�lu numu:�J
f �I�
rv�x�
p I�umu� �uut►� m��� o_ 0���� �e �n m� uume�nn� 1 ,,,t�
�u�mn: :�uui� o en ee u� �m uu�nun. p
Omu�� a 7� e o nuunllll 11= u�jini umunrp �k �1�
��tmuu l� pp C mnql �u�ll/ �m �u�u�r. C 1�
411111' !f/+
mm �u ..m mmu�.
�=unn•"e �hnu�au '_uu���•i u n..u..�.` �i
nu�t7 a m4 ��p11�nm �l:_ e7 �ib�� ���o� uw� ir d\
I�IIIP'� 7 I�IIII �u n Itpl �Iq
mq quii iiiii u nm y �11�
j._
/um nuuu�►{� CG
CPnn�nnnmil T 7 C �C
�p �IIIIIi
illl�/� C
p �j���
4
i����C��� s
S i� �It� �I ii
v�Ti�_� �p p
4nu
iu:ull..un :�'11
��o� u.un�n i�
L iourt� 1; I�
e
��I`: m�n� ��i u1�� i�; 1 I? 31111SI= k
im�n:. '1
nnnm '.3'.
�nu y�um�vq' C e'
.ew �d i e e e'
y �nn �������p �..�s= p i' ��i'' �a
O ��p� ��0�`,.�� r': i' p
��OpO�'��.�-e
fy.. n�� `Ga1P. iD�•:� i
3� s �111 /llllll�llt�\i :i i 1 u 1! i.
•a IIIIIU, ;:�.�1-/11�1��11� Ili�
n1/111�y _.�a i' =in. .Ili C'7' "oc-'pc�
�1 IItl��► �i f� �i L'
u iemn� ie'
ntun111���� ii C' 6.
nmiuunll� e�e� ��nuun _I
"�aumun=�. 'i= :i i: i�Ti umdmu �nnn
dllllllle
nuum: =e
/I�...���nnnm: a .n.
�wuu�u�
hm1111111li
iiGi •u.==
IIIIII
j Al�1:�1�� �i •e�
��1 ��q111°m�nn��
�ii1
�iui �1/1�111�
OI
1
t ,�y
��i�
:�nl 1111111: �°n ■unnluu� C��
�n�� m ui m p v� IiI e pm �nnmu�m:
►j�� :��ii q�i �/n111� d�1 �tln C e= qm�uu�
�J qub���iin�nP. ii �iiiiiii �7 3: O\q�ll�:
�r :u� iq pu��p �r I 7
I ,l ��q��ry/wp: iiiiiiiii oi 1 7
\'-��a �„'1 in d• i�� �C{i P�i 7u �q� C �i �4 �it: nuwn �n �u �n� {�v
Rd� ��q� 1111� =/t.1 n�nnnn�� t n-nm� n� �n n� t
��-��p
z„f,�,.' '--a_
`"'_"'"_'.�=::c _c
=��mmn _e
:i__�.7""����� =�e =°%'Vi�im r��
nd um�� :i::ii::::i'. iT�� I u�
_''��_o� -C ��c7= _C
i 'ii
r.,' e :i'r-�
n
.T_1..,, ,�i.
='==`e: nu���� r
_a= :�_ii�i
.n���::_ nnn •,.y
inmp C� 7 7� uufilf �7 C'
m�u. a- 'i= 7u�n� �n� r C�
�nnu.�' �U�i 4 ii
n��f
�n i� t
�nmm� i�
.nuuu.n..nuy
p umnununPi. I II �IIIII►llllllo� u�
m��uunq i• {II�1�1� {11111111111►I �IIq1�
�iiu���i nn�N �1111111 �1111111�1111 �Ilf���ii q� I� f 1_
m�em �ununm� u�an� "•t��
�un iuu. i�i� mnm �mnmu� �IIVj�� uii�q' nu� �r.n� i
�a :u� �u p ua n �i rt ��i���� �n e i
pq '7 rl��i� �ill Illlluuu� .�j r
�p p �I �1�� II� I� I l
I �il�/I/� �II�III IIIIt1���I�111I/
I��i i� i�i \111�1�.I, �1�� 1111�1���11�1111�
�%11111\� �1� j�`��\� ,,����1111� jlill� �111111� 1��1���� I��11
uuunr. mn���n u:. n,�. c: mx,.um.... ,,,u..
o�ump r c' �nm� m�qlllllm munurp 6
.muu. c� p iiiiii' ry '1 111111C �unp1 nna�r. 1_
u�unp' e 7 uuqr� uob��� �::i iiiu:ii �C a e
�'��m e� �nuu nu����_' e�u :ir �d\
�►�um f �7'��'
iiiq�Ip�uum ii .ii iiiii►'i �li�
�a�m�uu �II�
��411111f11 C� iiii�����������n �t�� I�►��/I/n►\� e�
h�unmu� nmm�muu p' �"p'7 �7
E�rn���� ���������a- d
�I__ ������a�
!E uun
E������
I ��I+ 1_I I�
�==i= I ii �i
\�III IJ i �i
i
i
���1��
�11� ����1\t111 ��1�..,
1�1l1�/� i� 2. e 1
C: mm�: i�
0
n1/u�.� I��NI�
�7 �m mwm �`I�� m p� C� =u
ii �nunn �e C '7 e -e
unnnt 'e
nuinii ����p�;p��i P: �L r� �C C aP
r
um.n■ �i �:,�0 p��0 p�.��' �c
i�n�� �:�n 11:. iD�►�? ��I_
i� m unnmm� C ::::a
nmc n muaunm
nn t =e
1n111 _.�a i7 �iu. .IhC ='=E �=p �1\
U1 i �C i�
�t 11��1 ii e �C
���IIIIIII�1► uii:
�i e' ='e o_ _e �..r.._
nunum�l{_ e�= I�-'�=
��uiGi 5 t
f `�IIII
r
II�. .���IIn1111t: i .:ii
11111���111�
Illlllllltlll
n�■ -.•.1��=an�;
IIII V j�`p� i
Gn
��Ill��jqllf//l4��
Y_:111
_r�� ���C:i7
a�
k a ��,°'"E I
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Table 3-2: Traffic Level of Service Characteristics
Level of Service Characteristics
A Most Vehicles Do Not Stop At All
Most Vehicles Arrive During Green Phase
Progression Is Extremely Favorabie
B
i
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 Acce table Dela
P Y
Poor Progression
Frequent Cycle Failures
F Unacceptable Delays
Poor Progression
Oversaturation
Source: BRW, Inc.
Table 3-3: Daily Roadway Capacities
Dail Ca aci b LOS
y r h� y
Area Type Cross-Section A C D E
Developed
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 i8,700 21,700 25,000
4-Lane Expressway 22,800 26,500 30,000
NOTE:
LOS Level of Service
For Developed areas, assume minimum acceptable LOS of "C_"
For Developing areas, assume minimum acceptable LOS of "C."
For Rural areas, assume minimum acceptable LOS of "B."
UNACCEPTABLE erations
�P
JANUARY 2000 3' I O BRW, INC.
#z453�
TRANSPOf2TATION PLAN
I
COMPARISON OF TRAVE� DEMAND AND REGlONAL HiGHWAY SYSTEM
CAPACITY
The City of Brooklyn Center believes that its land use plan is in conformance with
#he 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-capi#a trip-making and
intensified land use. As described in the Land Use and Redevelopment Plan,
redevelopment and infill will be pursued along Brooklyn Boulevard and, to a lesser
extent, the City Center, and a#ew 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 #or 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 regionai highway
system beyond those forecast by the Metropolitan Council; #he 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
�I, traffic demand on the regional highway system they are concerned about the
growth o# traffic on #his system and its impact on the City of Brooklyn Center.
Traffic projections on I-94, I-694, TH 100, TH 252, and Brooklyn Boulevard indicate
increasing traffic demand from outside the city which will have an impact on the
City's access to the regional highway system. The City believes improvements to
the regional highway system are important for economic development in the City
of Brooklyn Center.
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM ISSUES AND PROSLEMS
The trans ortaiion issues in Brookl Center have been rou ed into the #oilowin
P Yn g P g
categories for discussion.
Capacity Deficiencies
Safety
jurisdiction
Functional Classification
JANllARY 2000 3' I I BRW, INC.
#24531
TRANSPORTATION PIAN
CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES
Most of the capacity deficiencies and congestion which affect the City of Brooklyn
Center today occur on the principal and minor arterial system. Congestion occurs
in the peak hours on TH 100 south of Brooklyn Boulevard, on TH 252 north of 85th
Avenue, and on I-b94 west of Brooklyn Boulevard. There is also significant
congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-694 which can cause backups on the
westbound I-94 off-rarnp #o Brooklyn Boulevard.
The traffic forecasts indicate that the traffic demand on these regional facilities will
continue to increase and the congestion will grow worse without improvements to
the regional system. The traffic demand on Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-694 is
also expec#ed to increase due to redevelopment and the growth in through traffic.
This will increase the congestion that already exists on 8rooklyn Boulevard.
.The 2020 forecasts anticipate low to moderate growth in traffic on the local and
collector roadway system. Most of this increase in demand will be due to
increasing congestion on the regional highway system. This growth in traffic on
collector roadways is expected to begin to cause some congestion on some of these
roadways, including:
63rd Avenue East of Brookiyn Boulevard
69th Avenue East of Brooklyn Boulevard
Humboldt Avenue North of 69th Avenue
SAFEfY
The major areas of concern relative to traffic safety in Brooklyn Center is on
Brooklyn Boulevard and on the collector roadways that are nearing capacity, such
as 69th Avenue, 63rd Avenue and Humboldt Avenue. The high traffic volumes on
a roadway that is intended to have a relatively high level of access can become a
problem because of the number of vehicle conflicts which will occur.
�IURISDICTION
Currently two of the collector roadways serving the City o# Brooklyn Center are
under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. These are 69th Avenue "`'e" of
Brooklyn Boulevard and Humboidt Avenue between 53rd and 57#h Avenue.
Hennepin County would like to turn these roadways back to the City. There are
capacity, main#enance and funding issues that must be resolved before this can
occur.
JANUARY 2000 3' 1 2 BRW, INC.
#eas3i
II I
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
The 1979 Transportation Plan classified Humbold# Avenue between 57th Avenue
and 53rd Avenue as a local street because it did no# have continuity north of 57th
Avenue. However, Humboldt Avenue does provide connections to 57th Avenue
which provides access to TH 100, to 53rd Avenue which provides access to I-94,
and it continues south into Minneapolis connecting with Webber Parkway. As a
result Humboldt Avenue has a forecast 2020 ADT of 5,700 vehicles per day, which
is typical of a collector roadway.
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM PLAN
Brooklyn Center is a fully developed city and its road sys#em is in-place. No new
roads are expected to be consiructed. However, existing roads can be improved to
address capacity problems:
TH 100
TH 252
I-694
Brooklyn Boulevard North of I-694
69th Avenue West of Brookiyn 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 sys#em 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 8rooklyn Boulevard and Humboldt Avenue between 53rd and
57th Avenue.
Hennepin County is interested in turning these roads back to the City. However
there are capacity, maintenance and funding issues which need to be resolved
before this can occur.
SPECIFIC ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
TRUNK HIGHWAY I OO
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was completed in 1996 for the
reconstruction of TH 100 between Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley and 50th
Avenue N. in Brooklyn Center. This section of the highway is the only non-
freeway portion of TH 100. Safety problems and deficiencies are caused by at-
grade intersections and access points, railroad bridges with inadequate clearance,
and inadequate shoulders.
r
JANUARY 2000 3- I 3 BRW, INC.
1r`2453 1
-r.nmmmninnum e I ::IIIIIIP�:�_��� ��•n.�nmqmu- p G��p
t� ��m m �u �n �p'C "'••npq 4 ry1U1�� i�1111�1u•� �n.�mm�nmu'
A�•_ ���n� b� i nrm nnnun�
1 O �in���p�unt�: i: 'n.n.....:'c'� pp��lu:
►;=RS�a�� :u� �pi �uun� n�nu....ee �i i
�����IN� n�u�uu-n� iii
i i�'e i�i u� ��i! u�uum•... ny i J G
L-�\�A �ill l C� �►i�� i �i :�n�nu�i CC i�i in :�d�
1 �IIi�� I�nmmn�� t �i� �uu�usi ��'7 �o �n.n��� ip��t���
�im I
s� �b i �j
=\��117 C n.r L nmu�m 'C' m ul
.�'g :"\I' �:i: ilil i�u �C �'I�f111I1: ni: C'�
==_a.�,ou,�����._ :m�������1�T L e::==
€�8 :Y��u �e S.i II s F ?n= 3 :unmm����� 7� I1�'�
�I{I��!e nn� j.i' u 1
�1.-. �r�� �'�i-•�:= _�i►1
o
�i�..
:r�l.►�:
�mm�..= -e e-- .n'ii�� �n� 1: �:/1
mumu.n... I
A i
����1
Ililiil�liiiiiuium.� 1,
:....:C�:�:.�.n..a .O ee
.u.u. n �u�uu u�mim�v. n� un ••v
.nu..i ii:i:....� nunn unluluW '7 �e �1
uu�u I NO�� �II��III IIIIIIIIIIII� ���IIp1i 7� .�„-'i
i �1� �III� ���II�I� �t� 1�111111 -��1�11111-� IIII�IIII �I j� 't
�i� �1�� 1111111 nu. �.:C7
uuii' Ip y a
=p p pI �j�� IIIIIp�i��ii I/I•11111mu� '�1� iC
=p �.N� �nrui� �p�q�.�nmumuuo� _e
ini �p C1i :.7 �mn��j .n.��mumnn
i Iun• �pu tlnn unp�il//nu-�nmumn
Qm�u: n5 P �1�0�� �p� u�u� ��mnr�nn�nnnp
=1nmm���uO����w\��n:_='C' ♦���:�%'uuuuumm.�nnunu��
munu. :nunlln im mO m� �7 �tl mnmuunn uanuu�i
7 �iirii�i� C' e'•iui.ii�1111111= i�i�iillllll�iiru��nmr� T`; d �II'
■umu� :.�n���plllllll� ,�e"mu/ryll��ur�nonr. C i-"
pmun• '•umrn �mn �au.mnnn�.
�nnu�" "�ur �qlwun .a�� u un ����i ���u•�uu� .`'r d\
:i �e �•�n ��U�wnm S mq� ��i�i ��n•nud� �d e� �11=
tth11111111 bq.1
j_-::=:___
�E;;
'elnu��� „���.�.n�8 �.y ee =__l.��!
�uv�����������.
-ea.: -�mu::�E'=--
":�nm e _C
'.�.��°iii r.
�Ip:' e� '1 C�
�II
I
S ��II� C ':•C' ii
nTi
��I�nn
:i nllnnu =1i1, f i= i: ii
�u• m���. 'Pt� i��''.'.:L:'11•1'.
n��
�L.' �•uunq e>
I ��\%7.nuu� iC i �?Ie e1111i1�
p.iuuu:. ���nn_
��I �-�uuen �'�r1�• 1� ni p� 'iI i'
��mam i dmmvij o'r'C
��.numn ♦y
uum�� ��,p�,��' p• a_ ii i
:�.nmm� �O OJ� J� m C7 i_ p Ir �t�'�.
.�nn�n� 'i i���
i�1111i��.� f,��' �fl�i A� �i� p �'i
:r� e �III IIIIIIIIIIIOi ii il�'i:.� i :i'�� I�uL 11�
a ��:111�1� n n�ltl���l�lll� ili��
3 ��i �Il,iii
'iltllll� r i= i i li i
�ii.InuW� �6� �7'e' �-_'=qe G=
��•1111111R A
�i.1111111�11�� y1�11111���
.u�nuunlliC �I�?� �nuiuun_��� '7'= i I e c=:G•i: im nuulum nnTa
m C g=
t11111111_
�nmuu::_ -e:
/I�..w��umm�'
R•���
wnimuu•:_
.�iii. ..•.1�■
��IIIII
nTn=. ;i=
,I("� 1 lpll//tl
!:1'B=_
e �='r_'��
i_
\�Y-:111�
e
i
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Only one alternative was considered in the Brooklyn Center portion of the study
area: a four-lane freeway on essentially the existing alignment. Therefore no
significant land use impacts are expected because of right-of-way widening.
Three major improvements would occur at access points:
1. The Indiana Avenue access would be eliminated
2. The France Avenue access replaced with a diamond interchange.
3. The right-in/right-out access points at 50th Avenue would be eliminated.
"The recons#ruction of the France Avenue interchange would enhance access to the
adjacent industrial areas, some of which are currently underutilized. It would also
result in safer but less convenient access for residents.
Three options were considered #or managing local access in the area:
An overpass of TH 100 at Indiana Avenue would convert six single-family
residences and two duplexes to highway use and would not provide local
traffic with convenient access to the TH 100/France Avenue interchange.
Lilac Drive could be extended north to France Avenue as a frontage road
for local traffic. This would encroach upon open space and require one
residential relocation, but would also provide more convenient access for
residents and businesses.
An ex#ension of 46th Avenue North (in Robbinsdale) wes# to France Avenue
would require crossing the Twin Lakes drainage channel, converting some
parkland to a city street.
i-s94
Mn/DOT has conducted a number of studies which have looked at the feasibility
of providing an HOV Lane on I-694 from Maple Grove to Down#own Minneapolis.
The Mn/DOT Transportation System Plan shows the I-694 Corridor between the
I-494 junction and the I-94 junction as an Expansion Corridor. Capacity
improvements on I-694 would help to reduce traffic demand on the City's parallel
collector roadways (69th Avenue and 63rd Avenue) and maintain the City's ability
to access the regional highway system
TH 252
Mn/DOT's Transportation System Plan also shows TH 252 north of 73rd as an
expansion corridor. The extension of TH 610 and expansion of the TH 610 bridge
are expected to cause an increase in traffic on this segment of TH 252. Capacity
improvements on this segment of TH 252 would help to reduce traffic demand on
the City's parailel collector roadways and maintain the City's ability #o access the
�IANUARY 2000 3- I 5 BRW� INC.
#24531
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
regional highway system. The Gateway area along TH 252 north of I-694 is one of
the areas where the City of Brooklyn Center anticipates infill and redevelopment.
The intersection on TH 252 at 65#h Avenue represents a potential capacity
constraint to development in this area. Some additional improvements will be
needed at this intersection (potentially an interchange) in order to accommodate the
additional traffic from additional development in the Gateway area. The City of
Brooklyn Center will work with Mn/DOT to identify the improvements needed
that are consistent with other improvements Mn/DOT plans to make in the TH 252
corridor.
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
The City has been working with Hennepin County to widen Brooklyn Boulevard
north of I-694. The plan would add an additional lane on Brooklyn Boulevard
between approximately 63rd Avenue and 70th Avenue. The County received an
STP grant to pay a portion of the construction costs of the project. An
Environmental Assessment has been completed and FHWA issued a Finding of No
Significant Ixnpact. However, the roadway improvement plan is linked to
redevelopment along Brooklyn Boulevard and reconfiguration of access to the
existing car dealers just north of I-694. The project is currently on hold because of
right-of-way issues related to the proposed redevelopment and reconfiguration o#
the car dealers' access and property.
TH V
69 A ENUE
The proposed improvements on Brooklyn Boulevard also included some
improvements on 69th Avenue at the intersection with Brooklyn Boulevard. The
forecast volumes indicate that some capacity improvements will also be needed to
the west to the Brooklyn Center city limits. The City will continue to work with
Hennepin County on the capacity improvements that will be needed prior to
turnback of this roadway to the City.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT 1�
The access to MnJDOT highways in the City of Brooklyn Center is largely fixed in
place. I-94 and I-694 are interstates with access only occurring at interchanges.
These interchange locations are set and the City does not expect these locations to
change. Access to TH 100 was resolved in the EIS for the TH 100 improvements.
Access to TH 252 was set when the roadway was built. The City is not looking for
more access but does believe that additional capacity will be needed at the
intersection of 65th Avenue and TH 252.
Access to the minor arterial system (Brooklyn Boulevard and Bass Lake Road) will
require management in order to maintain the mobility function and safety of these
roadways. The Brooktyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study and the proposed
Brooklyn Boulevard improvements identified a number of access improvements
JANUARY 2000 3- 1 6 BRW�.INC.
#24531
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
that should be made on Brooklyn Boulevard in order to improve the capacity and
safety of this roadway. Access to Bass Lake Road, especially east of Brooklyn
Bouievard, should also be consolidated to improve safety. Hennepin County has
guidelines for desirable access spacing on minor arterials. Although it may not be
possible to achieve the desired spacing with the current iand use and development
patterns on Bass Lake Road, the City will strive to consolidate access wherever
possible.
LOCAL SYSl'EM 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,
induding local streets, water and sanitary sewer, and storm drainage systems, are
now reaching the end of their useful lives and need replacement. In 1992 the City
undertook a Pavement Management Study to document pavement conditions and
determine the extent of street reconstruction needs. The study showed that about
80 percent of the street mileage should be overlaid or reconstructed.
In response, the City embarked on a program to address these needs in a
systematic manner. The Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Program
is an infrastructure rehabilitation program designed to serve as a catalyst for
neighborhood revitalization_
In 1997, Brookl n Center is in its fourth ear of constructin nei hborhood
Y Y g
improvements. Since 1985, approximately 13.5 miles of residential streets and 5.75
miles of State Aid streets have been reconstructed. With over 100 miles of streets
and utilities, even at an aggressive pace, it will take ten to fifteen more years to
complete a cycle of infrastructure rehabilitation.
LOCAL TRAFFIC CONTROL
The increasing level of traffic and congestion on the principai, 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 #he other hand it also
may not be appropriate to try to calm traffic because this may cause the traffic to
divert to local stree#s. Problems on collector roadways need to be addressed on a
case-by-case basis to identify the most appropriate solution.
r
JANUARY 2000 3 I 7 SRW, INC.
#24531
TRAtJSPORTATION PLAN
TRANSIT
As shown in Figure 3-5, the City of Brooklyn Center is well served by local transit
routes that operate on most of the City's minor arterial and collector roadways.
The City is also well served by express routes providing quick access to downtown
on I-94. The City has park and ride lots located on Brooklyn Boulevard just south
of I-694, on Brooklyn Boulevard at the Brookdale Shopping Center, and on TH
252 at 69th Avenue. The Brookdale Shopping Center also serves as a transit hub
where 8 different routes intersect to provide connections to other locations within
the City.
In 1995 service north of Brookdale was restructured to provide "timed transfer"
feeder service at Brookdale. In June of 1997, smaller buses were assigned to these
routes to beiter suit actual demand. Further expansion of timed transfer operations
and other transit improvements are dependent on the construction of a full-scale
transit hub, similar to the one recently developed at Northtown Shopping Center,
which can accommodate additional customers and buses.
MCTO has determined that fully 40 percent of the transit trips in the Brooklyn
Center go to Brookdale, making it a logical location for a successful transit hub.
However, negotiations between MCTO and the shopping center owners have yet
to resolve issues of security and screening.
The Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan identifies five transit markets
in the metropolitan area and the service characteristics and performance guidelines
tha# are appropriate for the different markets. The transit plan also defines four
transit service zones where the service is developed to be responsive to the markets
in they serve. Brooklyn Center is located primarily within the Inner
Urban/Suburban Transit Zone. T'his zone has the second-highest service level in
the Metropolitan area. Service in this area should be avaiiable 12 to 18 hours a day,
seven days a week. A small portion of the northeast corner of the City appears to
fall into the Outer Suburban Zone. Given the type of land uses and density of
development in this area, the City believes it should be part of the inner
urban/suburban transit zone.
The Trans ortation Poli Plan identifies the rima factors that can influence the
P �J P rY
creation of transit- and pedes#rian-friendly communities. These are:
Concentrated, compact development patterns
Mixing of land uses within 40 to 160-acre neighborhoods
Pedestrian- and transit-orien#ed design, as expressed in building and
parking locations, transit shelters, sidewalks and paths, etc.
JANUARY 2000 3 I 8 BRW, 1NC.
#zass�
������nm ,��Iill�llllllllll�nnl '�0-�� i
��'lll��r��� �II p d/1��������
u��lll���l.,•..•. �IIP ,4'� +Vu
I IIIIIIDI N
m uu� ���II iiiil� un 7� a ���II�
n ..n
n�au e....11l��t�ll�� i_ ��i ,r n
�J� C�,I'� 1111111 rr onnm:' dl:
�i1m� �TnTi i�����i��t���in nm_ n�� rn i�lbi= i�nmm�lilllll:
nnu nt �u� �nn nnmqllqlll mm �n�:C mm mnm �nlnnnlunme
����cc�.T���n ;�itl� m�n nnnn_.,__ nun rmmw11�
m m l:::.:a1a.^.v: cA i:! mw umn uu�w nnn �=mm c177:
;�S?3� nm�e. m�a nmm �mm nm.... mmm �n. �m W'
��\`3Z.�9+ 5..q� ..mnu m�n aum �annl �IIIIII ....I... nUm u�1u11 mG�l ql
�1��1 111��1�� Ilnlnllln 6
y 11��11� ��III� �����1� ���0�11 ��o��= �n i.
C�iiiii i W� iiiiiiii iiiiiiii iii N�� °°1O1 1° Op1pq
u nnm� mmn �nnul�.�lln�
•:i1����j \;:\��:���t�. :;:�j:�.\��\\ Q�I i111i1ii 11111111 iiiY i illl'lii iii�lii�1111�� �11111111 �Illilill
�il�� 1
V 1.
�O�O i L
:��1111�� 1�1��� 1/1111�1 IIIIt�II ���111� IIIIIII/ �/11111� \111111� �1�111111� II111�1111111
p p�u�m.'ummn nn� �nnn nunn mm� uu m mn uma umm� �nmu
Cunnmi <.�1� mmmm �nw nu�w nuunum� mumnn� unnu i
�I�IIII��1/�:�����m�l�.\
\�I��I��t111 I�II 1111 1�1 11��1�1��11�111� 1��1111�111 11111/11
���1�111� �11111 I�tl 1�11 111 •1�����11111111� �I11111�11 �1111111 I
I ��11���� �������1111� IIIII�I 1�11�11� �111111�\IIIIII� �Ili����� �f�11��1
llunn. tnnnum W t111111 111 �IIIIt11qP� �PUnI nnnuo
nnum� i����hi rv����\ rM �w mi�m uunnmlll: nmm unnnu�
c�1 ������r� 11111 1111� num� un nn
nnn� unn c�7 mum m� m
6 'nm� �u n n N.ri��irmna� mnn� mum m. m::
��tn� N N ��u�t�lll Ilk it11A11� p IIq1111 ntm�111
y..,..". N ,i11/11111111i1��ili�
�i i� ii ����t/ �i a�.:: f I�Itill��l�l'�I ��I��1�11'�
�II����tl�l� I Il���������I��/I 11��1 `.J 111111111
�11�����\�1� �t� II�Y t L.. r\I� \II ^.N 111111111
�����1�1�����1��� �1��11���111��\ I �i 1 �I ��i �1��11�
nm�ummm �munmun tl�\ 0 j I�� i mnnn c 7
..umn.nnn m....nnr.0 \0��`�� I�i�4 e munn
nnnunnnn ummmm� o anum
r..n �nu p C�3 �i ��i�•
1 11 N� 0��< nmun
��i:iiiiinn� �y:: N .y� �p :11�. �11/�11
Il�q �Iii I���II C� c� o-,�� ��u��tlt���l
��P 1� 5 i�\II ����III
I j�ll ���\II�
�II,. QI �I N \C\1 11 �A�
C�l
f �6: E�
A
I
_e
L I� •o
���w �N�
�C�' ,I: 07 �i�T� `1�
�LL;L ,•/j x, �7'qll=mm�e �t
um u�
P�� ��:.`:i' x+
Q mu ne cYJ ,�0
aiu `0,�����C�:::�'.mnnn oC�� G`\�\\...
mu nc
unII.�.�
un itJ o� u` 7� �p �G �4� iu l�.�. Q i
IIIII V� �C 1�� �1111 �R1
�m� mu�::'.� mm� u����� G=�r
n�m�un n� C a
Z O �'f..
n �mm�s��� nnm „��;;3 rF 11111 x'd/�1: r
7 :��i Il llnnlr�!�\ n1I r W m i 0
►�:�0� 1 '�i� imuna�� 1 /1 n �illtl� ��m� nl�'� swuu�
�v a�/nn_ Im m�nc nd nm i�nn ..,,-�i mnn mmm mu��
:C� O luu� nnnn� 6� �n� -C nnr �n. ..,nnn �mnn mm�
O oi�mim�n. vmmnnn CL' n ��nr
m i u nnmmum
�anunn i� �n �tll��lll i�nu
��IIIIIIIIIi �II/11� 111111�� 11 \�I/ 111� ��1\ I �I/llll��ll D��� �C i�111U IIIIIAA1111�
1 iiiiiiiiiii �111�1� 1�11111� i1 i�l j/�11 �11111 �Y�
11 IiI11G tilnlf .-1
r�+ e mm �mu. �'�s rAn u�nui�i ill p _�1111 ::C' 1 �u�n 1
���,�i,.'`�� �i 1� e IIU �/111►�.mn
nmm �i, �IIIIIII�IIIIII pm p7 p� 7
�mm �u�. p111111�1111/1 a .�'p yu rl 1 �n
mm� nnlm h m� u�n�'i�� C7�. OIIliiiinil��ll I/� -I
ummnu �n■.. a P�;"r I�
inmu mnm ����mm�m �nau �mn�"-`...� f 'll� IIIIUI/ 1
m ��Ilum uu nllll I �uu.ii
nm IIP' I iiiiii 'C �mmnunm r:n, �ql
mp III: 7 7p nmmmmn n`dlll�nn nu
Cvu/ 11111 nn i����
1O j� �ii^ nm C� iii°iiii iiiiri C'3�iiiiiiniiiiii iiiiiiii °°O 11111:III
nn111
1�
��111 ���11�111����
::u�u��up �yq� d+ nnm� nnu mnumm IIIIIU�i
�uu nmm �nu 6� r IIITi Ill�u
enn RI mnnmm�.
.....•.;r�- _s �`��I�°
.IIIU�u- i��� -"ma��G•�• m
71111�u�:. mmu C�pnnm..../"
�11111 ���A ���11�1
i ���111 11111��1 Itll� 111111�1�
n� �qll: mmnmi
mnnm�Al nnn
C �iniii nmm �n�nunnAifJ
nnun11111 �i' �ulnnnl
1� ���IIIII 11111�1� �11��1�/�11►� �11111111
�i �nnnnn IGm /1111 IIIIIIII p�� �num�y nnnnnm
��i �,_��nnuul um� mnn umn i: �C CanuU::3 nnmmm p
i mnqmm� mmn unnn _nu�p•' nnuuurp.
mnuuum P�• nn��nn�
��!IIIIIIIIG �uu °n�m mum CI� .o n1�,
�nu �mnn uu�m
`r' mn numi mmu C: �I 7� �7
i 1 nnN� uO� I :�C :C im�A �C 7�
n um �nnm� n� p
.lQ` ���C� IIIIIII �p? :S 7::: -u� G: �i n�'�
�1 .muul►
I urunu�u�mnm�uu Im��� a
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
As described in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan,
Brooklyn Center's goals include the revitalization and intensification of certain
areas, notably the City Center and the 8rooklyri Boulevard corridor, with a more
diversified mixture of uses that will reduce reliance on the private automobile and
encourage walking and transit use. The City is ready to work with the MCTO on
strategies that will enhance transit service to such mixed-use areas.
Several incentives are now available to communities that wish to encourage fihe use
and enhancement of transit service. The Transit Tax Incentive offers a ten to 15
r
e cent tax credit to certain es of commercial and industrial develo ment and
P tYP P
redevelopment iocated within 1/4 mile of a frequently operating regular route
transit line. In Brooklyn Center, this incentive currently applies along #he 83 and
5 routes on Brooklyn Boulevard as far as Brookdale, and along the 28 route from
Brookdale to Humboldt Avenue.
TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
Travel Demand Management (TDM} is a set of techniques to reduce peak period
vehicle trips by 1) shifting travelers from driving alone into shared ride
arrangements, such as ridesharing or transit, or 2) by encouraging alternative work
arrangements, such as flextime and telecommuting that remove trips from the peak
travel times.
In this metropolitan area and throughout the naHon 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. 'I'herefore, the City
supports travel demand management as a way to alleviate increasing traffic
con estion.
g
TDM techniques are best implemented #hrough 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 telecornmuting. The s#ate and
region provide transit service and facilities such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV)
lanes, metered ramps and meter bypasses to allow faster travel times for ride-
sharers and transit users. These type of improvements are important for
I supporting drivers who choose alternatives to driving alone.
Most of the City of Brooklyn Center has been developed so that the City is
somewhat limited in what it can do to encourage transit-friendly design or to
encourage employers to provide incentives to employees that rideshare. In infill
JANUARY 2000 3'ZO BRW, 1NC.
#24531
r p i� v� mm �uunnn� C��
I i dllllll mm�.nm: I� e'
����-�mm�n= n��ii����f11t0 C �d1��Nli I ;O" pu q i
j ,I q Iff iiiii%ii I� �PI 11:
�iii��..�� I I 1 ii iu i% O
�.:1 Ile p��i �i �q� iiiiiiiii 'i
iNO �p ni P�i �ii. qp �1 unum i�i i• OV i
1 ���I�a�muur� r��0 nunn� 1 I ��y��"��
�m C: �C
/r�.! 7�
1�� '�DC
\�IIIIIIII
I '\�C i ��I/ nn GIIIIIIIP n�
:�i 11�1��
C
_,��,,,,,�,i ��L. 'il�
W �_�lil
f�
r�:;_:_:
unn.i !i�
mm: =r�1��_ nnU q �hu� �i���:
mmu.�_ pu
d111I If
f/If
71 11111N ��/1' ���C
�nlfLwnwnu _u... m�
pn............n.e..
��1111111110111111111�� O� ��Iip�� q�
•1{1�u�nmuu♦ �/II���I I�IIIill�fll� �IIb�pI1
11�11 �.e�
�����������I�������� �11��111 illlllllllll� ���1111 1
nu unun nemnm� -elf1�� e nm.�i��4 �i o� 1�����`� \i
n.unnm��pm"" -i I n'�� eo�p �i�
.■n.�� 3' \I iiiii7iii..,�ni �nu� e
iy �'q� G'�' p "r i mnq� pj�. iunnu.n....
7�u 6� �p �7 in G,� •!�I nrq�� �iri �auuunnu�
�iinii: ni i� C` i/�P�i °iii� �iiiiiii iiiiiiii'uii�
i�nuu� .ia�t��� p m♦ e_ �r. �e mn��nmm� mumm�r
�i
"•'•..nue- mn�1111�Om utmm�: A �II
_�man.'_�7"� =7 mu �qqlllll' :'�7 nuqfl/N�m mmv..
m�u�-" O7 7 =i iiiii�� 4 `�:i i:ii::°: r
•'nmu o' unq� t� ii q C i�\ i��
m4 u�umn �p
�1t11U� C: mIIIry u� iq�i� i
f iii��� �iiiiiiiii io`��i:i:��' iiin
111111 :9 �{���5:� li_
,e ►n�.�, 1
t�T'"� i
•unne 'i===
�e �nnu
'�O�:iiii i ��I i I� C�
C
.i �11 ___cp
f
'eL
11� 7' u
�f i11i1 I, f-
�1/11� :p �i
li� �1�"'""""
i I�1 I�� 1": ��l����r
m�u�� i='.�e e11lli
mnn•�....nu
nunn�
mmm �4Annmrq�
y�' numu .L n i o �!o-
�mmu p�. C� 7 u i
utnun u C 1�
nmuu ►'1 J��� O:
ne��ni I 1- �::Snll:: P��i:�,
mmmuuin:r? :�c i�u Ti� Ci
�i�n i mncnuncu �x�
7 C�.�::.,�:' ee t�. 3,
iiill� _��4 P 'Pu. 11�� =`=='e
t 11�11�►i I
��._ti
11�1�1{►i� I '2 e� G a
ii "e
/111lI1t�l��`� 1 111111
�i_
nuuu�(1111� �1� ouunune e- 1
►�uiPi -__��c
"Alllllll! e
nwum
i! ..��anw�w �8 �Sn
am.��.n Ti
Imnlllli� i:
.L���E
11111► �3=�
:i mu
�I� ��itllln�nn�nii,
�:n:.
==i= �5:�
�mnu
i inTi�'
I TRANSPORTATION PLAN
and redevelopment areas the Cify 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 sidewaiks and trails that effectively link its
arks, schools, commercial areas and civic buildin s. As shown on Fi ure 3-6
P
g g
sidewalks have been developed alang most minor arterial and collector streets and
along an interconnected system of local streets. The City recently developed a
paved multi-use path along the south side of 69th Avenue between Shingle Creek
Parkway and TH 252.
Trails are connected with sidewalks and cross most City parks. The extensive
Shin le Creek trail s stem rin s Palmers Lake and follows the course of Shin le
g Y g g
Creek north to south through the City. At the City's southern boundary, the trail
continues along the creek through north Minneapolis, eventually linking to Webber
Parkway and the Grand Round of the Minneapolis Parkway system.
Pedestrian bridges provide key links in the trail and sidewalk system, crossing I-
94/694 at Garden City Park, and crossin TH 100 from Summit Drive to Knox
g
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 aiong the trail would improve this segment.
There is no suitable bicycle crossing of I-694 west of Xerxes Avenue except for the
sidewalk on Brooklyn Boulevard, which is substandard for bicycle use. The City
should study the issue of whether an overpass across I-694 is technically and
financially cost-effective. Another alternative would be to direct bicycle traffic to
Zane Avenue in Brooklyn Park.
An off-street bicycle trail is proposed for consiruction beginning in 1997 along the
Mississippi River from 53rd #o Fifth Avenues, as part of the North Mississippi
Regional Park. This will improve access to the riverfront and link other trails and
sidewalks in the Southeast Neighborhood.
Gaps in the sidewalk system still hinder edestrian and bi cle movemen# in some
I p
locations, and should be filled when other street im rovements are made. In
P
particular, sidewalks should be completed along the full length of the three
"loops" discussed in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan
JANUARY 2000 3 BF2W� INC.
#zas3�
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
(Figure 2-4}. T'hese routes are intended to link neighborhoods, parks, schools and
the City Center. Sidewalks are currently missing in several locations:
I Several segments of Dupont Avenue north of I-694;
Humboldt Avenue between 53rd and 55th Avenues and 57th and 59th
Avenues;
The central section of 57th Avenue/Bass Lake Road at Shingle Creek
Parkway;
Shingle Creek Parkway at 69th Avenue;
Mos� of 69th Avenue east of Shingle Creek Parkway.
Bi clin is accommodated on the Ci s off-street trail s stem. However bic clin
�Y g �3' Y Y g
on City streets can be difficult, especially on arterial and collector streets with hi h
g
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 bicycies and pedestrians. Hawever, rights-of-way in many
locations are too narrow to allow on-street bike lanes or off-street paths to be
developed.
The most feasible solution would be a system of signed bicycle routes on the three
main loop routes identified on Figure 2-4. Most of these streets Dupont and
Humboldt, for example have two undivided travel lanes and two parking lanes.
A separate bicycle lane cannot be accommodated without removing parking.
However, where traffic volumes are moderate, experienced bicyclists can share the
road with occasional parked cars. Bicycle routes, or bicycle lanes where space is
available, should be located on the following streets:
Humboldt Avenue
Dupont Avenue
Xerxes Avenue
69th Avenue
57th AvenueJCounty Road 10 east of Brooklyn Boulevard
Shingle Creek Parkway
The one roadway that presents particular difficulties for bicyclists is Brooklyn
Boulevard. In its current configuration, this roadway is not really suitable for
bicyclists, due to high tra#fic volumes and narrow sidewalks. However, in lieu of
other alternatives, bicyclists can use the existing sidewalk for short distances,
although this creates visibility hazards at intersections. As redevelopment occurs
along Brooklyn Boulevard, increased consideration should be given to providing
1 wider off-street paths for shared bicycle and pedestrian use, as the City has done
along 65th Avenue.
�JANUARY 2000 3-23 BRW, INC.
#2a531
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
GOODS MOVEMENT
Most freight movement in the City of Brooklyn Center is primarily by iruck 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.
RELA710NSHIP OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
Brooklyn Center has a relatively dense pattern of residential development with
small lot singles and a high proportion of attached units. It also has a large and
centrally located retail-office-civic core that is supportive of transit and ped-bike
access.
Brooklyn Boulevard, a Minor Arterial and the major non-regional roadway in this
community, is struggling with the dual demands of traffic movement and land
access. There is a strong and growing demand for traffic from the north to use
Brooklyn Boulevard to access I-94/694 and TH 100. At the same time, the City
wishes to make this corridor a more important location of office, retail and multi-
family residential development. This includes replacing with more intensive
development the existing single-family detached housing that has direct access to
Brooklyn Boulevard. The Brooklyn Bouievard 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; mare pedestrian emphasis.
Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment and in#ensification; closing curren# and
restricting future access points to Brooklyn Boulevard; additionai transit
shelters as part of streetscape improvements.
Possible reduction in housing density in the Northeast Neighborhood.
Infill commercial and industrial development north of I-94/694 near Shingle
Creek Parkway.
JANUARY 200� 3-24 B}�W� 1NC.
#24531
1
Tf2ANSPORTATION PLAN
AVIATION
Brooklyn Center is within the influence area of the Crystal Airport, which is a
designated reliever airport for Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) Airport metropolitan
system airports. The airspace over Brooklyn Center is also used by aircraft
operating from Metropolitan Area airports and other airports.
Only a small portion of the Crystal Airport is located within Brooklyn Center. Most
of this small area is located in the Shingle Creek floodway and is not suitable for
development; it is controlled by the City's floodplain zoning.
Brooklyn Center is a member (with Crystal and Brookiyn Park) of the Joint Airport
Zoning Board, which regulates land use around the airport. This commission
functions under a joint power agreement. In the eariy 1980s, it adopted airport
zoning regulations which apply to each of the member cities. The air�ort zones are
shown on the Brooklyn Center zoning map but the text of the regulations has not
been incorporated into the City's zoning ordinance.
Airspace zones are imaginary surfaces around the airport into which no structure
or tree is permitted to penetrate. The imaginary surfaces include approach
surfaces, primary surfaces, horizontal surfaces and conical surfaces.
Land use safety zones are estabiished to control land uses near public airports for
the safety of airport users and persons in the vicinity of airports. There are three
safety zones: A, B and C(see Figure Appendix).
Safety zone A extends outward from the end of the runway for a distance equal to
two-thirds of #he leng#h of the existing or planned runway. No buildings,
transmission lines, or uses which would cause an assembly of persons are
permitted. In Brooklyn Center, this area is partially airport-owned open space and
is partially in single-family residential use.
�afety zone B extends outward from safety zone A, a distance equal to one-third
#he 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 electroruc
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 #wo miles of the airport may be considered hazards to air
.�ANUARY 2000 3-25 BRW, �NC.
#24531
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
navigation. Brooklyn Center has no existing structures of this height; does not
permit such structures under its zoning ordinance, and has no plans to permit such
structures in the future. Any applicant who proposes to construct such a structure
shail notify the city, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal
Aviation Administration at ieast 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 Airpart 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 chan es ro osed in this Com rehensive Plan wili affect the
g P P P
functioning of #he Crystal Airport. By #he same token, airport operations have
reiatively few impacts on the adjacent neighborhood in Brooklyn Center. Noise
impacts are considered in the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan #or the airport. The
Metropoiitan Cauncil suggests that the 60 DNL (day-night average sound level�)
contour should be used for pianning purposes for areas inside the MUSA. The 60
DNL noise contours in 1993 had minimal impact on Brooklyn Center, since most
departures are to the northeast, into the prevailing wind direction. The projected
60 DNL noise contours for 2013 in the Long-Term Comprehensive Plan extends just
beyond the airport boundary into Brooklyn Center, but should affect few, if any,
residential properties. According to FAA standards, the 60 DNL contour is
compatible with residential development.
DNL is the average sound level, in decibels, obtained from the accumulation of
all sound events; it weights night-time sound events to account for #he increased
disturbance resulting from night-time noise. It is the FAA's single system for
determining exposure of individuals to airport noise.)
However, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) uses a different
standard, the L, contour, which identifies the area where 65 d$A (decibels) is
exceeded 10 percent of the time (6 minutes) in a given hour. The projected 2013
L, contour for the airport extends much further into Brooklyn Center, in a
roughly triangular shape that ends at the I-94/694 and Brooklyn Boulevard
interchange.
There are no heliports in Brooklyn Center, and heliports are not a permitted use in
any zoning district. The City should examine the issue of where heliports might
best be permitted, to ensure tha# any future proposals for heliports occur in
appropriate locaiions.
JANUARY 2��0 3-26 BRW, �NC.
#2453!
l
Comprehensive P�an 2020
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
1NTRODUCTION
t �his chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following elements:
ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS DeSCr1UeS eXlStlrig IlOUSirig
conditions, neighborhood conditions, housing needs and current
housing programs and issues.
HOUSING P�.�,N Includes recommendations for new housing,
redevelopment and rehabilitation programs, neighborhood improvements
and of#icial controls.
BACKGROUND
Several previous studies provide a good overview and introduction to housing
issues in Brooklyn Center. The Year 2000 Report (1985) examined many demographic
and social trends influencing Brooklyn Center and assessed issues that seemed the
most significant to the City. Major trends with the potential to affect the City's
housing stock included:
An increase in the number of single-parent households;
The aging of the population;
The aging of the infrastructure and housing stock;
The ability of Brooklyn Center to deal with occasional metropolitan
problems;
The City's overall image and perceptions related to its ability to attract
young families.
The Maxfield Research Group report, The Brooklyn Center Housing Market: A Study
of Trends and Their Impact on the Community (1989), provides some important insights
into the City's housing stock, although conditions in the housing market have
changed since that time. The report notes: "Since [Brooklyn Center] developed
rapidly during the 1950s and 1960s and was populated by young families buying
their first homes, its stock of single-family housing is, by today's standards,
positioned as entry-levei."
The report also pointed to problems associated with the City's rental housing:
An increased need for social services in the community;
Difficul#y in maintaining the aging rental housing stock;
JANUA�tY 2000 4' I BRW, lNC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
The danger of allowing rental buildings to becoxne lower-income housing
through deferred main#enance.
The report recommended City involvement with rental property owners and an
increased City role in developing higher-quality low-income housing.
The City's 1996 Metropolitan Livable Communities Act Action Plan provides a
comprehensive picture of the City's existing housing, housing development,
maintenance and rehabilitation programs, current and future housing needs and
housing goals. These goals are part of the "Housing Goals Agreement" required for
participation in the Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives Program.
Much of the following discussion of City housing programs is drawn from this
Action Plan.
ANALYSIS OF HOUSING CONDITIONS
This section contains the following elements:
Profile of Existing Housing
Neighborhood Housing Conditions
Housing Assistance Programs
Analysis of Housing Needs
Housing Issues
PROFiLE OF EXISTING HOUSING
MIX OF HOUSING TYPES
Brooklyn Center's housing mix has grown more diverse since 1980. Notably, #he
number of single-family attached units (townhouses) almost doubled. There were
slight increases in detached units and in apartments, while the two- and 3-4 unit
categories lost numbers, presumably through clearance and redevelopment or
conversion to other types. According to the Ma�cfield Housing Market report, almost
all of the apartment units added in the 1980s were senior-only rental buildings:
Brookwood Manor (65 units), Maranatha Place (65 units) Earle Brown Commons
(140 units), and Brookwood Estates (73 units).
JANUARY 2000 4 BRW, INC.
#zas3i
1
NEIGI-IBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
Tabie 4-1: Housing Type, 1980 -1990
Housing Type 1980 Percent 1990 Percent Percent
Change
Single-family 7,248 66.0 7,351 62.7 1.4
detached
Single-family 497 4.5 953 8.1 91.7
attached
2 units 104 0.9 73 0.6 -29.8
3-4 units 205 1.9 174 1.5 -15.1
5 and up� 2,915 26.6 3,110 26S 6.6
50+ {1990 only)* 755
Total 10,969 11,661 6.7
*The "50+ units° category, not available for 1980, is shown as a subset of the "5 and up"
category
The City Assessor Records for 1996 show additional single-family detached
deveiopment. However, the figures in the following table are not comparable with
1990, since "condominiums," "duplexes" and "triplexes" are broken out separately.
I (A "condominium" is a form of ownership rather #han a housing type, and is thus
enumerated elsewhere in the Census.) The total number of units is less than #he 1990
totals, indicating that some clearance may have occurred..
Table 4-2: 1996 Housing Mix
Number Percent
Single-family detached 7,380 64.3
Townhouses 629 5.5
Condominium units 126 1.1
Duplexes 108 0.9
Triplexes 9 01
Apartment units 3,225 28.1
Totai 11,477
JANUARY 2000 4-3 BRw INC.
#2a531
NEIGHBOR#-IOODS AND HOUSING PIAN
Table 4-3 shows a similar housing mix in neighboring communities. As in Brooklyn
Center, single-family detached units predominate, while units in larger multifamily
buildings are the second most common, and townhouses are slowly increasing in
number.
Table 43: Housing Mix in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1990 (percentage
of total housing units)
Single- Town- Two- 3-4 5+ unifs
family house family units
Brooklyn Center 62.7 8.1 0.6 1.5 28.5
Brooklyn Park 55.3 14.4 0.9 1.0 27.9
Crystai 76.3 2.0 0.9 1.5 19.0
Robbinsdale 70.6 5.0 4.5 0.5 21.3
Columbia Heights 64.4 6.3 6.8 2.4 '19.3
Fridley 58.1 6.1 2.2 2.4 27.4
AGE OF HOUSING
Table 4-4 shows that while the 1950s were the peak decade for housing construction
in the City, this was a period in which owner-occupied housing predominated.
Most of the City's rental housing i.e., most of i#s multifamily apar#ments were
built in the 1960s and 70s. 'The lack of vacant land has limited housing construction
in the 1980s, and it is anticipated that most new construction will take place through
redevelopment.
Table 4-4: Housing by Year Built
Year Built Number (incl. Percent Percent Owner- Percent Renter-
vacant) occupied occupied
I pre-1940 329 2.8 3.5 1.5
1940 1949 611 5.2 6.9 1.9
1950 -1959 4,729 40.4 54.9 11.3
1960 -1969 2,999 25.6 19.8 36.5
1970 -1979 2,032 17.3 9.2 34.7
19$0 3/90 1,013 8.6 5.8 14.1
JANUARY 2000 4'4 BRW, INC.
#24531
NEIGI-IBORHOODS AND HOUSING PIAN
1 HOUSING TENURE
The City's housing tenure (ownership versus rental) mix changed very little in the
1980s, although numbers in each category increased. According to Metropolitan
Council estimates, the ownership-to-rental ratio is currently at 68/32 percent. This
is well within #he Livable Communities Act goal for the city of 64 72 percent
ownership #0 28 36 percent rental.
Table 4-5: Housing by Tenure
,i 1980 Percent 1990 Percent
Owner-occupied 7,438 692 7,806 69.5
Renter-occupied 3,313 30.8 3,420 30.5
Total occupied 10,751 11,226
AGE OF HOUSEHOLDERS
The age distribution of householders both homeowners and renters is used by
the Metropolitan Council as an indicator of the "life cycle" stages that predominate
within a community, including renters, first-time home-buyers, move-up buyers,
empty-nesters or seniors with various housing needs. As Table 4-6 shows, the
largest age groups in 1990 were in the 25-34 and the 35-44 age ranges, which can be
characterized as "first-time home buyers" and "move-up buyers." In general,
however, the distribution among the various age classes is fairly even, with the
exception of the very small "under 25" group.
Table 4-6: Households by Age of Householder,1990
Age Group Number Percent of Totai
Under 25 years 574 1.1
25 34 2,567 22.9
35 44 2,140 19.1
45 54 1,608 14.3
55 64 1,983 17.7
65 74 1,509 13.4
75 845 7.5
JANUARY 2000 4' $RW, INC.
�{24531
NEiGHBORH000S AND HOUSING PLAN
HOUSING VALUES OWNER HOUSING
Housing values for owner-occupied homes did increase during the 1980s, although
they did no# keep pace with inflation. Very few homes in 1990 were valued at less
than $50,000; the vast majority fall in the $50 100,000 range. The Metropolitan
Council has provided a more detailed breakdown of 1990 values, shown in Table 4-
7, which indicates that most houses fall into the $75,000 to $99,999 bracket.
The 1996 median assessed value for single-family homes in Brooklyn Center is
$77,701. The 199b median sale price is $81,418. Retail sales average approximately
350 homes per year, according to the City Assessor.
Table 4-7: Values of Selected Owner-Occupied Units, 1980 -1990
1980 1990
Number Percent Number Percent
less than $50,000 1,394 20.2 85 1.2
$50,000 99,999 5,451 78.9 6,749 93.1
$�00,000 149,999 53 0.7 368 5.0
$150,000 -199,999 6 32 0.4
$200,000 and up 2 15 0.2
Median value (1990 $61,800 $79,400
($98,262)
Table 4-8: Values of Selected Owner-Occupied Units, 1990
Number Percent
less than $60,000 400 5.5
$60,000 74,999 2,542 35.1
$75,000 99,999 3,892 53.7
$100,000 -149,999 368 5.1
$150,000 -199,999 32 0.4
$200,OD0 or higher 15 D.2
aJANUARY 2000 4'G BRW, INC.
#zas3i
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
As Table 4-9 shows, a decline in median values for owner-occupied homes was
universal in the 1980s among neighboring communities, and also in the majority of
firs#-ring and even second-ring cities in the metropolitan area. This seems to have
been a common pattern in the Twin Cities area and, in fact, throughout #he Midwest,
where housing prices tended to stagnate throughout much of the decade. This value
is based on the homeowner's own estimate, and thus may reflect perception as much
as reality.
Another indicator of housing values is provided by Hennepin Coun#y, which has
mapped the changes in median assessed property values for single-family, attached
and smaller multi-family residences from 1990 to 1996. These maps show that in the
northwest first-ring suburbs (Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Robbinsdale and
1 Crystal) values generally increased from 0.1 to over 15 percent. However, certain
areas showed declines in value. In Brooklyn Center, declining values were found on
scattered single-family iots throughout the Nor#heast, Southeast and Southwest
neighborhoods and in many of the City's townhouse developments. Interestingly,
while riverfront lots in the Northeast neighborhood showed large increases in value,
many lots in the adjacent tiers showed declines or minimal increases.
Table 4-9: Median Values of Owner-Occupied Housing, Brooklyn Center and
Neighboring Communities, 1980 990
1980 (1990$) 1990 Percentchange
Brooklyn Center 98,262 79,400 -19.2
Brooklyn Park 106,212 88,400 -16.7
Crystal 96,672 78,000 -19.3
Robbinsdale 94,287 76,500 -18.8
Columbia Heights 91,902 73,600 19.9
Fridley 104,304 86,000 17.5
I RENTAL HOUSING COSTS
Rental costs increased relative to inflation in the 1980s. However, the majority of the
City's rental housing market is affordable when compared to Section 8 fair market
rents. According to the Metropolitan Council, 46 percent of #he City's rental housing
meets #he Livable Communities Act standard for affordability higher than the
regional benchmark (and City goal) of 41 to 45 percent.
JANUARY 2000 4 $RW, lNC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSiNG PLAN
ZONlNG AND HOUSING
The Ci#y's Zoning Ordinance contains seven residential districts which permit a
complete range of housing iypes. Densities range from approximately four units
per acre in the Rl single-family district to as many as 30 units per acre in the R7
multiple family district (buildings of 6 or more stories). Townhouses are permitted
in the R3, R4 and R5 districts; multifamily apartments are permitted in the R3
through R7 districts. Most residential neighborhoods are zoned R1, the R2 districts
are located close to the City's southern boundary, and the higher-density districts
are generally contiguous with areas of townhouses or multifamily housing.
Table 4-10: Rental Costs (Units by Monthly Rent)
1980 1990
Monthly contract rent Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $250 1,281 39.9 246 5.1
$250 to $499 1,916 59.6 1,698 35.5
$500 or more 16 0.5 1,417 29.7
$500 to $699* 1,330 27.8
$700 to $999* 81 16.9
$1,000 or more* 6 0.1
Median rent (1990$) $265 $475
{$421)
These categories are subsets of "$500 or more"
NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSiNG CONDITIONS
This section summarizes information from the "Nei hborhood Profiles" in the Land
g
Use, Redeveiopment and Community Image Plan and the 1989 Housing Market
Report on housing conditions and other factors that influence housing in each
neighborhood.
CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD
Mos# of this neighborhood's housing stock is well-maintained and well-buffered
#rom I-694, its northern boundary. Among the multifamily complexes, the t
Summerchase Apartments were recently renovated {see below under Multi-Family
Housing Acquisition and Rehabilitation Programs). Other complexes along Beard
Avenue show signs of deterioration.
aIANUARY 2000 4'S BRW, INC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS ANO HOUSING PIAN
The proximi#y of Garden City Park and the Shingle Creek trail sys#em provides an
important axnenity for the eastern half of the neighborhood. The areas west of
Xerxes Avenue, bordering Brooklyn Boulevard, lack similar amenities and are
exposed #o heavy traffic.
NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD
T'his neighborhood contains the largest number of rental housing units of any of the
City's neighborhoods, as well as some of its most expensive single-family housing.
As discussed above under Housing Values, riverfront lots show marked increases
in assessed value, but lots directly inland show minimal increases or declines. The
area around Humboldt and 69th Avenues North contains a large concentration of
multifamily buildings, some in need of renovation. Multifamily buildings are also
found on both sides of the Highway 252 corridor #hat parallels the river. Single-
family areas west of Humboldt and between 66th Avenue and I-694 are generally
stable and weil-maintained.
The traiis and open space around Palmer Lake provide an amenity for the western
half of the neighborhood. The riverfront areas, unfartunately, have no actual river
access, with the exception of the trail crossing at Willow Lane and the I-694 bridge.
NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD
The Northwest nei hborhood is divided into two distinct sections b Brookl n
g Y Y
Boulevard. 'The western section contains the City's largest concentration of
townhouses: Unity Place, a recently renovated cooperatively-managed Section 8
development, Creek Villas and Island Ponds. While attractive and well-maintained,
all these units in the latter two complexes declined in assessed value from 1990
through 1996. The Vic#oria Townhomes, another Section 8 development, are located
along I-694 south of the Willow Lane School and Park.
On the eastern side o# Brookiyn Boulevard, newer townhouse developments include
the Earle Brown Estates, adjacent to #he Shingle Creek Industrial Area, and the York
Place townhouse development. Marvin Gardens, a rental townhouse complex, is
located just behind the iarge complex of automobile dealerships on Broaklyn
Boulevard.
The neighborhood's single-family areas are stable and generally show increasing
property vaiues. Palmer Lake Park provides an amenity for the eastern section of
the neighborhood, while the Willow Lane Park and School provide both a
neighborhood focus far the western section and a buffer from Brooklyn Bouievard.
JANUARY 2000 4 BRW, INC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSItJG PLAN
SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD
The Southeast Neighborhood is dominated by single-family residences, with only
a few multifamily complexes on either side of Highway 100. There is great diversity
in the housing stock, with many older homes (pre-1950). There seems to be a
perception within the City #hat low property values and decline of adjoining
neighborhoods in Minneapolis are "spreading" to the Southeast neighborhood.
However, property values as measured i�y Hennepin County seem to have
remained stable or increased from 1990 to 1996, especially in comparison to the
Minneapolis neighborhood.
Three city parks serve the neighborhood: Lions, Grandview and Bellvue. Hennepuz
County's North Mississippi Regional Park (formerly the City's River Ridge Park)
runs along its eastern edge, but the park is narrow and largeiy undeveloped, and
access across I-94 is limited.
SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD
This neighborhood probably has the City's widest variety of land uses, and its
housing is divided into many small "pockets," separated by highways, a railroad
line, and industrial uses. The area bordering Upper Twin Lake is largely single-
family detached residences, except for the Twin Lakes Manor multifamily complex.
A new block of detached homes was recently constructed along 51st Avenue N.
Thi ar
s ea is served b#he lar e North rt Park n
y g o a d school com lex, and b the
P P Y
small Lakeside Park.
The southwest corner of the nei hborhood borderin Middle Twin Lake contains
a large condominium complex and a mix of single-family and duplex residences and
smaller four-plex apartments, many in need of renovation. The area is served by
Twin Beach Park.
On th
e east side of Hi
ghway 100, a large group o# multifamily buildings, still in
adequate condition, are separated by industrial uses and the railroad line from the
largely single-family area to the north. This "triangle includes Happy Hollow Park.
WE T E
r
S C NTRAL NEIGI-iBORHOOD
The West Central Neighborhood is a fairly homogeneous neighborhood largely
composed of single-family residences. Multifamily housing is scattered along
Brooklyn Boulevard and along County Road 10, where the Twin Lake North
Apartments and the adjacent townhouses enjoy a private location backing up to
Kylawn Park and a nature preserve in Crystal. The neighborhood's sheltered
location and its many parks give it a quiet and protected character, with moderately
increasing property values. Orchard Lane, Marlin and Wangstad Parks are located
here, in addition to the large Kylawn Park/Haget Arboretum complex. The new
.JANUARY 2000 4 I O BRW. INC.
#zassa
NEIGN60RHOODS AND I PLAN
Cahlander Park and adjacent park-and-ride lot buffer the neighborhood from the I-
94/694 and Brooklyn Boulevard interchange.
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
AFFORDABLE FINANCING FOR HOME BUYERS
The City has participated in the Minnesota Housin Finance A enc 's (MHFA's)
g g Y
Minnesota City Participation Program (MCPP) since 1992. The MCCP is a program
designed to provide below market rate mortgages to qualified home buyers. The
maximum income eligibility for the program is $43,000. Since 1992, #he City has
provided over 110 mortgage loans under this program.
The City anticipates a continued strong demand for this program in the future, for
several reasons:
The upper price limit for the MCPP is $95,000 for a single-family home. Over
90 percent of the City's single-family units are valued below this price range.
The aging of the City's population (over 24 percent is 55 or over) means that
many people will be "turning over" their houses as they move to other living
arrangements.
In addition to the MCPP, first-time buyers can also obtain below market rate loans
from the Minnesota Mortgage Program (MMPj. The MMP is also offered by local
lenders on behalf of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The major di#ferences
between fihe two programs are a lower house price limit for the MMP ($85,000) and
a lower income eligibility {$34,500).
RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
While Brooklyn Center does not directly fund rental assistance programs, these
programs are available to persons and families in the City, primarily through the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) Section 8 rental
assistance program. According to Metropolitan Council information, there were 600
federally subsidized units in the City in 1994, comprising 5.1 percent of ail housing
uni#s. These include households receiving vouchers and housing complexes that are
subsidized ("project-based").
There are currently approximately 350 households with Section 8 cer#ificates or
vouchers within the City. These renters pay approximately 30 percent of their
monthiy household income for rent, with the Section 8 program making up the
difference in market rents.
JANUARY 2000 4' I I BRW, 1NC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND F10USiNG PLAfJ
Rental assistance is also provided in the form of project-based Section 8 assistance,
under which the rent assistance goes with the unit ("project") rather than the
individual. There are presently over 200 project-based Section 8 rental units in four
separate complexes in the City: Unity Place, Ewing Square, Victoria Townhomes,
and a smali multifamily building at 67th and Emerson.
MULTI HOUSING ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS
Brooklyn Center contains approximately 3,225 apartment units. In the past three
years, the following acquisition and rehabilita#ion projects have been undertaken,
affecting a total of 674 units, or more than 20 percent of the total number.
uNmr P�o,cE: In 1993 the City approved the issuance of $5.3 million in
housing revenue bonds for the acquisition and rehabilita#ion of Unity Place,
a 112-unit Section 8 project-based townhouse development in the Northwest
Neighborhood. The 1993 acquisition changed its organization to a leasehold
cooperative.
The leasehold cooperative approach to rental housing provides that the
cooperative association and governing board are made up of project
residents, and that members of the cooperative can actively participate in the
management of the property, induding establishing budgets, screening
prospective tenants, hiring and supervising a management agent, and other
day-to-day management funcHons. The cooperative's participation is
regulated by a lease between the owner and the cooperative.
As required by IRS regulations for housing revenue bond financing, a
minimum of 40 percent of the cooperative members mus# have incomes at
or below 60 percent of the area median gross income, as determined by
HUD.
suMMERCr�,sE APaRrMEr�rs: In 1994 and 1995 the City Council issued $9.7
million in housing revenue bonds for the acquisition and rehabilitation of
252 apartment units. Over $2 million of this amount went toward
rehabilitation of this apartment complex in the Central Neighborhood.
TwiN v�es MAr,oR: This complex (formerly named Brookdale 10) in the
Southwest Neighborhood contains 310 units 308 one-bedroom units and
two efficiency units. The City supported the buyer of this property in his
appiication for funding under the federal HOME program. The buyer was
awarded $700,000 in HOME funds which provided funding for the
rehabilitation of one of the 12 buildings in the project and ultimately the
creation of ten affordable HOME units. The remainder of the acquisition and
rehabilitation cost was funded privately.
J�wUARY 2000 4' I Z BRW, INC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
SCATTERED S1TE ACQUiSIT10N AND REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
The City, through the Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority {EDA)
conducts a scattered site acquisi#ion program to acquire blighted and deteriorated
single-family properties, clear these properties and market the lots for
redevelopment of single-family homes. The EDA has acquired 13 properties under
this program, nine of which have been redeveloped with new homes. All of these
houses have sold or are for sale for less than the $115,000 affordability level set for
single-family homes under the Livable Communities Act. The City anticipates
continuing this program.
PARTNERSHIPS AND REFERRALS
Since 1992, the Brooklyn Center EDA has worked with Twin Cities Habi#at for
Humanity to develop three new single-family homes on lots acquired and cieared
by the EDA.
The City is a member of Co-op Northwest, a housing coalition that also includes the
cities of Brooklyn Park, Crystal, New Hope and Robbinsdale. The group has
developed its own subregional housing plan and has been designated by HUD as
a Community Housing Development Organization, making it eligible to receive
HOME funds for development of affordable multifamily units.
Brooklyn Center has not been involved in the use of HOME funds, but it has worked
with the co-op to provide remodeling information to single-family homeowners
through Remodeling Fairs and other design resources.
The City also refers residents to a variety of private nonprofit housing assistance
programs, including the Center for Energy and the Environment (energy-efficient
rehabilitation) and HOME Line (tenant advocacy and homebuyer assistance).
BUILDING MAINTENANCE CODE
Brooklyn Center was one of the first cities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area to
adopt a building maintenance code. The code, adopted in 1975, was designed to
provide minimum standards for maintenance of existing buildings, and thus to
protect the character and stability of all buildings and property within the City. The
building maintenance code provides a mechanism to establish and enforce
neighborhood and community standards for maintenance of the City's housing
stock.
RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE
In 1975, Brooklyn Center adopted a rental licensing ordinance designed #o provide
for the continued maintenance and upkeep of aIl rental property in the City. By
JANUARY 2000 4- I 3 BRW, INC.
#24631
NE�GHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
requiring bier+nial licensing of all rental property, the City is abie to assure a
minimum standard of maintenance and upkeep of rental property, thereby helping
to preserve the rental housing stock and thus ass�.st in the preservation of affordable
housing.
HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM
Since 1979, the City has funded a deferred loan program for rehabiiitation,
providing persons of low and moderate income a means to make needed repairs to
their homes. Over 230 homes have been rehabilitated under the program since 1979,
and more than half of these were located in the Southeast neighborhood, the City's
oldest and most affordable. The deferred loans are awarded to persons and families
at or below 60 percent of inedian income; maximum loan amount is $15,000.
The type of improvements done under this program are typically repairs or
replacement of major systems in single-family or dupiex homes, including
plumbing, electrical, mechanical systems, windows, doors, ventiiation, exterior,
roofing, insulation, and other repairs.
HOUSEHOLD OUTSIDE MAINTENANCE FOR THE ELDERLY (H.O.M.E.)
PROGRAM
The H.O.M.E. program, funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
monies, provides persons b0 years and older or who are permanently disabled with
reduced-cost home repairs. Repairs include interior and exterior painting and minor
home repair, including minor carpentry and masonry repair and accessibility
improvements.
The H.O.M.E. program is operated by Senior Community Services, a non-profit
organization specifically equipped to work with older homeowners. Part of the
program's philosophy is to maintain independence for the eiderly living in single-
family homes by providing access to reasonable repair services. The program has
been in place since 1992 and assists 15 to 20 households per year.
ASSOCIATION FOR RENTAL MANAGEMENT OF BROOKLYN CENTER (ARM)
In 1992 a rental property owners and managers coalition was formed to address
issues in the multifamily housing community. T`he goal of the Association for Rental
Management of Brooklyn Center is to improve the apartment community in the City
by providing informa#ion to apartment managers and owners to aid in their
pro#essional development and awareness of opportunities for improving the
management of their properties.
�JANUARY 2000 4- 1 4 B{��/, �NC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
The organization is a cooperative effort between the City and property managers to
address problems in the rental community and to enhance the quality of rental
property in the City. The ARM has enhanced communication between property
managers and City elected officials and staff.
CURRENT AND FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS
AFFORDABILlTY OF HOUSING
The great majority of Brooklyn Center's housing stock, both owner- and renter-
occupied, is affordable under the Livable Communities Act definition. Additionally,
the rents in Brooklyn Center are affordable when compared to current Section 8 fair
market rent limits.
REn�ra� Houswc: It is anticipated that the rental housing market in Brooklyn Center
will continue #o remain affordable, particularly since the majority of the rental
housing stock is over 20 years old; the majority having been built in the 1960s and
early 1970s.
If Brooklyn Center rents are compared to the Metropolitan Council's standard of
affordability, the majority of the rental housing market would be considered
affordable. The Council's standard is 30 percent of #he income of a family earning
50 percent of the regiori s median income. This translated to a monthly rent of $683
in 1996. The average rent for a two-bedroom unit in Brooklyn Center is $600.
The threshold for affordability under the Livable Communities Act is $115,000 for
a single-family home. According to the Metropolitan Council, 99 percent of #he
City's owner-occupied housing is considered affordable, while the benchmark and
goal for affordability is 77 percent.
OWNER HOUSiNG: AS C�iSCUSSeC� d�70Ve UYlC�E'T "Housing Values," the majority
of owner-occupied housing in Brooklyn Center is affordable. The threshoid for
affordability under the Livable Communities Act is $ll5,000 for a single-family
detached home. Out of the 7,380 detached homes in the City, approximately 117 are
valued over $115,000. The 1996 median sale price for single-family homes was
$81,418.
CtJRRENT HOUSING MIX AND LAND AVAILABLE FOR HOUSING
Brooklyn Center is a fuily developed suburb which experienced most of its
development in the 1950s 1970s period. Approximately 44 percent of the City's
total land area is developed with singie-family detached homes. Townhouses and
duplexes account for almost 1.5 percent of the land area, and muiti-family
residential comprises approximately 6 percent. The remainder of the City's land
area consists of commercial and industrial development, public and semi-public
JANIJARY 2000 4- 1 5 BRW, INC.
#2453!
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
uses, parks and open space, utilities and streets (see Figure 2-1, Land Use Pattern).
The amount of undeveloped land remaining in Brooklyn Center has been estimated
at around 5 percent. Most of this remaining land is zoned commercial and
industrial. The only substantial areas of vacant land that are suitable for residential
development are found in the Gateway area north of I-694 at Highway 252. This
area is discussed below under "Potential Housing Redevelopment Areas." The
creation of new housing in other parts of the City will largely depend on
redevelopment of existing housing or other land uses.
DEVELOPMENT DENSITIES AND POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT WITH MIXm
LAND USES
As described in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Comxnunity Image Plan {Chapter r
2), several areas offer opportunities for redevelopment with mixed residential, office
and commercial land uses at medium to high densities.
Many areas along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor that are currently
occupied by single-family homes or underutilized as commercial sites would
be available for redevelopment for high- or mid-density housing or more
intensive office and commercial uses. The corridor is well-served by transit
lines.
The western section of the Gatewa area at I- 94 and TH 2 2 n'
y 6 5) co tains
enough vacant or underutilized parcels that a well-integrated mixed-use
center could be developed, to include retail and office uses along with mid-
and high-density housing. The Land Use Plan (Figure 2-3) shows mixed use
as one option for this area.
The City Center area, includin and surroundin the Brookdale Sho in
g g PP g
Center, could be strengthened by the addition of complementary land uses
such as mid-density housing, along with structured parking to free up land
now in surface lots, improved pedestrian and transit amenities, and
improved public or semi-public spaces.
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND HOUSING AFFORDABLE TO THE WORK
FORCE
The rima exn lo ment centers in the Ci are the Ci Center area surroundin
P rY P Y �Y tY
and including Brookdale, and the Shingle Creek Industrial Park, consisting mainly
of modern multi-tenant office/warehouse space. Both these areas are in close
proximity to many concentrations of affordable housing, both in multifamily
complexes and in a number of newer townhouse developments.
r
JANUARY 2000 4 I G BRW, INC.
#zas3i
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PL4N
CONCENTRATIONS OF LOWER OR SUBSTANDARD HOUSING UNITS
A few areas in the City's Northeast Neighborhood contain concentrations o# low-
cost and substandard housing, which has resulted in difficulties in maintenance and
upgrading of #hese units and an increased demand for social services by tenants.
These areas are:
T'he area surrounding Humboldt and 69th Avenues North, which contains
approximately 330 multifamily units in some 20 buildings, most of them
occupied by low-income households under the Section 8 program. This area
was identified in the Maxfield Housing Report as presenting a problem for the
City due to the increasing functional obsolescence and/or deferred
maintenance of these buildings.
Multifamily complexes on both sides of Trunk Highway 252, from Willow
Lane at the southern end to 73rd Avenue. Along the eastern side in
particular, these complexes are adjacent to the City's most desirable
residential areas along the riverfront, with single-family homes #hat
generally exceed $100,000 in market value.
Most of the City's other multifamily complexes are scattered in and around the City
Center and along Brooklyn Boulevard. One of these, Twin Lakes Manor (referred
r to above under "Housing Development and Rehabilitation Programs") is large
enough to constitute a"concentration" of lower-cost units. The townhouse
complexes in #he northwest corner of the City, however, are in good condition and
consist mainly of market-rate housing (with the exception of the subsidized Unity
Place).
COMPARISON OF BROOKLYN CEtJTER AND NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES
Brooklyn Center's housing stock, like that of its immediate neighbors, Crystal,
Robbinsdale and parts of Brooklyn Park, is comprised largely of older entry-level
homes purchased mainly by first-time homebuyers. This general profile applies to
many of the first-ring suburbs in the metropolitan area, such as Richfield, St. Louis
Park, West St. Paul, Columbia Heights, and others. All these cities face the
challenges of maintaining an older housing stock and addressing the needs of their
elderly residents and single-parent/single adult households.
According #o the 1989 Housing Market Report, the City's primary competition for the
market segment of entry-level homebuyers comes from the second-ring suburbs
such as Anoka, Champlin, Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids or Maple Grove, where
newer affordable starter homes are available. The City recognizes that it must
address this competition, along with its first ring neighbors, by emphasizing the
benefits of buying homes in older, established neighborhoods (i.e. mature trees,
convenient access to the central cities) and the potential for renovating the older
suburban detached home to meet today's needs.
.JANUARY ZOOO 4' I 7 BRW, INC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAtJ
RELATIOhISHiP OF LOCAL NEEDS TO REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES
Metropolitan Council housing policies, as stated in the Regional Blueprint and the
subsequent Regional Growth Strategy, stress the need to create affordable, diverse,
and convenient housing i.e., housing in close proximity to transit to meet the
region's needs. As expressed in the Livable Communities Ac#, Council policies
emphasize the need to achieve and maintain affordable and life-cycle housing.
Brooklyn Center's housing stock helps to meet regional needs for affordable
housing, both owner- and renter-occupied. The City has also done much to foster
life-cycle housing, by supporting the creation of townhouse developments and
senior housing. However, the City has also been adversely impacted by the over-
concentration of low-income housing in certain areas, and has taken steps toward
introduction of higher-value housing in certain neighborhoods.
HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES
The following issues were identified by the Comprehensive Plan Task Force. Most
issues are closely linked to the preceding analysis of housing needs, and are
addressed in the Housin Pla
g n section which follows.
What is the most a ro riat h
pp p e ousing mix for the City.
What creative housing rehabilitation and zoning strategies should the City
pursue #o improve its housing?
How can the City encourage and foster housing maintenance?
Should the number of multifamily apartments in the City be reduced? If so,
what should be the City's role in this process?
How can the City gain support for housing rehabilitation programs?
How shouid the City hold landlords accountable #or their properties?
What are the most effective infrastructure investments the City can make to
stabilize neighborhoods and the housing stock?
is multifamil housin an a ro riate and desirable use alon Brookl n
Y g PP P g Y
Boulevard in place of the single-family detached housing there, given
concerns about multifamily housing in other areas?
.JANUARY 2000 4' I S BRW, INC.
#Z4531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
HousiN� P�N
HOUSING GOA�S AND OBJECTIVES
As part of its agreement for participation in the Metropolitan Livable Communities
Act's Local Housing Incentives Program, the City has declared its support for the
foliowing principles:
1. A balanced housing supply with housing available for people at all income
levels.
2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale,
rental and location of housing within the community.
3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle.
4. A community of well-maintained housing and neighborhoods, including
ownership and rental housing.
5. Housing development #hat respects the natural environment of the
community while striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing
types and costs.
6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and
the improvement of access to and linkage between housing and
employment.
To carry out these principles, the City agrees to maintain ievels of affordability, life
cycle housing and density that meet the "benchmarks" set by the Metropolitan
Council, as shown in Table 4-11.
The following housing and neighborhood objectives build upon the Fundamental
Goals presented in the Introduc�ion. There is also some overlap with the Land Use
and Redevelopment Objectives listed in Chapter 2, since housing needs are closely
linked to redevelopment.
1. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted areas, commercial,
industrial and residential, to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses
and stimulate new investxnent.
Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design
principles contained in this comprehensive plan and special area
plans {such as the Brooklyn Boudevard Corridor Streetscape Amenities
Study).
JANUARY 2000 4 I J BRW, INC.
#24531
NEIG!-iBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
Table 4-11: Affordability, Li#e Cycle and Density Standards, 1996
City Index Benchmark Goal
Affordabiiity:
Ownership 99% 77% 77%
Rentai 46% 41-45% 41-45%
Life Cycle:
Type (non-SFD) 37% 34-41 34-41
o o 0
Owner/Renter 68 32 /0 64-72 28-36 /0 64-72 28-36 /o
mix
Density:
i
Single-family 2.9/acre 2.4-2.9/acre 2.4-2.9/acre
detached
Multifamily 11 /acre 11-15/acre 11-15/acre
I Re lace ina ro riate sin
le-famil housin with attra tiv n n-
P PP P g Y S
c e o
residential deveiopment in a way tha# protects remaining housing.
Assist with s ot re lacement of housin that m
p P g
beco es deteriorated
be ond the int
Y P
0 of ecoriomic rehabilitation. Ensure that
replacement housing fits with its neighbors.
Reduce the over-concentration of apartment buildings in certain
neighborhoods by assisting in redeveloping it to housing that has a
lower density, a higher rate of owner-occupancy, and a more
pedestrian-friendly relationship to the street.
2. Work to ensure that the City's housing can evolve to meet #he needs and
demands o# its current and future population.
Accommodate changing family and household structure by
providing a suitable mix of housing types.
Foster a mix of housing values and incomes, including introduction
of higher-value housing in lower income areas.
Encourage the development of more new high-quality single-famiiy
JANUARY 2000 4'ZO BRW, INC.
#24531
NEIGNBORHOODS AND HOUSiNG PLAN
housing (o# above the median neighborhood value), to balance the
Ciiy's large stock of affordable single-family housing.
Help owners update their older houses to meet today' s market
demands through demonstration projects, education and financial
assistance.
Support outreach efforts to potential homebuyers.
Continue to rehabilitate multifamily housing in targeted areas.
Institute or continue housing maintenance requirements such as
inspection at time of sale and rental housing code enforcement.
HOUSING STRATEGIES
Table 4-12 is a matrix that lists the strategies below by nei hborhood, identifying the
g
strategies that are most appropriate in each neighborhood and within the Brooklyn
Boulevard corridor. Its intent is not to limit certain programs to certain
neighborhoods, since most programs can be applied anywhere in the City, but
rather to set priorities for future neighborhood assistance.
OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY PROGRAMS: T�lE Cl� W1Il COI1tlTlttE t0 �dT�1Cl�dte
in the MHFA's Minnesota City Participation Program, the major first-time
homebuyer program available to cities in Minnesota. Although the MHFA's
Minnesota Mortgage Program does not require municipal participation, it is
anticipated that first-time buyers will continue to access this program in Brooklyn
Center.
ACQUISITION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS: Tlle City scattered site acquisition and
redevelopment program will continue, although the City's efforts are currentiy
concentrated on the 53rd Avenue corridor (see below under "New Programs"). The
program is a cost-intensive one, since acquisition, demolition and relocation can cost
$70 80,000 per unit, and the cleared lots are generally sold for around $15 20,000.
aJANUARY 2000 4'�L I $RW, IN0.
#2453�
Table 4-12: Housin Strate ies b Nei hborhood
9 9 Y 9
�o
m N
d a a
Y �o d 3 3 U
o s s w
c
d
m U Z Z t�
Ownership and Rental Assistance
Programs
Scattered-site Acquisi#ion and
Redevelopment
Rehabilitation Loans and Grants I I✓ I I I✓ I
Remodeling Assistance I
Housing for the Elderly i I✓ I I
Reduce Multifamily Housing
Concentration
Street and Utilities Improvements I✓ I I✓
Road Corridor Enhancements 1 I I
Specific Redevelopment Projects I I
Zoning Initiatives I 1
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
HOUSING REHABILITATION AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAMS
cor,ziNUiNC PROCr3aMS: Both the CDBG-funded Housing Rehabilitation Program and
the H.O.M.E. program will continue in the City, under the administra#ion of
Hennepin County. The County took over the administration of CDBG programs for
the City in 1996 in order to increase staffing efficiencies and enable the City to
concentrate its resources where it can be most effective.
The City will continue to work with private nonprofit groups such as Habitat for
Humanity and will continue to refer residents to other nonprofits that can provide
assistance with rehabilitation and homebuyer education.
REHABiLITATION �oar,s: Brooklyn Center is a"test market" for Hennepin County in
the administration of the MHFA's Fix Up Fund. The Fix Up Fund is a longstanding
MHFA program which provides up to $15,000 as a ioan to homeowners for a wide
variety of rehabilitation projects. Homeowners with incomes as high as $43,000 can
quality for these loans, at interest rates that float between two and eight percent,
depending on income. The loans are targeted to a higher-income group than is
targeted with CDBG funds, and will increase the range of rehabilitation services in
Brooklyn Center.
REMODELING ASSiSTANCE: Tl1e City is planning to increase its eFforts to assist
homeowners in remodeling their single-family homes to meet today's housing
standards. Most of the City's single-family housing stock consists of one and a half
story ramblers, built in the 1950s and 1960s. While many are in sound condition,
#heir size and configuration do not meet the needs of today's homebuyers.
Several other first ring cities have taken the lead in assisting homeowriers with
resources and design guidelines for remodeling these homes. Richfield is well-
known for its "Richfield Rediscovered" program, which includes a substantial
remodeling component a Remodeling Manual, free in-home consultations, and
HRA-financed zero in#erest incentive loans. St. Louis Park recently sponsored a
design competition for rambler remodeling plans.
Brooklyn Center already participates in remodeling fairs #hrough Co-op Northwest
and works with Realtors to inform them about marketing opportunities. The City
is also considering adapting some of the strategies mentioned above to stimulate
remodeling efforts. One possibility is for the City to provide write-downs on the
interest rate for second or third mortgages, in cooperation with area lending
institutions. The City could also provide assistance to homebuyers in developing
a remodeling plan'and obtaining purchase-remodeling loans.
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING �NlTIATIVES
There is a common perception among City residents that Brooklyn Center already
has "more than its share" of multifamily housing. There are at least two factors that
JANUARY 2000 4-23 BRW, INC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS ANfl HOUSING PI.AN
contribute to this perception:
Much of the City's muitifamily housing was designed and built in the 1960s
and 70s. These buildings are aging, and have attracted iow-income
residents. The City has few examples of market-rate multifamily housing or
contemporary multifamily design.
Multifamily housing tends to be concentrated in very large complexes or in
specific geographic areas (i.e., 69th and Humboldt Avenues). Therefore, it
tends to be highly visible and to appear "out of context" with surrounding
lower-density residential areas.
Therefore, the City's strategy for renewing and upgrading its multifamily housing
stock encompasses both construction o# new multifamily housing aimed at the
growing senior population, and replacement of some multifamily housing with
other land uses in selected areas where its concentration is highest.
AFFORDABLE SENIOR Hous�r,c: While it can be argued that Brooklyn Center has an
ample supply of affordable multifamily housing, there will be a growing for
additional senior housing to serve the many homeowners in the over-55 age group
who may wish to sell their single-#amily homes while remaining in their
neighborhoods. Both the City Center and the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor offer the
proximity to retail and the good transit service that this population needs. Both
areas present opportunities for additional senior housing in the form of multifamily
buildings or single-story townhouses.
REDUCE CONCENTR.4TION OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING: Tlle Cl� future redevelopment
efforts may focus on replacement of multifamily housing in the 69th and Humboldt
area, either with medium-density housing such as townhouses or with an extension
of the adjacent Shingle Creek Industrial Park. Industrial uses, if appropriately
landscaped and buffered, could extend as far east as Humboldt Avenue North.
DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR MULTIFAMILY AND A'TTACHED HOUSING: Tlle DES1gT1 GL11ClelllleS i
that follow this chapter are intended to create medium- to high-density housing that
embodies some of the good characteristics of single-family detached housing,
including its continuum of private to public outdoor space and the sense of
connection that it offers connection to the surrounding street network, parks and
other neighborhood amenities. By applying these or similar guidelines to new
multifamily housing through its zoning ordinance or site plan review process, the
City could encourage a higher quality of development, and a character that is more
compatible with surrounding residential areas.
NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT
STREET AND UTILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM: T�12 1989 Housing Market Report i
identified the upgrading of neighborhood streets with curb and gutter, beginning
JANUARY 2000 4-24 �NC.
#24531
1
NEiGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
with the Southeast Nei hborho d
g o, as a critical ste in enhancin the ima e of the
P g g
City's older neighborhoods and thus stimulating private reinvestment in housing.
In 1992 the City began a systematic Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement
Program, through which streets are replaced, curb and gutter installed, and sanitary
sewer, storm sewer and water lines are recons#ructed or replaced. Since 1985,
approximately 13.5 miles of residential streets and 5.75 miles of State Aid streets
have been reconstructed. Results are visible in the Southeast Neighborhood north
of 57th Avenue N. and along major streets such as 69th Avenue N.
It is clear that reconstructing the public infrastructure often serves as a catalyst for
private improvements such as driveway replacement, landscaping and housing
rehabilitation efforts. The City is currently evaluating the direction of this program,
which areas should be targeted, and how continued street improvements are to be
financed.
RoAO CORRIDOR ENHANCEMENTS: Tlle LdTlC� US2� Redevelopment and Community
Image Plan includes the recommendation that the City undertake a long-term road
corridor enhancement program to beautify and visually unite the City Center and
surrounding neighborhoods. As described in the plan, three interconnected loops
would connect mos# neighborhoods and the City Center. This strategy, which may
include coordinated, attractive street lighting, shade trees, sidewalks, bike lanes and
directional and neighborhood signs, would help to improve the sense of
neighborhood identity, and by extension, stimulate private investments in housing.
SPECIFIC REDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS
A number of public infrastructure improvement and redevelopment efforts are
underway or in the planning stages in specific areas:
53R� AVENUE f�EDEVELOPMENT I�ROJECT: AS C�ISCUSSeCi in the Land USe�
Redevelopment and Community Image Plan, in 1996 the City initiated a project to
create a green buffer, pedestrian path and new higher-value housing along 53rd
Avenue from I-94 to Bryant Avenue. Acquisition of existing homes is currently
underway. The City will donate the land for new housing, or will heavily subsidize
its cost, and will also specify minimum square footage and materials #or these
homes. It is expected that new housing will sell in #he $95,000 to $120,000 range. If
successful, this project could be extended west along 53rd Avenue as far as
Humboldt Avenue.
GATEWAY REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Tlle Cl� 1S lI1 t�le I111C�S� Of TeC�eVelO�2Tlellt Of d
roughly ten acre site located north of I-694, east of Highway 252, and south of 66th
Avenue. Through #he Economic Development Authority, #he City has acquired
three parcels a former service station, an 18-unit muitifamily building and a 25-
unit motel and demolished the buildings, which were a blighting influence on the
surrounding neighborhood. In order to gain control of the remainder of the site, the
City would have to purchase an additional multi-famiiy complex.
1
�JANUARY 2000 4-Z5 BRW, INC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
This area, which benefits from its proximity #o both the riverfront and the freeway
interchange, is designated in the Land Use Plan as being suitable for mid-density
housing such as townhouses. The area west of the highway is identified in the Land
Use Plan as being suitable for a large office campus-type development or for multi-
use development, which might include housing as well as office and limited
commerciai uses.
orHER REOEVE�oPMEr,T AREa,s: Other areas #hat are identified in the Land Use Plan
as potential housing redevelopment locations include:
Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor. In keeping with the recommendations of the
Streetscape Amenities Study, various locations along the corridor are proposed
for redevelopment, including the single-family residences tha# border the
street. In general, these would be replaced with commercial and
office/service uses on sites that are large enough to provide for adequate
circulation and good site design; and medium- and high-density residential
uses on smaller sites. High-density uses would mainly be geared toward
senior housing.
City Center: In order to allow this area to evolve into a"town center," the
plan calls for gradual "intensification" of this area through addition of
medium-density housing, structured parking, and public or semi-public
outdoor spaces.
Northbrook Mall Area: This commercial area is in need of a complete
renovation, which might be extended to include some of the surrounding
residential areas and involve a mix of inedium-density housing and
office/service uses, as well as the existing commercial uses.
Northeast Neighborhood Locations: As mentioned above under
"Multifamily Housing Initiatives," the concentration of multifamily
apartments around 69th and Humboldt Avenues may be reduced by
replacing some buildings with medium-density housing or industrial uses.
The "65#h Avenue Residentiai Area" just north of I-694 may also be a
candidate for redevelopment to more intense residential or nonresidential
uses over the long term. Both these areas are discussed in more detail under
"Specific Area Plans" in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community
Image Plan chapter.
Upper Twin Lake Area: As an area with a great sceruc and natural amenity
that is not currently being used to its full po#ential, the lakeshore area
presents a wnique oppartunity for redevelopment. Restoring the lakeshore
as common open space or parkland, bordered by medium-density housing
(such as small-lo# singles or twinhomes) oriented toward the open space
wouid upgrade the housing stock in this area while providing a valuable
amenity.
JANUAftY 2000 4'26 BRW, INC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAtJ
Riverfront Areas: Like the lakefront area discussed above, much of the
City's Mississippi riverfront benefits only those property owners whose
homes directly abut it. Redevelopmen# of residential areas along the
riverfront with higher-value detached or attached housing could help to
diversify the City's housing stock. Redevelopment of the area along Lyndale
Avenue N. would capitalize on views of existing parkland, while
redevelopment in the Willow Lane area north of I-694 could potentially
restore public access and/or scenic views of the river, while increasing
property values in surrounding areas.
CITY MARKETING AND PUBLICITY EFFORTS
The City's "Discover the Center" initiative; started by the Chamber of Commerce in
1996, provides a focus for the marketing of the City as a desirable residential
community. It has also expanded the role of the City's block clubs as a means for
addressing many neighborhood-level issues.
OFFICIAL CONTROLS
cooe Er,FORCEMENr EFFOars: The City will continue its enforcement of the building
maintenance code to address the exterior appearance of housing and the overall
appearance of the City's neighborhoods. Housing maintenance standards are an
important factor in overall neighborhood perception. The City will also continue to
administer and enforce its ren#al licensing ordinance #o assist in maintenance of
rental housing. The City has dedicated a full-time housing inspector to this task.
The City is also developing an ordinance instituting a Point of Sale Housing
Inspection Program. The program would require that residential properties pass a
housing maintenance code inspection before they are sold. The prograxn would no#
require older houses to comply with today's stricter building standards. However,
it would require correction of deficiencies that violate codes that were in effect when
the house was built, and problems that pose health or safety hazards.
ZONING IWTIATIVES: Tlle City has begun to develop an overlay district for the
Brooklyn Boulevard corridor #hat would apply the development guidelines that
were induded in the Streetscape Amenities Study to new development or
redeveiopment within the corridor. The guidelines would apply to housing as weli
as to nonresidential development.
Other zoning overlay initiatives may also be appropriate for the City Center area as
a means of encouraging the addition of new and complementary uses, including
housing, through xnixed- or multi-use development in this area.
JnrauARY 2000 4'27 BRW, INC.
i #2453�
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
HOUSING PLAN APPENDIX: DESIGN GUIDELINES
The following guidelines relate to the design and site planning of new, redeveloped
or renovated housing. Many of these are adapted from the report Making Housing
Home: A Design Guide for Site Planning Quality Housing, developed by the Design
Center for American Urban Landscape at the University of Minnesota. The theme
of that report, in summary, is that the goal of safe, high-quality housing can be
achieved through carefizl attention to physical design at three scales: the house and
yard; the residential block; and the neighborhood. By taking the good characteristics
of the single-family house and the residential block and applying them to other
housing types specifically to attached and multifarnily housing a diversity of
housing iypes can coexist compatibly within a neighborhood. Readers may refer to
that report for more detailed guidelines and illustrations of these concepts.
PRIVATE ANO PUBLIC SPACE AND SECURITY
Provide each housing unit with clearly defined private or semi-private
outdoor s ace such as a ard atio orch or balcon with direct access
P y
p P Y
from inside the unit. Ciearly define the boundaries of private outdoor space
with elements such as fencing, sidewalks and vegetation.
I
Provide each unit with a front en#ty that faces the street and is visible and
accessible from an ad'acent ublic ath. The "backs" of each uni# should be
J P P
reserved for private outdoor space and resident parking. Where individual
entries are not possible, minimize the number of units that share a single
entry.
Use semi- rivate outdoor s aces such as orches and atios #o increase the
P P P P
sense of privacy and security within the home. Provide o ortunities for
I pp
surveillance of shared outdoor areas such as streets, sidewalks and play
areas #rom within the home.
APPROPRIATE IXTERIOF2 DESIGN
Ensure that building designs fit within the neighborhood context through
the use of compatible scale, roof pitch, building massing and materials.
Design the front and back facades with appropriate levels of formality. The
front, as the more public side of the house, should receive the more formal
treatment, with trash/recycling storage, play equipment and outdoor
storage located in the back. The main entry should face the street.
JANUARY 2000 4 $RW, INC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PIAN
Buildings should address the street with varied and articulated facades,
frequent entries and windows. Porches and balconies should be encouraged,
and facades consisting of long blank walls or series of garage doors should
be prohibited.
SHARED OR SEMI°PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE
Define all outdoor spaces, distinguishing between those reserved for
residents and those open to the public. Enclose the shared outdoor space
with buildings, low fences or hedges, and paths. Clearly define the
boundaries and transitions beiween shared and private outdoor space.
Provide convenient access to shared outdoor areas, amenities such as play
equipment, seating and tables to encourage their use, and vegetation for
seasonal shade.
Control access by nonresidents via gateways, fences, plant xnaterials or
enclosed location. Locate outdoor spaces to allow for easy surveillance from
inside homes.
MIXING OF HOUSING TYPES
Discourage large housing projects that consist of a single building type;
instead encourage a range of densities, housing types and building
configurations. Encourage unity as well as diversity by specifying a
common design vocabulary among the buildings, a clear pathway system
and shared outdoor space that unifies and integrates the site.
Encourage the use of a single-family "vocabulary" in multifamily and
attached buildings, as expressed by pitched roofs, articulated facades,
visible entrances, porches or balconies, and a maximum height of three to
four stories. Large high-rise buildings may be suitable for senior housing,
but not as a rule for family housing.
If a multifamily building or attached housing is developed near single-family
detached housing, ensure that the width of the building facade facing the
street is similar to that of a single-family house. Attached units should be
grouped in rows of no more than four or six units to avoid a monolithic
appearance.
J
When combining housing types, it is preferable for the transition between
types to occur at the rear rather than the front (i.e. across a courtyard or
parking area rather than across the street).
JANUARY 200� 4-29 BFZW, (NC.
#24531
NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOUSING PLAN
SIDEWALKS AND PATHS
Provide a clear path system that connects each house to destinations within
the site and the surrounding neighborhood. Paths should be logical and
predictable in #heir routes and should be linked to the public sidewalk
system.
Keep public paths at #he edge of the site; distinguish between public paths
and private outdoor space; and make paths visible from shared and private
spaces.
STREETS, CARS AND PARKING AREAS
On large sites, extend the network of surrounding streets #hrough the site
to improve circulation, visibility, security and integration into the
surrounding neighborhood.
Locate resident parking near each home, with a direct paved path to front
or back door, while locating visitor parking near public spaces and public
paths. Ensure that parking spaces are visible from within the resident's
home and provide sufficient iighting.
In most cases, parking lots should be iocated to the rear of homes. If they
must be located on the street frontage, they should be screened by a low
hedge, fence, gate or similar visual buffer.
Use vegetation in and around parking lots to provide shade and visual
relief.
JANUARY ZOOO 4-30 BRW, INC.
#24531
Comnrehensive Plan 2020
PAR K SYSTE M P LAN
INTRODUCTION
�rooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb with a well-established park and
open space system. No new parks are planned to be acquired or improved.
Improvement is expected to be confined to enhancement of the recreational facilities,
improvexnent 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 ali
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 sparts, 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 pooi 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 ali segments of the population. There is excellent coordination of programs and
facilities between parks and schools, and between parks and City and county
facilities. The trail system links parks, schools, and other activity centers. However,
like the rest of the City's public facilities, the park system is beginning to show its
age, and its size and scope creates maintenance burdens for the City. Many park
facilities, shown in Table S-1, are in need of replacement.
JANUARY 2000 S' I $RW, INC.
#2453t
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
Previous park planning efforts date back to the late 1970s: the Park and Recreation
Policy Plan of 1976 and the subsequent Park Development Schedule formulated by
the Park and Recreation Commission in 1978. These documents established a
classification system for the parks, and set priorities for park system investmen#s,
which have largely been followed to date.
Capital improvements to parks have followed a roughly 20-year cycle. In 1960 and
in 1980 the citizens of Brooklyn Center approved bond referenda for financing the
development and improvement of park facilities. This included acquiring land,
installing new playgrounds, developing ballfields, tennis courts and other facilities.
Following these improvements, no formal plan was put in place for a systematic
update. Almost twenty years since the last improvements, there are several "big
ticket" items that are in need of replacement. Most recently, playground equipment
in most parks has been replaced; five parks stiil await replacements.
OTHER OPEN SPACE
The City owns much additionai 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 Ciiy;
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 e�cisting park sys#em a# its current
levels?
JANU�Y 2000 BRW, INC.
#zass�
nm�uunnun tI :IIIIIIP� 9� �C G�C
p mn m �n ■n p �sn 'e":�
p= �i� Illilll� d��tlll��'"C
°O p
:::J::. ��uuun..'�'���
mwnn 2' I
nn�n�u �u n� ��r���
3 t ��u�� ��I nip in ni �i17 C- ��ii1'/ nS m 1l\�
11��11�� `O� n� ��_t���
��I
��`�`\.:m�.
_`�plllll� '7y D �7C ��IIIIII{I. ,E 111�11�:
�'m: �C CIIIIIIIIII n
-�_:5 i
.,.1 T�L, III�
=i=.::;,,���`,n..!-.��; =-°=�1�'iiP
5;
uiiiy� 11� m piiiii� .,���1����_
nmu' -�a n� e:,.
7'
u�f�lnu��, ��7�� �.11►IIfI�II�IIry���^�.�°+�', i
�tlln IIIq/IqIpI �s
.......nu� ,��I�II "'u �i
niiiiiii�nup�►�
n nn iiiii�� d f1111�
C n1u�n �u n�111
�un �u�„n��{Ii 111111 �1� "i
imni�nl� nl�ll�i ��1� IIIIIIII 1111���1��11 �d �IIUIIIij I���f �I
i: 9° �1,' i11=
•�n G= 7_ "C7 ��l\i 1111etq��� n lumn�uan►//. l ll _C
�u: �p p� n7 iiiii%�O���iii iiiiiiiiiiiiii°i p` .�Il
�I��uu'. in P e' �PU :.,,�mu� nm� ��I/uo uuunumn J :;r`
�1 pu um� uuuu rommnn
r.
iiiiiiiii: �iiiinilu iu. iiil .ii' 7i1 riiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiii:
U�uu�p �n�nplllllll' ���n�1111I1Un �nuu�n. �II f�F�^
tnnu. nn p11 (IIIIIC 7' unIllllj��m tumn: C 1
��11��1: R IIi11 �IIII �IpI�� �'i� iiiiiiii .3�
►l ��qi q�u� uu�. �C d\
�nuu�':' �ur I nn� b
in n,��ip� ��n �md► r i.
ui ���umnn� n� %D///nn� t i _II�
�umnm: �uuumunu m- p�
11�1{ I .m
Illll�l
�111111 (9
�11111� C Y�.
\\111�� Y k I'.
i�° L
e,
6- -u- 'e I
.nTi C P
=�7_���I,im��=' ';:''e'��='_ 7�
:.n nll�unt e �m J.
i S n =�e �e i���?
:%:u ..�_________i'ele' �e
insuna `I�C a O �2 =G '11 y
�nnnu i.� ��rm�� e
unan� j°ir` Oi� an i 7"
wmu f J�O�O�• :�i.C��i� CG
mm� �'f �P����O���: �7
nuu�=� 7' �e e
�II 111�� p� C
�/I��i /1���.� C j
III IIIl11t1111��i �1� C i�
a ::11 IIIII��1�\�(III l�i�
��u. ��:,a�GO:: �p
ii111DC ���C .�air,e�a i i o -a
�mm�U� i�_
�unuu►
CnnnuuUN��=� �nminu.�',�€"� 5�`�?!13_9'._== e i
mm1111e ��e.. i�nammie� s� e a -L- =1=_ �C i: iw mmlum m�r
ni �n
`�IlIIIII="':=
�Znnmi
...�amuu
aunnq
11 11111111111�"'
i� �i �.•il�� =='n
I1i11►
�/�111:
e1.=. I� Ulll/q�
I�� i
111111:1
-r ,+i„` ra
Table 5-1
Park Facilities,1997
R
q a' ai e E"'
U a 'a" a a
a�"i L °7 d Q
y y D A C p u O
a, v H x aa w "a' m
Arboretum 30 I 1 i I•
Bellwe I� I I 1 I I 1�
Brooklane 2 I I 1 I I
Central 48 I 1 1 I 2 L 4 I I I I I
Evergreen 20 I• I• 1 1, 2 2 L L( 2 1 L I• I
Firehouse 10 I 1 I I 2 1 I•,•'
Freeway 6 I 1 I 1 ��'A I I 2 I 1�
Garden City 20 I I 1 I 1
Grandview 13 1 L 2, 2 A L 1•
iL
Happy Hollow 6�• I• I 1 l I• A j 2 I
Kylawn 22 I 2 2 l 1 L I 1
Lakeside 2 f 1 1 l
Lions I 18 1 1 2 I 2 1 I
Marlin 2 I•' 1 I I I
North Mississippi (Hennepin Parks) 15 1 1 1 I
Northport 25 I I I 3 I Z L i I
Orchard I,ane I 7 l• I 1 I I� L, 2 I I� i
Palmer Lake (East) I•' I 2 1 2 I I I• I
Palmer Lake (South) and Nature Area 226 I 1 I
Palmer Lake (West) I 1 I 2 I 2 A 2 I I
Riverdale 4 1 1 1 A 1 2 I I
Shingle Creek Trailway 10 I i
Twin Beach 3 1• I• I I 1 I I I•� I
Wangstad 2 I 2 I
Willow Lane 8 I I 2 L L 1
L Lighted Rink
A- Rink oniy, no attendant
Archery available at Central Park, horseshoe courts at Grandview Park
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
I How can the park system best meet the changing needs of the City's
population? In other words, how can it keep pace with social and
demographic changes that affect the population?
Fiscal and staffing constraints make it more difficult to continue maintaining the
park system at its current level. Staffing levels have actually declined since 1981,
while the number of parks and trails have increased. Demographic and social
changes also affect the park system. Both the Ci#y's population and the number of
school-age children in the City declined between 1980 and 1990. While the number
of pre-school children increased slightly in the 1980s, many of these children are
now in day care on weekdays, and thus not using neighborhood parks and
programming to the same degree as in the past.
In response to these issues, Public Works staff and the Park and Recreation
Commission have developed a parks systems plan that revises the way in which
parks are classified and reallocates the resources that each classification of parks will
receive.
PARK CL4SSIFICATION SYSTEM
Parks are classified and developed according to a functional hierarchy. This
functional system suggests the types of facilities and deveiopment which would be
appropriate in each park, however, specific improvements are individuaIly 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 pedes#rians, especially children, within a reasonable walking radius of
one-quarter #o 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
I national standards. It is similar to the system the City has used for park and
recrearion 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, a�d address issues of demographic and social change.
The system is divided into three broad categories: neighborhood parks, community
parks, and special use parks and open spaces.
Neighborhood Parks include the following three types:
�JANUARY 200� 5-5 s�w �NC.
#24531
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
Pla Lot
Y
The smallest unit of the ark s stem both in terms of size and ar i
p y ea that it serves, ts
function is to provide play facilities for pre-school children who are not conveniently
served by larger parks. It may contain play equipment, sandboxes, paved areas for
wheeled toys, walking and bike trails, and seating areas.
Service Area: The sub-neighborhood level of 500 to 2,000 persons with a 1
mile radius.
Desirable Size: 1 /4 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
stree#s. 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 i2. Often coincides with
the service area for an elementary school, and may adjoin and complement the
school facility if intended to serve the same age group.
Facilities and programs of a neighborhood playground should be designed to meet
the particular requirements of each individual neighborhood. May include a larger
play area with equipment for older children; an area for free play and organized
games; minimum maintenance ball diamond, multi-purpose hard surface courts;
walking and bike trails, pleasure skating rinks, and seating areas. Some parks may
contain portable restrooms.
Service area: A population of up to 4,000 with a'/ to �i mile radius.
Desirable Size: 5 to 10 acres.
Acres per 1,000 pop.: 2.0
Site characteristics: Geographically centered in neighborhood with safe
walking and bike access. Suited for in#ense
development. Helpful i# located adjacent to a school.
Playfield
Larger parks designed to provide recreation opportunities for all ages. They may
contain aIl the features of playgrounds, with groomed ball facilities suitable #or adult
JANUARY 2000 S'G BRW, INC.
#za53i
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
play. Hockey and pleasure skating rinks are lighted. May include por�able
restrooms and sheltered picnic areas.
Service area: Neighborhood-wide; serves entire population with special
emphasis on organized adult sports, ideally within a 1i/2 to 2
miles biking distance.
Desirable Size: 20 acres or more.
Acres per 1,000 pop.: 1.0 to 2.0
Site characteristics: Direct access from all parts of the neighborhood or quadrant.
Level terrain with few water bodies or other environmental constraints. Easiiy
accessible by large numbers of vehicles. Physically separate from homes so as to
minimize light and noise problems.
Community Park
Relatively large parks serving as a recreational focus for a neighborhood of the City.
Community parks are noted for having a wide variety of leisure and recreational
options, and are fully accessible to persons of all abilities. Lighted areas for evening
play are provided. Daytime recreational programming and playground supervision
are provided in the summer months. Heated, enclosed park shelter buildings
provide for recreational spaces and warming houses.
Service area: A neighborhood or quadrant of the City
Desirable Size: 25 acres or more.
Acres per 1,000 pop.: 5.0
Site characteristics: Easily accessible from all parts o# 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.
Speciai Use Parks and Open Spaces
These are areas providing specialized or single-purpose recreational or leisure
activities. 'These parks generaily 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.
JtwUARY 2000 5'7 BRW, INC.
#24531
I PARK SYSTEM P�AN
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.
I
JaNUARY 2000 S'8 BRW, INC.
#24531
r
Table 5-2: Park Classification and Im rovements S stem
P Y
a
w o
Improvement U a a a rn
Playground Equipment
I I
Sheiter Building Storage
BasebaN Field
Softbafl Field
FootbaN Fie{d
I �i Soccer Field
Tennis Court(s)
Hockey Rink
Ska#ing Rink As needed
Basketball Court
Voileybail Court
Other.
Horseshoe
Archery
Li htin for.
i g 9
Baseball
Softbail
Footbail
Hocke
Y
Skating
Trails, waikways o
Picnic Areas:
Pavillion
I Tables
1
Restrooms As needed
Table 5-3: Proposed Park Classifications
x
a
I
o
o �s
�U
p td
Park U� a a a �n
Arboretum
Belivue
Brooklane
Cahlander
Central Park
Evergreen
Firehouse
Freeway
Garden City
Grandview
HappY Hoilovv
Kylawn
Lakeside
Lions
Mariin
No�thport
North Mississippi (Hennepin)
Orchard Lane
Paimer Lake (east)
Palmer Lake west
Palmer Lake south
Riverdale
Twin Lake
Wangstad
Willow Lane
nnnmmnnnnm n�p 7� Gnm p�
m m m s 111111:
'naq .■....n.■ ip
a�.:`�::`►����_ :nn:`"'
mmnn
�J �I e► un..■.■■ ��.�f
1 �n in n�= :��i� �1� nnn�u� C n� n%� \P��
��/�unnm�► CI� i .ti mnmu7 i����
mwu►\�
nl I m C .'.�1�' a
,�l �i C7 �C I �C
q 11111111� �uu�unu
\I°' ��i� �i :mm�t:,
J= ee nN.mu��_ emmm� e::r9
��.1 �O ?i2 a�omm e� 1����3.
��11{��' au�
es e 'i. `���t,
os: -�1 �j '9 r�
ueu.:.p 7C 7' C .nri"h� tu
I�i::-==--
�om- 11� y_ ee 55 ee
�uu�: �C O ���IIf�
1111111�\�
t �s. .V
�'11111110� IQ/Q
�t1����/���t�����ill „1'is .xs.: �e1��
p nuum�s��nPl '°t N�
���u�O��nn� 11111 y& 7 �q�1
��m���unnu� 11111 p ��4: 11 2
nM�� nn�1�e��11 /1/11111 t11111111111� IIII �1��1� �e1
p �ummunuuem. nn ���unm mnnunr =a��.t'j�� nnu��i �q'�i n..
il� �111� ��f1111� �1� 1�� 11111111II I���1� t
�t�1 �O I IIIIIIq �1{ IIIIIIUn���11 t
ii: Cp iiS iiiiii:� ��u iiiiiiiiiiiiiii i
'-1 �n� i• i �ni►t� m\� 11! u�nnu� nu n�uu�nu z 1�� 4
umni�. .uunllTi �m m1� n 11 "'"�7 7� nnuunuun nununi
Onn��� �"C �u�unlllllll� �u�aqlllluu nnmur i 1 e11
uunn:'= muq11 mn1l///��m wmo►
IIt1{II� 7' 7 n�q �m mmur
n�m. =a �u� q..i•.� �mu� r'. --'r t
�q hn n..■�
�1� 1� m�
�IUIV� I II
III 1 �1�1�� 1
11►ff1 11�1111 �i a
iiii �iiiiiiiiin iii
�r►/,nnn,n,u�A .y.
nu��mn r+�,.y�
mni ��g3�- er "e 'e'
�um�a
..am, r i
-`�-.au 'e_e
p� QG �i j 11 ii i�
v�Ti
s ���ir
.111 ::I"
y �:u�mp
nun� e' i' LI'. e{lil� 's
nnn S "s� �`I� �n p
mmw =u
����mnnri: C G ==:'e
unnw
nnmu O� O �i'. e O i� is'
�nnn� r �J�P��O�J0���7 ��'i���'.
inn w AO 'e e G� e
Ilf 111�� �i1� 1 e=
k�a= 1 �II I\i �C :ii�-G �i 11�
.IIIIIIIi�.\� 1-
11111�\. '�1� IP�
�nPS :��7
mll/[\`�� m. ./li� a__e t.
�t �1�11�►:� PO dL1a �C 7 'G i
�11��1�►� i t� �a&'
�ii111l�11111�� --!'I_��
u�u�nn1111- ��mm�m�� e o=
,mm�nn �«.a.w�te --'i i� im r7uulmn
f
�1���
��f�lllllll:?'�$'
.���I11111111P �p"' �i��
IIfIn�u11�
�Iltllllllltll
..il�i_�� C
i 1111I
nin=.
q pq!/�
-r�1I�
�1�1�111��
r.� C 111111:1►�
�t
."�e�
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND PARK
LI N KAG ES
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 Ciry bicycle and pedestrian trail system is anchored by the Shingle Creek Trail,
an off-street separated trail which runs from the north to the south City limits along
Shingle Creek. For much of its length, separate trails are provided for bicyclists and
pedestrians; a short segment across the Brookdale Shopping Center uses a sidewalk
trail. The north end of the trail circles Palmer Lake; a portion of that trail is located
in the City of Brooklyn Park and is maintained by that city.
The other major north-south trail system is the Mississippi River trail system, which
from north to south consists of: the West River Road off-street trail; an on-street trail
on Willow Lane extending to the trail link under the I-694 bridge, and then the
proposed Hennepin Parks trail in North Mississippi Regional Park.
East-west links include the 69th Avenue greenway, the Freeway Boulevard/65th
Avenue trail; and the proposed 53rd Avenue greenway.
On- and off-street trails have been designed to link community parks and playfields
to the major trail systems. Within parks, trails continue to major facilities such as
ball fields, playgrounds and shelters.
Two primary linkages are currently substandard and require improvement. 1) The
on-sidewalk portion of the Shingle Creek Trail across the Brookdate Shopping
Center site is uiumproved 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) T'here is no suitable bicycle crossing of I-694 west of Xerxes
Avenue except for the substandard on sidewalk trail on Brooklyn Boulevard.
PARK GOALS AND POLICIES
Development and improvement of the park and recreation system has been
consistent with the Park and Recreation Policy Plan of 1976. This document was
reviewed and revised in 1997. The goals and policies expressed in this document
are excerpted as follows:
Base park and recreation planning on the needs and demands of ali segments of
the City's population.
The Park and Recreation System consists of a mix of facilities to provide a
mix of opportunities for persons of all ages and abilities.
JANUARY 2000 S I Z BRW, INC.
#24531
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
New park and recreation services and facilities will be considered where
recreational opportunity is deficient or nonexistent, and where appropriate,
they will be provided in cooperation with the school systems and the private
sector.
Citizen surveys and interviews will be conducted periodically #o evaluate
the effectiveness of existing facilities and programs and sys#em deficiencies.
Incorporate citizens into the planrung 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.
Nei hborhood rou s are encoura ed to artici ate in the lannin of all
g g P g P p P g
major park improvements.
Establish high- uali lannin and desi n standards in #he develo ment and
q tY P g g P
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 redevelopmen#.
Maximize accessibility and use of park and recreation facilities by area residents.
Ail park facilities will be connected and accessible using the City's system of
bicycle/pedestrian trails and/or collector sidewalk system.
Volunteers and service organizations in the community wiil be afforded
opportunities for service in the development and maintenance of the park
and recreation system.
The special place of the Mississippi National Recreational River Area in the
park and recreation system will be promoted and further developed.
JANUARY 2000 S I 3 BRW, 1NC.
#24537
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
Provide an identification system of all park areas, facilities and programs tha# 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 wiil 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
safe#y 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 #he Capital
Improvements Program (CII') so as to avoid development of a costly backlog
of improvements.
PARK AND OPEN SPACE NEEDS
The City's current park acreage and facilities are sufficient to meet the needs both
of its present population and of the projected 2020 population and number of
households. Table 5-4 evaluates parkland needs based on the projected 2020
population of 30,500, using national guidelines. The table shows #hat 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 wili fulfill
many of the active, organized recreational functions o# community parks, while the
many special use parks will be used for individual recreational activities such as
hiking and nature study.
�IANUARY ZOOO 5- I 4 $RW, INC.
#24531
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
Table 5-4: Comparison of Park Acreage with National Guidelines
Park Classif. Acreage, Guideline 2020 Target Surplus/
1997 deficit
Community Parks 141 5/1,000 pop. 177 (36)
Neighborhood 117 2/1,000 pop. 69 56
Parks
Special Use Parks 200+ no guideline
Furthermore, the distribution of parks across the City is such that each of the City's
six neighborhoods has one large community park or playfield and several
playgrounds or playlots (see Table 5-5). Most parts of the City are withui walking
distance of a neighborhood park (playlot, playground or playfield) and within a
short drive or bike ride of a community park.
Table 5-5: Parks by Neighborhood
Neighbor- Playlot Playground Playfield Community Special
hood Park Use Park
1- Central Brooklane Garden City
2- Northeast Riverdale Palmer Lake Evergreen
Firehouse East
3- Freeway Willow Lane Palmer Lake Palmer
Northwest West Lake
South
4- Bellvue Lions Centrai NortM
Southeast Grandview Mississipp
i Regional
5- Lakeside Twin Lake Northport
Southwest Happy Hollow
6- West Marlin Orchard Lane Kylawn Arboretu
Central Wangstad m
REL.ATtONSHIP TO REGIONAL PARK FACILITIES
Two regional park/recreational facilities are located within Brooklyn Center: part
of the North Mississippi Regional Park, and a portion of the North Hennepin Trail
System.
NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK
JANUARY 2000 5- I 5 BRV�/, �NC.
#2453I
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
A section of North Mississippi Regional Park is loca#ed along the Mississippi River
from 53rd Avenue to I-694. From 53rd to 57th Avenue, it includes the area between
Lyndale Avenue and the river; from 57th Avenue #o I-694 it includes the area
between I-94 and the river. The primary improvements within Brooklyn Center are
an off-sfree# bicycle path and a DNR fishing pier at the foot of the I-694 bridge. This
path links to another in the regional park in Minneapolis.
I-94 is a significant barrier between the residents of Brooklyn Center (and
I Minneapolis) and the Regional Park. Bridges over I-94 provide possibilities for City
trail linkages at 53rd and 57th Avenues. The �3rd Avenue Development and
Linkage Project underway in 1997-98 will begin the construction of the proposed
53rd Avenue Greenway. A partnership between Brooklyn Center, Minneapolis, and
Hennepin Parks is being explored to provide for a trail linkage between #he Shingle
Creek Trail and the North Mississippi Regional Trail along one or both sides of 53rd
Avenue. Aside from the linkage, it is expected that the greenway will "open up" the
Mississi i riverfront t Br k
pp o 00 lyn Center and Minneapohs residents, who do not
currently have a pleasant, easy means of reaching it. No linkage is being planned
at this time at 57th Avenue except for the existing sidewalk. At the park's north end
at the I-694 bridge, a trail under I-694 provides a connection to the City's trail system
at Willow Lane.
As discussed in the Land Use Plan, it is proposed to continue the residential use of
the properties along the west side of Lyndale Avenue from 53rd to 57th Avenues.
NORTFi HENNEPIN TRAIL SYSTEM
The Shingle Creek Trail was identified a number of years ago for inclusion in the
forty-mile North Hennepin Trail System loop. The Shingle Creek Trail was
constructed by Brooklyn Center in conjunction with the development of
Central/Garden City Parks and the Palmer Lake basin. It is a very popular and
heavily-used trail year-round. Brooklyn Center is working in partnership with
Hennepin Parks to define maintenance and reconstruction responsibilities and to
explore options for improvements. These might include: further amenities at the
minimaliy improved Palmer Lake Park, which functions as a trail head; completion
of the separation o# wheeled and non-wheeled trails in the heavil -used se ents;
Y
and correction of long-terrn issues such as continued trail settling along the creek,
which contributes to periodic trail flooding.
Except for #he 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 impor#ant segment and
to protect it with an easement for public use.
JANUARY 2000 5- 6 BRW, 1NC.
#24531
Com rehensive Plan 2020
PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS
�his section of the Comprehensive Plan references or summarizes pians and
background materials that the City has prepared in three areas:
Water System
Wastewater System
Water Resources Mana ement
g
I
WATER SYSTEM
The Ci of Brookl Center maintain a a um in n liv
ly yn s w ter p p g a d de ery system that
serves all parts of the City. In the interests of greater convenience and efficiency,
some owners of property bordering neighboring communities are served by those
communities' systems; likewise, some properties in neighboring communities are
served by Brooklyn Center's system. An emergency interconnect with the City of
I� Brooklyn Park is being constructed in 1997 at France Avenue and 73rd Avenue.
Water is derived from the Jordan Sandstone aquifer via nine wells. Storage and
system pressure are provided by three elevated storage tanks with a total capacity
of 3 million gallons. The system is capable of delivering up to 15 million gallons per
day through over 115 miles of water main, with the record daily use being almost
I 12 million gallons. The facilities are monitored and controlled by a Supervisory
Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.
The City has campleted and received Metropolitan Council approval of its Water
Supply Plan. A Wellhead Protection study is currentiy underway and is expected to
be completed by the end of 1997. Further study is anticipated in the next three to
five years to consider the potential need for additional storage, and to evaluate
water treatment needs. System storage is currently 3 million gallons, while average
daily use varies, but can approach 3.5 million gallons. Using the informal standard
that storage should equal average daily use, study is needed to determine whether
additional storage would be beneficial, or if efficient system management and
conservation measures would suffice.
Water treatment is not considered necessary at this time, but continuous monitoring
of the Safe Drinking Water Act standards is necessary to determine if a water
treatment plant should be considered in the future. The City's well water contains
greater-than-average concentrations of iron and manganese, minerals which do not
pose any health risks and are not regulated, but which are considered impurities.
If a water treatment facility becomes necessary or desirable, it would be financed
through reserves in the water utility fund and through rate increases.
JANUARY 2000 C' I BRW, INC.
�i`2453 I
IL
PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS
Continuing maintenance and improvements to the existing system will include
regular and routine projects to inspect and rehabilitate well pumps; rehabilitate well
houses; repair or reconstruct water main as necessary; paint and repair towers; and
maintain the SCADA system.
WASTEWATER SYSTEM
The sanitary sewer system consists of about 105 miles of gravity and force main.
The City operates ten sanitary sewer lift stations, monitored by a radio alarm system
which is currently being upgraded and integrated with the water utility's SCADA
system. The City is connected to the Metropolitan Wastewater System, and is
served by Crystal Interceptor 1-BC-453. No major system deficiencies exist. There
are no on-site septic systems in the City, and all new development is required to
connect to the local sanitary sewer system. Figure 6-1 shows the current wastewater
system.
The City's current wastewater flow generally ranges between 1,100 and 1,300 million
gallons per year. This flow amount is expected to remain relatively stable in future
years. As redevelopment occurs, flows would be expected to increase slightly.
Overall flows have in fact been showing very slight reductions over the past several
years. This can be attributed at least in part to reduced water usage through
upgraded and more efficient plumbing fixtures, the City's ongoing infiltration and
inflow reduciion efforts, water conservation measures, and an overall trend toward
fewer individuals per household. It is expected that the continuation of many of
these factors will somewhat mitigate any slight overall increases from
redevelopment activities. There is a limited amount of additional industrial growth
potential remaining in the City. In addition, the City is in the fifth year of a twenty-
year effort to reconstruct or rehabilitate neighborhood streets and utilities. Of high
priority are neighborhoods with high rates of suspected infiltration. Given these
factors, it is not expected that flow will increase significantly. Worksheet E further
describes the City's efforts to reduce inflow and infiltration.
Future improvements to the system will consist of continued maintenance through
re ular and routine ro'ects to maintain th lif r a' u
g e t stations, e ir or reconstr ct
P J P
I sanitary sewer main as necessary; and maintain the SCADA system.
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
The storm drainage system consists of 80 miles of storm sewer, regional and locai
storm water detention ponds, wetiands, and storage areas. Brooklyn Center is
located in two watersheds: the West Mississippi Watershed along the easterly third
of the City, and the Shingle Creek Watershed. Each of these Watershed
Management Organizations has completed an approved Local Water Management
JANUARY 2000 6'2 BRW, 1NC.
i�2453 1
i
E� i
'J '1
j i �i
.__'"h"" p fCN J —'I
i
i I,i
p-- t r
1 i'
i i W;
���I f •+C T• 1
r� .4�,
f
t-�1 �r;.
r
a.?�-".:,.. 4 T�
ti F a
�1 I_"„ bn
i j I
(T�.� I ��F---'
i
1� r
r�
r
i
�i i r
��F., n b-
,��e z000 t 7otal ManeepolK Wonn connst�ions _?l
d 1010 1 7fl mpc: 200� 0 1 b rgtl 201
.'�f� l =!l:f,� f? m¢'' ?C110 l 'v n:,��'
1 L
i! r ?�z� n npc
I lolb. �.:rvsld �nt
l!R
Q ZOOG U.1< mpo
201G•�.tlrtpd
2ozo o moe
Pipe Si�e
1 Farce M,,i�
,p�,
12" i
3"
18
?i'
Z4
ZT
Figure 6 1
Brookly,a.��
;::��sr� pE< ou� Sanitary Sewer System
PUBLIC FACIUTIES PLANS
Plan. Brooklyn Center has also completed an approved Local Water Management Plan.
The Local Plan identified numerous system deficiencies, consistin mainl of areas
g Y
underserved by or totally lacking storm drainage systems. The twenty-year
neighborhood street and utility program is the primary vehicle for the construction
of improvements to the storm drainage system. The second most important means
of improvement is the use of redevelopment as an opportunity to provide regional
storm water treatment facilities.
Future improvement to the system will consist of continued maintenance through
regular and routine projects to repair or reconstruct storm sewer and detention
ponds; implementation of a regular program to inspect private storm drainage
systems; construction of regional treatment facilities; and continued study of the
quality of surface waters, in conjunction with the two watershed organizations.
JANUARY 2000 6'3 BRW, INC.
#eassi
PUBLIC FACIUTIES PLANS
APPENDIX: WORKSHEET D
PROJECTING YOUR COMMUNIIY'S FUTURE WASTEWATER FLOWS iNTO THE
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER SYSTEM
tBY METROPOLITAN INTERCEPTOR SERVICE AREA)
Projected Households Projected Flows
and Employees (Please show your
calculations)
(in millions of gallons)
First Service Area First Service Area
Year Households Employees
2000 11,300 18,800 1,100
2005 11,550 19,200 1,150
2010 11,800 22,400 1,200
2020 12,200 23,500 1,225
NOTES:
Projected future flows were based on modest redevelopment over the next several
years. Brooklyn Center is considered a"fully developed" first ring suburb with
almost no open space remaining for development. Any future growth is expected
to occur from redevelopment activity.
Wastewater flows are not expected to increase appreciably due to the limited
opportunities for growth, and because of the City's aggressive efforts to reduce
inflow and irifiltration (IJI). The City's on-going street and infrastructure
improvement program has included extensive repairs and replacements of
wastewater collection conduits identified as having I/I problems. These efforts will
continue #or at least the next 20 years.
JANUARY 2000 (j-4 BRW, INC.
#24531
PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS
APPENDIX: WORKSHEET E
PREVENTlNG AND REDUCING INFILTRATION AND INFLOW INTO TF-E
METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER SYSTEM
1. Please state your city's objectives, policies and strategies for preventing and reducing
excessive infiltrat¢on and inflow into the metropolitan wastewater system.
Brooklyn Center recognizes the need and importance of reducing infiltration
and inflow (I/I) as opportunities arise. I/I not only burdens the city with
additional treatment costs, but also assists in wearing and deterioration of
the sewer infrastructure. Infrastructure susceptible to I/I is often in need of
repair, increasing maintenance costs. Several different strategies are used to
eliminate these problems, including everything from individual spot leak
repairs to massive infrastruc#ure replacement projects. The City's policy is
#o identify reasonable measures, efforts, and results that are feasible and
attainable.
2. Please identify the extent and sources of existing infiltration/inflow problems and
what can reasonably be removed.
Much of the infiltration is believed to originate from rainfall and runoff.
Infrastructure repair and improvements, as well as the implementation of
measures to discourage storxn wa#er from potentially entering the system,
have typically been the most effective. However, ground water is also
beiieved to be a significant contributor to I/I. Since ground water typically
cannot be removed or altered, #he City's efforts to provide a tight
conveyance system have been the best measured against that type of I/I.
Reasonable measures, efforts and results, as feasible and attainable are
always reviewed, considered, and implemented. They are described beiow.
3. Please describe your city's program for reducing and preventing infiltration/inflow.
An annual televised inspection program identifies many of the sewer main
pipes and infrastructure with I/I problems. The City s sanitary sewer
system, along with individual house services, and Metropolitan Council
interceptors have all been identified as conveyors of I/I. The sanitary sewer
system is aging and many of the pipes installed were of the older clay type
with joints susceptible over time to root infiltration and subsequent I/I.
Through the City's annual neighborhood infrastructure improvement
program, these same mains are replaced with new main and water tight
joints, along with similar replacement of the adjoining private services
between the main and property line. Other sewer mains are often relined
through trenchless repair methods. These replacements and repairs are
JANUARY 2000 F'S BRW, INC.
#24531
I 'I
PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANS
costly, but the reduction in I/I, along with the removal of roots and other
I flow-restricting debris will ultimately provide cost benefits in the long run.
The same infrastructure improvement program also provides storm drainage
improvements throughout the City. Because of the lack of storm sewer and
flat grades, large quantities of storm water are often left standing for
ex#ended periods and eventually infiltra#e into the ground and into the
sewer conveyance system. By systematically adding new storm sewer pipe,
upgrading lines, and providing designated ponding facilities, storm water
can no longer be provided the opportunity to infiltrate into the sanitary
sewer system.
In addition, the City's street division annually inspects and repairs manholes
and catch basins that are identified with conditions that encourage I/I.
Finally, over time, utility employees conducting routine meter readings have
ideniified and ordered removed all cross-connections which are visible and
accessible. What few cross-connections which may remain would likely be
burdensome to identify and replace.
JANUARY 2000 G'G BRW, INC.
#24531
Com rehensive Plan 2020
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Implementation of the recommendations proposed in this plan can be accomplished
using a variety of tooLs. T'he city can regulate land, offer incentives for its
{re)development and undertake improvement projects. These powers fall into two
categories:
Official controls
Capital improvement program
OFFICIAL CONTROLS
The City's zoning and subdivision ordinances are already in place, and only minor
text amendments are needed to implement the Comprehensive Plan:
Adopt and incorporate the draft Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Overlay
District, which was written to further the objectives of the 1995 Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor Streetscape Improvements Plan. That zoning district would
allow mixed land uses and provide design guidelines.
Adopt and incarporate the draft Shoreland District. Very few parcels of land
would be affected by this District since nearly all the lake and river edges in
Brooklyn Center are already developed.
Adopt a Critical Area Overlay District after updating the Mississippi River
Critical Area and MNRRA Plan.
The Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance includes a wide variety of residential,
commercial and industrial districts and a flexible planned-unit district.
Zoning map changes will be considered when land use rhanges consistent with this
plan are proposed. In the few locations where the zoning map becomes inconsistent
with the Land Use Plan map (Figure 2-3) either when the plan is adopted or in the
fu#ure, the zoning map will be amended to be consisten# with the intentions of the
land use plan.
The City has adopted a Critical Area Plan and but no# a Critical Area Overlay
District Ordinance governing the Mississippi River Corridor. The City will soon
update its Critical Area Plan and incorporate poiicies in response to the federal
Mississippi River National Recreation Area Management Plan. Until a Critical Area
Overlay District Ordinance is adopted, the City will continue to use the Interim
Development Regulations to ensure that all developments are consistent with
Criticai Area guidelines. The river corridor is largely protected as parkland (the
North Mississippi Regional Park) or fully developed with low-density housing.
JANUARY 2000 7 6RW, INC.
N24531
I
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN
The following table outlines the capital unprovements proposed in this
Comprehensive Pian, their approximate costs and a general time frame for
implementing them. It is recognized that his plan is intended as a guide and does
not commit the city to specific expenditures or dates. Nearly all of the cost estimates
were estimated without performing engineering or design studies and, therefore, are
open to much refinement.
Most of the activities listed in Table 7-1 are park, street and streetscape
improvements. Several roadway projects that are the responsibility of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation or Hennepin County have been included
to acknowledge the need for coordination with the City. The table suggests general
time frames for implementation of these activities, while recognizing that the costs
and feasibility of each project must be determined individually. Table 7-1 does not
include cost estimates for redevelopment activities in which the City may become
invoived. Redevelopment activities are usually public-private partnerships, in
which City involvement is usually initiated in response to private development
initiatives. Likewise, the financing of redevelopment projects is often accomplished
through tax increment finance districts, which are outside the usual avenues of
municipal funding.
i
JANUARY 2000 7'2 BRW, INC.
#24531
ws r �■�r a� a� �r r� �■�r �r �r r +�r
Table 7-1
Capital Improvement Program
Time Frame (Years)
Im rovements Estimated
p
City Cost 1.5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Potential Resources
OOOs)
Road System
Brookl n Boulevard 63rd to 70th 1,200 Hennepin County
Y
(excluding redevelopment)
Intersection of 65th and TH 252 I I Mn/DOT responsibility
Access Changes along Upgraded TH Mn/DOT responsibility
100
69th Avenue Improvements I I I I Mn/DOT responsibility
�ocal System Maintenance Varies Current revenues;
Municipal State Aid, public
utilities
Local Traffic Management Varies I I I I I General Fund
Road Corridor Enhancements
Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape 1,300 Hennepin County; Local
State Aid; ISTEA, praperty
assessments; tax
increment financing.
Commercial Civic Street Corridor 50 General Fund; Local State
Enhancement (Brooklyn Blvd., 69th, Aid; property
Shingle Creek Pkwy., 57th Ave.) assessments.
Central Neighborhoods Street Corridor 50 General Fund; Local State i
Enhancement (Xerxes, �upont, 69th, Aid; property
57th Ave.) assessments.
Southeast Neighborhood Road Corridor 50 General Fund; Local State
Enhancement (53rd, Humboldt, Aid; property
Lyndale, 57th) assessments.
Time Frame (Years)
Improvements Estimated
City Cost 1.5 6-10 11-15 16-20 Potential Resources
OOOs)
Sidewalk gap completions (other than 25 General Fund; Local State
I along the Road Corridor Enhancement Aid.
lo s
0
P)
Park System I
Re-orient and/or improve most parks 1,500 Capital Improvements
Fund
Water Resources I
Local drainage system upgrades Varies Storm Drainage Utility;
property assessments
Regional water quality improvements Varies Storm Drainage Utility;
property assessments;
TIF
Public Utilities
Local system upgrades and repairs Varies Water, sanitary sewer
utilities
Emergency water interconnect 75 I I I I I Water utility
Com rehensive Plan 2020
MISSISSIPPI RIVER CORRIDOR PLAN
MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITiCAL AREA
�he State of Minnesota, pursuant to the Critical Areas Act of 1973 and Executive
Order 79-19, requires each city along the Mississippi River prepare and adopt plans,
capital improvement programs and reguiations consistent with state standards and
guidelines for the Mississippi River Critical Area corridor as designated in the Executive
Order. The purpose of this requirement is to:
A. Protect and preserve a unique and valuable state and regional resource
B. Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to the resource
C. Preserve and protect the river as an element in the national, state and regional
transportation, sewer, water and recreational systems
D. Protect and preserve biological and ecological functions of the corridor.
Generally, the boundaries of the Critical Area extend approximately one-quarter mile
or less back from each side of the river in Brooklyn Center.
Each City along the Mississippi River from Dayton to Hastings can choose to amend its
Critical Area Plan to come into conformance with the policies of the
MNRRA M�nagement Plan.
The City of Brooklyn Center has an approved and adopted Mississippi River Critical
Area Plan (1981). The City also prepared an overlay zoning district to help implement
its Criticai Area Plan, but because of an oversight that draft ordinance was not adopted
by the City Council.
MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA
The Critical Area Plan update will aid the City in its efforts to address both the Tier I
and Tier II provisions of the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, which is
necessary to qualify for MNRRA implementation grants.
In 1988 the ni
U ted States Congress passed iegislahon creahng #he Mississippi Narional
River and Recreation Are (MNRRA) as a unit of the national park system. The
legislation calls for the National Park Service (NPS) to assist state and locai units of
government "to protect, preserve and enhance the significant values of the waters and
land of the Mississippi River Corridor within #he Saint Paul-Minneapolis Metropolitan
Area." This new area encompasses a 72-mile stretch of the Mississippi, including
Brooklyn Center.
The Comprehensive Management Plan for MNRRA was approved by the Secretary of the
Interior in 1995. This plan detaiLs goals that the Park Service has identified for the area
and the coordinating role that the agency will pursue with local governments.
JANUARY 2000 BRW, INC.
#24531
CRITICAL AREA PLAN
Unlike a traditional national park such as Voyageurs or Yellowstone, the Park Service
owns little land. Instead, federal funds could become available to local governments
that have plans certified as consistent with the MNRRA plan for river corridor projects.
I CURRENT REQUIREMENTS
The plan upda#e will aid the City in its efforts to comply with both the Tier I and Tier
II requirements of the Management Plan, which is necessary to qualify for land
acquisition and development grants.
Brookiyn Center was, in 2000, in the process of updating its Critical Area Plan and its
draft Critical Area Overlay Zoning District. Although that plan and ordinance were not
ready in time to be submitted to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council with #his
Comprehensive Plan, the City expects to have them ready by the end of 1998 or shortly
thereafter. The Ciiy has been in contact with representatives of the Metropolitan
Council (for the Critical Area Plan) and the Minnesota Deparhnent of Natural Resources
(for the MNRRA requirements) and understands what is expected of it for these
documents. Helpful suggestions and recommendations have been provided to the City
by both agencies.
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
When adopted, the new Brooklyn Center River Corridor Plan wili be incorporated in#o the
Comprehensive Pian by reference and will thus have the full force of the rest of this pian.
The overlay district will be codified as part of the City's zoning ordinance.
The Comprehensive Plan already contains many policies and plans that are highly
supportive of the Critical Area and MNRRA objectives. Through this plan, Brooklyn
Center recognizes t11e river as a major amenity and a key element in its overall efforts
toward improvement. Consequently, this plan continues the previous policy of low
density housing along the riverfront north of I-694 and improvement of North
Mississippi Regional Park (in conjunction with Hennepin Parks) south of I-694. An
impartant new initiative in this comprehensive plan are the improvements to sidewalks,
bicycle lanes, trees and lighting along 53` and 57t'' Avenues, which lead across I-94 to
the regional riverfront park. These corridors will also link to the planned Humboldt
Greenway in Minneapolis and the existing North Mississippi Regional Park.
The updates to the River Corridor Plan will give the City another opportunity to elaborate
on its policies for protecting and enhancing the riverfront, which will surely pay
dividends to this community.
JANUARY 2000 $'2 BRW, INC.
#24531
Com�rehensive Plan 2020
Appendix 1: Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats
The following list, aiong with a preliminary list of issues (see Appendix 2), was
generated at a joint meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission in
October,1996.
STRENGTHS
Community attributes
Convenient location/proximity to large city
Freeway access and exposure
Scale and size are manageable
A good mix of commercial, office and industrial uses
Adequate commercial development good variety of retail uses
Good public schools
Affordable housing
Strong residential character strong, close-knit neighborhoods
Strong residential real estate market
Tree-lined streets
Good park system
Good public transit
Natural amenities
Comxnunity center Library
Earl Brown Center Earl Brown theme
Community organizations
Characteristics of residents
A diverse population
Good citizen participation
Multi-generational community
Intelligent, well-informed
City management/fiscal characteristics
The ability to learn from other suburbs
A proactive City Council
Strong City staff
Good bond rating/low debt
Strong tax base
Flexible administration
Well-maintained streets and utilities; good snowplowing!
Code enforcement
JANUARY ZOOO A' I 8RW, INC.
#Zassi
APPENDIX 1: STRENGTHS. WEAKNESSES. OPPORTUNTCIES AND Tr[REATS
Volunteer Fire Department
Activities
Community festival
Neighborhood Watch program
Recreation programs
WEAKNESSES
Image problems
"Weak" image lack of a positive image
Perceptions of high crime rate
Negative media coverage
Negative perceptions of Brookdale, of housing problems
Aging community and infrastructure problems
Aging infrastructure
Empty storefronts
Brookdale: tax value decline
Need for renovations to both housing and commercial development
Insufficient incentives for reinvestment (return on reinvestment)
Earl Brown Center loses money
Age of housing stock
Absentee ownership (residential, commercial)
Not enough "spread" in the housing market
Apartments: age, concentration, percentage of housing units
20th highest taxes in Metro (3rd in 1995)
Services needed by growing senior population
City appears "old"
New development encroaching on housing
Cost of land development (versus other cities)
Road, traffic, "linkage" problems
Congested freeways and arterials
Highway 100 (incomplete)
Brookiyn 8oulevard
Brookdale is unattractive
Too many exits [to City], not enough entrances
Insufficient linkages between Brookdale and surrounding development
Palmer Lake is a barrier
Deficiencies
No viable focal points no "Main Street"
Few neighborhood gathering places
Lack of a supermarket
JANUARY 2000 A'2 BRW, INC.
#zas3i
APPENDIX 1: STRENGTHS. WEAKNESSES� nPPORT[JNTPIES AND TrIREATS
Lack of coffee shops, bagel, yogurt shops and similar small-scale eating
places
Inadequate fire-police facilities
Lack of riverfront access
Lack of funding
Internal/attitude problems
Political nature of the community
Bias against renters
Ethnic/racial bias
Negative attitudes
Lack of focus to prioritize and implement projects
Not enough collaboration with Minneapolis
OPPORTU N ITI ES
Redevelopment/revitalization
Brookdale mixed-use redevelopment
Brooklyn Boulevard
Brooklyn Boulevard/69th Street redevelopmen#
Earl Brown Center attract conventions
Underutilized commercial properties
Strip mall redevelopment
Neighborhood street upgrading program
Remodeling incentives
Exploit access to Minneapolis develop sites along 694/94
Link to Minneapolis trails at river
Growth of hospitality industry
Expand City Hall
Community-building efforts
Create identity with a unifying theme
Build community based on neighborhoods
Meet the needs of a diverse population
Crea#e a crime-resistant city
Redraw school district boundaries 3 instead o# 4
Encourage winter sports activities
New/expanded uses desired
Sports bar
More varied housing stock
City management efforts
Broaden tax base
Revise T.I.F. Districts
Improve surface water quality
JANUARY 2000 A'3 BRW, INC.
#24531
APPENDIX 1: STRENGTHS. WEAKNESSF.S. OPPORTLJNITIES AND TrIREATS
Learn from other cities
Current comprehensive planning effort
TH REATS
External threats
Unfair competition from outer suburbs
General economic downturn
Negative perceptions
Crime: media versus reality
Maple Grove mall (retail competition)
Natural disasters
Legislative actions
Loss of T.I.F. capabilities
Education taxes consume all funds
Federal cuts in social programs
Internal threats
Facility bonds fail [in election)
Spending freezes, loss of revenue
Loss of recreation programs
Decline in housing values in Southeast neighborhoods
Resident flight
Crime
"Porno Worid"
Lack of influence with Legislature
Not aggressive enough in fighting blight
Brookdale becomes "sub-regional" mall
Ci#y fails to provide business incentives
Business flight
Loss of tax base due to Brooklyn Boulevard corridor widening
Social, attitudinal threats
Failure to provide for diversity in population
Failure to learn (from the past, from other cities, etc.)
Apathy
Lack o# socially acceptable activities for youth
Racism/classism
Single-parent households lack of suitable programs for children, teens
�IANUARY 2000 A-4 eRw INC.
#24531
Com�rehensive Plan 2020
Appendix 2: Issues
The following issues have been identified based on a strategic planning workshop
that was held with City Council and Planning Commission members in October
1996, as well as the observations and insight of City staff and planning consultants.
This list is a summary and distillation of many ideas, combined and grouped
together for clarity and impact.
An issue is a question about the future of the community #hat reasonable citizens
might debate and that should be addressed in light of the other issues and hopefully
I
resolved through the plannin rocess. The issues rovide a framework for #he lan
gP P P
and
wili 'de the re aration of lan oals .ob'ectives olicies h sical lans and
P P P g� l P �P Y P
im lementation ro rams.
P p g
THEMES
The dominant theme in the discussion is that Brooklyn Center has many strengths
that are not reflected in its public image, and that the City needs to improve this
image, in terms of both physical improvements and public perceptions.
Housing is another major concern the maintenance and improvement of the City's t
housing stock, and whether the current housing mix should be changed. A related
concern is that of neighborhood design, and how improved design can contribute
to neighborhood cohesion and livability.
Another theme centers on the role of the City's businesses, most particularly
Brookdale Mall, and what the City should do to improve the prospects for
commercial development.
Finally, there are many concerns about the best ways to maintain and improve the
City's infrastructure and municipal services. A related theme is how best to
overcome the physical barriers that divide the City internally, and how to iink the
City to adjacent communities.
ISSUES
Workshop participants used a"dot-voting" method whereby they assigned one or more
stickers to the issues of greatest concern to them. Asterisks indicate issues that received these
"votes," with three asterisks indicating highest priority.
JANUARY 2000 A-5 aRw INC.
#24531
I i APPEtJO� 2: ISSUES
IMAGE AND APPEARANCE
While Brooklyn Center contains attractive and well-maintained neighborhoods, an
ident�ble town center and an excellent park system, its visual image has suffered because
of the deterioration of a few highly visible areas such as Brooklyn Boulevard. Meanwhile, the
City's image in the region has suffered because of the perception of decline, exacerbated by
negative media coverage.
I What ste s should the Ci take to im rove its ima e?*
P tY P g
I How can the City improve the appearance of "Auto Row" (on Brooklyn
Boulevard)?*
How can #he City best unify itself across the highways that divide it?
How can the City best exploit its natural amenities?
I I BUSINESS AND ECONOMiC DEVELOPMENT
I While the City has an extensive retail core, centered on Brookdale, both this and other
commercial areas are showing signs of age. Issues center on the need to upgrading and
reposition these arec�.s, and on the City's role in business development.
4Vhat role should the City play in supporting/assisting private businesses?**
Should the City compete with private businesses (i.e. in running a conference
center)? Should the City continue to operate a iiquor store?
How should the City plan for the redevelopment or upgrading of
Brookdale? Should the City assist Brookdale financially?**
HOUSING
One of the City's primary strengths is its strong residential character, and many key issues
center on the need to maintain and upgrade its housing stock, and how to best respond to the
changing housing market.
What is the most appropriate housing mix for the City?**
Should #he number of multifamily apartments in the City be reduced?
What creative housing rehab and zoning strategies should the City pursue
to improve its housing?**
How can the City encourage and foster housing maintenance?*
JANUARY 2000 A-6 BRW, INC.
#24531
APPENDIX 2: ISSUES
How can the City gain support for housing rehab programs?
How should the City hold landlords accountable for their properties?
NEIGHBORHOOD DESiGN AND ZONING
Along with housing, neighborhood design is an essential component of strong neighborhoods.
As expressed in a recent report by the Design Center for American Urban Landscape,
housing value is directly related to the infrastructure that supports it, such as streets, trees,
lighting, to nutural amenities, and to anchoring institutions such as schoois and piaces of
worship. Creating stronger connections between these elements is the basis of neighborhood
design. Zoning, while more technical in nature, is a primary tool for implementing land use
change.
What role can New Urbanist design play in the City, especially in the
integration of businesses into neighborhoods?
Should the Cit�s grid street pattern be changed?
Should additional amenities be considered as part of routine street
reconstruction, in order to improve the public realm?
How should the City zone adult entertainment uses?
Should the City rezone the area between Highway 252 and Humboldt
Avenue (near High School)?
What is the best zoning classification for tax-exempt activities?
INFRASTRUCTURE AND MUNIClPAL SERVICES
Issues in this area range from the need for continuous upgrading of infrastructure (streets,
utilities, etc.) to the role of the park system and the City's role in crime prevention.
What is the best pace (phasing, timing) for infrastructure improvements?***
What are the most effective methods the City can employ for preventing
crime?**
How should the City allocate its resources between infrastructure and social
programs?
How much will citizens support in bond costs for capital improvements?
JANU,a�tY ZOOO A BRW, INC.
#24531
APPENDIX 2: ISSUES
Is #he City's park system adequate for its current population and recreation
needs? Which parks need improvements or upgrading?
TRANSPORTATION AND LINKAGES
"Transportation" includes issues ranging from movement of traffic on key highway corridors
to bus and iight rail transit opportunities. Traffic movement along corridors also relates to
the arrangement of land uses along these corridors and the other topic areas of "image" and
"neighborhood design." "Linlcages" encompass both connections between neighborhoods and
between the City and its neighbors.
How should #he Ci work to achieve u adin of Brookl Boulevard, as
tY P� g Yn
proposed in the recent Streetscape Amenities Study?
How can the street system be improved to make it more "legible" and
understandable, especially in the Brookdale area?
How shouid the City capitalize on its excellent highway access and visibility,
while overcoming #he "dividing" effect of these major highways?
Should the City support development of light rail #ransit (LRT)? Can existing
transit service be improved?
How can the City best accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists in keeping
with regional bicycle transportation plans and policies?
Should the City build "bridges" or "walls" to Minneapolis and its other
neighbors? In other words, what kind of linkages or divisions across
municipal boundaries are appropriate?
Should the City consider consolidation with Brooklyn Park?
1/30/97
JANUARY ZOOO A'8 BRW, INC.
#zas3i
Com�rehensive Plan 2020
Appendix 3: Traffic Forecasts Methodology
The purpose of this memorandum is to describe the process used to obtain Year 202Q
average daiiy traffic (ADT) forecasts for Brooklyn Center. Year 2020 model
assignments and historical ADT were examined. The model assignments for several
road segments were found to be lower than existing traffic counts and therefore
were not further studied. Historical ADT was compiled and analyzed for iinear
trends using least squares regression. Except for a few segments, historical ADT did
not have a significant linear trend according to Mn/DOT guidelines. Also, growth
in ADT for the road segments analyzed often did not increase over time and in a
number of cases actually declined. Because a linear relationship for most of the road
segments could not be established and because traffic growth over time was at best i
inconsistent, an alternative method of developing Year 2020 forecasts needed to be
established. T'he alternative method involved basing ADT growth ra#es for Brooklyn
Center on differences between 1994 ADT and previously developed 2010 forecasts.
Examination of Year 2020 Model Assignments
Year 2020 daily model assignments for road segments in Brooklyn Center were
compared to 1994 ADT taken from Mn/DOT flow maps. Several of the 1994 ADT
counts were found to be higher than the 2020 daily model assignments. The model
assignments were not examined further because at this time they are not the
"official" regional forecasts. Currently, the Metropolitan Council is working with
the municipalities in the seven county area to determine whether or not the
socioeconomic inputs currently in the regional travel demand model are satisfactory.
Any changes to these inputs could potentially change the 2020 daily model
assignments.
Examination of Historic Growth Trends
Historical ADT available #or road segments in Brooklyn Center were examined. The
ADT's were collected from Mn/DOT flow maps for the years 1978,1980,1982,1984,
1988,1990,1992, and 1994. The historical ADT's for each segment were entered into
a program called MNESALS. The MNESALS program, developed by Mn/DOT,
was used in an attempt to develop a year 2020 #orecast for each road segment based
on a linear projection of a leas# squares regression line. After the data was input into
MNESALS, it was found in an overwhelming majority of cases that the regression
lines were not reliable enough to deveiop forecasts. This was because the R values,
which are used to assess trend line reliability, were almost always below 0.56 for
each road segment regression line. According to Mn/DOT, the value of 0.56 is
considered to be the minimum reliability indicator. Any his#orical ADT with an R
regression value below 0.56 is thought not to have a"strong" enough linear trend
to be used for forecasting future ADT.
JANUARY 2000 A'J BRW, INC.
#24531
i
APPHNDDC 3: �2AFFIC FORECASTS METHODO[AGY
Development of Year 2020 Forecasts
Because of the problems in developing Year 2020 daily traffic forecasts from #he
regional modei and linear trend analysis, an alternative forecasting method had to
be estabiished. Given the limited options available, it was decided that an annual
growth rate should be applied to 1994 ADT out to Year 2020. Annual growth rates
for the various road segments were established by examining the annual growth
rates derived from 1994 ADT and 2010 ADT forecasts taken out of the North Brovklyn
Center Transportation Study written by SRF. The derived rates were first checked for
reasonableness. If found reasonable, they were applied to 1994 ADT in order to
obtain 2020 ADT forecasts. At times, the derived growth rates seemed unusually
high. For some road segments, a lower growth rate (no higher than 2.25%) was used
instead of the derived rate. This was done under the assumption that traffic growth
for these road segments would level off somewhat after 2010 due to roadway
capacity constraints. Finally, #or road segments where a 2010 forecast did not exis#,
an annual growth rate of 1% was used. This was thought to be a reasonable rate
given that Brooklyn Center is virtually fully developed. Overall, annual growth
rates for the roadway segments ranged from 1% to 2.25%. For comparison, the City
of Minneapolis has established a ci#ywide traffic growth rate of 0.5% per year.
JAt�UARY 2000 A' I O BRW, INC.
�{24531