HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 01 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2020 i i r
�v......u:.::.�
p
f III
�f[}HfIf�N �f tttm:l ,T ��}�p}y
fRIAII[}NH���
I}�{}gff}L] 1 }flf f$H�
Illll
c� -0II�IIII���jj7lli�� �11 yl f lil�fIWllf
��€�I���
y
s ��N���a��
����}f�if�}�fHl'1fIR}lfl[
I r Ef�«}i�lf��iu�� 1i ��i€
lf l,�h �t ���t� �[�f���
������I}Ifllil�� f11��[i��� r E H�1�R�1�H�I�Hf�H�
[���1 �jl�""' f� '[��t�
�If96�,llfff��H9 ,.,,kk�� ����1
���P� [�Ef�{3 i I ,f>
]W-a„"' r r
t
a ���E�
c rn��, �H
4 �H}HI i 7 I
i O t
Y �1,1�
1{ [II]W4f'� �E
flfCfllfH,��'
�,tilI�l[( �1�tf�}fflif�fitEH�
&fH�II
������f�, ,��j �t�rErff�irfm3�
`�RHINBnfHH{lli"f �I[fllE}IIfIJF$Ff�f
INi}ti�If�ll�fllfHHl}]�� =tlllll
r�°i�lf{H ��E�{�f���f{��'BIlIl1FfI1�I�[}{3I�i��, ��r� ����}4f}�
i ��E� z }�fl€
4rH�IIIIf11�1Ii11Iil1itYfJHH1�1� ��ff
��ft�E���������1���C1
Ii�fIIIIH6dfN��µ�fii�H$f$�flfIAH1 rrrm �f{€fiBHf���f$ I#1[�
f ��f 11 rf 5 ������[a�.� 5�
�i��i}�h�is�{��dl�������'
�iI
1} Iil�lllHfYffHf4�If�IIIIiIfEl6'�nl�i9�&NIIEffI�lEfffHl�E�
�i� i�r�in n w��IfNi�3��f�If1I3Elf�B f�AI�HHIU��""'
mimn�l �$f}� i r��lfHlfAl«ft9 tar
��U1nmtIA]�'f1TILp���� 5-._
�-W}'
1`Ll
I
BROOKLYN CENTER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FI NAL D RAFT
I CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
�1AN UARY 2 OOO
R
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY COUNCIL
Myrna Kragness, Mayor i
Kathleen Carmody
Debra Hilstrom
Kay Lasman
I Robert Peppe
PLANNING COMMISSION
Tim Willson, Chair
Graydon Boeck
Donald Booth
Stephen Erdmann
Mark Holmes
Rex Newman
Diane Reem
Brian Walker
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TASK FORCE
Council Members Lisa Hunter
Plannin Commission Members Dr. Toni ohns S
g J
Jerry Blamey Tom Kouri
Maurice Britts Tony Kuefler
Dr. Jim Cole Frank Slawson
Rev. Tom Donaldson Ron Thomas
Dale Greenwald
CONSULTANT TEAM BRW, INC.
William Weber, AICP, Project Manager
Suzanne S. Rhees, AICP, Community Pianner
Tony Heppelmann, P.E., Transportation Planning
CITY STAFF
Michael J. McCauley, City Manager
Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist
Diane Spector, Pubiic Services Director
Brad Hoffinan, Community Deveiopment Director
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Summary of Goals i
Community Profiie 1-1
Regional Setting 1-1
Population and Households 1-1
Age Distribution 1-3
Household and Family Status 1-4
Poverty Level 1-4
Racial and Ethnic Composition 1-6
Mobility.................................................. 1-7
Educa#ion Levels 1-7
Household and Family Income Levels 1-7
Employment.................................................. 1-8
Jobsof Residents 1-9
Jobs in Brooklyn Center 1-10
Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan 2-1
Existing Land Use Pattern,1997 2-2
Neighborhood Profiles 2-2
Central Neighborhood 2-2
Northeast Neighborhood 2-5
Northwest Neighborhood 2-7
Southeast Neighborhood 2-8
Southwest Neighborhood 2-9
West Central Neighborhood 2-12
Citywide Land Use Issues 2-13
Land L�se, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategy 2-17
Goals 2-17
Objectives 2-17
Specific Area Plans 2-21
Solar Access Policies 2-30
Historic Resource Preservation 2-32
Transportation Plan 3-1
Street and Road System 3-1
Functional Classification System,1997 3-1
Jurisdictional Ciassification,1997 3-6
Existing and Forecast Traffic 3-6
Tra#fic Analysis Zones 3-7
Comparison of Travel Demand and Regional Highway System
Capacity 3-11
Street and Road System Issues and Problems 3-11
I
JANUAfrr 2000
BRW, INC.
#24531
Street and Road System Plan 3-13
i
Furictional and Jurisdictional Classification Systems Plan 3-13
Specific Roadway Improvements 3-13
Transit....................................................... 3-18
Travel Demand Management 3-20
Bicyclist and Pedestrian Movement 3-22
Sidewalk and Trail Improvements 3-22
Goods Movement 3-24
Relationship of Land Use and Transportation 3-24
Aviation..................................................... 3-25
Neighborhoods and Housing Plan 4-1
Introduction 4-1
Analysis of Housing Conditions 4-2
Profile of Existing Housing 4-2
Neighborhood Housing Conditions 4-8
Housing Assistance Programs 4-11
Current and Future Housing Needs 4-15
Housing and Neighborhood Issues 4-18
Housing Plan 4-19
Goals and Objec#ives 4-19
Housing Stra#egies 4-21
Appendix: Housing Design Guidelines 4-28
ParksPlan 5-1
Introduction 5-1
The Existing Park System 5-1
Park Classification System 5-5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail System and Park Linkages 5-12
Park Goals and Policies 5-12
Park and Open Space Needs 5-15
Relationship to Regional Park Facilities 5-16
Public Facilities Plans 6-1
WaterSystem.................................................. 6-1
Wastewater System 6-2
Water Resources Management b-3
Appendix: Worksheet D 6-4
Appendix: WorksheetE 6-5
Implementation Program 7-1
Official Controls 7-1
Capital Improvemen#s Plan 7-2
Jnr�unftY 2000 BRW, INC.
#24531
APPENDICES
1. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats A-1
2. Issues A-5
3. Traffic Projection Methodology A-9
r
i
i
1
1
JANUAav ZOOO $RW, iNC.
#24531
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 RegionalLocation ...............................................1-3
2-1 Land Use Pattern,1997 ...........................................2-3
2-2 Ci -Wide Land Use Issues 2-15
tY
2-3 Land Use Plan .2-23
2-4 Road Corridor Enhancements 2-31
-1 Fu ti 1
3 nc ona Classification System, 1997 3-3
3-2 Number of Lanes on Major Roadways,1999 3-S
3-3 Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ's) 3-9
3-4 Proposed Functional Classification System 3-14
3-5 TransitRoutes ........................................3-19
3-6 Sidewalks and Off-Street Trails,1996 3-21
5-1 Existing Park System 5-3
5-2 Parks Plan .....................................................5-11
LIST OF TABLES
1-1 Population and Household Change 1-3
i
i
1-2 Age Distribution,1980 -1990 1-4
i 1-3 Household and Family Status,1980 -1990 1-5
1-4 Pover Level 1980-1990 ..........................1-5
ty
1-5 Poverty Leveis in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring CiHes,
1980-1990 ......................1-6
1-6 Racial Composition, 1980 -1990 1-6
1-7 Minority Population, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities,
1990 ...........................................................1-7
1-8 Household and Family Income,1980 -1990 1-8
JaHUalzr 2000 BRW, iNC_
#24531
1-9 Change in Household Income, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring
Ci#ies,i979-1989 ...............................................1-8
1-10 Employment Levels, Brooklyn Center and
Neighboring Cities, �990 1-9
1-11 Industrial Classifications of Employed Residents 1-9
1-12 Occupational Distribution of Employed Residents 1-10
1-13 Jobs in Brooklyn Center,1970 to 2020 1-11
1-14 Jobs in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities,1980 -1995 1-11
1-15 Occupational Distribution 1-12
2-1 Existing Land Use 2-4
3-1 Street Classifications in Brooklyn Center 3-5 i
3-2 Traffic Level o# Service Characteristics 3-10
3-3 Daily Roadway Capacities 3-10
4-1 Housing Type,1980 -1990 4-3
4-2 1996 Housing Mix ...............................................4-3
4-3 Housing Mix in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1990
(percentage o# total housing units) 4-4
4-4 Housing by Year Built 4-4
4-5 Housing by Tenure 4-5
4-6 Households by Age of Househoider,1990 4-5
4-7 Values of Selected Owner-Occupied Units, 1980 -1990 4-6
4-8 Values of Selec#ed Owner-Occupied Units,1990 4-6
4-9 Median Values of Owner-Occupied Housing, Brooklyn Center and
Neighboring Communities,1980 -1990 4-7
4-10 Rental Costs (Units by Monthly Rent} 4-8
4-11 Affordability, Life Cycle and Density Standards,199b 4-20
4-12 Housing Strategies by Neighborhood 4-22
JANUAFZ'r 2000 BRW, INC.
#24531
5-1 Park Facilities,1997 ..............................................5-4
5-2 Park Classification and Improvements System 5-9
1 5-3 Proposed Park Classifications 5-10
5-4 Comparison of Park Acreage with National Guidelines 5-15
5-5 Parks by Neighborhood .........................................5-16
7-1 Capital improvement Program 7-3
1
JANUA[tr 2000 BRW, INC.
#2453I
COMPREHENS/VE PLAN 2020
1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF GOALS
�his Comprehensive Plan is an update of the City's original plan, prepared in 1979.
That plan served as a guide to development and redevelopment within the City
for almost twenty years, and many of its recommendations have been
implemented. The current plan has been prepared in response to the emerging
issues and changing conditions of the 1990s. It is designed as a practical handbook
that will guide the City throughout the next two decades.
The plan has a twofold purpose:
To protect and enhance the community's strong attributes.
Brooki�n Center has mc�ny characteristics thcrt should be protected, particularly its
1 vital city center district, well-planned park system, quiet tree-lined streets, stable
neighborhoods, and sense of small-town community. As the comrrcunity continues to
evolve and mafure, new strategies are needed to protect and enhance these resources.
To manage the community's change and evolu#ion.
Brooklyn Center is experiencing changes common to many first-ring suburbs. The
housing stock has aged, as has a large segment of the population, the public
infrastructure requires increasing maintenance, traffic congestion has increased, and
commercial and industrial markets have shifted. The pian must res�ond with a series
of "mid-course corrections" adjustments in City programs and investments to reflect
these chAnging conditions. The comprehensive plan update offers an ideal opportunity
to focus on these adjustments, and to prepare for future changes.
The Comprehensive Plan is the product of a year-long planning process. Its
preparation was directed by City staff and by a Comprehensive Plan Task Force
composed of representatives from the Planning Commission, City Council, the
school distric#, community arganizations and interested citizens. At an initial
meeting with City Council and Planning Commission members key issues were
identified, along with strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats #acing the
Ci#y (included in the Appendix to this report). The City #hen organized the Task
Force, which met four times throughout the project to rev�ew and discuss draft
sections of the plan.
The current draft is bein distributed to the Task Force Plannin Commission and
g g
City Council for their joint review. At the same time it is being distributed to
adjacent cities and county governments and other jurisdictions for their review, as
required by law. A final report will be prepared for submission to the Metropolitan
Council prior to a City Council hearing and final adoption.
#24531 1
SUMMARY OF GOALS
The goals for #he plan have been developecl based on the issues identified by the
City Council and Planning Commission, discussions with staff and background
reports, including the Metropolitan Council's Regional Growth Management
Strategy and other studies. More detailed and specific goals are included in the
individual chapters of the Plan.
Brooklyn Center will carve out a unique and desirable niche in the Twin
Cities area b ca italizin on its h sical attributes includin its first-rin
Y
1' g P Y
g
suburban location, good highway and bus access, sound and diversified
housing stock, vibrant mixed-use center, attractive Brooklyn Boulevard
corridor, and interconnected park and open space system.
Brooklyn Center will gain an increased sense of unity and piace by:
Retrofitting the public elements of its neighborhoods
Focusing and linking these neighborhoods toward an intensified, mixed-
use, retail-office-residential-civic core,
Making major street corridors and other public spaces highly attractive,
and
Celebrating diversity.
Brooklyn Center has the opportunity to build upon the community attributes described
in thesegoals to become in effect a"suburban village." In other words, it can become
a place that has the good characteristics we traditionaily associate with a village an
identifiable locale with a commercial and civic center and a central green or square,
pieasant and intimate neighborhoods, safe, quiet streets, and a strong community
spirit. Brooklyn Center possesses the "raw materials" of many of these elements; the
challenge is how to retrofit, refocus, and link them into a greater whole.
Brooklyn Cen#er will develo a ositive ublic ima e and stron communi
r r r
esteem.
The City's image can be enhanced, first through actual programs to correct housing
deterioration and cri
me in certazn areas and second, by ensurzng that the City s
positive attributes and successes are publicized.
Brooklyn Center will accomplish these and other aims through cooperative
ieadership and sound management.
Every city must possess these strengths if it is to continue to move forward and
accomplish its other goals. Brookl�n Center has strengths in both these areas.
#24531 11
Com rehensive Pla 2
n 020
COMMUNITY PROFILE
REGIONAL SETTlNG
Brooklyn Center is located immediately north and west of Minneapolis, about 6
miles fram the downtown. It borders north Minneapolis along 53rd Avenue
North, and this proximity stimulated its early development. To the east, the City's
boundary is the Mississippi River; to the north, the City of Brooklyn Park, and to the
west and southwest, the small cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale (see Figure 1-1).
Established in 1911 as an incorporated village, the area remained largely rural until
1 after World War I. Development up though World War II was confined to the
southeastern corner of the village, the area wi#h direct transportation links to
Minneapolis. The population grew from 500 in 1911 to 4,300 by 1950, and then
exploded during the 1950s to 24,356. This was the City's strongest growth period,
during which most of its single-family housing was built.
As one of the Twin Cities metropolitan area's older suburbs, Brooklyn Center shares
many issues with o#her cities within this "first ring"-- for example, the need for
renewal of their housing stock and infrastructure, increasing concen#rations of poor
and elderly residents, and a lack of growth in their commercial/industrial tax base.
Brooklyn Center has been working throughou# the 1980s and 90s to address these
issues, both within its own borders and, with other first ring suburbs, on a regional
basis.
The following sections examine recent population and employment trends for the
City and neighboring communities in #he north and northwest suburban area. These
communities Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Columbia Heights and Fridley
share both a geographic location and many demographic characteristics with
Brookiyn Center.
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS
Brooklyn Center's population reached its peak in the mid-1970's, at approximately
35,300, and has been declining steadily since that time, as shown in Table 1-1. Some
of the decline can be attributed to declining household sizes and the gradual aging
of the City's population. However, the Metropolitan CounciYs forecas#s show a
slight increase through 2020.
JANUARY 2000 I I BRW, WC.
#24531
Community Profiie
Unlike population, the number of households continued to increase through 1990,
as household sizes decreased. The Council's forecasts assume that household size
has leveled off and will remain fairly constant (at around 2.5 persons per household)
through 2020.
Table 1-1: Population and Household Change
Year 1970 1980 1990 1995 (est.) Forecasts r
2010 2020
Population 35,173 31,230 28,887 28,463 30,000 30,500
Percent -11.2 -7.5 -1.5 5.4 1.7
change
Households 9,151 10,751 11,226 11,186 11,800 22,200
Avg.
hshold. size 3.64 2.89 2.56 2.54
The Council allocates popula#ion to individual cities based upon past growth trends, land 1
suppiy, and policies such as the Regional Growth Management Strategy. The council's
projections for the older developed suburbs assume a modest overall eight percent growth
rate, six percen# of which is through complete build-out and two percent from
redevelopment. The growth rate projected for Brooklyn Center from 1995 to 2020 is slightly
lower, at just over 7 percent.
AGE DISTRIBUTiON I
Changes in age groups during the 1980s show a pattern that is typical of many first-ring
suburbs that were settled in the 1950s through the 1970s. The "first generation" of
homeowners is aging the over-65 o ulation increased b 80 ercent durin the decade
P P Y p g
and some of them are moving out of their single-family homes into "life cycle housin such
g
as townhouses, condominiums and apartments. The single-famiiy homes they vacate are
becoming occupied by a new generation of young adults. Numbers of older children, teens
and young adults declined sharply, but the "first-time homebuyer" age bracket of 25 34
showed a modes# increase, as did the number of children under 5. Another group #hat
declined sharply is the late middle-aged or "empty-nester" group, age 45 54. This may
indicate that suitable housing alternatives for this group are not available in Brooklyn
Center. The median age in the City is now at 33.8, slightly above the regional median of
about 32 years.
.JANUARY 2000 -2 BRW, INC.
#2453i
i
35
169
i ANOKA
i j�
f 10 O
9a sss i
.,,o, Wr�SHING
i� i _._._._.�.r. 1
10 O 61
HENNEPIN isi x� J
t a
RAMSEY
S5 I 94
69 =W
i .._L.�
1 t ei
4-r 1 36 69
12
i
35 SQlfl�
so Paul
12 39
94 00 v 94
v
94)
(l
j Minn ,apoli�
t O
7 q T. 49
t �--i��
oo
1 -o� 5
x 3
SE 55 '.s'
CARVER i S o` 6'
U
loomingto
DAKOTA M;S��,
SCOTT i
�8
Sa' i
35
,i�
t
0 5 10
Scale in Miles
Z
I 1
Figure 1-1
6 rn okl�� t Re ional Settin
1
9 g
I���
Community Profile
Table 1-2: Age Distribution,1980 -1990
Age Group 1980 Percent of 1990 Percent of
total pop. total pop.
Under 5 2,419 7.7 2,597 7.3
6-17 6,457 20.7 4,306 14.9
1&24 4,595 14.7 2,849 9.9
25-34 4,919 15.7 5,372 18.6
35-44 3,649 11.7 3,9$6 13.8
45-54 4,244 13.6 2,762 9.6
55-64 2,985 9.6 3,488 12.1
65 and over 1,962 6.3 3,546 12.3
Median Age 28.9 33.8
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY STATUS
In keeping with the trend towards more and smaller households, the number of one-person
households increased during the 1980s. Non-family households (two or more unmarried
persons) also increased. The number of families with children under 18 declined, while
families without children at home increased. The nuxnber of female single-parent
households increased moderately, while male single-parent households increased
substantially (although still a small group). "Other family households" (i.e., single
householder and adult relatives) showed the greatest increase.
POVERTY LEVEL
The number of persons living in poverty increased by 20 percent during the 1980s. Of this
group, over 40 percent are under 18. Almost 6 percent of families are below the poverty
level; the majority of these are single-parent families. The poverty level was defined as
$12,674 for a famiiy of four in 1989; the 200°l0 level is twice that amount. In Hennepin
County as a whole, 9.2 percent of all persons are below the poverty level, with 20.5 below
the 2�0% levei.
Table 1-5 shows similar trends in surrounding cities; Brooklyn Park and Fridley seem to most
closely mirror trends in Brooklyn Center.
.JANUARY 2000 I BRW, INC.
#24531
Community Profile
Tabie 1-3: Household and Family Status, 1980 -1990
1980 1990 Percent
Change
Households
One-person fishlds. 1,763 2,445 38.6
Non-family hshlds. 509 640 25.7
Families
Married, no children 3,449 3,775 9.4
Married w/ children* 3,784 2,568 -32.1
Female sgl. parent" 815 963 18.1
Male sgl. parent* 123 186 51.2
Other family hshlds. 397 649 63.4
""With children" or "parenY' means only that the householder has related children under 18 living at
home at that time.
t Table 1-4: Poverty Level, 1980 1990
1980 Percent 1990 Percent Percent
of total of total change,
1980 1990
All persons 1,686 5.4 2,031 7.1 20.4
Persons under 18 860 3.0
Persons over 65 130 0.5
Persons under 200% 4,773 15.4 5,381 18.7
poverty level
JANUARY 2000 I BRW, JNC.
#Zassi
Community Profile
Table i-5: Poverty Levels in Brooktyn Center and Neighboring Cities,1980 -1990
(percent of total population)
1980: Persons below 1990: Persons below
Persons in 200% poverty Persons in 200% poverty
poverty level poverty level
Brooklyn Ctr. 5.4 15.4 7.1 18J
Brooklyn Park 6.0 14.9 7.5 17.0
Crystal 3.0 12.1 3.8 12.8
Robbinsdale 3.8 16.3 5.0 16.7
Columbia Hts. 5.3 16.8 8.5 21.6
Fridley 4.2 13.9 6.1 17.1
RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION
The City became more racially diverse in the 1980s, with the largest increases occurring
among African Americans. The Asian and Hispanic population also increased significantly,
although numbers are still small. The minority percentage of the population is close to that
of Hennepin County, at 11.4 percent.
Table 1-6: Racial Composition, 1980 -1990
1980 Percent of 1990 Percent of
1980 pop. 1990 pop.
White 29,984 96.0 26,271 90.9
African American 530 1.2 �,502 5.2
American lndian 201 0.6 271 0.9
Asian and other 515 1.6 843 2.9
Hispanic* 273 0.9 367 1.3
Total Minority* 4.5 2,820 9.8
Hispanic population consists of people of any race. Therefore, "percent minorit�' includes
all persons of minority races plus persons who identified thernselves as white and Hispanic.
a1ANUARY 2000 �-6 BRW, INC.
#eassi
Community Profile
Table 1- 7: Minority Population, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1990
(as percent of total population)
African Amer. Asian and Hispanic Total
Amer. Indian other minority
Brooklyn Ctr. 5.2 0.9 2.9 1.3 9.8
Brooklyn 4.9 0.6 3.8 1.2 10.1
Park
Crys#al 1.8 0.6 2.3 1.0 5.2
Robbinsdate 1.7 0.6 1.5 0.9 4.3
Columbia 1.2 1.1 2.0 1.4 5A
Hts.
Fridley 1.0 0.7 2.6 1.0 4.9
MoB�urr
t Among persons five years and older, almost 60 percent had lived in the same
dwelling for five years or more, while the remaining 40 percent had moved from
elsewhere. This shows a fairiy stable population; in Hennepin County, by contrast,
about 50 percent had xnoved from elsewhere. Of those who relocated in Brooklyn
Center, about 25 percent had moved from elsewhere in Hennepin County, including
about 5 percent from elsewhere in the City. Eleven percent had moved from
Minneapolis or St. Paul, and 7 percent had moved from another state or country.
tThese numbers do no# add up to 100 percent because o# the overlap between cii�es
and counties.)
EDUCATION LEVELS
r Of the population aged 25 and over, 84 percent were high school graduates, while
14 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. In Hennepin County, by contrast, 88
percent were high school graduates and 32 percent had a college degree.
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY INCOME LEVELS
�I, Household and family income failed to keep pace with inflation in the 1980s. This
is the case for many of the first-ring suburbs, including Crystal, Golden Valley,
Richfield, St. Anthony, and St. Louis Park. All these cities, like Brooklyn Center, saw
�I marked increases in the elderly population during the decade. This trend can also
be related to the increase in residents living in poveriy. There are also some
.IANUARY zOOO -7 BRW, INC.
#24531
Community Profile
indications that the Consumer Price Index may have been over-estima#ed during
this period.
Tab1e 1-8: Household and Family Income, 1980 -1990
1979 (i 989$) 1989 Percent change
Median 22,282 34,168 -8.5
Household (37,338)
Median Family 24,932 38,818 -7.1
(41,779)
Table 1-9 shows similar patterns in neighboring cities: only Brooklyn Park
experienced an increase in household income during the 1980s, while #he remainder
showed declines.
Table 1-9: Change in Household Income, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring
Cities, 1979 -1989
1979 (1989$) 1989 Percent
change
Brooklyn Ctr. 37,338 34,168 -8.5
Brooklyn Park 37,134 40,018 7.8
Crystal 37,519 37,093 -1.1
Robbinsdale 33,794 33,207 -2.0
Columbia Hts. 35,082 30,469 -13.1
Fridley 38,290 36,855 -3.7
EM PLOYM ENT
Of the City's population, 71.2 percent was in the labor force in 1990. This percentage
is comparable with that of Hennepin County, at 73.5 percent. The unemployment
rate for persons in #he labor force was 5.4 percent, somewhat higher than Hennepin
County's, at 4.7 percen#. (T'he "labor force" is defined as all persons 1b or over who
are employed or unemployed i.e., those who are activeiy seeking work and
available for work. It does not include persons in #he military.) Low labor force
participation is generally correiated to a high percentage of retired persons.
JANUARY 2000 I'8 BRW, Ir�C.
#2453t
Community Profile
Table 1-10: Empioyment Levels, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities,1990
Percent of pop. Percent
in labor force unemployed
Brooklyn Ctr. 71.2 5.4
Brooklyn Park 83.9 4.7
Crystal 74.3 4.8
Robbinsdale 65.9 4.6
Columbia Hts. 69.7 6.0
Fridley 77.5 4.9
a.IOBS OF RESIDENTS
We can classify Brooklyn Center's employed population by the industry sector they
work in and by their occupational group in other words, their individual job
ciassifications (managers, technicians, etc.). The industrial sector classification, as
compared with the Twin Cities region and the nation as a whole, is as follows.
Tabte 1-11: Industrial Classifications of Employed Residents (percent of total
empfoyment), 1990
Industry Brooklyn Center Twin Cities MSA United States
Mining 0.6
Construction 4.3 3.3 4.2
Manufacturing 21.9 18.5 16.8
TransJCommJ 7.4 5.5 5.3
Utilities
Trade (wholesale/ 25.7 23.8 23.2
re#ai1)
Financellnsuranc 8.3 7.3 6.2
e/
Real Estate
Services 28.2 27.9 26.7
Government 3.8 13.7 17.1
I
JANUARY 2000 1-9 BRW, INC.
#zassi
Community Profile
The jobs of City residents can also be categorized by occupational category and
compared with jobs in the Twin Cities region. Compared to #he region, Brooklyn
Center has somewhat higher percentages of production and skilled craft workers,
operators and laborers, and service and administrative support workers. It has
fewer persons in professional and technical positions, and slightly fewer in
executive/managerial jobs.
Table 1-12: Occupational Distribution of Employed Residents (percent of total
empioyment)
Occupational Group Brooklyn Twin Cities
Center Region
ExecJmanagerial 13.3 14.3
ProfessionaUtechnic 13.fi 19.7
al
Sales 12.0 12.7
Admin. support 20.6 18.4
Services 13.4 11.9
Production, skilled 11.3 9.5
crafts
Operators, laborers 15.8 12.5
a.10BS IN BROOKLYN CENTER
The following table shows that the number of jobs within Brooklyn Center has
increased steadily since 1970, aithough estimates show a slight decline at mid-
decade, possibly due to declines in retail activity in and around Brookdale.
Metropolitan Council projections show continued growth in employment through
2020.
Region-wide, in the 1980s the developing suburbs took the lead in job growth, with
a 63 percent share of new jobs. The fully developed suburbs had about 21 percent
of new jobs, while the central cities had only 2 percent.
Brooklyn Center retained a high jobs-taresidents ratio: 92 jobs per 100 "working
age" residents (18 64). This is typical of the fully developed suburbs, al#hough
some communities (like Columbia Heights) have relatively few jobs and others (like
Roseville) have more than one and a half jobs per working age resident.
JANUARY 2000 I- I O BRW, INC.
#2653i
Community Profile
Table 1-13: Jobs in Brooklyn Center, 1970 to 2020
197D 1980 1990 1995 20i0 2020 Jobs per
Est. (proj.) 100 res.
(18-64),
1990
Number 7,360 11,99 17,006 16,16 22,400 23,50 92
5 6 0
Percent 62.9 41.8 -4.9 38.6 4.9
Change
Job growth in surrounding cities during the 1980s and early 90s does not show any
consisten# pattern. Among these cities, only Brookiyn Center, Brooklyn Park and
Fridley are significant employment centers, and among these, only Brooklyn Park
is continuing to experience rapid job growth.
Tabie 1-14: Jobs in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980 1995
1980 1990 Percent 1995 Percen
change estimate t
chang
e
Brooklyn Center �1,995 17,006 41.8 16,166 -4.9
Brooklyn Park 8,017 16,592 106.9 20,355 22.7
Crystal 6,030 6,019 -1.2 5,272 -12.4
Robbinsdale 5,348 6,813 27.4 6,791 -0.3
Columbia Heights 4,618 4,536 -1.8 5,659 24.8
Fridley 22,968 23,821 3.7 23,676 -0.6
Jobs in the first ring or "fully developed area" suburbs have been classified by the
Metropolitan Council as follows. The data used for #his study (Keeping the Twin
Cities Vita1,1994) show some differences in distribution of jobs between the region's
subareas. Jobs in the first ring suburbs have a mix of occupations very similar to
jobs in the developing suburbs, but are slightly higher in their proportion of clerical
workers and lower in their proportion of operators/laborers.
Brooklyn Center's job mix shows significantly more sales jobs fihan the region ar the
#irst ring suburbs; a function of retail jobs centered around Brookdale. it also has
JANUARY 2000 I I BRW, INC.
#zas3i
Community Profile
slightly more support and service jobs, and considerably fewer professional/
technical jobs.
Table 1-15: Occupational Distribution (percent of total jobs by job location)
Occupational Group Brooklyn Twin Cities
Center Region
ExecJmanagerial 13.1 14.3
Professional/technic 11.1 19.7
al
Sa1es 20.6 12.7
Admin. support 22.6 18.4
Services 12.4 17.9
Production, skilled 8.7 9.5
crafts
Operators, laborers 11.4 12.5
I
JANUARY ZOOO I I 2 BRW, INC.
#24531
Com rehensive Plan 2020
LAN D USE, REDEVELOPM ENT AN D
COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
INTRODUC°�{ON AND OVERVIEW
�his chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes how the City of Brooklyn
Center will attemp# to guide private investment in land and property
through planning and zoning, public improvemen#s and incentives. In #his
nearly fully deveioped community, the strategy focuses on "mid-course"
corrections, neighborhood protection, selective infill and redevelopment, and
image enhancement.
Practices set in motion by previous plans and ordinances will be largely
maintained, as #hey have resulted in a sound community overall. However,
Brooklyn Center has progressed beyond initial development, and the forces
of age and shifting market trends have created new chailenges. Therefore,
City leaders, in consuitation with citizens, have decided to turn their
attention to a set of policies and practices aimed at helping Brooklyn Center
mature gracefully into a well-rounded community. During the next two or
three decades, Brooklyn Center will build on its strengths of convenient
regional location and access, a commercial-civic core, a sizable jobs base, an
award-winning park system and affordable housing in attractive
neighborhoods. The best aspects of suburban and urban living will be
combined so that investments are safeguarded and quality of life promoted.
This chapter includes these sections:
Existing Land Use Pattern, 1997 Nei hborhood rofiles and
g P
neighborhood land use issues
Ci -Wide Land se an
ty U d Redevelopment Issues
Land Use, IZedevelopment and Physical Image Strategy Goals,
objectives and specific area plans.
The topics of land use, redevelopment and community physical image are
discussed in an interrelated fashion because of #heir mutual dependence.
aJANUARY 2000 Z' I BRW, IhC.
#24531
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
EXISTING LAND USE PAT�ERN 1 997
This section examines the current pattern of land use, highlighting the major land
use changes since the City's 1979 Comprehensive Plan and the issues that remain to
be addressed.
As it was described in 1979, the City's land use pattern is one of a well-defined
commercial/industrial core surrounded by residential neighborhoods. This core, the
"City Center," falls largely within the triangle formed by T.H. 100, Brooklyn
Boulevard, and 69th Avenue North. Most commercial development is located
parallel to T.H. 100 and I-694/94, and along Brooklyn Boulevard. Most industrial
development is located in the modern industrial park at the north end of Shingle
Creek Parkway and in #he older industrial area along the Soo Line Railroad in the
City's southwest corner. Fi ure 2-1, Land Use Pattern, 1997, illustrates these and
g
other features using data from the City's geographic information system.
Table 2-1 shows existing land use by acreage, using Metropolitan Council categories.
The City Center is also defined by its open space: a broad "greenway" or ribbon of
parkland that follows Shingie Creek from Palmer Lake Park south. Although
interrupted by the Brookdale regional mall, this greenway picks up again at Lions
Park/Centerbrook Golf Course, and continues south through #he Shingle Creek Park
in Minneapolis to Webber Parkway and the Mississippi River.
NEIGHBORHOOD PROFILES
Each of the City's six residentiai neighborhoods has its own character and mix of
land uses and housing types. Because of this diversity, it makes sense to link more
detailed descriptions of land use to the following individual neighborhood profiles.
Neighborhood boundaries, shown on Figure 2-1, are the same as those in the 1989
Housing Market report. The following text summarizes and updates that report's
issues and findings.
a�ANUARY ZOOO 2 BRW, INC.
#24531
�IIII�IIIIIHi�l�ll ��1�� �f���11�1��11�
t�•� .p �nn �u u� u� p p "m� ��4 illlllll p�n �nmmnnt7 �C'
��`t8 ar p� =�neii��o��um� i 7 dlm�ln e m unmm- C
�tu����iiin% t ����::ii:: �j�l�i �1 C
5,� :I`� :iiq� �p�/�i,I�� mnn in i �y
.s."��• :u�C�i�iinT `��iC/ iiinunaa n5i.i:d 7
�n���,� n /i nanom \P
'��j� tll►� ��I��muuu� �►�i�•�j�J n�o�nn 7 �n �n nAL ���,O
t �I �C ��I
1_.
,c::::=
:m 1_ n�1`'�' CC udn�mn?c =n7 ":Iriiiiiiii t�
e _m�i '--:n u
'e :e S :�1',���- i
nm..: s r ui�u. qi i L
m111� CC x Onyl
�II��b e" '�1�1► IItI�� g; I�
1�111111�\ a�t�_ I�IIIl1I•II%I `x-_'��, G'a
,I/I i�
������e� 0 I/I/ 6 S�
�r�' �o �Inlfli�ummn..�` v... s
�mum.m�mm�.. m ..u... •v E �s
...nu n•� umm nwiu�nm �e uu ..:��i'�� I i
in� �III nn iiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiii://!/6�� riiiiiii �4� v �.o� ,f
n� �nn �nm� n� C t�� 111111 ���i��i�� �u:
o� 4�\ bb �i t' 3' H
1111111 �I �11 111111 f-.�
��Ii �11 11 \�I/Il �ij� II 1�t1�11�����It�II�'♦
II�� i�� i�i I IIIIII:I, 1�1 I��I�11111111111
�G�iiiii'. u� i� �►����i ��p`� -�r ii iiiiiiiniiii�
I�nn n••nN��� \��n. ��d 4 nnunmum nnmuun. O
a1���iO: �I�u�llfi� ��n iii�� n��O mnnmm�l� 1�II�r�n�r�
.��pp�: pp" iiiii i 1 11111 1 iiip�I%I%���iii iiiiuir: �d �1{
��nunp 'e 77 eC C e iiiii� E irii ���q vu:,,. '{.i-
nnu. e� _7 ee 7 �rypuum q qi b� g a- �r d�
�t�l1D� N►t�� 11 iiilill Qi►.• 7L 6\ 7
►.�i ���nnunn �•q 11=
„t ii�iu iiiii�un .e �p r'
(►Ilmi mm�nd- y a e�
pmr�m�nuni ,z'�, p'
r� G: 7� .Inn1
3 IIIIf� I�
����i1111 1
_a
;���C�i��'" ���Y:�� :�'i
m r
_?�Inu■
�n nllnnn In '�,J
wmnu�`��� �����II
�i f ulntllY 1'
y�" Y l�=�nu n�+ �n u.`° n enr�
�m na
n mu �idnnmv/�
�i i imm i��� p a� 0
�n�nn• `':t G 7 1
nuu�� A�.OpJ�� �O� 1
��u�u�� nII.CA���i'.�_ 3�1'_
a�C III Illlltllnl�\: 77 :i i�� i i� i �e:'u II�
�en1 n:��� ��SH U
���'���5 2 s
i�. C iu ../h
ii iiiiiin6 4:� _e eG C p e� �e'�
nnuu0►d �t ee'- _I =e
1� nuwnl�lll mm� o' c"
Sh�nummc—. =�3 i o� i�H'mndiim s�m�
�O- u
P�7 Pu
y�
4
I�
'�G
�lA�.ninumn: ��'p
nnn.�nu r ;:LL
a
IIIIIIIIIIIIf Q�
i� .•il��
�100t@F `�i_
iuu: �yi 'Z
�tllllln�u�qqj�
o_
Y lll� v�;=�� �p
.�,A�4�: .�a �F
���S��Y�
��wr'_`
2
S
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
Tabie 2-1 Existing Land Use (in acres)
Number of Acres
Category
Total Acreage Within the Current Urban Service Area' S,440
Existing land uses wi#hin the urban service area
Single-family residential (detached and mobiie homes) 1,901
Multifamily residential (2-family, townhouse, multi) 362
Commercial and office/service 517
Industrial 217
Public and semipublic (institutional) 240
Parks and recreation 556
Roadways 1,263
Open water 285
Existing use subtotal 5,341
Vacant land that is restricted from development
Environmentai protection: wetlands, floodplains 4
Highway and street right of way 1
Airports 12
U#ility easements 7
Other I 1
Development restrictions subtotal 25
Vacant developable land
Single-family residential 11
Multifamily residential 12
Commercial 33
lndustrial 14
Vacant developable subtotal 70
Total Land Area of Community I 5,436 (approx.)
Notes
1. The Ci#y is entirely within the urban services area
JANUARY 2000 2'4 BRW, INC.
#24531
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
CENTRAL NEiGHBOf2HOOD
The Central Neighborhood (1) is the smallest of the City's neighborhoods. It is
bordered on the east by Shingle Creek Parkway, on the south by County Road 10,
on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard and on the north by I-94/694. It contains a solid
"care" of single-family residential blocks, extending east and west from the "spine"
of Xerxes Avenue. The housing stock is well-maintained and is well-buffered from
the freeway on the north. Commercial and office uses are centered along County
Road 10 across from Brookdale and, in a more fragmented pattern, along Brooklyn
Boulevard. Several muitifamily apartment complexes are located in the
neighborhood: the Summerchase Apartments, just behind #he commercial/ office
uses along County Road 10, and the Garden City Court complex, at Beard and 65th
Avenues North. Smaller apartment buildings are found along Beard Avenue at 61st
Avenue North. Many of #hese are in need of rehabilitation.
Along Brooklyn Boulevard, blocks of single-family residences are interspersed with
small commercial and office uses and institutional uses {the Garden City School).
The largest commercial site in this segment is the full block previously occupied by
Builder's Square, now undergoing redevelopment. The site will be redeveloped for
a community-scale shopping center with a 70,000 square foot supermarket, a
drugstore, and other attached and free-standing uses.
Parks are located on bo#h sides of the neighborhoods, with Garden City Park and
the Shingle Creek trail system on the east and the Brooklane Park and Garden City
School complex on the west, at 65th Avenue N. and Brooklyn Boulevard.
ISSUES CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD
What can the City do to eliminate single famil� uses along Brooklyn Boulevard?
How can the City encourage maintenance and upgrading of oider multifamily
housing?
NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD
The Northeast Nei hborhood 2 is one of the Ci 's two lar est and contains the
g g
widest diversity of land uses, as well as the largest number of rental housing units
(over 1,200 in 1989). It is bounded by the Mississippi River on the east, I-94/b94 on
the south, Shingle Creek on the west, and 73rd Avenue North (the Brooklyn Park
boundary) on #he north.
Unlike the Central neighborhood, in which a"core" of sin le-famil residences is
g Y
surrounded by multifamily and nonresidential uses, the Northeast neighborhood
has a large multifamily and commerciai core, at Humboldt and b9th Avenues North.
This area includes approximately 660 multifamily units in some 34 buildings, almost
JANUARY 2000 2 BRW, INC_
#24531
LAND 11SE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAiJ
one-fourth of the City's rentai housing supply. Many of these units are showing
signs of age and lack of maintenance. North of this core is a large and weli-
maintained single-family area extending from Palmer Lake Park to Camden Avenue.
The northeast corner of the neighborhood also includes several large multifamily
complexes, most built in the 1970s. Trunk Highway ('TH) 252, widened in the 1980s
to a 4-lane expressway, effectively divides the riverfront area from the rest of #he
neighborhood. This area contains many of the City's highest-value single-family
homes, on large riverfront lots. West of TH 252 is another multiple-family complex,
Evergreen Park Manor, and a parcel containing several of the City's wells.
The southeast corner of the neighborhood, where TH 252 intersects with I-94 and I-
694, was identified in the Study of Commercial and Industrial Development Trends as
the "gateway" to the northern suburbs, and has become known as the "Gateway
Area." Highly visible from both freeways, it contains substantial areas o# vacant
land, including a site recently acquired and cleared by the City, south of 66th
Avenue and east of TH 252. Multifamily complexes here include #he recently
renovated Melrose Gate apartments, the Georgetown Park and Riverwood
townhouses, and the Willow Lane apartments east of TH 252.
The southwest portion of the nei hborhood is art of the lar er Shin le Creek
g P g
Industrial Park, consisting mainly of modern multi-tenant office warehouse space,
much of it built during the 1980s. Commercial uses along Freeway Bouievard take
advantage of visibility froxn I-94/694.
Neighborhood parks, as well as the trails around Palrner Lake, are within walking
distance of most residential areas. The large Evergreen Park/School complex is
centrally located in the northern section of the neighborhood; the Brooklyn Center
High School and Firehouse Park are central to the southern section.
ISSUES NORTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD
What uses should be considered for the "Gateway Area," both east and west of TH
252, to take advantage of its exceilent access and visibility?
How can the City encourage maintenance and upgrading of older multifamily
housing, especially the concentration of apartments around 67th and Humboldt
Avenues North?
Will the increasing volume of regional traffic through this neighborhood affect the
residential quality of life?
JANUARY 2000 2 BRW, INC.
�24531
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD
The Northwest Neighborhood (3) is the area west of Shingle Creek, between
I-94/694 and the City's boundary with Brooklyn Park, both to the north and west.
Brooidyn Boulevard divides i# into two parts, each of which contains a single-family
residential core and multi-family uses on the periphery.
I The easternmost section of the nei hborhood is art of the Shin le Creek industrial
g P g
complex that extends into the Northeast Neighborhood. Several large vacant parcels
remain here, along with one new commercial/hospitality use, a Country Inn, along
the freeway. Just west of this area are several townhouse complexes, the Earle
Brown Estates and a small new development at York Place. Between this area and
Brooklyn Boulevard, single-family residences predominate. This area is served by
two neighborhood parks at its periphery: Wes# Paimer Lake Park #o the east and
Freeway Park to the south, as well as the Palmer Lake trail system.
This segment of Brooklyn Boulevard is charac#erized by a iarge complex of auto
dealers and services just north of the freeway and, to the north, a fragmented pattern
of small single-family residential, small free-standing commercial, the Willow Lane
Apartments, the Brooklyn Methodist Church, and several newer office complexes.
West of Brooklyn Boulevard, three townhouse complexes occupy the City's
northwest corner. Both Creek Villas, built in 1970s, and Island Ponds, built in the
early 80s, feature attractive two-story side-by-side units on winding, well-
landscaped streets. Unity Place (formerly The Ponds) is a subsidized Section 8
development that was renovated and converted to cooperative ownership in 1993.
All these complexes were designed around a series of ponds and wetland areas
along Shingle Creek. The Willow Lane School and park serve these complexes and
the single-family areas to the south. The Maranatha Place senior rental apartments
are located at 69#h and Unity Avenues North.
I ISSUES NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD
What can the City do to facilitate removal of single family uses along Brooklyn
Boulevard, specifically between 69th and 70th Avenues North?
What actions can the City take to encourage redevelopment of many underutilized
parcels along Brooklyn Boulevard, consistent with the Streetscape Amenities Study?
What actians should the City take to enforce adequate maintenance standards at
rental townhouse projects?
JANUARX 2000 2'7 BRW, INC.
#24531
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD
The Southeast Neighborhood (4) borders the Mississippi River on the east, northeast
Minneapolis (the Lind-Bohannon and Shingle Creek neighborhoods) on the south,
Shingle Creek on the West, and I-94/694 on the north. Land use in much of the
neighborhood is dominated by single-family residential. This area also contains the
oldest homes in the City about 25 percent of the housing stock was built before
1950. The only major commercial uses east of TH 100 are Northbrook Shopping
Center, a neighborhood shopping center that is in marginal condition, and
surrounding free-standing commercial uses.
TH 100 creates a sharp boundary between residential and office/commercial land
uses; most of these are located in the triangle between TH 100, Shingle Creek
Parkway and I-94/694. This area includes the Earle Brown Heritage Center, the City
Hall and Community Center, Hennepin County library and offices, several new
apartment complexes, and a number of large commercial and office uses.
Hennepin Parks has acquired and demolished all the remaining homes on the thin
strip of land between the river and Lyndale Avenue Norfih, as part of the North
Mississippi Regional Park. The City's former River Ridge Park has also been
absorbed into the regional park, which continues south into Minneapolis and is
eurrently under development.
'The most vulnerable section of the Southeast Neighborhood is considered to be the
corridor along 53rd Avenue North. It has been documented that, during the 1980s,
property values fell in #his corridor, the number of owner-occupied homes declined,
and the condition of some of the older single-family residences deteriorated. The
City is therefore implementing a redevelopment plan for the "53rd Avenue
Develo ment and Linka e Pro'ect involvin clearance of existin older housin
P g l g
g
along 53rd Avenue and its replacement with a iandscaped greenway and new
owner-occupied housing.
ISSUES SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD
What actions can or should the City take to bring about the upgrading or
redevelopment o� the Northbrook Shopping Center?
How can the Cit� capitalize on the amenity value of riverfront land to attract higher-
value housing?
Shouid the City create an open space "greenway" on vacant land under the power
lines?
JEwUARY 2000 Z-$ BRW, INC.
#2asai
LAND 1JSE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD
The Southwest Neighborhood (5) borders three cities Minneapolis, Robbinsdale,
and Crystal on the south and west. County Road 10 (58th Avenue North) forms
its northern boundary; its eastern boundaries are Shingle Creek and Xences Avenue
North. It includes both the Brookdale Mall and a great variety of industrial,
commercial and residential land uses, many in close proximity to each other.
Brookdale, built in 1962 as the second regional mall in the Twin Cities, contains 1.1
million square feet of retail space. Numerous free-standing commercial
establishments have dustered around it, many along Xerxes Avenue North. This
area also includes the Westbrook Mall and several financial and office uses.
Brookdale's image has suffered in recent years due to lack of upd�ting and a loss of
some tenants; it changed ownership in December 1996 and these owners are now
evaluating its expansion or renovation needs. The City's Local Water Management
Plan addresses the issue of needed storm water ponding for the center.
Other commercial uses in the Southwest Neighborhood are grouped around the
intersection of TH 100 and France Avenue North. Proposed upgrading of TH 100
with full in#erchanges in this area may change access patterns to these businesses
and to residential areas.
The other prominen# use in this neighborhood is industry, including some heavy
manufacturing as well as warehouse and light industrial uses. Industrial uses
follow the Soo Line Railroad across the southern end o# the neighborhood. The
largest site is that of the former Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Company, south
of the railroad and just west of Middle Twin Lake; this is a Superfund site where an
extensive soil and water clean-up managed by the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA) is in its final stages. The site will require monitoring for 50 to 75
years, and cannot accommodate any uses that could pierce its protective "cap."
Another large use is the Howe Company, a fertiiizer and agricultural chemical
manufacturer, located north of the railroad tracks at Ryan Lake and just east of TH
100. The Howe plant no longer manufactures fertilizer, but functions instead as a
wholesale and distribution center.
Housing in the Southwest Neighborhood is divided into four subdistric#s by the
barriers of TH 100 and the Soo Line Railroad, and by the industrial uses along the
railroad corridor. Bordering Upper Twin Lake is a large, stable, largely single-
family area, benefiting from the amenities of both the lakefront and the Northport
School and Park complex. A multiple-family housing complex, Twin Lakes Manor
(formerly Brookdale 10), borders TH 100; the 1989 Housing Market report found it to
be in poor repair. The southern end of this area backs up to some large industrial
uses, notably the Murphy Warehouse at France and 50th Avenues North. A new
block of single-family residences was recently developed on a vacant parcel north
of the warehouse on 51st Avenue N. The project was developed under a Planned
JfwUARY 2000 2 BRW, INC.
#24531
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
Unit Development agreement through which the eastern section of the site near the
lake was donated to the City as open space.
The other residential pockets are small ones, somewhat isolated by the railroad, the
highways, and the industrial uses. Each one benefits from a neighborhood park, but
all are negatively impacted by incompatible uses. The southwest area (south of the
railroad, west of TH 100) contains a great variety of residential uses, including a
large condominium apartment complex, and a mix of single-family residences,
newer duplexes, and small fourplex apartment buildings, most of which are in poor
condition.
The southeast area (south of the railroad and east of TH 100) is largely industrial,
with the exception of a cluster of multifamily buildings eight buildings with
eleven units each that line the south side of 47th Avenue facing industry.
T`he residential area in the triangle of Brooklyn Boulevard, TH 100 and the railroad
line consists of single-family residences; these are well-buffered from surrounding
uses, except for the homes on 49th Avenue that back up to the Howe Company
fertilizer complex.
Three of fihe neighborhood's separate residential subdistricts contains one or more
neighborhood parks: Northport and Lakeside Parks on the northwest, Twin Lake
Beach park on the southwest, and Happy Hollow Park east o# TH 100. The
southeast corner contains undeveloped open space adjacent to Ryan Lake
15SUES SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD
What actions can the City take to encourage the continued economic viability of the
Brookdale Shopping Center and surrounding commercial areus?
Which sections of the neighborhood are most appropriate for industrial use and which
for residential? How can the conflicts between these uses be eliminuted or mitigated?
Should Lakeside �'ar�C be developed as a�la� lot {it contains no equipment at
present)?
How can the City encourage maintenance and upgrading of older multifamily
housing in this area, or its replacement with newer �tousing?
WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD
The West Central Neighborhood (6) is a fairly homogeneous neighborhood largely
composed of single-family residences. Its southern boundary (with the Southwes#
neighborhood) is County Road 10; to the west it borders the cities of Crystal and
Brooklyn Park; to the north, I-94/694, and to the east, Brooklyn Boulevard. Like the
JANUARY 2000 Z I O BRW, INC.
#24531
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
Central Neighborhood, it has a large single-family core, occupying fully 80 percen#
of the land within the neighborhood, with more intense uses on the periphery.
Multi-family housing is found along Brooklyn Boulevard, where the largest complex
is Brookhaven, at 65th Avenue N., and in the southwest corner of the neighborhood,
along County Road 10. Here, the Twin Lake North Aparhnents and the adjacent
townhouses enjoy a private location backing up to Kylawn Park and a nature
preserve in Crystal.
The Brooklyn Boulevard corridor in this area is characterized by the typical mixture
of commercial, office and institutional uses, intermixed with small segments of
single-family residences. A recent redevelopment project has replaced a block of
single- and multi-family units at 65th Avenue North with a new MCTO park-and-
ride iot and Cahlander Park, a new park with landscaped seating areas and a storm
water basin adjacent to the I-94/694 interchange.
The neighborhood is well-served by parks: in addition to the large Kylawn Park and
Arboretum, there are three small neighborhood parks Marlin, Wangstad
and Orchard Lane and the new Cahlander Park, which is designed around a
regional storm water pond.
ISSUES WEST CENTRAL NEIGHBORHOOD
What other actions should the City pursue to eliminate additional single family uses
along Brooklyn Boulevard?
Are acilities at Marlin and Wan t
f gs ad Parks still m need of upgradmg, as rrientioned
in the 1989 �-Iousing Market report?
aJANUARY 2000 2' I I BRW, INC.
#2453I
t
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY 1MAGE PLAN
CITY LAND USE ISSUES
This section of the Land Use, Redevelopment and Communi#y Image Plan
summarizes the issues of city-wide significance. Issues are matters of debate that
should be addressed and resolved in the plan in light of the other issues. Therefore,
a clear and comprehensive understanding of the issues is essential to writing and
understanding the plan. Many of these issues (and some of those listed above) were
identified by members of the City Council and Planning Commission through a
brainstarming session held during the comprehensive planning process.
Figure 2-2 summarizes the key land use issues, including those listed above. Issues
that are geographicaily specific are keyed to Figure 2-2 from the following list:
l BROOKLYN B�ULEVARD CORRIDOR
This street has been extensively studied over the years, including a special study in
the 1979 Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities
Study. While many positive changes have occurred on Brooklyn Boulevard,
including #he new park-and-ride lot at 65th Avenue, a unified image for the corridor
has yet to be implemented.
W�cat actions should the City take to address the long-standing conflicts between
land access, traffic movement, and incornpatible land uses?
To what extent should the City become financialiy involved in assisting private
redevelopment?
2. GATEWAY AREA �HIGHWAY 252 NEAR 66TH AVENUE)
This area has excellent visibility from adjacent freeways, but access is somewhat
difficult. The existing retail businesses are scattered and marginal, and some of #he
multiple-family housing in the area is ready for replacement or substantial
remodeling. At the same time, this area represents an excellent opportunity for a
large and highly visible redevelopment project.
How should the City capitalize on this opportunity?
3. 69TH AND HUMBOLDT AVENUES
The iarge concentration of multiple-family apartments in this area, many occupied
by low-income households, have shown problems with deferred maintenance. The
Humbold# Square Shopping Center, wlule it functions well to serve neighborhood
needs, is also in need of renovation or redevelopment.
What should be the role of the City in promoting redevelopment?
.JANUARY 2000 2 I�L BRW, INC.
#24531
1
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
What resources should be committed to upgrade this area?
4. 65TH AVENUE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD
This largely single-family neighborhood located just south of b6th Avenue and north
of I-94/694 will continue to be subject to increasing traffic pressures as congestion
increases on TH 252 and I-94/694, leading to traffic taking alternate routes through
the neighborhood. It is likely to be subject to increased traffic from the Gateway
area in the future, as redeveiopment occurs. The neighborhood will also experience
economic pressure for changes in land use because of access and visibility from
adjacent highways and proximity to commercial deveiopment.
What should the City do to sustain the viability of this neighborhood?
5. CITY CENTER
This area, extending from Brookdale #o the municipal complex and #he Earle Brown
Heritage Center, encompasses most of the City's retail, office and civic uses. While
most of these buildings are occupied and in excellent condition, connections
between them are often lacking, and the whole area lacks a clear identity and a
meaning#ul internal circulation pattern. The continued success of the whole area
hinges on the long-term viability of the Brookdale Shopping Center.
YVhat should be the role of the City in the future of the City Center?
Should iand development be intensified from current levels?
Should this area take on more of an "urban, downtown" feel?
Should the ed es o the Cit Center be ex anded into ad'acent sin le- amil
f y P 1 f y
neighborhoods through redevelopment?
t Whut should be done, i an thin to im rove the transition and bu er between the
.f y P .ff
corrtmercial land uses in City Center and their single famiiy neighbors?
What shvuld �ie done to link the City Center to the rest of the cvmmunity better?
Where in the order of priority does City Center currently stand among other
locations vying for City invoivement? How might that order shift in the future?
5A. NORTHBROOK SHOPPING CENTER AND VICINITY
What types of uses should be considered for Northbrook Shopping Center as it is
redevelo�ed over time?
JANUARY 2000 2' l 3 BRW, INC.
�{2453 I
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
6. 53RD AVENUE CORRIDOR
This area has suffered a decline in property values and in housing condition; the
City is working on a redevelopment project that would create an open space link to
riverfront parkland.
Should this improvement be extended further west along 53rd Avenue?
Should a similar project be undertaken in other locations in the Southwest
IVeighborhood?
7. SOUTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD
A. �IOSLYN SlTE AND VICINITY: Given the level of cleanup required at this site, what uses
would be most appropriate?
B. 47TH AVENUE Can the multifamily and industrial uses along this street continue
to coexist indefinitely?
i
1
t
aJANUARY 2000 2 I 4 BRW, INC.
#Zasai
�11111111111�1�1111�11� .���III�I�f11�
r.�� .�m n■ .n n' "��q� �Iyrymn� mun.mn: f�
�i ��nu ��i� i� n nuu�m-
a ���urp��iiiiiiii' ��i��i���� �1:
pC�`,�i�:!��� �7-.��
tn S�1 �i n��� ii Cu Ti1 rI ���\v�
�i� n111� ♦��m�. v��� ��P�
�v�. �o J_
l �,�1 19 7' :Lloe. ��ieC I
�y°°
-o.1E _nn•
T�C�
.u�: �..f e i=
e;��\\ �UI\,:�!-
r.-�
i=:== ►�.1.
r��
:►a �en1►��3
nm���7 C Ifp� I/q 0
�nnnu «��/ip
m m mmnnn� �f �ll IIIIIIiI"11� tqq p
�i�lti���1���lfl� I►� �II
��IU�n���l\n► i�, �111N��1� �IIII�IID �7 �Illp t1-
�luUU�n�ul��� 1��� t1�111{I I�IIIIIt111. �Il�q�
nu...nn�auntl� �n�m� �mu�nun uuq� ��A
p u......■nu...mu. ini n�um nnnmw. �OD��� nuu�i: j.y•�
p :uu unu�_ r �i nnn� �b �i- :e
�n �C �I I /1\� -1111� ����p� ry IIq�
I�i i l� i�i j ji �S
Iinv 7 Pu 7,1iW n�L�/IIIi ,.ar��
��nm. n5 w J�':7: u.n� num �w
unnrtp 7 �7 mm a m IIIII�U
n�a
m.�
i _"e e_""' �Itll �t 1_
�C �7 I
�InOl�p�'7'C77 IupI1!llliii•: e�'=iii��Ii�
.�1���1. �UIq/ 1��IU1► r� 1
1111{I� IItI/1/I \��11� ��1/ I Iltl��
11� /f11�111 I�q
v ��umwnu ����i �q '`r' �ll-
qy ��lll�� iiii����mm�u �G %�iu�� e_ EII��
j.::--
.e
��ni
_N I
�i�
1
C�u au,.m� n n�
i iiiiii I i���: 7
�i. i.. '1.
muu� .p e' i' ele =11I1i
v nw �n�u
umun e 'L''
C' C C� c�
iiiiniii �p�����p�:��i 7 'u i:' ie'7 r�.
wnm v�1 O��p�0��0�0.:19' ���y�.���'���P-� S
inmm ���G�,►i C�� a'.
'�umn n16 n� 1'
`a���: �IIIIII�U��nn�:::C-' y
a �f1�IC 111111111111l�II� II
����A ��4�7 D e :L
nllll�i ..�s� �iu.../li�'�'
ii It1�ll►:� f�
11�111�\ i I
If/11�1�R►��� 1111�
,a�, nun.n, l� 1�. "�uuumne� '�'I_ "i_6. "I'=_�:d��'imlimidmnlnina
i ��_�5- 1
.�/niine����
dl� e �p
�nt °e:
�_��...�i��i�e=�=°
.an oe
�I�n11111t i° e�
�1
f a��
..�i:',��
�o�
e �=•�I��. ��l��I
.�v,
R
n
si
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY (MAGE PLAN
8. COMMUNITY PHYSICAL 1MAGE
While Brooklyn Center contains attractive and well-maintained neighborhoods, an
I identifiable town center and an excellent park system, its visual image has suffered
because of the deterioration of a few highly visible areas such as Brooklyn Boulevard
or clusters of older apartment buildings. Meanwhile, the City's image in the region
has suffered because of the perception of decline, exacerbated by negative media
coverage.
What steps should the City take to improve its image?
How can the City improve the ap�earance of "Auto Row" (on Brooklyn Boulevard)?
How can the City best unify itself across the highways that divide it?
How can tice City best exploit its natural amenities (Shingle Creek, the Mississippi
River, Twin and Palmer Lakes) to build its image?
J. INFRASTRUCTURE AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES
A cluster of issues was identified under the topic of infrastructure and municipal
services. While not directly rela#ed to land use and redevelopmen#, City facilities
and services can play a powerful role in supporting and encouraging private
property investment and influencing public perceptions about the community.
What is the best pace (phasing, timing) for infrastructure improvements? r
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 improvemercts?
Is the Ci
s ark s stem ade uat r its cur o ulat' r
e o rent ion and ecreation needs.
�J p y 9 P P
Which parks need improvements or upgrading? (This and related park system
issues are reiterated in the Parks chapter of the Comprehensive Plan.)
I
I
JANUAftY 2000 2' 1 6 BRW, iNC.
#zas3i
i
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND PHYSICAL 1MAGE
STRATEGY
r This section of the plan describes a coordinated strategy for land use, redevelopment
and community physical image. This strategy addresses the City's intentions and
hopes for the pattern of land use, including changes to previously developed sites,
and for public improvements that will promote private investment and enhance the
livability of the community. The strategy responds to the previously-identified
issues and elaborates upon the Goals and Objectives.
The three subjects (land use, redevelopment and physical image) are discussed
together because nearly all land use decisions in Brooklyn Center now involve
redevelopment and because public improvements to infrastructure are seen as
instrumental in promoting private re-investment.
This strategy�consists of these elements:
Goals
Objectives
Specific Area Plans
GOALS
I The followin oals for land use redevelo ment and communi ima e build u on
g g P g p
the Fundamental GoaLs presented in the Introduction. All the subsequent objeciives
and guidelines of this chapter support these three land use and redeveiopment
goals.
1. Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods.
2. Continuously renew and make better use of land in the City Center and the
Brooklyn $oulevard Corridor.
3. Improve the appearance of the city for the sake of quality of life, property
values and civic pride.
OBJ ECTIVES
LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT
1. Gradually reduce and eliminate incompatible relationships among land
uses (such as industry vs. housing).
1 2. Reduce the geographic over-concentration of particular types of iand
development when that pattern has become a negative influence on the
communiry.
JANUARY 2000 L I 7 BRW fNC.
#24531
i
IAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
3. Continue the selective redevelopmen# of targeted areas, commercial,
industrial and residential, to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses
and stimulate new investment.
Identify key commercial redevelopment sites through this
comprehensive plan and subsequent investigations.
Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design
principles contained in this comprehensive plan and special area
plans (such as the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Streetscape Amenities
Study).
Repiace inappropriate single-family housing with attractive non-
residential development in a way that protects remaining housing.
Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated
beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that
replacement housing fits with its neighbors.
Reduce the over-concentration of apartment buildings in certain
neighborhoods by assisting in redeveloping it to housing that has a
lower density, a higher rate of owner-occupancy, and a more
pedestrian-friendly relationship to the street.
4. Build on the success of the city center and take it to the next level of
sophistication: j
Help increase retail sales, rental occupancy, tax base and civic
pride.
Work with the owners of the Brookdale Mall to inject new life into
that area and strengthen it as the visual, social and psychological
center of Brooklyn Center. This could be done by adding different
but complementary land uses, structured parking, transit service,
and better pubiic or community spaces.
Promote the eventual redevelopment of single-use, big-box retail
sites into more diversified, mixed-use sites that have less overall
parking and provide a more pedestrian-friendly atmosphere.
Explore the use of shared parking as a means of potentially
increasing density and diversity of uses.
Improve the streets, corridors and other public spaces for the sake
of uni#y, identity and beauty.
�JANUARY 2000 2� $RW, JNC.
#zassi
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
5. Assist in the gradual evolution of the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor
consistent with the 1996 plan so that it offers a positive, complementary but
different environment from that of the City Center.
6. Use the zoning ordinance to provide for a more flexible mix of land uses
and to encourage good design.
COMMUNITY IMAGE
7. Improve the connec#ions and linkages between neighborhoods,-tnajor
corridors, parks and open space, and the City Center, through streetscape
enhancements, signage systems, and other public realm improvements.
Improve the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor through redevelopment
and intensification of underutilized sites, traffic improvements, and
appearance enhancements, as outlined in the Brooklyn Boulevard
Streetscape Amenities Study (1994).
Improve the landscaping, lighting, sidewalks and, possibly, bike
lanes along major streets that link the neighborhoods #o the City
Center such as 57th Avenue/Bass Lake Road, 63rd, 69th, and Xerxes
Avenues. In particular, create a visually strong loop around the City
Center using 57th, 69th and Dupont Avenues and Brooklyn
Boulevard. Establish a 20-year program through the City's capital
improvement programming process to identify, rank, finance and
accomplish such improvement. Cooxdinate this work with street
reconstruction projects.
Improve the appearance of the Brookdale Mall vicinity through
signage, landscaping and upgrading of commercial areas.
Revisit the possibility of making the Humboldt Avenue corridor a
neighborhood amenity through a combination of public and private
improvements. One aim would be to make this corridor a link
between an enhanced 57th Avenue and the proposed new open
space in Minneapolis. Extending the corridor treatment in some
form all the way to Brooklyn Park should be another strong
consideration.
(Unlike the 1996 Hennepin Community Works "Humboldt
Greenway"proposal, #hese improvements would not require any
land acquisition.)
Strengthen #he pedestrian-bicyclist link from Shingle Creek south
through Lions Park to Humboldt Avenue and south to the Grand
Round of the Minneapolis parkway system. Better signs and street
�JANUARY ZOOO 2- 1 9 BRW, INC.
#24531
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
crossing stripes are needed so that bicyciists can find their way safely
through the Brookdale parking lot. This would fill a gap in the
regional greenway system.
8. Improve local public access to and awareness of the City's natural amenities,
specifically the Mississippi River and the Twin Lakes.
Work with Hennepin Parks and the City of Minneapolis to extend
and improve the North Mississippi Regional Park.
Improve the sidewalks, landscaping and lighting along 57th
Avenue to enhance the sense of tha# corridor as a passageway
between the ci#y center, the southwest neighborhood and the
riverfront park.
Use the riverfront and lakefront as ameniEies that can serve
surrounding neighborhoods, rather than just adjacent property
owners, and can crea#e a setting far higher-value housing.
9. Capitalize on the City's visibility and access from state and interstate
highways through improved signage and landscaping.
10. When practical and feasible, use naturally-designed drainage for better
storm water management and community beautification.
I
i
.IANUARY 2000 2'ZO BRW, IN0.
#24531
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
SPECIFIC AREA PLANS
Figure 2-3, Land Use Plan, is the central element of the Land Use, Redevelopment
and Physical Image Strategy. This map illustrates planned changes to the pattern
of development by noting amendments over the map of 19961and use. Explanation
and guidance are provided by the following text, which is keyed to #he Land Use
Plan map by numbers. Those numbers also related to the areas shown in Figure 2-2,
City-Wide Land Use Issues.
The Land Use Plan map was prepared based upon recently adopted sub-area plans
such as the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (1994), consultations with
property owners, current zoning, development trends and accepted city planning
principles, which take into account access, visibility, building conditions,
surrounding development and natural features.
However, the proposed land uses do not always reflect exis�ing zoning. This plan,
unlike a zoning ordinance and map, is intended to be flexible enough to respond to
changing circumstances and market demands. As such, it is distinct from the zoning
ordinance, which allows a more strictly defined range of possibilities. Therefore,
some parcels show two or more potential land uses, where more than one use seems
appropriate, or show a use that may become feasible in the long term rather than the
near future. Other areas are indicated as needing further study befare any changes
in land use are proposed.
1 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
The Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study proposed an overall design theme
for the public right-of-way of Brooklyn Boulevard along with redevelopment plans
for specific sites. Several detailed studies were prepared for specific sites, each
including two or more aiternative site plans to illustrate the application of different
design principles. That 1994 study provided direction to the City for land use and
zoning decisions and for capital improvements, particularly in coordination with
roadway changes. The recommendations of that plan have generaliy been
incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, but the City will consult the Brookiyn
$oulevard Study for further, more detailed, advice.
The land use and redevelopment theme of the Brooklyn Soulevard Study, broadly
stated, recommends raduall eliminatin the remainin ina ro riate sin le-
g Y K PP P g
family homes, and replacing them with either:
Commercial and office/service uses on sites that are large enough to provide
for adequate circulation and good site design; or
High- and medium-density residential uses.
t
JANUARY 2000 2 I BRW, INC.
#zas3i
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY 1MAGE PLAN
Three key factors need to be addressed along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor:
1. The corridor land use plan
2. The size and shape of the property to be redeveloped
3. The design guidelines for redevelopment.
Four principles for redeveloping properties in this corridor are:
Assemble parcels that are large enough to permit higher-density development
and reasonable access and circulation
Identify desirable boundaries between the proposed and adjacent land uses
and create buffers.
Reduce the number of private access points to Brooklyn Boulevard for the
sake of traffic safety and flow.
Provide comfortable and convenient internal pedestrian circulation systems
to reduce car trips and encourage walking from adjoining neighborhoods.
Promote higher-density developments located close to Brooklyn Boulevard.
A series of 16 development guidelines from the Brooklyn Boulevard Study elaborate
upon these principles. They should be followed by the City when working with
buiiders.
In summary, the Brooklyn Boulevard Study recommends that the central segment of
the corridor be used primarily as a commercial district while the balance of the
corridor is devoted primarily to either higher-density housing or, south of Highway
100, single-family housing. The study recoxnmended that neighborhood-oriented
commercial uses be developed at 58th Avenue, 63rd Avenue and 69th Avenue. The
City should promote including some neighborhood service and retail functions in
those three locations.
a�ANUARY 2��� 2-22 BR�N, INC.
#24531