HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-065 CCR Member Tim Roche introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -65
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
FOR THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, the City has prepared a proposed update to the Brooklyn Center
Comprehensive Plan in accordance with Minnesota statutes and the policies of the Metropolitan
Council; and
WHEREAS, a draft of the Comprehensive Plan was distributed on November 25,
2008, for review by adjacent jurisdictions and affected agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearings on February 26,
2009 and April 30, 2009, to review the proposed plan, receive public comments, and make a
recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended at their May 14, 2009,
meeting the preliminary approval and submission of the Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan to
the Metropolitan Council; and
WHEREAS, on May 26, 2009, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009 -72
which granted preliminary approval and authorized the formal submission of the City of Brooklyn
Center's 2030 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council as requested by the Minnesota
Land Planning Act; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has completed its review, finding that the
Update met all Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements, conforms to the regional systems
plans, is consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework and is compatible ; and
WHEREAS, on December 9, 2009, the Metropolitan Council adopted a
recommendation to authorize the City of Brooklyn Center to put its 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Update into effect and approved the City of Brooklyn Center's Tier II Comprehensive Sewer Plan;
and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the minor
revisions included in the Metropolitan Council's review and recommendation" ayNa
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2010, the Planning Commission unanimously approved
the adoption of Resolution No. 2010 -01, a Resolution Recommending that the Brooklyn Center
City Council Adopt the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center adopts the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update.
RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -65
March 22, 2010
Date Mayor
OAnA
ATTEST: MIZLI AMI&;V
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
Kay Lasman
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
Tim Willson, Kay Lasman, Tim Roche, and Dan Ryan;
and the following voted against the same: none;
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
SSOCIATE
come 1 �
o
k
7200 Hemlock Avenue #300
Minneapolis, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksassociates.com Prepared February 2010
' BROOKLYN CENTER
2030 COM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
' CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
FEBRUARY 2010
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS '
CITY COUNCIL
Tim Willson, Mayor '
Kay Lasman
Tim Roche '
Dan Ryan
Mark Yelich
PLANNING COMMISSION '
Sean Rahn, Chair '
Kara Kuykendall
Carlos Morgan '
Stan Leino
Michael Parks
JoAnn Campell- Sudduth '
Della Young
CONSULTANT TEAM
LOUCKS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Jared Andrews, AICP, Senior Planner ,
David Hagen, AICP, Senior Planner
Tim Fedie, LEED AP, GIS Technician 1
CITY STAFF '
Curt Boganey, City Manager '
Gary Eitel, Director of Community Development
Ron Warren, Planning and Zoning Specialist
Tom Bublitz, Housing and Redevelopment Specialist '
Jim Glasoe Director of Community Activities,
,
Recreation and Services
Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works '
Dave Peterson, Deputy Director of Public Works
John Harlow, Supervisor of Streets and Parks
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introductionand Summary of Goals ............................ ..............................i
' Community Profile 1 -1
RegionalSetting ................................................... ............................... 1 -1
' Population and Households .................................. ............................... 1 -2
Employment......................................................... ............................... 1 -7
' Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan ......................2 -1
Community Assessment and Visioning .............. ............................... 2 -1
' Planning Issues ..................................................... ............................... 2 -4
Land Use, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategy ........................ 2 -11
Land Use Plan- 2008 Existing and 2030 Planned .............. ............................... 2 -14
' Solar Access Policies ............................................................. ............................... 2 -20
Historic Resource Preservation ............................................. ............................... 2 -20
' Transportation Plan ...................................................... ............................3 -1
Street and Road System ....................................... ............................... 3 -1
Street and Road System Plan .............................. ............................... 3 -13
' Transit .................................................................. ............................... 3 -15
Travel Demand Management .............................. ............................... 3 -17
t Bicyclist and Pedestrian Movement ................................................... 3 -17
..............................
Sidewalk and Trail Improvements . 3 -18
GoodsMovement ................................................ ............................... 3 -20
' Relationship of Land Use and Transportation .... ............................... 3 -20
Aviation................................................................... ...........................3 -21
' Housing Plan ............................................................. ............................... 4 -1
Introduction......................................................... ............................... 4 -1
Background........................................................ ............................... 4 -2
' Profile of Existing Housing ................................. ............................... 4 -2
HousingIssues ...................................................... ............................... 4 -9
' Housing Assistance Programs ............................. ............................... 4 -10
HousingRegulation ............................................. ............................... 4 -11
Housing Redevelopment Opportunities .............. ............................... 4 -12
HousingPlan ........................................................ ............................... 4 -13
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 -9
Park Goals and Policies ....................................... ............................... 5 -10
Park and Open Space Needs ............................... ............................... 5 -12
' Relationship to Regional Park Facilities ............. ............................... 5 -13
' T -1
PublicFacilities Plans .............................................. ............................... 6 -1 '
WaterSystem ....................................................... ............................... 6 -1
Wastewater System ............................................. ............................... 6 -2 '
Water Resources Management ............................ ............................... 6 -5
ImplementationProgram ........................................ ............................... 7 -1
OfficialControls .................................................. ............................... 7 -1
Development /Redevelopment ............................ ............................... 7 -3 '
Capital Improvements Program .......................... ............................... 7 -3
LIST OF FIGURES page '
1 -1 Regional Location 1 -1 '
2 -1 Planning Issues 2 -5
2 -2 Land Use Plan 2 -16 '
3 -1 Functional Classification System 3 -2 '
3 -2 Number of Lanes on Major Roadways 3 -6
3 -3A Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 3 -8 e
3 -313 Forecasts by Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZs) 3 -9 '
3 -4 Public Transportation 3 -16
3 -5 Sidewalks and Off - Street Trails 3 -19
5 -1 Parks, Park Classifications and Schools 5 -3 '
5 -2 Regional Park and Trails 5 -14
6 -1 Sewersheds Map 6 -3 '
6 -2 Sanitary Sewer Flow Map 6 -10 '
T -2
LIST OF TABLES page
' 1 -1 Population and Household Change 1 -2
1 -2 Age Distribution, 1980 - 2000 1 -3
' 1 -3 Household and Family Status 1 -4
' 1 -4 Poverty Level 1 -4
1 -5 Poverty Levels in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980 -2000 1 -5
' 1 -6 Racial Composition, 1980 - 2000 1 -5
t 1 -7 Minority Population, Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 2000 1 -6
' 1 -8 Household and Family Income, 1990 - 2000 1 -6
1 -9 Change in Real Household Income, 1990 - 2000 1 -7
' 1 -10 Employment Levels, Brooklyn Center & Neighboring Cities, 2000 1 -7
' 1 -11 Industrial Classifications of Employed Residents 1 -8
1 -12 Occupational Distribution of Employed Residents 1 -9
' 1 -13 Jobs in Brooklyn Center, 1980 to 2030 1 -9
' 1 -14 Jobs in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980 to 2000 1 -10
2 -1 Existing and Planned Changes in Land Use 2 -15
2 -2 Land Use Table in 5 -Year Stages 2 -19
' 3 -1 Street Classifications in Brooklyn Center 3 -4
3 -2 Traffic Level of Service Characteristics 3 -10
t 3 -3 Daily Roadway Capacities 3 -10
' 4 -1 Housing by Year Built 4 -3
4 -2 Housing Type, 1990 - 2000 4 -3
' 4 -3 2008 Single Family Structure Subtype 4 -4
' 4 -4 Housing Type Mix in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 2000 4 -4
' T -3
4 -5 Housing by Tenure 4 -5 '
4 -6 Households by Age of Householder, 2000 4 -5
4 -7 Values of Selected Owner - Occupied Units, 1990 - 2000 4 -6 '
4 -8 Median Values of Owner - Occupied Housing 4 -7 '
4 -9 Rental Costs (Units by Monthly Rent) 4 -8
4 -10 Affordability, Life Cycle and Density Standards 4 -13 '
Y Y Y
5 -1 Park Facilities 5 -4 '
5 -2 Park Classification and Improvements System 5 -7
5 -3 Proposed Park Classifications 5 -8 '
5 -4 Comparison of Park Acreage with National Guidelines 5 -12 '
5 -5 Parks by Neighborhood 5 -12
6 -1 Flow Projections into the Metropolitan Wastewater System 6 -4 '
t
APPENDICES
Appendix A: '
Summary of Results of Community Analysis and Visioning Meetings '
Appendix B '
Review of Opportunity Site Master Plan and Development Guidelines
Appendix C
2009 Capital Improvements Program '
Appendix D '
City of Brooklyn Center Zoning Map '
e
T -4
Comprehensive Plan 2030
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF GOALS
' his Comprehensive Plan is an update of the City's Comprehensive Plan 2020
prepared in 2000. Many of the recommendations of that plan have been
implemented but a number still remain. The current plan has been prepared in response to
the emerging issues and changing conditions since 2000. It is designed as a practical
handbook that will guide the City throughout the next two decades.
The plan has a twofold purpose:
■ To preserve and enhance the community's strong attributes.
' Brooklyn Center has many characteristics that should be preserved and protected,
particularly its well planned local park system, quiet tree -lined streets, single-family
neighborhoods, and sense of small -town community. As the community continues to
evolve and mature, new strategies are needed to preserve and enhance these resources.
■ To stimulate positive change and evolution in the community.
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. Historically the City's neighborhood's
have been a stabilizing influence, but the single-family housing foreclosure crisis calls
for action.
The City must respond with a more proactive approach -- initiating responses to issues,
intervening where necessary to get the community back on track, to reverse negative
trends. Past comprehensive planning efforts have not lacked in comprehensiveness but
a renewed resolve is required to successfully deal with the challenges we face.
The Comprehensive Plan is the product of a six -month planning effort. A community
analysis and visioning process where attributes to preserve and issues to address were
identified (included in the Appendix to this report) was the focus of the initial meeting
with City Council and City Commission members. The entire community was invited to
participate in a similar process further on in the process.
The current draft is being distributed to the City Council, Planning Commission and
Housing Commission for their joint review. At the same time it is being distributed to
adjacent cities, county governments and other local government jurisdictions for their
' review, as required by law. The final plan will be prepared for submission to the
Metropolitan Council for review prior to the City Council's final adoption.
' i
SUMMARY OF GOALS
The goals for the plan have been developed based on the issues identified in the
community analysis and visioning meetings, 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 become known for its sense of community and will
capitalize on its physical attributes including its first -ring suburban
location, good highway and bus access, sound and diversified housing ,
stock, vibrant mixed -use city center, attractive Brooklyn Boulevard
corridor, and interconnected park and open space system.
• Brooklyn Center will gain an increased sense of place by: '
• Retrofitting the public elements of its neighborhoods
• Focusing and linking these neighborhoods toward an intensified,
mixed -use, retail- office - residential -city center, '
• Making major street corridors and other public spaces highly
attractive, and '
• Celebrating diversity.
• Brooklyn Center will develop a positive public image and strong
community esteem through programs to correct housing vacancy and
deterioration and crime in certain areas and by ensuring that the City's positive
attributes and successes are publicized.
• Brooklyn Center will accomplish these and other aims through cooperative
leadership and sound management.
H
e
1
1 Comprehensive Plan 2030
1 COMMUNITY PROFILE
1 REGIONAL SETTING
B rooklyn Center is located immediately north and west of Minneapolis, about six miles from
1 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 cities of Crystal and Robbinsdale (see Figure 1 -1).
1 Established in 1911 as an incorporated village, the area remained largely rural until after World War 1.
Development up though World War II was confined to the southeastern corner of the village, the area
1 with direct transportation links to Minneapolis. The population grew from 500 in 1911 to 4,300 by 1950,
and then exploded during the 1950s to 24,356. This was the city's strongest growth period, during which
most of its single - family housing was built.
1 As one of the Twin Cities Figure 1 -1 Regional Location
metropolitan area's older
suburbs, Brooklyn Center shares
1 many issues with other cities
within this first ring — for
example, the need for renewal ANOKA ,
P .J f
of their housing stock and e ,0
1 'o
infrastructure, increasing
ij
concentrations of poor and 94 ,.f i
SHINGTON
1 elderly residents, and a lack of
growth in their i 10 O 6 t
commercial /industrial tax base. % HENNEPIN 152
Brooklyn Center has been RAMSEY
1 working throughout the 19805 1 O9 69 94 I
and 1990s to address these I
1 issues, both within its own i Z 4 i ]6
69
borders and with other first -ring 1 ,� !
j a Saint
suburbs on a regional basis. i 39 0 Paul
i ^ 94 i
' The following sections examine i ° Minr.eopo
recent population and
• I ' i
employment trends for the city
and neighboring communities in 5
1 6
the north and northwest I =: A 9E 55 '
a
suburban area. These
CARVER � g
communities —
Brooklyn Park, ! °
y loomin to
gn _ =
1 Crystal, Robbinsdale, Columbia DAKOTA
Heights and Fridley — share SCOTT I "'
both a geographic location an 18 i
1
many demographic 00 9 0 ' '
characteristics with Brooklyn, '� 9
Center.
1
1 -1
1
POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLDS ,
Brooklyn Center's population reached its peak in the mid- 1970s, at approximately 35,300; declined during '
the 1980s and 1990s; and began increasing again sometime in the 1990s, as shown in Table 1 -1. The
Metropolitan Council's forecasts show a slight increase in 2020 followed by a similar slight decrease by
2030. '
Unlike population, the number of households continued to increase through 2000 as household sizes
decreased. The Council's forecasts assume that household size has leveled off and will remain fairly
constant (at around 2.5 persons per household) through 2030.
Table 1 -1: Population and Household Change '
Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 '
Forecast Forecast Forecast
Population 35,173 31,230 28,887 29,172 29,500 30,500 29,500
Percent Change -11.2 -7.5 1.0 1.1 3.4 -3.3 '
Households 9,151 10,751 11,226 11,430 11,800 12,200 12,100
Avg. Household Size 3.84 2.90 2.57 2.55 2.5 2.5 2.44 '
The Council allocates population to individual cities based upon past growth trends, land supply and
policies such as the Regional Growth Management Strategy. The Council's projections for the older
developed suburbs assume a modest overall eight percent growth rate, six percent of which is through
complete build -out and two percent from redevelopment. The growth rate projected for Brooklyn Center 1
from 1995 to 2020 is slightly lower, at just over seven percent.
1 -2
AGE DISTRIBUTION
' Changes in age groups during the 1980s and 1990s show a pattern that is typical of many first -ring
suburbs that were settled in the 1950s through the 1970s. As shown in Table 1 -2 below, the first
' generation" of homeowners is aging - the over -65 population increased by 80 percent during the 1980s
and 27 percent during the 1990s - and some of them are moving out of their single - family homes into
"life cycle housing" such as townhouses, condominiums and apartments. The single - family homes they
' vacate are becoming occupied by a new generation of young adults. The school age population increased
by 24 percent during the 1990s, while the number of children under age five decreased by about the
same percentage. Another group that declined sharply is the age 55 -64 group, or the "empty- nester"
group. This may indicate that suitable housing alternatives are not available for this group in Brooklyn
' Center. The median age in the city is now at 35.3, slightly above the regional median.
' Table 1 -2: Age Distribution 1980 -2000
Age Group 1980 Percent 1990 Percent 2000 Percent
' Under 5 2,419 7.7% 2,597 7.3% 1,957 6.7%
6 -17 6,457 20.7% 4,306 14.9% 5,353 18.3%
' 18 -24 4,595 14.7% 2,849 9.9% 2,805 9.6%
25 -34 4,919 15.7% 5,372 18.6% 4,330 14.8%
35 -44 3,649 11.7% 3,986 13.8% 4,451 15.3
' 45 -54 4,244 13.6% 2,762 9.6% 3,395 11.6
55 -64 2,985 9.6% 3,488 12.1 % 2,374 8.2%
' 65 and over 1,962 6.3% 3,546 12.3% 4,507 15.4%
Median Age 28.9 33.8 35.3
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY STATUS
' In keeping with the trend towards more and smaller households, the number of one - person households
continued to increase during the 1990s. Table 1 -3 shows the differences in family status in 1980, 1990
' and 2000. Non - family households (two or more unmarried persons) increased at a rate during the
1990s that was even greater than the rate of increase in the 1980s. The number of families with
children under 18 continued to decline during the 1990s. The increase in families with no children
during the 1980s was more than offset by the decrease in such families during the 1990s. The number
of female single - parent households continued to rise during the 1990s, though at a somewhat slower
rate than during the 1980s. Likewise male single - parent households, though still a small group,
increased substantially. "Other family households" (i.e., single house - holder and adult relatives)
' leveled off during the 1990s.
1 -3
Table 1 -3: Household and Family Status
1980 1990 % Change 2000 % Change
Households
One - person 1,763 2,445 38.6% 3218 31.6% '
Non - family 509 640 25.7% 830 29.7%
Families '
Married, no children 3,449 3,775 9.4% 3061 -18.9
Married, children 3,784 2,568 -32.1 % 2236 -12.9% '
Single Parent, Female 815 963 18.1 % 1088 13.0%
Single Parent, Male 123 186 51.2% 328 76.3% '
Other 397 649 63.4% 669 3.1 %
POVERTY LEVEL
The number of persons living in poverty increased somewhat during the 1990s. Of those in poverty, over ,
one -third are under 18. About 7.3% percent of Brooklyn Center residents are below the poverty level
and about 22% are below 200% of the poverty level. The poverty level was defined as $17,029 for a
family of four in 1999. Generally, a greater number of persons living in Brooklyn Center have incomes '
that place them below the poverty level and below 200% of the poverty level than in other neighboring
cities.
Table 1 -4: Poverty Level
1980 % 1990 % % Change 2000 % % Change '
All Persons 1,686 5.4% 2,031 7.1% 20.4% 2143 7.3% 5.5%
Persons under 18 860 3.0% 775 2.7% -9.9% ,
Persons over 65 130 0.5% 243 0.8% 86.9%
Persons < 200% 4,773 15.4% 5,381 18.7% 21.4% 6313 21.9% 17.3% '
1 -4
Table 1 -5: Poverty Levels in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities
' 1980 1990 2000
% in I % < 200% % in I % < 200% of % in I % < 200%
' Poverty of Poverty Poverty Poverty Poverty of Poverty
Brooklyn Ctr. 5.4 15.4 7.1 18.7 7.4 21.9
' Brooklyn Park 6.0 14.9 7.5 17.0 5.1 16.2
Crystal 3.0 12.1 3.8 12.8 4.4 13.2
' Robbinsdale 3.8 16.3 5.0 16.7 4.7 17.5
Columbia Hts. 5.3 16.8 8.5 21.6 6.4 22.2
Fridley 4.2 13.9 6.1 17.1 7.3 18.6
' RACIAL AND ETHNIC COMPOSITION
The trend in the direction of more racial diversity accelerated during the 1990s as shown on Table 1 -6.
' The largest absolute increase again occurred among African Americans, and the number of Asian residents
realized the largest percentage increase - more than 300 %. The number of persons who identified
themselves as Hispanic also more than doubled during the 1990s.
' Table 1 -6: Racial Composition, 1 -2
p 980 000
' 1980 % of Total 1990 % of Total 2000 % of Total
White 29,984 96.0 26,271 90.9 20,825 71.4
' African American 530 1.2 1,502 5.2 4,110 14.1
American Indian 201 .6 271 .9 253 .9
' Asian and other 515 1.6 843 2.9 2,569 8.8
Hispanic* 273 .9 367 1.3 823 2.8
' Total Minority 4.5 2,820 9.8 8,642 29.6
*Hispanic population consists of people of any race. "Percent minority" includes all persons of minority
races plus persons who identified themselves as white and Hispanic.
As a percentage of total population, Brooklyn Center's minority population is more than two times that of
neighboring cities, except Brooklyn Park. Brooklyn Center's minority population and minority
' population composition, as a percentage of total population, is very similar to that of Brooklyn Park. As
shown on Table 1 -7.
' 1 -5
Table 1 -7: Minority Population in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities
(as percent of total population) '
African American Asian and Hispanic Total
American Indian other Minorit y '
Brooklyn Center 14.1% 0.9% 8.8% 2.8% 29.6%
Brooklyn Park 14.3% 0.6% 9.3% 2.9% 29.7% '
Crystal 4.2% 0.6% 3.4% 2.5% 12.8%
Robbinsdale 5.7% 0.6% 2.1 % 2.0% 12.0%
Columbia Heights 3.6% 1.6% 3.5% 3.1 % 14.2%
Fridley 3.4% 0.8% 3.0% 2.6% 12.5%
MOBILITY '
According to the 2000 census, among persons five years and older, 56 percent had lived in the same '
dwelling for five years or more, while the remaining 44 percent had moved from elsewhere. Mobility has
increased since 1990 when 60 percent had lived in the same dwelling for five years or more.
Of Brooklyn Center residents five years or older, about 25 percent moved from elsewhere in Hennepin ,
County, 16 percent relocated from a different county and three percent moved to the community from outside
the country. This shows a fairly stable population. In Hennepin County, by contrast, about 50 percent had
moved from elsewhere. '
EDUCATION LEVELS
The educational level attained by Brooklyn Center residents increased slightly between 1990 and 2000. Of ,
the 2000 population aged 25 and over, 87 percent were high school graduates, while 17 percent had a
bachelor's degree or higher. In comparison, in 1990 84 percent of the population aged 25 and over were '
high school graduates and 14 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. In Hennepin County in 2000, by
contrast, 88 percent were high school graduates and 32 percent had a college degree.
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY INCOME LEVELS
Like many first -ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center household and family income failed to keep pace with
inflation in the 1990s. Also like other first -ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center saw marked increases in the '
elderly population during the decade, paralleling the increase in residents living in poverty.
Table 1 -8: Household and Family Income, 1990 -2000 '
1989(1999$) 1999 Percent Change
Median Household $45,925 $44,570 2.9% '
Median Family $52,175 $52,006 0.3%
1 -6
I
Real income, or income adjusted for inflation, declined for most neighboring cities. Brooklyn Park and
Robbinsdale, where buying power increased, were the exceptions to this general decline in real income
as shown in Table 1 -9 below.
Table 1 -9: Change in Real Household Income in Brooklyn Center
and Neighboring Cities, 1990 -2000
1989(1999$) 1999 Percent Change
' Brooklyn Center 45,925 44,570 -3.0%
Brooklyn Park 53,788 56,572 5.2%
Crystal 49,856 48,736 -2.2
Robbinsdale 44,633 48,271 8.2%
' Columbia Heights 40,953 40,562 -1.0%
Fridley 49,536 48,372 -2.3%
EMPLOYMENT
Of the City's population, 70.1 percent was in the labor force in 2000, comparable to neighboring cities and
to Hennepin County as shown on Table 1 -10 below. The unemployment rate for persons in the labor force
was 3.5 %. (The "labor force" is defined as all persons 16 or over who are employed or unemployed — i.e.,
those who are actively seeking and available for work. It does not include persons in the military.) Low
labor force participation is generally correlated to a high percentage of retired persons.
Table 1 -10: Employment Levels in Brooklyn Center
and Neighboring Cities in 2000
r % in Labor Force % Unemployed
Brooklyn Center 70.1 % 3.5%
' Brooklyn Park 78.8% 2.6%
Crystal 72.0% 2.4%
' Robbinsdale 70.1 % 3.2%
Columbia Heights 66.6% 2.5%
' Fridley 73.5% 2.2%
1 -7
JOBS OF RESIDENTS '
Brooklyn Center's employed population can be classified by the industry sector they work in and by their
occupational group — in other words, their individual job classifications (managers, technicians, etc.) '
as seen in Table 1 -11 below. The industrial sector classification as compared with the Twin Cities
region and the nation as a whole is shown in the table below. The percent of Brooklyn Center's
employed population in manufacturing is significantly higher than the percent for either the Twin Cities '
MSA or the United States.
Table 1 -11: Industrial Classification of Employed Residents in 2000 '
Industry Brooklyn Twin Cities United '
Center MSA States
Ag/Mmmg 0.3% 0.6% 1.9%
Construction 4.9% 5.6% 6.8%
Manufacturing 18.8% 15.9% 14.1%
Trans. /Comm./Utilities 6.0% 5.4% 5.2% ,
Trade (wholesale /retail) 16.7% 15.7% 15.3%
Information 3.1 % 2.9% 3.1 %
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate 8.4% 8.9% 6.9
Services 39.6% 41.7% 42.0%
Government 2.4% 3.3% 4.8% '
The jobs of city residents can also be categorized by occupational category and compared with jobs in ,
the Twin Cities region as shown in the following Table 1 -12. Compared to the region, Brooklyn Center
has higher percentages of production, skilled craft and administrative support jobs and considerably
fewer professional/ technical jobs. The relatively high percentage of Brooklyn Center residents '
employed in a production, skilled craft occupation is related to the relatively high percentage of
employed residents in the manufacturing industry.
Censuses prior to 2000 indicated that Brooklyn Center's job mix included significantly more sales jobs than
the region or other first -ring suburbs — a function of retail jobs centered around Brookdale. According to
the 2000 census, the percentage of jobs in Brooklyn Center involving sales declined to less than the
region. This decline in percentage of jobs in sales is indicative of Brookdale's decline as a retail center
within its trade area.
1 -8
I
' Table 1 -12: Occupational Distribution of Employed Residents in 2000
' Occupational Group Brooklyn Center Twin Cities MSA
Executive/Managerial 11.5% 16.4%
Professional/Technical 16.4% 22.5%
Sales 9.7% 11.6%
Administrative Support 21.1 % 16.5%
Services 13.7% 12.4%
Production, Skilled Crafts 18.4% 12.9%
Farmers, Construction 9.2% 7.7%
JOBS IN BROOKLYN CENTER
The number of jobs based in Brooklyn Center increased significantly during the 1980s and declined
slightly in the 1990s according to Table 1 -13 below. The Metropolitan Council has forecasted a 9%
' growth in jobs in Brooklyn Center during this decade, followed by 2% job growth in each of the next two
decades.
Region -wide, developing suburbs took the lead in job growth in the 1980s, with a 63 percent share of new
jobs. Brooklyn Center retained a high jobs -to- residents ratio in 2000: 96 jobs per 100 "working age"
residents (18 -61). This is typical of the fully developed suburbs, although some communities (like
Columbia Heights) have relatively few jobs and others (like Roseville) have a plentiful supply of jobs per
working age resident.
Table 1 -13: Jobs in Brooklyn Center
2010 2020 2030 Jobs /100
1980 1990 2000 Residents age
Forecast Forecast Forecast 18-61,2000
' Number 11,995 17,006 16,698 18,200 18,600 19,000 96.2
%Change 62.9% 41.8% -1.8% 9.0% 2.2% 2.2%
t Job growth in neighboring cities during the 1980s and 1990s shows no consistent pattern in the following
Table 1 -14. Of these cities, Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park and Fridley are significant centers of
employment. Among these employment centers, only Brooklyn Park is experiencing significant job
growth — a result of the large supply of available land for development. As a fully developed
community, job growth in Brooklyn Center is related closely to redevelopment.
II
1 -9
Table 1 -14: Jobs in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 1980 -2000 '
1980 1990 % Chan &e 2000 % Change 2010 % Change
Brooklyn
Center 11,995 17,006 41.8% 16,698 -1.8% 18,200 9.0%
Brooklyn Park 8,017 16,592 106.9% 23,256 40.2% 26,900 15.7% '
Crystal 6,030 6,019 -1.2% 5,567 -7.5% 6,600 18.6%
Robbinsdale 5,348 6,813 27.4% 6,988 2.6% 8,100 15.9
Columbia Hts. 4,618 4,536 -1.8% 6,419 41.5% 6,600 2.8%
Fridley 22,968 23,821 3.7% 25,957 9.0% 30,200 16.3%
A Metropolitan Council study, Keeping the Twin Cities Vital (1994), classified jobs in the first -ring or
fully developed area suburbs. The data compiled in this study showed some differences in distribution of '
jobs between the region's sub - areas. While having a mix of occupations very similar to jobs in the
developing suburbs, first -ring suburbs are slightly higher in their proportion of clerical workers and lower
in their proportion of operators/laborers than jobs in the developing suburbs.
r
r
0
1 -10
t Comprehensive Plan 2030
' LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND
2 COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
T his chapter of the Comprehensive Plan describes how the City of Brooklyn Center will
' guide private investment in land and property through planning and zoning, initiate public
improvements through financing and funding and stimulate development and redevelopment through
incentives. In this fully developed community, the strategy focuses on guiding where effective and
' intervening where necessary.
Practices set in motion by previous plans and ordinances will be largely maintained. Brooklyn Center
has progressed beyond initial development, however, and the forces of age and shifting market trends
' have created new challenges. Therefore, the City has turned its attention to a set of policies and
practices aimed at building on its strengths of convenient regional location and access, a commercial -
civic core, a sizable job 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 is promoted.
' This chapter includes the following sections:
• Community Assessment and Visioning
• Planning Issues — City Center, Dispersed and Non - housing.
' • Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Strategy — Goals and Objectives.
• City -Wide Land Use and Redevelopment Issues
• Land Use Plan — 2008 Existing and 2030 Planned
' The topics of land use, redevelopment and community physical image are discussed in an interrelated
fashion because of their mutual dependence.
' COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AND VISIONING
Community stakeholders, including leaders and neighborhoods, were invited to community assessment
' and visioning meetings. People were also encouraged to fill out a survey either online or hard copy.
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
' One community meeting was held to gather input from the community's leadership and the other two
were intended to involve the neighborhoods in the eastern half and the western half of the community,
respectively. People were invited to attend either or both of the neighborhood meetings, but were
' encouraged to attend the one in which they had the most interest.
A community analysis and visioning process attendees participated in was the highlight of each meeting.
' Participants were first asked to respond in writing individually to three questions. Working in groups,
participants were then asked to consolidate responses to the questions through consensus, and to record
that consensus on a large piece of paper. The results clustered into subject areas are contained in
' Appendix A. Responses received at the meeting involving the community's leadership were remarkably
2 -1
similar to responses received at the neighborhood meetings. It should be noted that several people '
attended two of the three meetings and that some attended all three.
The questions asked and responses were as follows: '
1. What do you consider to be the best features, characteristics, aspects of Brooklyn Center that
should be preserved and enhanced? (Multiple responses listed in order starting from strongest)
• Parks (both local and regional), trails, schools '
• Water features — Mississippi River, Twin Lakes, Shingle Creek
• Proximity and accessibility to downtown Minneapolis
• Small town atmosphere with strong sense of neighborhood '
• Well -built housing, some in need of reinvestment /rehabilitation
• Earle Brown Heritage Center
• Commercial and employment opportunity sites — capitalize '
• Hennepin County Library /Service Center
2. Of the issues identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, which have been adequately addressed ,
and which remain to be addressed? What issues not identified in the 2020 Comp Plan should be
addressed in this Plan? (Responses listed in order from strongest)
Issues addressed '
• Redevelopment of Joslyn and Howe Fertilizer sites
• Brooklyn Boulevard north of I -694 '
• Brookdale, Northbrook and Opportunity Site underway
• 252/Regal Theatre
• Police Station north of I -694 '
• Street/Utility Improvement Program underway
Issues needing to be addressed '
• Brooklyn Boulevard and single - family along it — report recommendations, overlay,
redevelop, beautify and cooperate with County
• Opportunity Site — vision, promotion, redevelopment '
• 57` and Logan development — vision, redevelop
• Brookdale — vision, rejuvenate, daylight Shingle Creek, connect to neighborhoods
• Humboldt Square — improve and rejuvenate t
• 57` — amenity potential
• Multiple - family housing — rehabilitate, redevelop
• Senior housing — support for and options to independent living '
• Single- family — deal with foreclosures
• School districts — funding and consolidation
• Elementary schools /parks — preserve ,
• Civic Center — improve, expand
• Post -auto transportation — vision
• Low income and poor — reduce '
3. What is your vision of the ideal for Brooklyn Center in the year 2030? (Value responses listed
first followed b responses visualizing physical change, b intangible responses)
Y P gp e Y g> Y g P ) '
• Sense of Community — comfortable, family - friendly, strong sense of community,
empowered, low crime, cohesive, engage diversity, safe (reduce speed limit on
Brooklyn Boulevard)
2 -2
• Identity — establish unique, distinct identity from Brooklyn Park — create major
attraction, change name, improve reputation
' • Aesthetics— city- citizen collaboration to improve and maintain streets (including
Highway 100) and public spaces
• Surface Water — increase treatment, increase infiltration (rain gardens), daylight
' (Shingle Creek through Brookdale), capitalize (Mississippi River)
0 Transportation — multi - modal, ease to downtown, pedestrian - friendly with trail access
and shelters
• Parks and Trails — maintain, re- designate Evergreen land as park and connect with
bridge to Riverdale
• Housing — increase move -up, owner - occupied, senior - accessible, new rental
• Commercial — Town Center, Opportunity Site and other commercial
redevelop /develop; Brookdale — viable or redevelop
• Schools — create city -wide district, personalize, consolidate
0 Growth — 30,000 to 35,000 population
• Strategic Implementation — other city examples.
The summary of results of all of these meetings is contained in Appendix A.
' COMMUNITY SURVEY
As part of soliciting input from the community for this comprehensive plan update, residents were
encouraged to fill out an online survey asking them to rate the community as a place to live, raise
children, work and retire; and also to rate physical aspects of the City including the housing,
' transportation, park and recreation facilities, utilities and other services. Hard copies of the survey could
be filled out instead of taking the survey online.
' Twelve persons responded to the survey, and the full results are available. The survey instrument used in
the survey has been used in other communities, but has not been validated. In addition, the level of
response was not adequate to assure the significance of the results. The summary below should be
' reviewed with that in mind.
General consensus from the limited response emerged about several issues relating to redevelopment and
rejuvenation in the community. Ten of the twelve respondents feel that parts of City Center are in need of
redevelopment, that the level of intensity of land -use should be increased in City Center and that the City
should encourage the economic viability of Brookdale Shopping Center. Two - thirds of respondents
indicated that underutilized and single- family residential land along Brooklyn Boulevard is in need of
redevelopment and three- fourths believe that a significant amount of multiple - family housing in the City
is in need of maintenance or redevelopment. About two - thirds of respondents rate City Center as the
highest priority for proactive response as a city as compared to Brooklyn Boulevard or multiple - family
' housing.
On the subject of transportation, more than 70% of respondents rate the overall system, as well as the
' sidewalk and trails system in Brooklyn Center, good or excellent. On the other hand, more than half
indicated that ease of walking in the community is not good.
Consensus response to several questions may be cause for concern. Two - thirds rate Brooklyn Center as a
fair or poor place to raise children or to retire, though more than half of respondents indicated that
Brooklyn Center is either a good or excellent place to live. Three - fourths of respondents characterize the
sense of community in Brooklyn Center as fair or poor and over ninety percent rate the condition of the
2 -3
housing stock as less than good. '
The Civic Center was the subject of questions dealing with need for a daycare addition, multi - purpose
room addition, locker room expansion, swimming pool updating. No clear consensus of response
emerged from these questions. A more extensive telephone survey is planned to guide future Civic Center
decision - making.
PLANNING ISSUES
Issues identified as art of the community meetings and dealt with in the community survey can be
p Y g Y Y
categorized into the following: ,
• City Center issues mapped on Figure 2 -1: Planning Issues
• Other City issues mapped on Figure 2 -1
• Geographically dispersed planning issues
The sub - sections that follow this introduction deal with City Center issues, other mapped issues, and
geographically dispersed non - housing issues. Housing issues are addressed in the Housing section of the
plan.
CITY CENTER ISSUES ,
As indicated above, Brooklyn Center's "City Center" is located largely within the triangle formed by T.H.
100, Brooklyn Boulevard and I -694. Though well- defined geographically, the 500 -acre Center lacks
identity. In 2002 the City of Brooklyn Center and the Metropolitan Council jointly engaged Calthorpe
and Associates — a national urban design, planning and architectural firm — to study City Center, '
referred to as the Opportunity Site in the study. Calthorpe's study, Smart Growth Twin Cities: Brooklyn
Center Opportunity Site (January 2003), indicated as follows:
It (City Center) has the elements that make a good town, but they are separated '
and disjointed, and no place feels like the true heart of the city. While aging retail
areas pose a challenge for cities, they also present a great opportunity to improve
the quality of life of the citizens and for the making of a true community place.
The culmination of the Calthorpe study was the development of a final concept plan. The Calthorpe
planning process and the components of the Calthorpe illustrative plan are described on pages 3 and 4 of
a Review of City of Brooklyn Center's Opportunity Site Master Plan and Development Guidelines
(January 2008) prepared by the consultant facilitating this comprehensive plan update, contained in
Appendix B.
Places located in City Center with issues identified in the community meetings include Brookdale, the
Opportunity Site (re- described as a part of City Center), the Civic Center, Northbrook and Brooklyn '
Boulevard. All of these places are interrelated to some degree, but because of their geographical
proximity, Brookdale and the Opportunity Site are addressed in the same section below.
t
2 -4
m 73rd Ave m 73rd Ave 73rd Ave 73r 73rd Ave
Woodbine La C'
° ¢' m m Woodbine La
�' m Woodbine La < n
m 1'1'opo, b'ne ] 0 C l� O
£ m 72nd Ave Z�qv < o c c m G
< e § a e 72nd Ave
2nd Ave - n
-- ?'
L 4 m Amy Le o
71stA 71st Ave 'oQ m� m E 72nd Ave
F 71slAve 7 7,stave LL m POTENTIAL TRAIL
71stAae ` Brookl 11 C
>
'_ m m ' °`h Ave t 70th Ave CONNECTION
a ' °m,: BROOKLYN BLVD. V -an A Wing 1, w r s ,, �.r1UMBOLDT 3 F 18ur 2. 1
A O n M s
a.
® a
$ 68th Ave o 66th Ave iO D > � Q UA R E ' 68th Ave n
s6m Ave� D m < q 4 m m �' ^qr NORTH HENNEPIN __ P ianni n 8 - -- 3 a SS 6 mAve $ m t_- LICS
' SHINGLE CREEK HUMBOLDT AVE 67IhAve HWY 252
1694/1 -94 CD
66th Ave 86th Ave thAve �EXISTIN�� TRAIL OPPORTUNITIES D e
f
Winchester La Winchester La ` Leven d
' Q r- � Co
a 65th Ave p O v > - - 65thAve d S Rd 66th Ave .t = G_) MI SSISSIPPI
'
Paul Dr Schools
o m 3' m o m m Q c a 3
tv ° v < ii 3 ro 3 D
Pce
m 64th Ave m m > 1 Rd 64th Ave $ ? n 69th Ave
n m - Hall
Eleanor La "thenne Or < O Henry Rd
Parks
' D 63rd Ave (1 m CIVIC
N m
Boulder La '� `r8 g Joyce La
m y Nash Rd p
m m, - m 5
z
City Center
62nd Ave ` y y y - MUmtordR CENTER
m 1D D m m 62` - �/ hZongl'e 62na A��.
61 st Ave d ,.B ROOKLYN BLVD '� V Existing Trail
' 6151 Ave 61st Avr
61st Ave ¢
C _ DOR � `� -
m
Trail Connections
- _
R7`CITVITES �"�''AVe
OPPO
s gm 12 Ave= I i n p roveiuent A reas
ti
i a ° r' • SsmAv, Opportuni
< OPPORTUNITY , � y Site
' % E 58th 12A Brookdale
SITE PO TENTIAL TR AIL CONNECTION Northbrook
1�
a a' . ) 46 J,� m 1 1 Humboldt Square
m t, No " ►i -
•••• I I I I I I I I I Corri Opportlinifies
rq
Buuest La_ POTE� TIAL REDEVELOPMENTS
A p` Brooklyn Blvd.
o • pt
56th Ave 1 a ,�5 m <'
56th A•.-: 56th Ave 99th Ave e
ROOKDALE ' vd p ��� R Hum boldt Ave.
Eckberg Or
V / Ericon Or � < � < _ 57th and Lyndale Ave.
ri \. 55th Ave > O 'e U m
E Lo
54th Ave < ? a Q' m a < - c
_ c l
y 54th Ave m
m E
Q m Q
O m o Q
m
53rd PI
' lac Or 6 U
a o E
a�0 Y 53rd Ave N 53rd Ave N 53rd Avr N 53rd Ave N 53rd Ave N
�
52 e z
a
Oak st
51st
HWY 100 � 1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet "
s
F.
� - C Ave
5u; ^.
�
.
a t
49th ave ('�h' of
Ave - BROOKL )
4 CENTER •
' 81h Ave
e Ave T
471h Ave SSQCIATE
D 1030 ('omprehensi�r� Plan
BROOKDALE AND THE OPPORTUNITY SITE
Brookdale Shopping Center was developed in the 1960s as a regional shopping center, and at that time
was the economic engine for City Center. Brookdale's status in the regional retail marketplace has been
in steady decline for several years and its decline shows no signs of reversal. The Calthorpe study
' indicates that this should not be unexpected:
Modern retail development often becomes obsolescent in a matter of a few
decades, so many areas developed in the middle of the 20`" century are facing
' problems of commercial decline now.
Consideration should be given to a vision of Brookdale Mall as an opportunity site itself for a mixed -use
' development or destination institution that will give the city center landmark status.
Three years after the Calthorpe study was completed, a City Council- appointed task force, assisted by a
' team of consultants, prepared the Opportunity Site Master Plan & Development Guidelines (2006). The
Plan and Guidelines were intended to reinforce and guide public and private investment in a manner that
will enhance and strengthen the viability of the area and recommend Brooklyn Center as a regional point
' of destination. This plan focused on a 100 -acre "Opportunity Site" bounded by Summit Drive on the
north and east, Highway 100 on the southeast, County Road 10 on the south and Shingle Creek Parkway
on the west. After review and analysis, the positive features of six concept sketch plans were synthesized
' into the Opportunity Site Master Plan Concept. It provided for five land -use districts, including a mixed -
use center, two residential neighborhoods, an office district and community open space with trails and
ponds. These land -use districts are described in more detail in the Plan and Guidelines.
The consulting firm preparing this comprehensive plan was engaged by the City to review the Plan and
Guidelines to determine the viability and likelihood of their successful implementation. The review also
considered the foundation, central objectives and economics of the Plan and Guidelines.
Following are the findings of the review of the Plan and Guidelines:
0 The Plan and Guidelines are design- oriented and have a weak foundation in the realities of the
marketplace and redevelopment financing.
• The Master Plan limits the potential contribution that the Opportunity Site's redevelopment could
make to the restoration of viability of the area as a retail center.
' • Adjustments to the master plan to make the Mixed -Use Center District conducive to anchor retail
should be considered.
• Adjustments to the Master Plan to increase the width of the Highway 100 District while at the
' same time decreasing the Community Open Space area should be considered.
• In conjunction with authorized modifications to the Master Plan, the Opportunity Plan should be
exposed to the development community for solicitation of development interest.
• Sources to fund the gap to stimulate the redevelopment of the Opportunity Site, in addition to tax
increment financing through special legislative authorization, should be identified and pursued.
• Sources of funding to make structured parking more economically feasible should be identified.
' • Restrictions on the use of condemnation in acquiring the land in the Opportunity Site require the
City to operate strategically.
Context for these findings is contained in the review. Many of these findings are part of the
' Implementation section of this plan.
57 TH AVENUE AND LOGAN AVENUE SITE
The Economic Development Authority's (EDA) first effort at developing this site for a mixed -use retail
' residential development was unsuccessful due to a number of factors. Formerly occupied by the
' 2 -6
Northbrook Shopping Center in the northeast quadrant of Highway 100 and 57` Avenue North the site '
was purchased and cleared by the City's EDA in 2005. The EDA has been dealing with soil and
groundwater contamination on and adjacent to the site but, with issuance of a No Association '
Determination by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency redevelopment should be able to proceed.
CIVIC CENTER ,
Brooklyn Center Civic Center was built in 1970 and, in addition to City government offices, contains a
50 -meter swimming pool, exercise area, locker rooms, recreation area and meeting rooms. The exercise
area, locker rooms and recreation area ware updated and rehabilitated in 2004. With the swimming pool '
nearing forty years of age, the community is planning to rehabilitate the pool, and possibly expand the
Civic Center in the near future. Several questions about rehabilitation and expansion were asked in the
Community Survey, but because the response to the survey was low, the results were inconclusive. A
telephone survey focusing specifically on the Civic Center is planned. ,
OTHER MAPPED ISSUES
Geographically based issues beyond City Center that should be dealt with in the plan are addressed in '
this sub - section. All planning issues identified are interrelated to a degree, and many of these have a
bearing on City Center.
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD CORRIDOR
Brooklyn Boulevard is a six -mile long County road running parallel with County Road 81 and serving as a
reliever minor arterial to that roadway. The Boulevard runs between County Road 81 in Brooklyn Park '
and the 44' Avenue North/Penn Avenue intersection in north Minneapolis. In the regional transportation
system, it provides an alternative connection to Minneapolis and the central city from suburbs to the north
and west. Average daily traffic on the 3.5 -mile stretch of Brooklyn Boulevard located in Brooklyn Center '
varies between 18,700 south of Highway 100 to 40,700 just north of I- 694/1 -94. Much of the roadway
north of 1- 694/1 -94 in Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park has been improved to better accommodate the
significant traffic volume and to facilitate adjacent redevelopment. '
The function of Brooklyn Boulevard within the regional transportation system conflicts with its function of
providing access to residents of and shoppers in this part of Brooklyn Center. The section south of 1- 694/1-
94 is lined with many single - family dwellings that access directly onto the Boulevard, causing traffic
problems. These single family units are too close to the street given the level of traffic carried by the
street. In addition, the streetscape in this section of the Boulevard has a negative visual image and lacks
aesthetic appeal.
Brooklyn Boulevard has been extensively studied over the years, including in the 1979 Comprehensive '
Plan, the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study (1993) and the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape
Amenities Study (1994). The Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study is a set of project
recommendations for land use and redevelopment, traffic circulation, parking and design and was intended '
to guide future decisions regarding redevelopment of the corridor. It contains an illustration of a proposed
treatment for the section of the Boulevard south of 1- 694/1 -94.
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, including at least two alternative site plans to illustrate the
application of different design principles. Specifically recommended design themes should be '
implemented to encourage growth and provide the community with a greater sense of pride.
The recommendations of the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study and the Brooklyn Boulevard
2 -7
' Streetscape Amenities Study have generally been incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, but the City
continues to consult the studies for further, more detailed, advice. The City Planning Commission should
' develop overall strategies to implement agreed upon design recommendations from these studies
favorable to the community's image objectives. The land -use and redevelopment themes of both studies,
broadly stated, recommend gradually eliminating the remaining inappropriate single- family units along
' the Boulevard. Further, both studies recommend replacing the single - family units with either commercial
and office /service uses on sites that are large enough to provide for adequate circulation and good site
design or with high- and medium - density residential uses. Generally, they recommend 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 single - family housing south of Highway 100. Some
neighborhood service and retail functions should be promoted at 58th Avenue, 63rd Avenue and 69th
' Avenue.
Additional multi -modal and transit amenities should be considered along Brooklyn Boulevard due to its
' multiple purpose and function to both the City and the region. Bus pull -offs and better bus shelters
should be provided to upgrade this transit corridor.
Positive changes have occurred on Brooklyn Boulevard, including the reconstruction of the Boulevard
' north of I- 694/1 -94, redevelopment of the Culver's restaurant commercial center at 69 ' Avenue, and
redevelopment of the CVS drug store at Bass Lake Road. Reaching consensus on a vision for the section of
Brooklyn Boulevard south of I- 694/1 -94 that would then be translated into design parameters should precede
' redevelopment of land area along the Boulevard. Three basic alternatives exist for the reconstruction design
of this section of the Boulevard:
• Use the current design;
' • Create a landscaped boulevard between the roadway and the sidewalk; or
• Widen the landscaped boulevard to create a greenway within which the walkway would meander,
similar to 53 Avenue N. adjacent to the Bellevue Housing project. Upgraded multi -modal transit
' amenities could be provided to improve the function and safety of the corridor.
Hennepin County should be engaged in the consensus- building process since Brooklyn Boulevard is a
' County road. Reaching consensus on vision and design will answer the following questions that need to be
answered before redevelopment land use decisions can be made:
• How much right -of -way will be needed in the reconstruction of Brooklyn Boulevard?
' • How far should the roadway be situated from residential structures?
The Metropolitan Council should also be engaged in the consensus building process to implement design
recommendations for transit shelters in the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study.
' HUMBOLDT SQUARE AND HUMBOLDT AVENUE
(Freeway Boulevard to 69 Avenue)
While the Humboldt Square Shopping Center functions to serve neighborhood needs, it is beginning to
show signs of age. The Center is located within a concentration of multiple - family apartments and
townhouses located in all four quadrants of the Humboldt/69 Avenue North intersection — many
' having problems with deferred maintenance and many occupied by low- income households. The Center,
originally constructed in 1973, and many of the multiple - family structures that were built in the 1960s
are in need of renovation or redevelopment. Renovation and/or redevelopment of the multiple - family
structures will be dealt with in more detail in the Housing section of the plan. Some of the same design
recommendations from the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study could be encouraged in
the future redevelopment of the Center.
2 -8
Humboldt Avenue is a major collector and carries 10,300 trips on an average day. Humboldt provides '
access to the Humboldt Square commercial /multiple- family concentration at 69 Avenue and the entire
Northeast neighborhood in Brooklyn Center directly from Freeway Boulevard and indirectly from the '
freeway system to the south (i.e., I- 694/I -94 and Highway 100). Abutting Humboldt between the
freeways and the commercial center are Brooklyn Center Senior High School on the east and a gas
station, a church and a satellite office for the Brooklyn Center Police Department.
Humboldt Avenue is visually unappealing and unattractive and a modest investment in streetscape '
improvements would create a more favorable first impression to persons coming to the 69` and Humboldt
commercial/multiple - family area or to anyplace in the northeast neighborhood. '
TRAIL CONNECTIONS
As part of the community assessment and visioning process, a number of missing links in the City's trail '
system were identified. The completion of these links would improve continuity of the City's sidewalk
and trail system. As noted in the Parks section herein, the north -south and east -west trails that cross
Brookdale are part of the regional trail system. The City should take part and partner with Hennepin '
County and the Three Rivers Park District to assure that both local and regional goals are met with the
implementation of such trails.
North Hennepin Shingle Creek Trail (north -south through Brookdale)
The Park section indicates that the sidewalk portion of the North Hennepin Shingle Creek Trail is not
adequately separated from circulation and parking within Brookdale Shopping Center and that a better- '
defined trail needs to be constructed. Construction of a north -south trail, separate from vehicular
circulation and parking should be required as part of a major renovation or partial redevelopment of
Brookdale.
57 Avenue North /Bass Lake Road (east -west through Brookdale and easterly)
An east -west connection on the north side of Bass Lake Road across from Brookdale provides continuity ,
to a proposed regional trail, ultimately connecting the Crystal - Robbinsdale trail to North Mississippi
River Regional Park and the Mississippi River. This major link in the regional trail system should cross
the Brookdale site also and, like the north -south link through Brookdale, should have definition. '
Ultimately this regional trail will cross Brooklyn Boulevard west of Brookdale before bending
southwesterly to make its connection to the proposed Crystal - Robbinsdale regional trail. The trail will
cross I -94 and connect to North Mississippi Regional Park and the Mississippi River to the east. A 77- '
foot -wide strip of land for Xcel's electricity transmission line runs parallel with 57` Avenue North three
lots north of 57` and may be able to accommodate the trail easterly from Brookdale to the Park and
River.
Evergreen Park /Riverdale Park
The speed and volume of traffic on Highway 252 north of I- 694/1 -94 makes crossing that stretch of
roadway dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Several lighted intersections along the roadway '
provide crossing options, though not ideal. A bridge over the highway would provide a safer crossing.
The locations of Evergreen Park and Riverdale Park on the west and east sides of the highway,
respectively, each provide area for landings for a potential pedestrian - bicycle bridge that would span the '
highway.
57" AVENUE /LYNDALE AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT '
Lack of connectedness of Brookdale to adjacent neighborhoods, specifically the southeast neighborhood,
was identified in community meetings as an issue. Good access to Brookdale across Highway 100 from
the southeast neighborhood is available on 57` Avenue North. Access, however, is not synonymous with '
2 -9
' connectedness.
' A strip of land three lots wide by about .8 -mile long is located between the high voltage transmission line
and 57' Avenue North. If the regional trail can coexist with Xcel's transmission line corridor,
consideration should be given to acquiring the 71 single - family structures between the transmission line
and 57` for redevelopment. Redevelopment of these properties would provide the land required to design
t a trail /roadway /greenway /urban housing connection to Brookdale that would also give the neighborhood
identity. Redevelopment of the properties along Lyndale Avenue N. would capitalize on views of the
Mississippi River and proximity to the North Mississippi Regional Park, while increasing property
' values in surrounding areas. Consideration should be given to increasing density using a phased
approach in order to address the following criteria:
• Diversify Brooklyn Center housing to maintain aging residents and attracting new residents with
additional alternatives for life -cycle housing including those with cooperative elements.
• Add higher value housing to increase tax base.
' • Generate increased use of Mississippi river trail amenities.
• Increase sense of character in the neighborhood.
• Improve the image of the City
' • Create a connection between the Bellevue neighborhood and the 57` Avenue corridor along the
river.
• Promote sustainable housing that respects the natural environment.
' GEOGRAPHICALLY DISPERSED NON - HOUSING ISSUES
SCHOOL FUNDING, CONSOLIDATION AND THE PARK /SCHOOL
The lack of adequate school funding in view of failing levy referenda and the prospects for consolidation
as a means of gaining some economy of scale for the Brooklyn Center District were raised as issues at the
' community comp plan meetings. Consolidation as a means of gaining control of those parts of the other
school districts in the City was also brought up. The park/school concept also was the subject of
discussion.
' Neighborhoods are the building blocks of the community, and neighborhood schools and parks are the
foundation of neighborhoods. The concept of combining school and park uses adjacent to each other is
economically efficient from a public service perspective. It has been applied repeatedly and successfully
' in the City and in many cities. Brooklyn Center is served by four different school districts, one being
entirely within the city. The three school districts that are partly located in the city are each as large as
several cities and thus Brooklyn Center is at the geographical edge of those districts. When the economy
forces school closings, schools at the edge of districts are more likely to be closed than centrally located
schools. As a result, the schools in many of the city's neighborhoods are threatened with closure. When
schools are threatened with closing the neighborhood is under threat. Figure 2 -1 shows the locations of
' these school/park facilities of which there are seven within the City.
LOW INCOME POPULATION
' Of the residents in Brooklyn Center 2,143 or 7.3% were in poverty in 2000. Well paying jobs and job
training are the key to reducing poverty. The community has a reasonably sound job base with slightly
more jobs based in the City than there are City residents in the working year age bracket (18 to 65 years
' of age).
The primary employment centers in the City are the City Center area surrounding and including
Brookdale, and the Shingle Creek Industrial Park, consisting mainly of modern multi- tenant
' office /warehouse space. Both these areas are in close proximity to many concentrations of affordable
2 -10
housing, both in multifamily complexes and in a number of newer townhouse developments. '
As redevelopment occurs attention should be paid to the types of jobs and that will be created as well e
as their level of pay. As part of the financial incentive that is provided for a project, the City should
consider requiring wage levels in excess of minimum wage, as well as residency requirements.
LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND PHYSICAL IMAGE STRATEGY
This section of the plan describes a coordinated strategy for land use, redevelopment and community ,
physical image. This strategy addresses the City's intentions and hopes for the pattern of land use,
including changes to previously developed sites through regulation or guiding as well as by providing
monetary incentives. It also incorporates public improvements that will promote private investment and
enhance the livability of the community. ,
The strategy responds to previously identified issues and elaborates upon the Goals and Objectives.
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. The strategy consists of goals and objectives
GOALS '
The following goals for land use, redevelopment and community image build upon the fundamental goals
presented in the Introduction. All the subsequent objectives and guidelines of this chapter support these ,
three land use and redevelopment goals:
1. Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods.
2. Continuously renew and redevelop to make better use of land in City Center and the Brooklyn '
Boulevard Corridor.
3. Improve the appearance of the city to enhance quality of life, property values and civic pride.
4. Improve the image of the City through branding and coordinated theme development inpublic
areas. '
LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
1. Gradually reduce and eliminate incompatible relationships among land uses (such as industry '
vs. housing).
2. Reduce the geographic over - concentration of particular types of land development when that '
pattern has become a negative influence on the community.
3. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted areas, commercial, industrial and residential, '
to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment.
• Identify key commercial redevelopment sites through this comprehensive plan and '
subsequent investigations.
• Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles contained in '
this comprehensive plan and special area plans (such as the Calthorpe Study, the
Opportunity Site Plan and Guidelines, the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study and
the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Streetscape Amenities Study).
Replace inappropriate sin le -famil housing with attractive non - residential • P single-family g development
P
in a way that protects remaining housing. ,
2 -11
• 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. Minimize the time - period foreclosed single - family homes remain vacant and maximize re-
occupancy of homeowners.
5. Enhance and strengthen City Center's economic viability and status in the regional market
' place.
• Help increase retail sales, rental occupancy and tax base.
' • Work with the managers of Brookdale Shopping Center to revitalize the area by adding
different but complementary land uses, structured parking, transit service, and better
' public or community spaces.
• Promote the redevelopment of obsolete, underutilized or vacant sites into uses that
' address needs in the marketplace, and that provide a more pedestrian - friendly
atmosphere.
• Explore the use of shared parking as a means of potentially increasing density and
diversity of uses.
t • Improve the streets, corridors and other public spaces for the sake of unity, identity and
beauty.
' • 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 OBJECTIVES
1. Improve the connections and linkages between neighborhoods, major corridors, parks and open
space, and City Center, through streetscape enhancements, signage systems, and other public
' way improvements.
• Improve the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor through redevelopment and intensification of
underutilized sites, traffic improvements, and appearance enhancements, as outlined in the
Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study (1993) and the Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape
Amenities Study (1994).
• Improve the landscaping, lighting, sidewalks and possibly bike lanes along major streets
that link the neighborhoods to the City Center, such as 57th Avenue /Bass Lake Road, 63rd,
' 69th, and Xerxes Avenues. Establish a 20 -year program through the City's capital
2 -12
improvement programming process to identify, rank, finance and accomplish such '
improvements. Coordinate this work with street reconstruction projects.
• Improve the appearance of the Brookdale Mall vicinity through signage, landscaping and '
upgrading of commercial areas.
• Consider day - lighting Shingle Creek around Brookdale Mall with future redevelopment '
proposals and provide trail linkages, giving the center a more natural sense of place and
positive identity.
• Streetscape County Road 10 (Bass Lake Road) and provide regional trail link. '
• Revisit the possibility of making the Humboldt Avenue corridor — particularly between '
Freeway Boulevard and 69 Avenue and between an enhanced 57` Avenue and the
greenway in Minneapolis — a neighborhood amenity through a combination of public and
private improvements. Extending the corridor treatment in some form all the way to ,
Brooklyn Park should be another strong consideration.
• Strengthen the trail 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 crossing stripes are needed so that bicyclists can find their way safely through the
Brookdale parking lot. This would temporarily fill a gap in the regional trail system until '
more permanent measures can be implemented.
2. Improve local public access to and awareness of the city's natural amenities, specifically the
Mississippi River and the Twin Lakes.
• Work with Three Rivers Park District to construct the regional trail in the 57th Avenue
corridor /vicinity to provide a passageway between City Center, the southeast
neighborhood and North Mississippi Park as well as other City trails to be transferred to
Three Rivers Park District.
• Use the riverfront and lakefront as amenities to serve surrounding neighborhoods, not
only adjacent property owners, to create access to water to enhance home values.
3. Capitalize on the city's visibility and access from state and interstate highways through
improved signage and landscaping.
4. Minimize the impacts of storm water runoff on water resources by minimizing the increase of
impervious surface and using naturally designed drainage, infiltration, other low impact
development (LID) techniques and best management practices, in the development and '
redevelopment process.
2 -13
LAND USE PLAN - 2008 EXISTING AND 2030 PLANNED
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 Highway 100,
Brooklyn Boulevard, and I -694. Most commercial development is located parallel to Highways 100 and
1- 694/1 -94, and along Brooklyn Boulevard. Most industrial development is located in the modern
industrial park north across I- 694/1 -94 from City enter at the north end of Shingle Creek Parkway and in
Y g Y
the industrial area along the Soo Line Railroad in the City's southwest corner. The City is fully
developed.
The City Center is also defined by its open space — a broad "greenway" or ribbon of parkland that follows
Shingle Creek from Palmer Lake Park south. Although interrupted by the Brookdale regional mall, this
greenway picks up again at Lions Park/Centerbrook Golf Course, and continues south through Shingle
Creek Park in Minneapolis to Webber Parkway and the Mississippi River. The Land Use Plan illustrates
' these features.
Existing land use (2008) and planned use for 2030 for all parcels of land in the City using data from the
' City's geographic information system are shown on Figure 2 -2, Land Use Plan. The Plan is the central
element of the Land Use, Redevelopment and Physical Image Strategy. The Land Use Plan illustrates
planned changes to the pattern of development by noting designations over the 2008 land use where the
land use is planned to change. Planned land uses also do not always reflect existing zoning.
This Land Use Plan is intended to be flexible enough to respond to changing circumstances and market
g P g g
demands. The zoning ordinance more strictly defines the range of use possibilities. Some parcels show
two or more potential land uses where more than one use seems appropriate, or show a use that may become
feasible over the long-term rather than in the near future. A n example, a sin single-family home in need of
g ar utu e. s a g y
redevelopment may be designated retail business or office service because of its location on an arterial
roadway, but may continue to be zoned single- family until such time as redevelopment is proposed. Other
areas need further study before any changes in land use are proposed.
TABLE OF USES
On the following page, Table 2 -1 shows existing land use by acreage, generally using Metropolitan Council
' categories. The city is entirely within the urban services area. With only 77 acres of vacant land, the City
of Brooklyn Center is considered fully developed. As a result, changes in land use will, for the most part,
come about through redevelopment. Following Table 2 -1 is Figure 2 -2 Land Use Plan. Descriptions of each
of the land use categories appear on the table following the plan map. Mixed Use is proposed with the
redevelopment of the 160 Acre Central Commerce Area which is primarily made up of the Brookdale Mall
Area and "Opportunity Site" east of Shingle Creek Parkway and west of Hwy 100. Approximately 27 acres
of the 160 acres are planned for multi - family or townhouse use (See Table 2 -1). Other areas of opportunity
for mixed use include a vacant 8 acre site at 5T Avenue and Logan Street, and the Malmborg Greenhouse
site which is approximately 5 acres. .20 acres of vacant single family and 1 acre of vacant multi - family use
are also proposed for 75 new housing units. All of the properties described above are primarily privately
owned and timing will depend heavily on market conditions.
2 -14
e
Table 2 -1 — Existing and Planned Changes in Land Use (in acres)
Planned Change in '
Category Acres Change in Residential
Acres Units
Total Acreage Within the Current Urban Service Area' 5,375 5,375
Existing land uses within the urban service area
Single - family residential (detached and mobile homes) 1,895 1.915 + 60 units ,
Two and three - family residential 22 22
Townhouse residential (10 units per acre 110 125 +145 units
Multifamily residential 237 250 +195 units
Office /service 109 111 ,
Retail Business 330 340
Industrial 197 199
Public and semipublic 147 147
Schools 104 104 1
Parks, recreation and open space 580 580
Airport Property 12 12
Railway or Utility 57 57
Roadways 1,263 1,263
Lakes and rivers 235 235
Land use subtotal 5,298 5,360 ,
Vacant land that is restricted from development
Environmental protection: wetlands, floodplains 15 15
Development restrictions subtotal 15 15
Vacant developable land L
Single- family residential 20 0 ( +60 units)
Multifamily residential 1 0 ( +15 units)
Office Service 2 0
Retail Business 37 0
Industrial 2 1)
Vacant developable subtotal 62 t) I ,
Total 5,375 5,375 +400 units
2 -15
' u Av
73rd e 73rd Ave 73rd Ave
Woodtr a' +y At 73rd Ave
Cit / z s b ne Le ¢ Woodbne La O c `m 72nd Are �Av 72nd Ave m ? � v ,
0 72nd Ave m
Amy La E ° �
71st"' 7151 AVe 4
*,� d °> 72ndA�e
71st Ave x 7151Ave a PROM
' 714 Ave e ? > e
c B i roo kl ij. 11 Cent
% :�M Ave ' 70th Ave
Tom Av u � � S F
Q < C R6. .7,.: Meng L-A
?OS/ m h 8ure 2--2
1 F
x
RB 4 _ > S F
'i D681hA f m SBpt,gre <
68", Ave D
Land Use Plan
g
' 7•h Ave n Tn4.�,r Rd D M F
==4=9 67tH Ave 67 67twe
Howe La .i3 O
86th Ave 66N Ave o
66th Ae L ���n \.,a
v V
_ WN�ncnesterLa '�'rch�t� ; 94 Mississippi Rive Planne
01 651h Ave ° A 65th Ave R ;�h„ __ _ e Fx lSti ng Use Future U se
_ RB
' o m ar
8
P aul Or _ _= Single Family SF
RB
64M AG m Oe Rd ,.;" Ave _ % ? D 541' Ave
Eleanor La m Kanter � 0Henry Rd _ Two or Three Family TF
3 OS /RB X , 694
D 63rd A. \
■ m a B Townhome (Medium Density) TH
iy$+ own
Boulder i a 2 $ Q V 7 nv-. 0 Nash R
s a RB D
Ave D S n 6 j na 62ntl-
Mumlord Ro
62nd Ave Multi Family (High Density) MF
'I
' m a _
�
Elst Ave L'w'prr I h
Janet La Rd O S/ R B
ve I Office /Service Business OS
6tstAVe
TH /MF /OS /RB /PS
OS 6umA�e � < _ Retail Business RB
tm + 1 tAve = s i c IS PRIMARY
z _ Industrial
a
O RB 59th Ave S MIXED -USE /�� L - __
E Sam T, �e REDEVELOPMEN �'`' n
T' Railroad or Utility RU
_ m
OS /RB e
/'
r. Public and Semi - Public PS
= m S�mAve -: - AVe� ■■
SF queimLa SF/TF /TH /MF Schools S
0
56th Ave PRIMARY 56th Avg
Eckberg Or IXE SE R F p
Parks, Recreation, or Open PRO
e o D -U 0� _
v
REDEVELOPMEN Enron or 55W,
u x 55th Ave
--_
< Vacant
a+ y �
3
'
54Lh Ave c t b v c c 54th Ave u_ w
v Lakes and Rivers
S3rd Pi <' U U'
Upper Twin Lake m om° s q
.fi
0d A, ,3rd Ave N 531dAv,,N 5indAv .1 ��lh1'R041""'" Roadway
y i
' 52nd Ave Z TH /MF /OS /RB /PS Airport
a
oak St
51 st Ave
� /PRO Note: 1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet
�
50th Ave F
1 Planned land use for 2030 is the same as existing
Middle Twin La 4 I land use except where parcels are outlined and
� BKIX)ti L 1 �
labeled with Planned Designations.
MF
' / CEA TER
SF = SSOCIATES
D Ryan Lake 2030 Comprehensh a J
1 ti
DESCRIPTIONS FOR LAND USE CATEGORIES
' Residential Land Use
' Single - Family Residential (SF) — Residential purposes, including mostly one - family homes and
manufactured homes. May include some two - family homes, and open space within, adjacent or related to
residential development.
' Two or Three Family Residential (TF) — Residential purposes including two - family and three - family
homes. May include open space within, adjacent or related to residential development.
' Townhouse Residential (TH) – Residential purposes including townhouses attached to one another and
detached on a common lot. May include open space within, adjacent or related to residential
development.
' Multi- Family Residential (MF) — Residential purposes apartment buildings and condominiums. May
include open space within, adjacent, or related to residential development.
' Commercial /Industrial Land Use
Office /Service Business (OS) — Predominantly administrative, professional, or clerical services,
' including medical clinics.
Retail Business (RB) — Provision of goods or services.
Industrial (I) — Primarily manufacturing and/or processing of products; could include light or heavy
Y g P g P � g Y
industrial land use, or large warehouse facilities.
Public Land Uses
' Public /Semi Public (PS) — Primarily religious, governmental, social or healthcare facilities
(excluding clinics).
' Schools (S) — Educational facilities.
Park, Recreation and Open Space (PRO) — Primarily for public active recreation activities improved
' with playfields /grounds or exercise equipment, golf courses, zoos or other similar areas; resource
protection or buffer, support unorganized public recreational activities, may contain trails, picnic areas,
public fishing; etc or preservation of unaltered land in its natural state for environmental or aesthetic
' purposes.
Railway or Utility (RU) — Public or private freight or passenger rail activities; public or private land
' occupied by a power plant or substation, electric transmission line, oil or gas pipeline, water tower,
municipal well, reservoir, pumping station, water treatment facility, communications tower, or similar
use.
' Roadway Rights -of -Way (ROW) — Public or private vehicular, transit and /or pedestrian rights -of -way.
Airport (AP) — public or private property for airport facilities, runways and other airport uses.
t 2 -17
e
e
Other Uses
Lakes and Rivers — Permanent open water, rivers and streams, not including wetlands orperiodically e
flooded areas.
Mixed Use (in the form XX -XX, for example OS /RB) — Two or more of the listed uses combined. e
Wetlands — Wetlands included in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI).
Vacant — Unused land. e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
e
2 -18
e
� � � liiii� � � iw � liili■� � I, � s � � I• � �■ i
Table 2 -2 Land Use Table in 5 -Year Stages
Existing and Planned Land Use Table (in acres)
Within Urban Service Area Allowed Density Range Existing Chancde
Nousiinct tln it sf Aere 2 00 -- 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2000 - 2030
minimum) maxinl[int
Residential
Low Density Residential NA 4.58 1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 1937 NC
Medium Density Residential 10 15 110 110 110 110 110 110 NC
High Density Residential 1 15 31 238 238 238 238 238 238 NC
Mixed Use Primarily Residential* NA NA 0 J 27 27 127 27 27 +27
C/l Laud Uses I Est. Employees /Acre I I I I
Commercial I See Figure 3 -3A and3 -313 340 180 180 1 180 1 180 180 -160
Industrial See Figure 3 -3A and3 -3B 199 199 199 199 199 199 NC
Office I See Figure 3 -3A and3 -3B 111 111 111 1 111 111 111 NC
Mixed Use Primarily C }I* I See Figure 3 -3A and3 -313 0 133 133 1 133 1 133 133 +133
Extractive See Figure 3 -3A and3 -3B I I NC
PubliciSenni Public Land Uses I I I I I I
Institutional %/ jjj 251 251 251 1 251 1 251 251 NC
Parks and Recreation 580 580 580 580 580 580 NC
Open Space ��% I i NC
Roadway Rights of Wa y 1263 1263 1263 1 1263 1263 1263 NC
Utility j' I NC
Railroad 57 57 57 57 57 57 NC
Airport % 12 12 12 12 12 12 NC
Subtotal Sewered 5319 1 5319 5319 5319 5319 5319 NC
minimum Maxim" Existing I Change
Outside Urban Service Area lot size lot size 0010} 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 20010 -2030
Rural Residential 2.5 acres or less NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Rural Residential 2.5 -10 acres NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Rural Residential 10 -40 acres NA NA I NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Agricultural 40+ acres NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Subtotal Unsewerecl /// / / / / / / /,f/! /jf'/ / / /// / / / ///� NA NA NA I NA NA NA NA
Undeveloped
Wetlands 15 15 15 15 15 15 NC
Open Water, Rivers and Streams j�j j j% 235 235 235 235 235 235 NC
Total j'/ 250 250 250 250 250 1 250 NC
*For Mind Use categories include information regarding the estirnated minimum and maximum housing density ranges and acnsfpercentage of residential use.
Of the 27 acres planned for residential 1xithin the 160 acre mind use area, estimated density is approximately 15 units per acre on werage.
2 -19
SOLAR ACCESS POLICIES '
Since 1978, in response to the energy shortages of that decade, state legislation requires that local '
comprehensive plans include a solar access protection element. Solar energy ca supply a significant
portion of the space heating and cooling and water heating requirements of the individual home or '
business, through the use of active or passive solar energy systems. About half of the local streets in
Brooklyn Center, mainly in the City's western neighborhoods, run east -west, giving many houses a
southern orientation. However, the City's extensive mature tree cover partially shades the typical house.
The City can protect solar access on individual properties by:
• Requiring that builders of units of two or more stories requiring setback variances or requesting '
Planned Unit Ddvelopment designation demonstrate that their proposals will not reduce winter
solar access to the second story or roof of the adjacent building to the north. Solar access should
be explicitly reviewed in each variance case, and in all PUD proposals.
• Exempting solar collectors from height restrictions if necessary, provided that they do not block
solar access to the adjacent building's roof. ,
HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION
That City's major historic resource, the Earle Brown Farm, is listed on the State Register of Historic ,
Places as `Brooklyn Farm." The City's stewardship and development of this property as the Earle Brown
Conference Center has resulted in the preservation of several important buildings on the site, as well the '
construction of modern conference facilities, office towers, and parking. Little remains of the farm's
original setting.
A 1988 reconnaissance survey of potential National Register sites in Hennepin County found a scattering
of older farmhouse -type buildings, mainly in the City's Southeast neighborhood, dating back to the pre -
World War II period when it was an area of small truck farms. These buildings are now surrounded by
the more typical post -war housing stock. Although the City has not been heavily involved in preservation
issues, an effort should be made to inventory these older buildings and to encourage their restoration, as a
way to stimulate the revitalization of the Southeast neighborhood.
2 -20
Comprehensive Plan 2030
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
B rooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb with a well - established roadway network. No major
new roads will be required as part of the Transportation Plan. The plan will examine ways to
upgrade or maintain the existing transportation system, including transit, bicycling and walking, in
' order to accommodate changes in the City's land use.
The Transportation Plan will function as a guide to.
' • Identify the City's existing and proposed transportation network;
• Identify major investments to meet transportation needs; and
• Support the City's land use goals and objectives.
This chapter of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following elements:
• Street and road system
• Street and road system plan
• Transit
• Bicycle and pedestrian movement
' • Travel demand management
• Goods movement
• Aviation
' • The relationship between land use and transportation
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM
I ,
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Functional classification is a tool used in transportation planning and traffic engineering to categorize
streets by the type of transportation service provided and the roadway's relationship to surrounding land
uses. The purpose of a functional classification system is to create a hierarchy of roads that collects and
distributes traffic from neighborhoods to the metropolitan highway system in as efficient a manner as
possible, given the topography and other physical constraints of the area. Functional classification also
' involves determining what function each roadway should perform before determining street widths,
speed limits, intersection control or other design features. Functional classification ensures that non -
transportation factors such as land use and development are taken into account in the planning and
design of streets and highways.
3 -1
73rd Ave „ 73rd A ye _ 3100 3100
Woodbine La a' t .:: ::a ; 3897 38`7"" 73rA Ave
Shingle Creek. - e P C' �< d x ti WOOdbine La m Woodbine b C L O�
7 2n1 Ave 2 �d ° ¢ O m Q J
o '� qve � Shingle Creek m D a 72ndAveN Mid Ave
3 m
= O O) Z- ,km b 6 2i Amy Le o C N
11stAv U� 71S! Ave b m E 72nC �— `D C Op
71 �, 7 f St Ave 71 51 Ae v LL O rOI� L 11 Ce nte r
' 775[Ave o a' m ` m N _ J
m Q W Palmer Lake � M"
m m 70th Ave i 70th Ave n Q 70th Ave Z C07 Oth Ave w 7Gth A•�u „�.
Urbang Irving La QQ r
' m m 41 n 13000
5200 _ 10200 F 1 1Z YC� J � 3900 ��
11440 4 Q 1'fi343 ' - 12823 D 64 p0 6537 49033
9 c
° =
m D
88th Ave S6 �y N O n n
68th Ave < �' $ �+ 86th Ave Gt D f 60 th 6 68th Ave Ava O CC F unctional Ro ad
<< 7ry� qve 896 CID 7
O ° J
¢
' 67th Ave $ v, p 'be.Rd h \ `Op < u,
_ 6 Ave z ��nnnn 67th Ave �� a., -, 2 0�� 67th Ave x l l 1 1C �,.,,11
1'50860 - s>, q�e C l as l assification 1 IZU
Howe La WO N W `'°
' 66th Ave 66th Ave o tJ O p O _ W W 162,
66th Ave n.
Winchester La Winchester La D �O d: ' , W � ' 12823 pp
/ Mississi i Rive Aver a8e Dai 65LhAve O O 3 O65thAve Ra "t`D�oe po.�,.>14.300 8400 m T raff i c
_ D d o •o D 13300 0 z 3 X10560
Paul Dr y � o° m � n X a -
D 64th Ave fD '" m m ` Poe Rd t 03 ° a D n 4th AVe ° Counts
y 64th Ave —
Eleanor La Kat,erine Or fD D ^ O Henry Rd ci -
7400 7800 0 4000
��11'8000— 694 150000
L - q - 5029
° 1488545 Ste 1'88574
9303 9806 > f - f 5029 8 y
➢ m ° Joy La :c 7 m Nash Rd /N
Boulder La 2 y r • O`' 2? Op W �J T �j
v_ z - D `I ty ` r iS O Lel end
62nd Ave y D i? D LL e I` A �imtord ?^ O �� �� O V
D ° 82rM Ave
"' O O C
61 st Ave Janet La A o
", rn w Shingle Creek c ° p o 0 0 0 " ` °
�RO Q1 U C O
61st Ave ` W x . Ave Principal Arterial
Btst Ave < a'
j0 ALP m c s
' t71 No o 60th Ave '1 ° 'O �' U o A Minor Augmentor
E F" 59► 1 Ave T a w o Y
15 0 c < Q�Q V e v = ¢ F !V
Z N 59InA ' "�`� 1350 �-) A Minor Reliever
581h 1/2A "e 16Q7
v Collector
11500 _ 129 00 °"hw o 4r tQ o `o cp U) L`a
/ 14457 N N 6217 18700 cv t` °� LO CO o 0) N N
r g g ,, N r 16000 o N s 00000 2007 Average Daily Traffic Counts
c d ° N p 23509 ^ 14 p00 7150 "' CO 4150 ¢ 1500
N7[hAve o 0 0 ^ �� 20115 17600
OD �, ° o � 0 8989 5217 1886 00000 2030 Projected Daily Traffic Counts
NquestLaa 6400 o v
�'vr. GOB O` O O O �
56th Ave 0 8046 a �.� 4 � z'd �Q a'. 0 Oeith Ave 4 M 56th Ave 58th Ava „ O
' ao 9 m u 0 O
� Ericon Dr a' O ¢
O
55th Ave
?7300 Q� 55th Ave
o Z 9177 v
O Ave A W ¢ m ? O` O v
Upper Twin Lake �o (D �� �'" Ave AVe LL W
53rd PI O O i < IL
,b Lilac Dr c a 0 a
� ` 1.300 53rd Ave e N ,, _„ Y3000,, _38 00. 610 „ 18 50
' 634 0 3771 4777 7669 2326
Q5 �W
CD C Ave
U r-
' \ Oak St ° p`
51 8t A,, 3300
W 3
4 149 1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet N
2150
2703 50th Ave 50th Ave JI O
D 0 O k E
�T
m
Middle Twin Lake 49th A, 3200 (,q of S
4023 BRCmtiLl. \'
- � , CENTER 86th A,, Lakeside Ave X 40 0 0 •
6- d7thAve SSOCIATE
Ryan Lake 20.30 Comprehensive Plan
IY
' The Metropolitan Council, in its Transportation Policy Plan, presents a functional classification
system for the metropolitan area. The major classifications are:
' • Principal arterial
• "A- minor" arterial
' • "B- minor" or "other minor" arterial
• Collector
• Local Streets
' The local street system is not included in the Metropolitan Council's Transportation System. The function
of each of these roadways is slightly different depending on whether the roadway is in an urban or rural
' area. Only the urban characteristics are applicable to Brooklyn Center.
The elements of the functional classification system are described below, along with a listing of which
' roads are in each classification. These road classifications are described in more detail in the
Transportation Policy Plan. Figure 3 -1 shows the 2007 pattern of road functional classification, and Table
3 -2 lists roads by functional class, number of lanes, jurisdictional class and sub - class.
' Principal arterials are the highest roadway classification and are considered part of the metropolitan
highway system. These roads are intended to connect metropolitan centers with one another and connect
' major business concentrations, important transportation terminals and large institutional facilities.
Brooklyn Center is crossed by several of the region's principal arterials:
• I -94
• I -694
• Trunk Highway 100
• Trunk Highway 252
' Principal arterials are further classified as "Freeways" and "Other Principal Arterials." The latter
category may be designed with high capacity, controlled, at -grade intersections rather than interchanges,
' although grade separation is desirable. In Brooklyn Center, T.H. 252 between 73` Avenue North and I -94
falls into the "Other Principal Arterial" category because of the at -grade intersections. All arterials are
under Mn/DOT's jurisdiction.
' Minor arterials are intended to connect important locations within the city with access points on the
metropolitan highway system and with important locations outside the city. These arterials are also
' intended to carry short to medium trips that would otherwise use the regional system.
The Metropolitan Council working cooperatively with Mn/DOT, Counties and Cities, defined a
network of A Minor arterials that are intended to either relieve traffic on the principal arterials or serve
as substitutes for principal arterials. The A Minor arterials were subdivided into relievers, expanders,
connectors and augmenters.
' In Brooklyn Center, there are two roads classified as A Minor arterials:
• Brooklyn Boulevard (County Road 152)
• Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) west of T.H. 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
' 3 -3
trips and accommodate medium length trips. Augmenters, literally, augment the capacity of principal t
arterials by serving higher density areas and long -range trips. Both of the minor arterials are under the
jurisdiction of Hennepin County. '
Collector roadways are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within the city, and to collect
and distribute traffic from neighborhoods and commercial /industrial areas to the arterial system. ,
Brooklyn Center has identified an extensive network of collector roads, all of which link neighborhoods
with each other, with neighboring cities, with the City Center, or with the regional highway system.
Currently two of the collector roadways are under Hennepin County's jurisdiction: '
• 69th Avenue North west of Brooklyn Boulevard,
• Humboldt Avenue /57th Avenue North located just east of T.H. 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. Figure 3 -1 shows it as part of the
collector system. ,
Local streets connect blocks and land parcels; their function is primarily to provide access to adjacent
properties. Local streets can also serve as important components of bicycle and pedestrian circulation '
systems. In most cases, local streets will connect to other local streets and collectors, although in some
cases they may connect to minor arterials. All other streets within the City are classified as local streets.
Table 3 -1: Street Classifications in Brooklyn Center '
Functional Jurisdictional '
Classification Classification Sub -class Lanes
Principal Arterials,
I -94 State Freeway 6+ '
1 -94/1 -694 State Freeway 6+
TH 252 State Other 6 '
T.H. 100 State Freeway 4
A Minor Arterials '
Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152)
County Reliever 4/5
58 Avenue /CR 10 County Augmenter 3/4 '
Collectors
69th Ave N (CR 130) Count v 2 '
(west of Brooklyn Blvd.)
69th Avenue N (east of B. Blvd.) City 4/2 '
e
3 -4
' Humboldt Ave N /57th Ave N (CR 57) County 4/2
' Humboldt Ave N (north of I- 94/694) City 4/2
57th Ave N (east of Humboldt Ave N) City 4
' Noble Ave N City 2
France Ave N (2 segments) City 2
June Ave N (58 Ave to 63 Ave N) City 2
' Halifax Ave/Eckberg Dr/France City 2
Ave /50thAve /AzeliaAve/Lakebreeze Ave
' 55 Ave N /56 Ave N City 4
(Xerxes Ave to CSAH 152)
' 53' Ave NBrooklyn Blvd frontage City 2
(France Ave to 55 Ave N)
' John Martin Drive City 4
Earle Brown Drive City 4
(John Martin Drive to Summit Drive)
Summit Drive City 4
' 59 Ave N/Logan Ave N City 2
(Dupont Ave N to 53`
' Lyndale Ave N City 2
67 Ave N (Humboldt to Dupont Ave N) City 2
63rd Ave N (west of Xerxes) City 4/2
Shingle Creek Parkway City 4
Xerxes Ave N City 4/2
' Freeway Boulevard (65` -66th Ave N) City 2 -5
Dupont Ave N City 2
73rd Ave N (east of Humboldt) City 2
53rd Ave N (east of Penn) City 2
51st Ave N (east of Brooklyn Blvd.) City 2
3 -5
r
w 73rd Ave m 7 3rd Ave " 73rd Ave
Shingle Creek "ood6ine`a ` w
' a 0p'd4r 0 ` Woodbine La .c Woodbine La Cit�j of
' c C Y 0 2 72rd Ave �r�Ave m a o c ¢ m 2, ¢ a
Z. y `m 72nd Ave a m s
C Shingle Creek <
= D
12nd Ave -- o
o � � Any La o
7�stPv" 71 s: AVe g u m O a
G m y 72nd A P
71st Ave Z 5 } a mQ� O 71 st Ave o 71sjAve m 4 `mD
m . ,� B rookl ij. 11 Cent
W Palmer Lake ��� 0
3
70th Ave m 70th Ave x � 1 G 70th Ave - 70th Ave E 70th Av - 7 L+ip Ave
4 Q o f7 V,"an A ve n y g W ,D
La
' r 2 =U =v -- 2 -U I Fi8ure3 2
w D 3
re r a g y r
> y ? y 68th Ave cu m 6gth Ave r o o Bgt 4 -D x 66th Ave 0 `G
'
58th Ave 9 Q ^qye 4 - n N Functional Road
m 3
67th Ave a o N o"ber Rd 4-D 2-U
67th Ave z D 67th Ave <
'.,'th Ave m
( l
�a s _ Classi fication and
Howe La m
66th Ave 68th Ave ` 66th Ave o 2/ U
(
Winchester La o Win La m mane 0 3 Mississippi Rive 1 r
�f _ / Numbe OI L ane s
n 65th Ave g O n �. O 65th Ave S 'pa ' ith Ave r _ -D 3 m 't:`. 65mA
' C o Paul Or
D D n D X 5
4 -D 3
A m 64th Ave m m m 3 & Poe Rd 54th Ave o m )> 1 4th Ave - _o
Halif- , >
Eleanor La Katherine Dr " m L O Henry Rd 2 -D ` „ b [f Le8 e n d
VV
N r 4 =U '4 =U 2 =U
d c
Boulder lag g z Joyce La y f - "tash Rd c Principal Arterial
s >
t a IU21 n,. ,
62nd Ave
' 2
' 62nd Ave D o re c 82 �
m 61 st Ave m Janet La Law, trrrk, 0, 1 Shingle Creek \ ..y Ave
81st Ave Minor Augmentor
_
6,et Ave 2- D 4 -D 4� m < 2_U olst Ave A
2 -U 5 d A Minor Reliever
' 60th Ave „ i r, U -
a d d a Q 60th A..,.
591- 1'2 Ave ro 3 a' e u < 4 =U % = a collector
r a
Z J W < N 59!x.
F sash ,;2Ave 2 -U 2 -U 2 Lane Undivided
:4th Ave
- 2 -D 2 Lane Divided (median with left turn lane)
3
W 4=D r
a g C— annty 1r0!4 =D 3 3 Lane (center turn lane)
' = 57th Ave m 4 °D 574 - 2 U
Burqu"t La _ 4 -U a�
a `o o�
6th Ave ° d��a etr �Q a Q 2 -U 4 -U 4 Lane Undivided
5
ssm Ave w, ,!,m A. , 56th Ave
° 4 -D �' o 4 -D 4 Lane Divided
Encon Dr < g
Q K <
m 55th Av.
y 2 55th Ave c <� m 5 5 Lanes or More
m � F
Upper Twin Lake :,•n
A e m Q 4 ? ] 54th Ave w ° �,
,. :... Lilac Dr < a w _ ¢' < -
O c E p
A .. 53rd Ave N fl
di i7'cLlLro IL
q..
1 z
2 u
m
d
Oak ..i � m
51811n,r w 4 -U 9 1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet "
3 <
G
SOM Ave j Z 5Q!n Ave
W' E
�a
Middle Twin Lake 491nA
1
Lake Bre 1{' Or S
BROOKLYN
' CF,NTF,R •
Lakeside Ave
r 48th ave �.
47th,, SSOCIATES
m ;
Ryan Lake 20.30 Comprehensive Plan
JURISDICTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
' Jurisdiction over the City's roadway system is shared among three levels of government: the State of
Minnesota, Hennepin County, and the City. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
maintains the interstate and State Trunk Highway System. Hennepin County maintains the County State
Aid Highway (CSAH) and County Road Systems. The City maintains the remaining streets.
Road jurisdiction is logically linked to the geographic area the roadway serves and the level of government
capable of administering and operating the road. Generally, jurisdiction can be linked to functional
classification as follows, although there is some overlap between classes:
• Principal Arterials — Federal and State
• Minor Arterials — County
• Collectors — City
• Local Streets — City
' EXISTING AND FORECAST TRAFFIC
The most recent (2007) traffic counts and the forecast 2030 projected traffic counts are shown in Figure 3 -1.
The 2007 average daily traffic volumes (ADT) and the 2030 projected daily traffic volumes (PDT) are
provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation. Given Brooklyn Center's recent increase in
vacancies and underutilization of certain commercial properties and employment centers, traffic volumes are
' expected to increase with the redevelopment of higher and better uses on these properties.
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 (TAZs). Figure 3 -3A 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. These forecasts are shown on Figure
3 -3B. Because Brooklyn Center is a fully developed community, the trips generated within the TAZs are
not expected to change significantly during the period of this plan. Slight changes could occur if and
when certain properties are redeveloped.
3 -7
73rdAye
Shingle Creek Y
p
Citi Of
Shingle Creek
ti k h.
°�- 738
b �� B irook I L i ll Ce
' �9 Palmer Lake
0 -
7 � � 740
29 F �. 3a
-69 th -Ave \\-IlA
739 �'
66th Ave r v > 66th Ave n - 7 A 7 D` = Traff naty sus ones
< Jr
6th Ave r`be� Rb
67!h AvN Z N (T
-- --, _94 a�� 736 N
- Bowe La
66th Ave
NncroswLa W xerla Mississippi Rive
y
0 65th Ave m R 3tAm A-" ^ , ..
e8end
0
t D K J
Pam Or m
J
601 Ave _o
o 3y da. or 3 721
Fleanw La KaUie a or o - -'�rry w.f
' I -694
63rd Ave 7 31 722
m
730 1 E
8w1de� La - `byce t .
'� s b
62 Ave
D o m 729
nd
g
' 61st Ave D � �.ane1L2 735 Shin le Creek
61st k.- / �O 730
734 ���' 731
5 1 Ave 732
Q _ <
w 56th +12 Ave j 733
- x
734
'2
733 571h Ave 735
a'
z
732 561 Ac - 736
< >
. o LLSStfi Are o c 737
� m
E 738
Upper Twin Lake \. = 541h Ave
0 739
7 22 740
/ boo Z
1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet "
\ `
721 µ 3
Middle Twin Lake Can or s
BROOKLYN
C ENTF,R
Ryan Lake 2030 C'omprchensive Plan SSOCIA►
r
City Of
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS • -•- • cum 31!
March -07 March -07 B rook l L jil �^ j �� 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
721 r l 521 527 545 527 _ 216 2 23 ' 2 29
722 2,475 2,503 2,588 2, 1,118 1,154 1,174 1,184 F i8ur e
729 2,407 2,434 2,517 2,434 948 979 996 1,004
' 730 4,960 5,016 5,1861 5,016 1,878 1,939 1,972 1,9881 F orcast bt TAZ
731 1,957 1,979 2,0461 1,9791 702 725 737 7431
732 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
' 733 5,812 5,877 6,076 5,877 2,249 2,322 2,561 2,381
734 271 274 283 274 187 193 196 _198
735_ 1,476 1,493 1,544 1,4 _ 626 646 657 662
736 744 752 777 752 292 301 306 3 08
737 994 1, 1,03 1 ,005_ 379 391 398 _402
1 738 2,848 2,880 2,978 2,880 1,047 1,081 1,099 1
739 L 3,96 4,012 4,14 4,012 1,491 1,539 1,565 1,578 -
740 74 0 748 773 748 297 307 312 3 15
29,172 29,500 30,500 29,500 11,430 11,800 12,200 12,100
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS • • • •
March -07
111 2010 2020 2030 2000 2010 2020 2030 111 2010 2020 2030
721 458 880 88 900 26 50 50 50 432 830 830 850
722 773 773 773 790 29 30 30 30 744 743 743 760
729 8721 972 972 995_ 367 410 410 _410 505 562 562 585
730 6901 690 _ 690 710 211 210 210 215 479 480 480 495
731 665' 665 6 65 680 607 607 607 _610 58 58 58 70
- - -_ -_ - 732 - -- 2,506 2800 2900 2970 2,110 - - 235 - 5T 2392 2400 } - -- 396 445 508 -- 570
t 733 256 200 200 205 36 401 40 40 220 160 160 165
734 3,407 3800 4100 4200 922 1027 10 50 1055 2,485 2,773T3,050 3,145
735 961 961 961 985 183 183 183 185 778 7781 778 800
736 4,246 4341 43411 4395 719 725 725 740 3,527 3,616 3,616 3,655
737 606 806 8061 825 189 250 250 255 417 556 556 570
-- _ t
738 I 240 24 240 24 33 33 33 35 207 207 207 210
97
739 916 0 970 995 20 20 25 896 950 950 970
740 102 102 102 105 59 60 60 60 43 42 42 45
16,698 18,200 18,600 19,000 5,511 6,000 6,060 6,110 11,187 12,200 12,540 12,890 N
c ►n or
' "BROOti L 1 \ t F.
!'ESTER
2030 Comprehensive Plan
' Table 3 -2: Traffic Level of Service Characteristics
' Level of Service Characteristics
A • Most Vehicles Do Not Stop At All
' • Most Vehicles Arrive During Green Phase
• Progression Is Extremely Favorable
B • More Vehicles Stop Than LOS A
• Good Progression
C • Number of Vehicles Stopping Is Significant
' • Fair Progression
• Individual Cycle Failures
' D • Many Vehicles Stop
• Unfavorable Progression
• Individual Cycle Failures Are Noticeable
t E • Limit of Acceptable Delay
• Poor Progression
• Frequent Cycle Failures
' F • Unacceptable Delays
• Poor Progression
• Oversaturation
' Table 3 -3: Daily Roadway Capacities
' Area Type — All are developed
Daily Capacity by Level of Service (LOS)
' Cross - Section A B C D E
2 -lane 6,600 7,900 9,000 1000 11,200
3 -lane 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20M000
4 -lane undivided 17,000 18,700 21,200 24,500 27,300
4 -lane divided 18,700 21,700 25,000 28,200 31,300
4 -lane expressway 22,800 26,500 30,000 34,000 38,000
' Notes:
For developed area assume minimum acceptable LOS of "C ".
' For developing areas assume minimum acceptable LOS of "C ".
For rural areas assume minimum acceptable LOS of "B ".
1- UNACCEPTABLE OPERATIONS
3 -10
COMPARISON OF TRAVEL DEMAND AND REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM
CAPACITY '
The City of Brooklyn Center believes that its land use plan is in conformance with the Metropolitan
Council's Transportation Guide /Policy Plan. Brooklyn Center is a nearly fully developed community in '
which increased traffic generation may occur in two ways: increased per- capita trip - making and
intensified land use. As described in the Land Use and Redevelopment Plan, redevelopment and infill will
be pursued along Brooklyn Boulevard, Humboldt/65 Avenue /I -694 and the City Center Opportunity Site, '
plus few other isolated locations such as the Gateway area near 66th Avenue and T.H. 252.
However, Brooklyn Center feels that it will be difficult to achieve the 2020 projections for households
and employment that the Metropolitan Council has established for Brooklyn Center and which are the '
basis for the regional travel model. Opportunities for redevelopment are relatively limited given the
young age and sound condition of most structures. Increased traffic on the regional system may be offset
somewhat by possibilities for improved transit service resulting from higher densities and more mixed land '
uses. Consequently, the City expects that its land use plan will not result in auto trips on the regional
highway system beyond those forecast by the Metropolitan Council; the City also feels that its land use
plan will further Council objectives of increased transit ridership and travel demand management. '
While the City of Brooklyn Center believes they will not significantly contribute to traffic demand on the
regional highway system, they are concerned about the growth of traffic on this system and its impact on '
Brooklyn Center. Traffic projections on I -94, I -694, T.H. 100, T.H. 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 Brooklyn Center.
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
The transportation issues in Brooklyn Center have been grouped into the following categories for '
P y g P g g
discussion: '
• Capacity Deficiencies
• Safety
• Jurisdiction '
• Functional Classification
CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES '
Most of the capacity deficiencies and congestion that affect Brooklyn Center today occur on the '
principal and minor arterial system. Congestion occurs in the peak hours on T.H. 252 north of I -694, and
on I -694 west of 1 -94. There is also significant off -ramp congestion on Brooklyn Boulevard north of I-
694 which can cause backups on the eastbound and westbound I -94. The traffic forecasts indicate that the
traffic demand on these regional facilities will continue to increase and the congestion could grow worse. '
Further studies nee f northbound
d to be done to analyze impacts of the limited freeway movements o o bo and
Highway 100 to westbound I -94 and eastbound I -94 to southbound Highway 100 and the effect on the '
local transportation system. Changing this interchange to a full interchange could relieve regional through -
traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard.
3 -11
1
The 2030 forecasts anticipate low to moderate growth in traffic on the local and collector roadway
' system. Most of this increase in demand will result from 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 East of Brooklyn Boulevard
• 69 Avenue East of Brooklyn Boulevard
' • Humboldt Avenue North of 65 Avenue
• Shingle Creek Parkway north of I -694
• Noble Avenue north of Brooklyn Boulevard
' • 66 Avenue North west of T.H. 252
SAFETY
t The major areas of concern relative to traffic safety in Brooklyn Center is on Brooklyn Boulevard and on
the collector roadways that are nearing capacity, such as 69th Avenue, 66th Avenue, 63rd Avenue and
' Humboldt Avenue. The high traffic volumes on a roadway that is intended to have a relatively high level
of access can become a problem because of the number of vehicle conflicts that will occur.
JURISDICTION
Currently two of the collector roadways serving the City of Brooklyn Center are under the jurisdiction of
' Hennepin County -- 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 130) and Humboldt Avenue
between 53rd and 57th Avenue /57 Avenue between Logan and Humboldt (CSAH 57). Hennepin County
would like to turn these roadways back to the City. There are capacity, maintenance and funding issues
' that must be resolved before this would be considered.
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION
' A number of streets have been upgraded as collectors to the Functional Classification System map since the
last comprehensive plan was completed. Most notable among these are the following:
' • John Martin Drive, Summit Drive and Earle Brown Drive (between John Martin and Summit); and
stretches of 55 and 56 Avenues West between Brookdale and Brooklyn Boulevard in City
Center;
' • Humboldt and Logan Avenues North between 53 and 59 Avenues, 59 Avenue between Logan
and Dupont, and Lyndale between 53 and 57 Avenues in the southeast neighborhood; and
• Halifax, Eckberg Drive, France, 50 Azelia and Lakebreeze and 53 between France and the
T.H.100 frontage road, in the southwest neighborhood; and
• 67 Avenue between Humboldt and Dupont in the northwest neighborhood.
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.
' 3 -12
STREET AND ROAD SYSTEM PLAN '
Brooklyn Center is a fully developed city and its road system is in place. No new roads are expected to be ,
constructed. However, these existing roads can be improved to address capacity problems:
• T.H. 252
• T.H.100 '
• I -694
• Brooklyn Boulevard north of I -694
• 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard '
Specific Roadway Improvements '
Trunk Highway 100
The only non - freeway portion of TH 100 between Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley and 50th Avenue
N. in Brooklyn Center was upgraded to freeway design standards since the 2000 comp plan was
completed. Further studies need to be done to analyze impacts of the limited freeway movements of
northbound Highway 100 to westbound I -94 and eastbound I -94 to southbound Highway 100 and the effect '
on the local transportation system. Changing this interchange to a full interchange could relieve regional
through - traffic on Brooklyn Boulevard.
I -694 '
An additional lane was added between I -94 and 1494 to accommodate increased traffic on I -694 and the
traffic demand being placed on 63 and 69 the City's parallel collector roadways. ,
TH 252
Mn/DOT's Transportation System Plan shows TH 252 north of I -694 as an expansion corridor. The '
extension of TH 610 and expansion of the TH 610 bridge are expected to cause an increase in traffic on
this segment of TH 252. Capacity improvements on this segment of TH 252 would help to reduce traffic
demand on the City's parallel collector roadways and maintain the City's ability to access the regional '
highway system. Mn/DOT and the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park are studying elimination of
several signalized intersections north of I -94/I -694 to improve traffic flow. The difficulty is that several
properties including businesses get access from the 66` Avenue, 70` Avenue and 73 Avenue '
at -grade intersections with TH 252. If these are eliminated, care must be given in the design to
provide adequate access to these properties within the context of the limited area of right -of -way.
The City of Brooklyn Center anticipates additional infill and redevelopment in the Gateway area along TH
252 north of I -694. The intersection on TH 252 at 66th Avenue represents a potential capacity constraint
to development in this area. Some additional improvements will be needed at this intersection '
(potentially an interchange) in order to accommodate the additional traffic from additional development in
the Gateway area. The City of Brooklyn Center will work with Mn/DOT to identify the improvements
needed that are consistent with other improvements Mn/DOT plans to make in the TH 252 corridor. '
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
Brooklyn Boulevard north of I -694 has been widened and improved from 65` to Noble/71 since the last
comprehensive plan was completed. As discussed below and elsewhere in this plan numerous '
improvements to the section of Brooklyn Boulevard south of I -694 need to be made to increase the
aesthetic appeal and provide for long term growth. '
3 -13
69TH AVENUE
' The improvements on Brooklyn Boulevard also included some improvements on 69th Avenue at the
intersection with Brooklyn Boulevard. The forecast volumes indicate that some capacity improvements
will also be needed to the west to the Brooklyn Center city limits. The City will need to work with
Hennepin County on the capacity improvements that will be necessary prior to turnback of this
roadway to the City.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
The access to Mn/DOT highways in the City of Brooklyn Center is largely fixed in place. I -94 and I -694
are interstates with access only occurring at interchanges. These interchange locations are set and the
City does not expect these locations to change. Access to TH 100 has been resolved with the TH 100
improvements. These improvements, however, have left eastbound I -94 to southbound TH 100, and
' northbound 100 to west bound I -94 difficult. Local streets are used to make these movements including
Brooklyn Boulevard, Shingle Creek Parkway and 65"' Avenue. 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
I' be needed at the intersection of 66th Avenue and TH 252.
Access to the minor arterial system (Brooklyn Boulevard and Bass Lake Road) will require management in
order to maintain the mobility function and safety of these roadways. The Brooklyn Boulevard
Streetscape Amenities Study and the proposed Brooklyn Boulevard improvements identified a number of
access improvements that should be made on Brooklyn Boulevard in order to improve the capacity and
safety of this roadway. Access to Bass Lake Road, especially east of Brooklyn Boulevard, should be
consolidated to improve safety. Hennepin County has guidelines for desirable access spacing on minor
arterials. Although it may not be possible to achieve the desired spacing with the current land use and
� Y r r �
development patterns on Bass Lake Road, the City will strive to consolidate access wherever possible.
r LOCAL SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
In Brooklyn Center, as in many post -war first ring suburbs, most of the infrastructure was constructed in
I ' I the late 1950s and 1960s. These systems, including local streets, water and sanitary sewer, and storm
drainage systems, are now reaching the end of their useful lives and need replacement. In 1992 the City
undertook a Pavement Management Study to document pavement conditions and determine the extent of
street reconstruction needs. The study showed that about 80 percent of the street mileage should be
overlaid or reconstructed.
In response, the City embarked on a program to address these needs in a systematic manner. The
Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Program is an infrastructure rehabilitation program
designed to serve as a catalyst for neighborhood revitalization.
In 2009, Brooklyn Center is in its sixteenth year of constructing neighborhood improvements. Since 1985,
approximately 49.8 miles of residential streets and 18.4 miles of State Aid streets have been reconstructed.
With over 100 miles of streets and utilities, it will take approximately twelve more years to complete a
cycle of infrastructure rehabilitation.
' 3 -14
LOCAL TRAFFIC CONTROL
The increasing level of traffic and congestion on the principal, minor, and collector roadways causes '
increasing amounts of traffic that attempts to cut through residential neighborhoods in order to avoid
congested locations and save some travel time. The best solution is to make sure the principal and minor
arterials have capacity to serve the traffic demand so delays are minimized. However, on collector
roadways it may not be desirable to add capacity since it could encourage more traffic and higher speeds
through residential areas. On the other hand it also may not be appropriate to try to calm traffic because this
may cause the traffic to divert to local streets. Problems on collector roadways need to be addressed on a
case -by -case basis to identify the most appropriate solution.
TRANSIT ,
As shown in Figure 3 -4, 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, one on the west side of TH 252 at 73` Avenue and one at 65th Avenue. A
transit hub where a number of routes intersect to provide connections to other locations within the City
is located north across County Road 10 from Brookdale Center at Northway Drive. Metro Transit has t
determined that 40 percent of the transit trips in Brooklyn Center go to Brookdale Center, making the
site across County Road 10 from Brookdale Center an ideal location for a successful transit hub. Some
timed - transfer feeder service was instituted in the 1990s when the transit hub /park and ride facility was '
located at Brookdale Center and this continued with the relocation of the facility. Further expansion of
timed transfer operations and other transit improvements are dependent on the construction of a full -
scale transit hub which can accommodate significantly more customers and buses. '
The Metropolitan Council's Transportation Policy Plan identifies five transit markets in the metropolitan
area and the service characteristics and performance guidelines that are appropriate for the different
markets. The transit plan also defines four transit service zones where the service is developed to be
responsive to the markets they serve. Brooklyn Center is located primarily within the Inner
Urban/Suburban Transit Zone. This zone has the second - highest service level in the Metropolitan area. '
Service in this area should be available 12 to 18 hours a day, seven days a week. A small portion of the
northeast corner of the City falls into the Outer Suburban Zone. Given the type of land uses and density
of development in this area, the City believes it should be part of the inner urban/suburban transit ,
zone.
The City is within the Metropolitan Transit Taxing District and in Market Area II. Service options for
Market Area II include regular -route locals, all -day expresses, small vehicle circulators, special needs
paratransit (ADA, seniors), and ridesharing. Metro Mobility serves the paratransit needs of the City
and Prism operates its dial -a -ride service
r
3 -15
./, 73rd Ave m 73rd Ave 73rd Ave 73rd Ave r
Shingle Creek m ;v wOp dbr Z m Woodb La m P Cit�� Ot
a m > y Woodbine La _> a m 11
o 8 m = 72nd Ave 'Z V "g ¢ m G 3: a
m 72nd Ave Q m n 3 m m
o` Shingle Creek
D 0 1 2nd Ave- m m
0
Amy La o a
71st Ave O' 71 st Ave %° m 72nd Ave
m m 7,ef Ave 71 s, Ave ` LL m D Brookl 11 11tC Y
71st Ave Z < m ' "1y o - g ¢ �' < W Q Palmer Lake o,C" - " <
70th Ave v /(tea m 70th Ave D E Q 'Ofh Ave Z 70th Ave w j 70th Ave
70th Ave
¢ $ m i m ` j m t7 u�an Ave veiny La 0'' Fi8 ure, 3 1
_
69th Ave
- ��8�h -Avm � 72 — � 3
° 3
m m > f 0
68th Ave
' < D D x 68th Ave
� 0 co � � n
68th Ave D m io 6 8th D m
68th Ave 6 m 7h q �, Q 722 P ub l i c Transportat
67th Ave 7, ° roer Rd D
Z ? 87th Ave t 67th Ave
67th Ave m 6 57th Ave m
1 m
� O � ice_ 6 jMq"
Howe La
66th Ave 66th Ave 0 y T vL
' 66th Ave `_ E D Le ,5end
Winchester La Winchester La ? m
a, 65th Ave $ m ° _ ° S'4 th Ave $, _ T m 763 _95th Ave 1 0
' c Paul Dr mL 0 o m 3 3 An'
c
64t J Transit Center
O O
D
64th Ave poe Rd
D 64M 7th Ave
n D o •
m Halitan Dr -\ D m m
Eleanor La _0 D O Henry Rd � Park and Ride
' Katherine Dr m x-69
IS
4 —
801
m 6 760 724 a £ e
Boulder La 8 A 0 Z r x Joyce (a $ > Nash Rd ` 2 � Bus Shelter
62nd Ave m ° D m m ` �mfad Rd
' m 62nd Ave (aw,sz�A� Shingle Creek 62nd A ve Express Bus Route
61st Ave Janet La epos Rd '
61st Ave m ¢ 61 st Ave '�
s,stAVe Local Bus Route
_Q �
s a
4 3 m Ave 60th > > �a„ -,(�� 8 0 a g
G o = c y Q a Q 60M Ave t
m
Z' 'c, � Express Route Number
59th 12 Ave
W z < 722 ,.j. a ( '7) Local Route Number
< _ < N 59th A� D ' 59th Ave U
C_.
' �"y- E 58th 1;2 Ave Ch
7 �
72 58th Ave >
b
c
4 m unty R 1'0 801 ki.�lrv�
57th Ave 19 I - 57th Ave
Burquest La _ 760
Q, -Si h Ave c O� m
56th Ave m �` �4e'6 �a ¢' 56th Ave 56th Ave 56th Ave !!•A
22
Eckber Dr :
' E �� o� 2 762 l �
m 717 a �o m, >
Erlcon D, 2 a < Mississippi River
° p 55th Ave
LL a r 55th Ave o ¢ `_° < q U N
q Z Z U' E m m
54th Ave d $� a m c ¢ ? 54th Ave LL w a
m ¢' E
53rd PI LAac Or ¢ < tj
Upper Twin Lake e 0 m o r
0 53rd Ave 53rd Ave N c O 53rd Ave N " a{iw N 53rd Ave N— 53rd Ave N
' a D
724
52nd Ave Z
m
19
' Oak St m o` y
G m° w
S A "e 9 a 721 1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet "
m
0
50th Ave Ja 50th Ave �� - E
' a
m a
Middle Twin Lake 49th A—
Proposed Bus Lake Breeze Ave � "BROO/►LYN S
Rapid Transit 3 T ('E'NTER Route 48th Ave
Lakeside Ave y
47th Ave Ryan Lake 2030 C o m p r e h e n s i v e Plan S S O C I AT E
V
1
' The Transportation Policy Plan identifies the primary factors that can influence the creation of transit -
and pedestrian - friendly communities. These are:
' • Concentrated, compact development patterns
• Mixing of land uses within 40 to 160 -acre neighborhoods
' • Pedestrian- and transit - oriented design, as expressed in building and parking locations, transit
shelters, sidewalks and paths, etc.
' As described in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan, Brooklyn Center's goals
include the revitalization and intensification of certain areas, notably the City Center Opportunity Site
and the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor, with a more diversified mixture of uses that will reduce reliance on
' the private automobile and encourage walking and transit use. The City is ready to work with Metro
Transit on strategies that will enhance transit service to such mixed -use areas.
TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT
' Travel Demand Management (TDM) is a set of techniques to reduce peak period vehicle trips by 1)
shifting travelers from driving alone into shared ride arrangements, such as ridesharing or transit, or 2)
by encouraging alternative work arrangements, such as flextime and telecommuting that remove trips
from the peak travel times.
In this metropolitan area and throughout the nation our ability to build our way out of growing
' congestion and environmental problems is severely limited by the cost of roads and the environmental
and social impacts of new and expanded roads. Brooklyn Center's road system allows for very little
expansion if any, due to constrained rights -of -way and established land uses. Therefore, the City
supports travel demand management as a way to alleviate increasing traffic congestion.
TDM techniques are best implemented through a partnership of cities, regional and state agencies, and
employers to encourage travelers to change their behavior through incentives, enhanced services and
high occupancy facilities. For example, employers can provide subsidized transit passes, allow
staggered work hours to allow travel outside of peak hours, and encourage telecommuting. The state
' and region provide transit service and facilities such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, metered
ramps and meter bypasses to allow faster travel times for ride - sharers and transit users. These type of
improvements are important for supporting drivers who choose alternatives to driving alone.
' Most of the City of Brooklyn Center has been developed so that the City is somewhat limited in what it
can do to encourage transit - friendly design or to encourage employers to provide incentives to employees
that rideshare. In infill and redevelopment areas the City will review plans to ensure transit is
' accommodated and to encourage the development of TDM programs.
' BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT
Although much of Brooklyn Center was originally developed without sidewalks, the City has developed
' a system of sidewalks and trails that effectively link its parks, schools, commercial areas and civic
buildings. As shown on Figure 3 -6, sidewalks have been developed along most minor arterial and
collector streets and along an interconnected system of local streets.
3 -17
Trails are connected with sidewalks and cross most City rks. The extensive Shingle Creek trail
YP g
system rings Palmers Lake and connects with the Three Rivers Park regional trail system that follows the '
course of Shingle Creek north to south through the City but is disconnected at the Brookdale site
between 57` Avenue and T.H. 100. At the City's southern boundary, the trail continues along the creek
through north Minneapolis, eventually linking to Webber Parkway, the Grand Rounds Scenic Byway of
the Minneapolis Parkway system and Three Rivers regional trail system. ,
Pedestrian bridges provide key links in the trail and sidewalk system, crossing I- 94/694 at Central Park,
and crossing TH 100 from Summit Drive to Knox Avenue, and from Brookdale Center to Lions Park. ,
Providing a new pedestrian access bridge across Highway 252 would link the Mississippi trail to
Evergreen Park and provide a unique opportunity for community branding.
SIDEWALK AND TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS t
The on- sidewalk segment of the Shingle Creek trail system across the Brookdale Shopping Center is '
unimproved, not adequately separated from traffic, and is somewhat confusing because of a lack of
directional signs. Improved signage and landscaping along the trail would improve this segment.
A trail and sidewalk crossing as been constructed under 1 -694 on both sides of Brooklyn Boulevard to
g Y
improve access and safety. However, pedestrian movement is particularly unsafe along the sidewalk of the
west side of Brooklyn Boulevard between 63' Avenue and 58` Avenue. A trail has also been constructed by
Three Rivers Park District from 53"' under 1 -694 to connect with Brooklyn Center's trail system north of I-
694 and the Minneapolis trail system to the south.
Gaps in the sidewalk system still hinder pedestrian and bicycle movement in some locations, and should
be filled when other street improvements are made. These routes are intended to link neighborhoods,
parks, schools and the City Center. In particular sidewalks are currently missing on the south side of the
section of 57th Avenue/Bass Lake Road from Shingle Creek Parkway to Xerxes.
Bicycling is accommodated on the City's off -street trail system. However, bicycling on City streets can be
difficult, especially on arterial and collector streets with high traffic volumes and insufficient width for
bike lanes or paths. The recently- constructed multi -use path along 66th Avenue is one example of a
facility that accommodates both bicycles and pedestrians. However, rights -of -way in many locations '
are too narrow to allow on- street bike lanes or off - street paths to be developed.
The most feasible solution would be a system of signed bicycle routes on the three main "loop" routes
identified on Figure 2 -4. Most of these streets -- Dupont and Humboldt, for example -- have two '
undivided travel lanes and two parking lanes. A separate bicycle lane cannot be accommodated without
removing parking. However, where traffic volumes are moderate, experienced bicyclists can share the
road with occasional parked cars. Bicycle routes, or bicycle lanes where space is available, should be
located on the followin g streets:
• Humboldt Avenue '
• Dupont Avenue
• Xerxes Avenue north of County Road 10
• 69th Avenue west of Brooklyn Boulevard '
• 57th Avenue /County Road 10 east of Brooklyn Boulevard
Shingle Creek Parkway
3 -18
I
73rd Ave 73rd Ave 73rd Ave 73rd Ave
Shingle Creek - w° Wt;,;; a .. c La
q x ¢ C ity ° m Woodbine La Q f
West Pp mer Lake Park
La ,�
a Amy 1_
^m La
Manual Addition tc ver reen
ik' .Q, 71 s!Ave 3 x Shingle Creek - 9
East P Im I 'ark;,,, x
71st Ave '' ` , < �,c 7 1 st
qy A ve LL o - Eve�gfeen Park Riverdale Park + v v i +� Ce nte r
Palmer Lake
1 > 70M Ave E t] 70th Ave
CWi1lovV Lang_Park
68th Ave Q c� �roana Irving La
Palmer Lake Park
,o �& M.Ave m -�. , 3 f°i Fi8ure
E O n a 3
`0 `m ro 68th Ave 1° `� n G9 �> x 68th Ave
66t n
h Aver > n o > x Ih
Sidewal 1.7.11 n d Tr
' 67th Ave z ; FreewaytPark 7 � u "' e rRd ➢ `�
67th Ave _ .� -- -"7 ;7th Ave 67th Ave
S >haLe
Howe La Shingle Cre k Trail
66th Ave GN Ave v
' 66ihAve
OrcfgrrWPark E �`. LC$C11
Winchester La
Winchester L,,Cahland r rk _ Fire ous Park Mississippi Rive
z
! r 'I Park--,,,?, m
o .,_..., .. _ O - � v � � • .. Ave
oo Paul Or a -6 _ r a a Sidewalks and On- Street Trails
0 5 Y o a o
64th Ave m v rx Rd 64th Ave S v 4th Ave
Or
Merlin ParJw.Dr D _ Off Street Trails
' Eleanor La m Katherine ® O Henry Rd
z t om°
694—x_
1 entr EPark
EadeB,ow Parks
Boulder La ➢ �^ _ s Joyc La u D y - Nash R•'
62nd Ave - m LL m P_Imford R 1
m < 62nd Ave t32�q I
' Ar oretum men hin le Cree
61st Ave Janet La Ry
North Mississi, t i Regional Park
61st Ave ��
' Kylawn ark a o m s 80M Ave m _
> Q E Q // > c
r 12 Ave = 3 Q r i E Q Q
W p Grandview Park I ��
Z J Q N 59th A
58th 1:2 Ave
x =
7 <
th_A�t
County Rd -i' - C7b A
Q m 57th Ave ' :FFCr1Ave_ .;7th 4
I +
13urguest Lo _ orthp rt
0
r '� m 1.. A •h 4 c
Q
56th Ave - v '„ A,, :.
, �a <> 56tH c -:.
EckbergrJr! Esc on 01
f Encr
Lio 's Park 55th Ave a Q S
E Bellvue°Park
,thA Center rook Golfcourse ' S4mAve E
A j LL W
53rd P! O - c d Q q
x
Upper Twin Lake s E
'.id Ave N
Lakeside Park
Z
d
� ,kst � m
s,s<Av w a 1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet
appy Hollow rk
W E
s'
Middle Twin Lake
o on of S
"BROOKLYN
46th Ave CENTER •
47th SSOC�A
Twin Lake Park Ryan Lake 2030 Curnprehensir a Plan
I
' A regional trail is under review with Three Rivers Park District for the section of 57"/County Road 10
east of Brooklyn Boulevard. In its current configuration, much of Brooklyn Boulevard is unsuitable for
bicyclists, due to high traffic volumes and narrow sidewalks. However, in lieu of other alternatives,
bicyclists can use the existing sidewalk for short distances, although this creates visibility hazards at
intersections. As redevelopment occurs along the portion of Brooklyn Boulevard south of I -694,
' increased consideration should be given to providing wider off - street paths for shared bicycle and
pedestrian use, as has been done north of I- 694.Other regional trails being discussed to be taken over by
Three Rivers Park District include Twin Lakes trail and Shingle Creek trail. Given the location of
' Brooklyn Center to the ever growing Metropolitan area, and the increased interest in alternate forms of
transportation and conservation of energy, the City should work with Three Rivers Park District to
promote more regional trails to address the needs of not only the City, but the larger metropolitan area.
GOODS MOVEMENT
' Most freight movement in the City of Brooklyn Center is primarily by truck on the existing roadway
system. Maintaining good access and mobility on this system will be the best method of providing for
goods movement in the City. There are no major freight terminals in the city and most freight movement is
' related to delivery service to commercial businesses in the city.
The Canadian Pacific Railway runs through the southern tip of the City providing service to a small
' industrial area located in this area.
' RELATIONSHIP OF LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION
Brooklyn Center has a relatively dense pattern of residential development with small lot singles and a
' high proportion of attached units. It also has a large and centrally located retail -office -civic core that is
supportive of transit and pedestrian -bike access.
I' Brooklyn Boulevard, a Minor Arterial and the major non - regional roadway in the community, is struggling
with the dual demands of traffic movement and land access. There is a strong and growing demand for
traffic from the north to use Brooklyn Boulevard to access 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 the existing single - family detached housing that has direct access to
Brooklyn Boulevard with more intensive development with limited access points conducive to traffic
' flow. The Brooklyn Boulevard Streetscape Amenities Study (1994) calls for consolidating and
sharing access points, closing certain median openings, and increasing the use of intersecting streets for
land access.
' Another area where transportation plans and land use patterns are of concern is the TH 252 corridor.
This area is planned to be expanded in Minnesota Department of Transportation's plan in 2024. There is
' a primary issue with access to existing businesses in this area. Great care will need to be done to provide
access in any proposed plans to limit the negative impacts that project would have in this northeastern
area of the community.
' County Road 10 is also an area where streetscaping and the connection of the regional trail gap in this
area could go along way in the improvement of the image in this area of the community as well as
' attracting appropriate land uses for redevelopment around the Brookdale Mall and Opportunity Site.
3 -20
This would provide an important link to the major business centers and provide a connection to other '
amenities along Shingle Creek Parkway.
PLANNED CHANGES I N '
N LAND USE THAT MAY AFFECT TRAFFIC AND TRANSIT
• Possible long -term City Center area intensification through redevelopment; greater mixture of '
uses; more pedestrian emphasis.
• Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment and intensification; closing current and restricting future '
access points to Brooklyn Boulevard south of I -694; additional transit shelters as part of
streetscape improvements.
• Possible reduction in housing density in the Northeast Neighborhood. '
• Infill commercial and industrial development north of I- 94/694 near Shingle Creek Parkway and
south of 1- 94/694 within the Opportunity Site. '
• Infill and intensification of the Brookdale Mall Site.
AVIATION
Brooklyn Center is within the influence area of the Crystal Airport, which is a designated reliever airport
'
Y rY TP g rP
for the Minneapolis -St. Paul (MSP) Airport. Airspace over Brooklyn Center is also used by aircraft
operating from Metropolitan Area airports and other airports.
A small portion of the Crystal Airport is located within Brooklyn Center. Most of this area is located in the
Shingle Creek floodway and as such is controlled by the City's floodplain zoning and not suitable for '
development.
Brooklyn Center is a member (with Crystal and Brooklyn Park) of the joint Airport Zoning Board, which '
regulates land use around the airport. This commission functions under a joint power agreement. In the
early 1980s, the Zoning Board adopted airport zoning regulations which apply to each of the member
cities. The airport zones are shown on the Brooklyn Center zoning map but the text of the regulations has '
not been incorporated into the City's zoning ordinance.
Airspace zones are imaginary surfaces around the airport into which no structure or tree is permitted to t
penetrate. The imaginary surfaces include approach surfaces, primary surfaces, horizontal surfaces and
conical surfaces.
Land use safety zones are established to control land uses near public airports for the safety of airport '
users and persons in the vicinity of airports. There are three safety zones: A, B and C.
Safety zone A extends outward from the end of the runway for a distance equal to two - thirds of the '
length of the existing or planned runway. No buildings, transmission lines, or uses that would cause an
assembly of persons are permitted. In Brooklyn Center, this area is partially airport-owned open space '
and partially in single- family residential use.
3 -21
Safety zone B extends outward from safety zone A, a distance equal to one -third the existing or planned
runway length. It covers an additional single - family residential area.
' Safety zone C contains all land within an arc drawn with a 6,000 foot radius from the ends of all
runways, excluding the areas in zones A and B. Uses are only subject to general restrictions regarding
' interference with electronic communications, airport lighting and the impairment of visibility in the
vicinity of the airport. In Brooklyn Center, this zone extends as far as Brooklyn Boulevard,
encompassing a wide range of land uses.
' Structures which are 150 feet or higher above ground level and within approximately two miles of the
airport may be considered hazards to air navigation. Brooklyn Center has no existing structures of this
height; does not permit such structures under its zoning ordinance, and has no plans to permit such
structures in the future. Any applicant who proposes to construct such a structure shall notify the city, the
Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration at least 30 days in
' advance as required by law (MCAR 8800.1200 Subpart 3 and FAA form 7460 -8). The FAA
recommends that proposed structures be reviewed if they are located within two miles of the airfield
and within five miles of a runway approach corridor. The Metropolitan Airports Commission
' recommends that any proposed structure within these parameters which may exceed 50 -feet should be
reviewed by the FAA, Mn/DOT Aeronautics and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
The City's policy in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan was to encourage the eventual phase -out of the
Crystal Airport and its replacement with a new minor classification airport. Both Brooklyn Center
and the City of Crystal have maintained that relocation would eliminate hazardous situations caused
by the proximity of the airport to surrounding residential development. Brooklyn Center still supports
' this policy. The Metropolitan Airports Commission has recently developed A Long -Term
Comprehensive Plan Draft (2008) which discusses various options from no- expansion to certain runway
closures, to full closure of the facility. They have no plans to expand the airport.
The summary of the 2008 Draft concluded the following Preferred Alternative for the 20 -year planning
period:
• Reconstruction of Runway 14L -32R;
• Reconstruction of the Runway 14R -32L pavement into a taxiway ;
• Removal of runway signs for the turf crosswind runway;
• Consider the option to redevelop areas on the airport into non - aeronautical uses.
The preferred alternative does include additional hangar space, unless redevelopment of existing area is
pursued. No other airport expansion or provision of new facilities was recommended.
None of the land use changes proposed in this Comprehensive Plan will affect the functioning of the
' Crystal Airport. By the same token, airport operations have relatively few impacts on the adjacent
neighborhood in Brooklyn Center. Noise impacts are considered in the Long -Term Comprehensive Plan
for the airport. The Metropolitan Council suggests that the 60 DNL (day -night average sound level)
' contour should be used for planning purposes for areas inside the MUSA. The 60 DNL noise contours
in 1993 had minimal impact on Brooklyn Center, since most departures are to the northeast, into the
prevailing wind direction. The projected 60 DNL noise contours for 2013 in the Long Tenn
' Comprehensive Plan extends just beyond the airport boundary into Brooklyn Center, but should affect
few, if any, residential properties. According to FAA standards, the 60 DNL contour is compatible
with residential development.
' (DNL is the average sound level, in decibels, obtained from the accumulation of all sound events; it
weights night -time sound events to account for the increased disturbance resulting from night -time
3 -22
noise. It is the FAA's single system for determining exposure of individuals to airport noise.) '
There are no heliports in Brooklyn Center, and heliports are not a permitted use in any zoning district.
The City should examine the issue of where heliports might best be permitted, to ensure that any future
proposals for heliports occur in appropriate locations.
t
t
3 -23
1
1
1 Comprehensive Plan 2030
1 4 HOUSING PLAN
1 INTRODUCTION
1 C reating and maintaining a sense of community is important to the well being of every city.
Creating community has many aspects but from a planning perspective it includes reducing
1 turnover in the population and integrating newcomers into the web of community life. Population
stability depends on maintaining a high quality of life as compared to other affordable location
alternatives and on the availability of housing alternatives for people at all stages of their lives.
1 Brooklyn Center is a community of well kept single - family neighborhoods with readily accessible
parks, filled with affordable, entry -level homes. It is also a community with relatively high
foreclosure rates in those single family neighborhoods. Brooklyn Center has great access to
downtown Minneapolis but it also has relatively concentrated areas of multiple family housing in
need of rejuvenation or, in some cases, redevelopment.
1 The housing issues that emerged from the subsection profiling existing housing in the City and
the community comp plan meetings is one highlight of this section. Another is the Housing plan
that has as its focus the production and maintenance of housing that is affordable to the people
1 that want to live here and meets their life cycle housing needs.
This housing section of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following subsections:
1 • Profile of existing housing
• Housing Issues
• Assistance Programs
1 • Redevelopment Opportunities in Housing
0 Housing Regulations
0 Housing Plan
i
1
1
1
1 4 -1
BACKGROUND
Two studies done in the late 1980s continue to provide a good overview and introduction to
many of the housing issues in Brooklyn Center. The Year 2000 Report (1985) examined many
demographic and social trends influencing Brooklyn Center and assessed the most significant City
issues. Major trends identified in that report 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 second study, The Brooklyn Center Housing Market: A Study of Trends and Their Impact on
the Community (1989), provide important insights into the City's housing stock, although
conditions in the housing market have changed since then. The report notes: "Since [Brooklyn
Center] developed rapidly during the 1950s and 1960s and was populated by young families
buying their first homes, its stock of single - family housing is, by today's standards, positioned
as entry - level."
The report also pointed to problems associated with the City's rental housing: ,
• An increased need for social services in the community;
• Difficulty in maintaining the aging rental housing stock;
• The danger of allowing rental buildings to become lower- income housing through '
deferred maintenance.
The report recommended City involvement with rental property owners and an increased City
role in developing higher- quality low- income housing.
The City has addressed many of the housing and related issues identified in the two reports and
in the Comprehensive Plan 2020 (2000). It also has new ones to deal with like the foreclosure t
crisis impacting single - family homes.
PROFILE OF EXISTING HOUSING
A number of aspects of the existing housing stock are relevant in planning for the City's '
future. The following sections deal with these various factors of housing age, housing type,
housing tenure and affordability.
AGE OF HOUSING i
The majority of the City of Brooklyn Center housing stock was built before 1970. Table 4 -4 shows '
that while the 1950s were the peak decade for housing construction in the City, this was a period in
which owner - occupied housing predominated. Most of the City's rental housing -- i.e., most of its
multifamily apartments -- were built in the 1960s and 70s. The lack of vacant land has limited '
housing construction since then, and new construction will mostly take place through
redevelopment.
4 -2
Table 4 -1: Housing by Year Built
Year Built Pre- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1990- 2000- Total
1950 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2008
Owner- 61 7,859
occupied 561 4,605 1,448 707 401 76
Renter- 61 266 2,282 788 403 93 10 3,730
occupied
Total Units 622 4,871 3,730 1,495 804 169 71 11,762
SOURCE: CITY ASSESSOR
The above chart indicates that more than 91% of the Brooklyn Center owner and renter - occupied
housing will be over 30 years old next year. This is a major concern because at 30 years of age
' exterior components of a building including siding, windows and roofs need to be replaced to
protect its structural integrity.
HOUSING TYPES
Single - family detached dwellings are the predominant housing type in Brooklyn Center. The
City's housing stock is diversified, however, and includes many multi family units in large
1 structures, some in smaller structure containing less than 5 units, as well as a significant number
of single family units attached units.
' Brooklyn Center's housing mix changed very little in the last decade. The number of units in all
housing type categories, except 2 -units (duplex), declined slightly. Presumably this decline
occurred as a result of clearance and redevelopment or conversion to other types. The City
1 Assessor records for 2008 show 106 additional single - family detached units and 260 additional
other housing units as compared to the 2000 Census.
Table 4 -2: Housing Type, 1980 — 2000
1980 % 1990 % 2000 %
Single Fam Det 7,248 66.0 7,351 63.0 7,180 63.0
Single Fam Att 497 4.5 953 8.2 929 8.2
2 -units 104 0.9 73 0.6 97 .9
3 -4 units 205 1.9 174 1.5 142 1.2
5 unit and up 2,915 26.6 3,110 26.7 3,048 26.7
Total 10,969 11,661 11,396
' SOURCE: CENSUS
The rambler with full basement was the home style of choice in the 1950s and 1960s when
most of the single - family housing in the community was constructed. At 76% ramblers are the
predominant single- family housing structure type in the City. With the living space on one
level, these homes are better suited for elderly persons than are other home styles where stairs
are required to access some of the space. This housing style allows the elderly to remain in
their own home for a longer period of time. Multi -level style homes such as the split entry and
split -level became popular in the 1960s and 1970s and, as indicated on the chart below, not
many homes of this style have been built in Brooklyn Center. Some 1 - '/ 2 stories and a few 2
stories have also been built in the City. In recent decades a significant number of town home
units and some condominium units have also been built.
4 -3
I
Table 4 -3: 2008 Single Family Structure Subtype
Structure Type Number
Rambler 5,526
Split Entry 365
Split Level 398
1 1 /z Story 835
2 Story 162
Total 7,286
SOURCE: CITY ASSESSOR '
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. Townhouses are slowly increasing in number.
Table 4 -4: Housing Mix in Brooklyn Center and Neighboring Cities, 2000 1
(percentage of total housing units)
Single- Town- Two- 3 -4 5+ units t
familv house familv units
Brooklyn Center 63.0 8.2 0.9 1.2 26.7 ,
Brooklyn Park 60.9 12.5 1.2 1.3 23.9
Crystal 76.2 2.3 1.5 1.6 18.3 '
Robbinsdale 71.2 5.0 4.5 0.5 21.3
Columbia Heights 64.6 4.9 6.6 2.4 21.2
Fridley 58.2 6.8 2.3 2.4 26.9
SOURCE: CENSUS
HOUSING TENURE AND HOUSEHOLDER AGE
Characteristics of occupants including ownership versus rental and age of householder are '
important to consider when analyzing a community's housing.
The City's housing tenure (ownership versus rental) mix changed very little in the 1990s,
although numbers in each category increased. At 69/31 (rounded) the ownership -to- rental ratio is '
well within the Livable Communities Act goal for the city of 64 - 72 percent ownership to 28 -
36 percent rental. The City Assessor counted 328 more renter - occupied units in 2008 than the
Census did in 2000 while only 10 rental units were constructed from 2000 to 2008.
i
4 -4
Table 4 -5: Housing by Tenure
1990 % 2000 %
' Owner - occupied 7,806 69.5 7,855 68.7
Renter - occupied 3,420 30.5 3,575 31.3
' Total occupied 11,226 11,430
SOURCE: CENSUS
The age distribution of householders -- both homeowners and renters -- is 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 2000 were in the 25 -34 and the 35 -44 age ranges, which can be characterized
as "first -time home buyers" and "move -up buyers." The "under 25" age group is the smallest
group because children generally live with a parent(s) "householder" until completing high
school and then often leave home to attend college. In general the distribution among the
various age classes is fairly even.
Householders in one age group cohort move to the next age group cohort the next decade.
Significant losses of people in the 45 -54 and the 55 -64 age groups in 1990 advancing to the 55-
64 and the 65 -74 age groups, respectively, in 2000 is probably indicative of an inadequate
selection of housing for empty nesters looking for alternatives to their single- family detached
home.
' Table 4 -6: Households by Age of Householder, 1990 -2000
Age Group Number Percent 1990 Number 2000 Percent 2000
' Under 25 years 574 5.1 707 6.2
25-34 2,567 22.9 2,043 17.9
' 35 -44 2,140 19.1 2,492 21.8
45 -54 1,608 14.3 1,965 17.2
' 55-64 1,983 17.7 1,343 11.7
65 -74 1,509 13.4 1,487 13.0
75+ 845 7.5 1,393 12.2
SOURCE: CENSUS
' HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Housing values and rent levels are analyzed to determine whether housing stock is affordable for
families and individuals. Generally Brooklyn Center has an affordable supply of housing but
affordability has changed significantly since 1990.
' 4 -5
1
OWNER- OCCUPIED AFFORDABILITY
The Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors indicated that though Twin City home prices grew '
dramatically during recent years of rapid appreciation, low interest rates and modest gains in
consumer incomes weren't enough to keep ace. As a result before the recent collapse of the
g PP P
housing market, affordability reached its lowest point in two decades. In the same vein the Twin '
Cities Builders Association reported in late 2006 that median price grew 161% over the past 14
years while income grew only 51% over the same time period.
As indicated on the chart below the number and percentage of homes in value categories above
$100,000 increased significantly during the 1990s. The City Assessors records show that values '
have continued to increase during the current decade to a point in 2008 where 80% of owner-
occupied units are in the $150,000- 199,999 value category. Census values are based on the '
homeowner's own estimate, and thus may reflect perception as much as reality. An assessor's
value, however, is based on an analysis of sales of comparable housing and, though lagging actual
sales in time, is therefore reliable. With the collapse of the housing market home values are '
likely to decline over the next few years, improving the affordability outlook.
Table 4 -7: Values of Single - Family Owner - Occupied Units, 1990 — 2000 '
1990 % 2000 % '
Less than
$100,000 6,834 94.3 3,383 43.0
$100,000- 368 5.0 4,069 51.7
149,999
$150,000- 32 .4 269 3.4
199,999 '
$200,000 15 .2 149 1.9
and up
Total 7,249 7,870 '
Median $79,400 $105,600
value
SOURCE: CENSUS
As Table 4 -8 shows, median values for owner - occupied homes increased in real terms during the
1990s in Brooklyn Center and in all neighboring communities. This reversed a trend in the 1980s '
where median values for owner- occupied homes declined in real terms. This increase in the 1990s
following a decrease in the 1980s was a common pattern in first and second -ring cities as well as in
the Twin Cities metropolitan area and throughout the Midwest. '
4 -6
Table 4 -8: Median Values of Owner - Occupied Housing, Brooklyn Center and
Neighboring Communities, 1990 - 2000
1990(2000$) 2000 Percent change
Brooklyn Center 100,550 105,600 5.0
Brooklyn Park 112,560 131,000 16.4
Crystal 98,761 112,900 14.3
Robbinsdale 97,739 112,000 14.6
Columbia Heights 94,673 103,000 8.8
Fridley 110,004 120,300 9.4
SOURCE: CENSUS
The Metropolitan Council measures affordability of owner - occupied housing in terms of
' the amount of housing that is affordable by households earning 80% or less of the regional
median income, $62,800 in 2007. In Brooklyn Center 90% of the single family housing
stock is valued at $206,800 or less in 2008, the maximum affordable purchase price for a
' household earning $62,800 annually.
Vacancy rates have an affect on housing costs in that housing costs go down as the
available housing supply increases. Vacancy rates for owner occupied housing have
climbed significantly as a result of the home foreclosure crisis. The reduction in housing
cost or value from the increase in vacancy rates is a positive effect of the otherwise gloomy
single family housing crisis.
RENTAL AFFORDABILITY
The cost to rent a housing unit in Brooklyn Center increased significantly between the last two
census years. In 1990 40.6% of the rental housing units in the City cost less than $500 per month
and by 2000 only 15.6% of the rental housing cost less than $500. According to the Metropolitan
Council, however, 46 percent of the City's rental housing met the Livable Communities Act
standard for affordability in 2006 -- higher than the regional benchmark and City goal of 41 to 45
percent. (For a rental housing unit, "affordable" is defined by the Metropolitan Council as
i ' monthly rent/utility payment level that does not exceed 30% of the income of a household at 50%
of the median income, $39,250 in 2007 for a family of four.)
According to GVA Marquette Advisors Apartment Trends at www.gvamarquetteadvisors.com
' average rents for studio/ efficiency, one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom units are all
below monthly rent affordability levels established by the Metropolitan Council.
' 4 -7
Table 4 -9: Rental Costs (Units by Monthly Rent)
2000
Monthly contract rent Number Percent
Less than $300 193 5.6 '
$300 to $399 82 2
$400 -to $499 262 7.6
$500 to $599 847 24.5
$600 to $699* 808 23.4 '
$700 to $799* 434 12.6
$800 to $899 467 13.5
$900 to $999
143 4.1
$1,000 to $1,249 157 4.5 '
$1,250 or more 61 1.8
SOURCE: CENSUS '
Vacancy rates for rental housing in the City averaged about 4.2% in mid -2007, slightly lower
than the 5% rate suggested for ideal balance between supply and demand. This vacancy rate has
increased somewhat since mid -2007 due to economic conditions.
PLANNING FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING '
Communities within the Metropolitan Council's jurisdiction are required to plan for sufficient existing '
and new affordable housing production to meet their local share of the region's total affordable
housing need. In order to meet the housing needs of the region, the Metropolitan Council estimates
that 30% of the new housing stock to be added in coming decades needs to be affordable.
The estimated need for affordable housing has been allocated amongst communities in the region
connected to the regional wastewater collection and treatment system based on certain factors. Those
factors are as follows: ,
• Proximity to job growth;
• Shortage of existing affordable housing; and
• Proximity to public transit services. ,
City's are not required to construct or even finance construction of the allocated affordable housing
units. Rather land to accommodate multi - family housing of at least as many units as allocated needs '
to be properly designated. Zoning or plan designation in place to allow construction of multi - family
housing meeting or exceeding the number of allocated units with only a building permit would suffice.
Brooklyn Center has been allocated 163 affordable housing units or 40% of the additional 400 units '
projected by the Metropolitan Council for the City during the 2011 to 2020 time period. The City's
Zoning Ordinance contains seven residential districts, which permit a complete range of housing '
types. Densities range from approximately four units per acre in the RI single - family district to as
4 -8
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
R4 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. Between current zoning and proposed planning
designations there is enough land planned for multi - family housing to provide 163 units.
HOUSING ISSUES
' As implied in the profile of existing housing above and as indicated in community analysis and
visioning that were part of the comprehensive planning process the City of Brooklyn Center faces a
number of challenges in the future in the area of housing. This section deals with these challenges.
r MULTI - FAMILY ISSUES
' As indicated above, 3,048 or 27% of the housing units in the City were in multi - family structures
with more than 5 units. Most of this multi - family housing is rental and as indicated above the
vast majority of the rental housing stock was built before 1980. This housing stock is at least 30
' years old and in need of significant reinvestment. The City has sold revenue bonds and secured
financing for a number of multi - family structures but deferred maintenance continues to be a
problem with much of this housing.
A few areas in the City's Northeast Neighborhood contain concentrations of low -cost and
substandard housing, which has resulted in difficulties in maintenance and upgrading of these units
and an increased demand for social services by tenants. These areas are:
' • The area surrounding Humboldt and 69th Avenues North, which contains approximately
330 multifamily units in some 20 buildings, most of them occupied by low - income
households under the Section 8 program. This area has been identified as a problem for the
City due to the increasing functional obsolescence and /or deferred maintenance of these
buildings.
• Multifamily complexes on both sides of Trunk Highway 252, from Willow Lane at the
southern end to 73rd Avenue. Along the eastern side in particular, these complexes are
' adjacent to the City's most desirable residential areas along the riverfront, with single -
family homes that generally exceed $300,000 in market value.
' Most of the City's other multifamily complexes are scattered in and around City Center and along
Brooklyn Boulevard. One of these, Twin Lakes Manor (referred to above under "Housing
Development and Rehabilitation Programs ) is large enough to constitute a "concentration" of
' lower -cost units.
SINGLE - FAMILY ISSUES
' Single - family detached housing makes up 7,180 housing units or 63% of the City's housing stock.
Most of the owner - occupied housing in the community is single - family detached and 84% of the
' owner - occupied housing was built before 1970. This housing is 40 years old or older and generally
after 40 years of age major exterior investments are required to maintain structural integrity.
4 -9
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.
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. '
Single - family home foreclosures are a major issue that the community is addressing. There is
potential for homes that go into foreclosure to remain vacant for an extended period of time and '
to be purchased by investors and reoccupied as rental housing. As of October 2008 192 single -
family properties in Brooklyn Center were vacant. An ordinance has been put in place by the
City that requires owners of buildings that are vacant for 30 days to register the building with
the City and to provide the City with a plan for re- occupancy.
HOUSING FOR EMPTY - NESTERS AND SENIORS '
As touched upon in the subsection above on age of householders there is a lack of housing
designed for individuals and couples beyond middle age who looking for low maintenance
P y g g '
alternatives to their single - family detached home. The lack of housing supply to address this
housing need is probably causing people to move out of the community.
At the community comprehensive planning meetings the housing needs of seniors looking to move '
out of independent living situations and into housing that includes a degree of supervision and support
was brought up as a housing issue. A second need of seniors identified was support to do chores for
seniors and help them maintain their homes ,
HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS ,
The City is involved in a number of programs to meet the housing needs of people living in and
people interested in moving to Brooklyn Center. '
AFFORDABLE FINANCING FOR HOME BUYERS
Though housing prices are declining as a result of the single - family housing crisis, a need for '
affordable financing for homebuyers remains. The City is continuing its long participation in
Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA) first time homebuyer programs. The Minnesota '
Mortgage Program (MMP) provides low interest loans to first time homebuyers making less than
$64,800 for a family of four or less. In addition down payment and closing cost assistance is
available to those who qualify for the Homeownership Assistance Fund. '
4 -10
REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)- funded Housing Rehabilitation Program and
the MHFA's Fix Up Fund provide grants and loans to low and moderate - income homeowners to
' home rehabilitation. The CDBG program has been operating for a number of years to serve the
needs of very low- income homeowners. The Fix Up Fund is a longstanding MHFA program that
provides a low interest loan to homeowners that meet income qualifications for a wide variety of
' rehabilitation projects. The loans are targeted to a higher- income group than is targeted with
CDBG funds, and increases the range of rehabilitation services in Brooklyn Center.
' HOME REPAIR AND CHORE SERVICES FOR SENIOR RESIDENTS
In cooperation with the City of Brooklyn Center, the Senior Community Service and Community
' Emergency Assistance program provides household and outside maintenance repair services for
the elderly.
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. The Metropolitan
Council Housing Authority administers this program in the City. 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. These renters pay approximately 30% of their
monthly household income for rent, with the Section 8 program making up the difference in
' market rents.
REMODELING ASSISTANCE
' The City will continue 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
ramblers, built in the 1950s and 1960s. While many are in sound condition, their size and
' configuration do not meet the needs of today's homebuyers.
' HOUSING REGULATION
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. Rather than systematic enforcement at the point of sale or based on a schedule
this code is being enforced on an as needed basis. The City continues to consider whether to
institute systematic enforcement.
' 4 -11
RENTAL LICENSING ORDINANCE
In 1975, Brooklyn Center adopted a rental - licensing ordinance designed to provide for the '
continued maintenance and upkeep of all rental property in the City. By requiring biennial
licensing of all rental property, the City is able to assure a minimum standard of maintenance '
and upkeep of rental property, thereby helping to preserve the rental housing stock and thus assist
in the preservation of affordable housing.
VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION AND REGULATION
The City adopted an ordinance at the height of home foreclosure crisis in 2008 to require '
owners of vacant buildings to register that fact and a plan to reoccupy the building within 30
days of the building becoming vacant. If the building is not reoccupied within a one year time
period from the date of planned re- occupancy, the owner is required to demolish the building '
and restore the grounds. The ordinance also requires that the building be secured while it is
vacant.
HOUSING REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES
As described in the Land Use, Redevelopment and Community Image Plan (Section 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 City Center area, including the Opportunity Site, 57`" and Logan and other areas '
near the Brookdale Shopping Center, could be strengthened by the addition of
complementary land uses such as mid - density housing, along with structured parking to ,
free up land now in surface lots, improved pedestrian and transit amenities, and
improved public or semi - public spaces. Of the 173 acres in this area, 27 acres with 145
units of townhouses and 180 units of multiple family residential are planned in this area
See Table 2 -1 of Section 2, Land Use) ,
The City's future redevelopment efforts may also 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.
The Mississippi riverfront offers unique opportunities for future redevelopment efforts.
Upgrading this area with common amenities could increase housing values and community pride.
• The area on Lyndale Avenue from 53` to 57`" along the Mississippi river could be an
opportunity for increased residential concentration, supplemental recreation,
neighborhood gathering or historic amenities. '
• Redevelopment of the area could create a critical link with the 57`" Avenue trails, housing
4 -12
opportunities and the existing housing in the Bellevue neighborhood along 53 Avenue.
' This type of redevelopment would add additional housing opportunities for residents as
well as draw new people to the area.
This sort of use would be consistent with the "Above the Falls" master plan and other
appropriate planning proposals from the City of Minneapolis to the south.
HOUSING PLAN
HOUSING PRINCIPLES
As part of participating in the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act's Local Housing Incentives
Program, in 1996 the City declared its support for the following principles:
1. A balanced housing supply with housing available for people at all income levels.
' 2. The accommodation of all racial and ethnic groups in the purchase, sale, rental and
location of housing within the community.
3. A variety of housing types for people in all stages of the life cycle.
4. A community of well - maintained housing and neighborhoods, including ownership
and rental housing.
' 5. Housing development that respects the natural environment of the community while
striving to accommodate the need for a variety of housing types and costs.
6. The availability of a full range of services and facilities for its residents, and the
' improvement of access to and linkage between housing and employment.
The City continues to participate in the program and support the above principles. To carry out these
' principles, the City agrees to maintain levels of affordability, life cycle housing and density that meet
the "benchmarks" set by the Metropolitan Council, as shown in Table 4 -10.
t Table 4 -10: Affordability, Life Cycle and Density Standards, 1996
City index Benchmark Goal
Affordability:
Ownership 99% 77% 77%
Rental 46% 41 -45% 41-45%
' Life Cycle:
Type (non -SED) 37% 34-41% 34-41%
4 -13
Owner Renter Mix 68; 32% 64 -72; 28 -36% 64 -72; 28 -36%
Density:
Single - family '
2.9 /acre 2.4 -2.9 /acre 2.4 -2.9 /acre
detached
Multi- family 11 /acre 11-15/acre. 11 -15 /acre
RELATIONSHIP TO REGIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES '
Metropolitan Council housing policies, as stated in the Regional Framework and other policy t
statements, stresses the need to create affordable, diverse, and convenient housing -- i.e.,
housing in close proximity to transit - to meet the region's needs. As expressed in the Livable
Communities Act, Council policies emphasize the need to achieve and maintain affordable and '
life cycle housing.
Brooklyn Center's housing stock helps to meet regional needs for affordable housing, both
owner- and renter - occupied. The City has also done much to foster life -cycle housing, by ,
supporting the creation of townhouse developments and senior housing. However, the City has
also been adversely impacted by the over - concentration of low- income housing in certain areas,
and has taken steps toward introduction of higher -value housing in certain neighborhoods. ,
HOUSING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following housing objectives build upon the goals presented in the first section of this plan. ,
These objectives overlap with the Land Use and Redevelopment objectives listed in Section 2,
since housing needs are closely linked to redevelopment. '
1. Continue the selective redevelopment of targeted commercial, industrial and residential
areas to eliminate obsolescent or deteriorating land uses and stimulate new investment.
• Ensure that redeveloped sites adhere to the planning and design principles ,
contained in this comprehensive plan and special area plans (such as the
Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study, the Brooklyn Boulevard
Corridor Streetscape Amenities Study, the Calthorpe Smart Growth Study
and the Opportunity Site Master Plan and Dev. Guidelines). '
• Replace inappropriate single - family housing with attractive higher quality
residential and 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 t
4 -14
1
neighborhoods by assisting in redeveloping it to housing that has a lower
1 density, a higher rate of owner - occupancy, and a more pedestrian - friendly
relationship to the street.
1 2. Work to ensure that the City's housing can evolve to meet the needs and demands of
its current and future population.
1 • Accommodate changing family and household structure by providing a
suitable mix of housing types.
1 • Foster a mix of housing values and incomes, including introduction of higher -
value housing in lower income areas.
1 • Encourage the development of more new high - quality single - family housing
(of above the median neighborhood value), to balance the City's large stock of
affordable single - family housing.
1 • Help owners update their older houses to meet today' s market demands
through demonstration projects, education and financial assistance.
1 • Support outreach efforts to potential homebuyers.
• Continue to rehabilitate multifamily housing in targeted areas.
1 0 Institute or continue housing maintenance requirements such as
inspection at time of sale and rental housing code enforcement.
1
'1
i
1
1
1
1
1 4 -15
' D 5C C omprehensive Plan 2030
PARK SYSTEM PLAN
' INTRODUCTION
B ooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb with a well - established park and open space system. No new
' parks are planned for acquisition or improvement. Improvements will be confined to enhancement of the
recreational facilities, improvement of trail linkages, and possible acquisition of additional open space.
This section of the Comprehensive Plan examines Brooklyn Center's park and recreation system, analyzes how
well it meets the City's needs on both a neighborhood and a citywide basis, and makes recommendations for
changes and additions to park facilities. This chapter includes the following sections:
• The Existing Park System
• Park Classification System
• Park Policies
• Park and Open Space Needs
' • Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail System and Park Linkages
• Relationship to Regional Park Facilities
• Park Profiles
' THE EXISTING PARK SYSTEM
The City's park system, as shown in Figure 5 -1, is one of the most extensive municipal systems in the region.
The system includes 24 developed parks and a municipal golf course, providing a variety of recreational
opportunities for all segments of the population. In addition, considerable undeveloped public open space is held
in the Twin Lakes area. Recreation and leisure opportunities range from passive pursuits such as sitting, walking,
picnicking, fishing, and enjoying music to more active pastimes such as organized sports, pick -up athletic games,
bicycling, running, and in -line skating. Many parks are adjacent to schools or other open space, and one park,
' Central, is adjacent to the Community Center, which houses an indoor 50 -meter pool with a water slide and other
indoor recreational opportunities.
The even distribution of parks throughout all areas of the City and the variety of recreational facilities available
enable the park system to serve all areas of the City and all segments of the population. There is excellent
coordination of programs and facilities between parks and schools, and between parks and City and county
facilities. The trail system links parks, schools, and other activity centers. However, like the rest of the City's public
' facilities, the park system is beginning to show its age, and its size and scope create maintenance burdens for the
City.
5 -1
Previous park planning efforts date back to the late 1970s: the Park and Recreation Policy Plan of 1976 and the i
subsequent Park Development Schedule formulated by the Park and Recreation Commission in 1978. These
documents established a classification system for the parks, and set priorities for park system investments, which '
have largely been followed to date.
Capital improvements to parks have followed a roughly 20 -year cycle. In 1960 and in 1980 the citizens of Brooklyn '
Center approved bond referenda for financing the development and improvement of park facilities. This included
acquiring land, installing new playgrounds, developing ball fields, tennis courts and other facilities. Following these
improvements, for a time no formal plan was put in place for a systematic update. Following up on the City's
practice of programming for street reconstruction 15 years into the future, the City recently began developing a
15 -year capital improvement program for parks.
OTHER OPEN SPACE '
The City owns much additional open space above and beyond the park system. These areas include the following: '
• Three trail corridors: Shingle Creek, 69th Avenue, and the new 53rd Avenue Greenway;
• The Centerbrook Golf Course, a 65 acre public facility managed by the City; '
• Additional undeveloped open space that the City retains in its natural state. This includes substantial areas ,
around Twin Lake.
ISSUES
• Is it practicable to continue to maintain the existing park system at its current levels?
• How can the park system best meet the changing needs of the City's population? In other words, how '
can it keep pace with social and demographic changes that affect the population?
Fiscal and staffing constraints make it difficult to continue to maintain the park system at its current level. Staffing
levels have declined since 1981, while the number of parks and trails has increased. Demographic and social
changes also affect the park system. The City's population increased slightly during the 1990s while the number of
school -age children in the City increased significantly during that decade. Meanwhile a significant decline in the
number of pre - school children occurred in the 1990s. These trends are opposite of the prior decade. In response to
the issues, Public Works staff and the Park and Recreation Commission have developed a parks systems plan that '
revises the way in which parks are classified and reallocates the resources that each classification of parks will receive.
5 -2
1 Palmer Lake Elementary
y rd Ave U 73rd Ave 73rd Ave 7'
Woodbine La 3rd F-p m 13ru Ave
Shingle Creek z m add L,. z a Woodbine La
G x C < m ,� m Woodbine La c a m L� O�
d 72nd Ave �A„ West Palmer Lake Park - CD ¢ o rn d a J
Q _D w o '72nd Ave
Q' m 3 m v
Shingle Creek n Am Le 7zndAVeo o a
e ; Y
„5tA b� B rookl ij11 Cente
East Palmer Park - NP ,,Ave
v d 71st Ave ¢ u`_
'�i � .� Evergreen Park - C[? Riverdale Park - NP
+,t Ave .L� St. Alphonsus School; Q v 9Qa �� < Ever reen Elementar
Willow Lane Elementary �� < Palmer Lake Q 1> g g y
70th Ave x E LL W '0th Ave ? 70th Ave w;
Willow Lane Park - NP < G VroanAvo wtn9La Fi8ure South Palmer Lake Park - SU 1
= -69th Ave 69th Ave 3 (D
a
x m d
r o
G 1� 'p 9 y f � n 2
68th Ave
68th Ave m
88th Ave D `d '- p ` v 68th Ave '� D qv D C p D > m 68th e < 3 9 N Parks,
o ro m m 3
67th Ave �° Thu
67th Ave 0 D Freeway Park - NP 1ber III?, D `=
- - -- - 6jm qVe :gth A+e - 67th Ave M r
-'7 Howe La Shingle Creek Trail - NP , 8 m Park Classi fications,
66th Ave 66th Ave o
' 660h Ave Orchard Park - NP F D Firehouse Park NP
wm S cho o l
chesterLa Z wino: - Cahlander Par - SU roo oo 4 Bklyn Center High Schl an s
r n - NP d =S
' m 85th Ave p D e Ga d � Cit y Park la 66th Ave }� n m m ,c, A:; ° Ave
Paul Dr > > x Garden Elementary 3 a 3
a g a o
D 64th Ave ° m -.e Rd 64th Ave n m 64th A: e 3
3
Marlin Park - NP
Eleanor La n
KaU� erine O r O Henry Rd
., 1-694-4-- m 83rd Ave m Central Park -CD Le,6eii l
,.1
Boulder La 8 m g t.a a i'o y Mash
Joy
D ro D
c
62nd Ave f° p D u- w Mumford n.. Schools
62 qye
< io 82nd Ave a
Arboretum - SU e Shingle Creek
rt lt,tA' .Janet La Shingle I
Odyssey Charter School Wangstad Park NP 61st Ave North Mississippi Regional Park - SU Parks
ltl
Kylawn Park - CD s o 3 60th Ave d
` Park Type
1 Ave s < < s e ` i` Grandview Park - CD
m
19 w s €
Earle Brown Element
E"
ary
_ N 54th Ave NP - Neighborhood Park
a
58th tr2 Ave ` �a �
>< � C.j rn CD - Community Destination Park
58th Avg < �� County Nth ayo, 58th Ave ¢ �I SU - Special Use Park
? 1 � =Gou my -Rd=l- R
m = 57th Ave 7th -Ave 57th Ave
Burquest:.[
Nor Park - NP
56th Ave 1 , �v>� ��yR � a 56th Ave 56th Ave 56th Ave
Ecktsrq L „ -',i �'
EnconD, < ¢ Mississippi River
Northport Elementary E z „ _ ! SS,h Ave
.. i 55th Ave o < 6 < < U j.
' f 4 Lion's Park - NP
54ih Ave Centerbr k Golfcourse - SU ; c < D 54th Ave B E Bellvue Park - NP
N N� y y LL ,y,
53rd PI
Upper Twin Lake m' s
531d Ave 53rd Ave V 6 O 53rd Ave N Y -�' 531d A„ N 53rd Ave N 53rd Ave N
b.
Lakeside Parkr,,NP,,
Z
51A ? X 1,600 800 0 1 Feet
W v py Hollow rk - NP
0
501h Ave m 50th Ave N F
Middle Twin Lake o
3 Lake Breee A. •.: va0` (!•�� Or S
/ BRCX)ti /J N
± %
48th Ave CLATER •
Lakeside Ave '
Twin Lake Park -N 47th A. Ryan Lake 2030 ComprehensiveP /an SSOCIATE
a
Brooklyn Center Parks — Locations & Amenities
L- Lights A— show, rkau, PJAW -"d ra tan sam.0 T—h � 310uk g ` n.rkey tknkethan +Archers Satan F.ath.tt rreal, [ arat [ WMAMaa waadchip
Alt rinks Lire lighted n.*u" M,+ "A alnaand ntW ta
aaw c nk amk C60" F1041 Fiew Area t t I [ rata.ay Ton
Arboretum —61" &Major Ave 8 � x
Bctivae — 55" & Aldrich Ave 7 1 S t I \ l
Bob Cahlander - 65'" & Brooklyn Blvd 5 f N
Central — 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy 48 � 2 � Y 1 � 21. 2 2 X \ x
C:eatral Alest -63 & Brooklyn Or 20 It \ S x r 1
Fast Paltner 71 " &Olivrr.lve 15 1 � \ 2 � � \ l
Evergreen- 72' &Brya Fit Ave 20 \ \ II. 21, 2 1 \ \ H. IL \ � � X
Fircbou:c- 65 & Rryant iil 1 t f 1 I 2 \ Y l \( x
Freeway- --67" & Beard 6 1 i \ 1 Y Y I ( X
Carden City — 6500 Brooklyn Blvd I C { x
C
t�
Grandview —60 &Humboldt Ave l0 \ 1 ( 2 X I Y X IL 1L X �
ttt t
Happy Hollow — SIP" & .Abbott Ave 6 1 k I 1 I 1 x x t M�
I;ytawu — 6I" & 6y 1r Ave 22 Y of 11 2 I 1 x l h
lions -55" & Itusell Ase 18 1 � 2 „I N \ \ k x
Marlin — Nlarllo Or & Indiana Ave 2 X
r.
Northport.... 55 & Sailor [.it 25 i I \ 1 2 l \ x \ \ X
PD
Orchard I ane — 65" & Orchard La 7 \ X I X \ x �
Palmer Lake 1% \ X
69' %ve between East & west Parka
Riverdale— Dallas & Riverdale Rd 4 Y t I x l'
Twin Lake -58" & Major Ave 3 1 X x \ x
Wangstad — 61" & France Ave 2 \ x
'crest Palmer —72 " & W Palmer Lk Or 15 \ 1 1 2 2 x X 8 N
Willow Lane -69 " & Orchard save 8 x I X ` X 1
Totals ( 4.48 S 10 19 5 18 14 6 5 I8 1 3 2 16 4 2 3
(North Nik iisippi Regional. @.rater at i7'" & L)S dale, 15 Hennepin Parks Systeat. Paved trail, picnic area and fishing, pier,
Fhe Presen e" 40 City of Brcwkhv Centerl(WOAL .Adiacent to Kyla. n Park Natural habitat and chin trails.
PARK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
Parks are classified and developed according to a functional hierarchy. This functional system suggests the types '
of facilities and development that would be appropriate in each park; however, specific improvements are
individually tailored to each park based on neighborhood desires, historical presence of certain types of facilities, '
and resources available.
Different types of parks are located and designed to serve different needs and populations. For example, there '
should be a park in each neighborhood that is safely accessible to pedestrians, especially children, within a reasonable
walking radius of one - quarter to one -half mile. At the other end of the spectrum, one or two larger parks in each
neighborhood needs can meet organized sports and specialized and community -wide recreation. ,
The following classification system has been developed by City staff based on national standards. It is similar to
the system the City has used for park and recreation planning for the past twenty years. However, the ,
classification of parks within the system has been changed in order to make better use of park resources, meet
neighborhood needs, and address issues of demographic and social change.
The system is divided into three broad categories: neighborhood parks, community destination parks, and special ,
use parks and open spaces.
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS '
Neighborhood Parks include the following three types: '
PLAY LOT
The smallest unit of the park system both in terms of size and area that it serves; its function is to provide play '
facilities for pre - school children who are not conveniently served by larger parks. It may contain play equipment,
sandboxes, paved areas for wheeled toys, walking and bike trails, and seating areas. ,
Service Area: The sub - neighborhood level of 500 to 2,000 persons with a' /a mile radius.
Desirable Size: .25 to 2 acres '
Acres per person: No set standard -- desirable in higher- density areas.
Site Characteristics: Should be located so that children do not have to cross major streets. Should ,
include or be combined with an adult seating or gathering area; can be combined
with a school. '
PLAYGROUND
Parks designed for use by children from pre - school to age 12. Often coincides with the service area for an '
elementary school, and may adjoin and complement the school facility if intended to serve the same age group.
t
5 -5
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' /a to 1 /2 mile radius.
Desirable Size: 5 to 10 acres.
' Acres per 1,000 pop.: 2.0
' Site characteristics: Geographically centered in neighborhood with safe walking and bike access.
Suited for intense development. Helpful if located adjacent to a school.
' PLAYFIELD
Larger parks designed to provide recreation opportunities for all ages. They may contain all the features of
' playgrounds, with groomed ball facilities suitable for adult play. Hockey and pleasure skating rinks are lighted.
May include portable restrooms and sheltered picnic areas.
Service area: Neighborhood -wide; serves entire population with special emphasis on organized
' adult sports, ideally within a 1' /z to 2 miles biking distance.
Desirable Size: 20 acres or more.
Acres per 1,000 pop.: 1.0 to 2.0
Site characteristics: Direct access from all parts of the neighborhood or quadrant. Level terrain with
few water bodies or other environmental constraints. Easily accessible by large
numbers of vehicles. Physically separate from homes so as to minimize light and
' noise problems.
COMMUNITY DESTINATION PARK
' Relatively large parks serving as a recreational focus for a neighborhood of the City. Community destination parks
are noted for having a wide variety of leisure and recreational options, and are fully accessible to persons of all
' abilities. Lighted areas for evening play are provided. Daytime recreational programming and playground
supervision are provided in the summer months. Heated, enclosed park shelter buildings provide for recreational
spaces and warming houses.
Previously known as community parks the name for this type of park was broadened in 2000 to incorporate the
idea that these parks would contain the costlier types of facilities and that each would have a distinct identity or
' theme. Central is the flagship park of the system, with substantial improvements that serve the entire
community. Evergreen focuses on team sports; Kylawn /Arboretum builds on its nature areas of the Arboretum
and the Preserve; West Palmer is seen as a prime family picnic and outings area; and Grandview's focus is on
youth and winter recreation.
5 -6
Service area: A neighborhood or quadrant of the City '
Desirable Size: 25 acres or more. '
Acres per 1,000 pop.: 5.0
Site characteristics: Easily accessible from all parts of neighborhood or quadrant. Should be located '
on collector or arterial streets to provide adequate access for residents, and should
be well- buffered from adjacent {residential areas. ,
SPECIAL USE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES
These are areas providing specialized or single - purpose recreational or leisure activities. These parks t
generally do not provide extensive permanent facilities, but may provide nature interpretation, trail and
greenway corridors, or walking/ biking paths. Trails or greenways should connect other components of ,
the recreation system, schools, community facilities or neighborhoods. Table 5 -2 illustrates the facilities
and improvements that would be expected in parks of each classification. Table 5 -3 shows h_ ow the City's
parks are classified, and Figure 5 -2 illustrates the classification system. '
Table 5 -2: Park Classification and Improvements System
Special '
Improvement Community Playfield Playground Play lot Use
Playground Equipment ■ ■ ■ I '
Shelter Building ■ Storage
Baseball Field ■ '
Softball Field ■ ■
Football Field ■
Soccer Field ■
Tennis Court(s) ■
Hockey Rink ■ t
Skating Rink ■ ■ As needed
Basketball Court ■ ■ ■ '
Volleyball Court ■ ■
Other: I '
Horseshoe ■
5 -7
1
' Archery ■
Lighting for:
Baseball ■
' Softball ■
Football ■
' Hockey ■
Skating ■
' Trails, walkways ■ ■ ■ ■ ■
' Picnic Areas:
Pavilion ■ ■
' Tables ■ ■ ■ ■
Restrooms ■ ■ As needed
Table 5 -3: Park Classification
s
' Special
Park Community Playfield Playground Play lot Use
Arboretum ■
' Bellvue ■
Cahlander ■
' Central Park ■
Central Park West ■
Evergreen ■
Firehouse ■
Freeway ■
Garden City ■ l
Grandview ■
1
' S -8
Happy Hollow ■
Kylawn ■ '
Lakeside ■
Lions ■
Marlin ■
Northport ■ ,
North Mississippi (Three ■ '
Orchard Lane ■
Palmer Lake (east) ■ '
Palmer Lake (west) ■
Palmer Lake (south) ■ '
Riverdale ■
Twin Lake ■ I '
Wangstad ■
Willow Lane ■
BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM AND PARK LINKAGES '
A comprehensive system of on and off - street bicycle trails has been developed and integrated with the park system. ,
The use of this system as a means of transportation is addressed in the Transportation Plan.
The City's bicycle and edestrian trails stem is anchored b the Shingle Creek Trail, an off -street separated trail
P Y Y g p
which runs from the north to the south City limits along Shingle Creek. For much of its length, separate trails are '
provided for bicyclists and pedestrians; a short segment across the Brookdale Shopping Center uses a sidewalk trail.
The north end of the trail circles Palmer Lake; a portion of that trail is located in the City of Brooklyn Park and is '
maintained by that city.
The other major north -south trail system is the Mississippi River trail system, which from north to south consists of: '
the West River Road off - street trail; an on -street trail on Willow Lane extending to the trail link under the 1 -694
bridge, and then the existing Hennepin Parks trail in North Mississippi Regional Park.
East -west links include the 69th Avenue greenway, the Freeway Boulevard /65th Avenue trail; and the 53rd r
Avenue greenway.
5 -9
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.
The on- sidewalk portion of the Shingle Creek Trail across the Brookdale Shopping Center site is substandard in
that it is not adequately separated from traffic. This segment detracts aesthetically from the overall feel of the trail,
' most of which travels through natural areas, and should be separated from traffic circulation on the Brookdale site.
Consideration should be given to providing a greenway trail easement across the property to link the
pedestrian bridge to the south and the existing trail to the north at the intersection of Shingle Creek and
' Bass Lake Road.
PARK GOALS AND POLICIES
Development and improvement of the park and recreation system has been consistent with the Park and
Recreation Policy Plan of 1976. This document was reviewed and revised in 1997. The goals and policies
' expressed in this document are excerpted as follows:
Base park and recreation planning on the needs and demands of all segments of the City's population.
' • The Park and Recreation System consist of a mix of facilities to provide a mix of opportunities for persons
of all ages and abilities.
• New park and recreation services and facilities will be considered where recreational opportunity is
deficient or nonexistent, and where appropriate, they will be provided in cooperation with local school
' districts and the private sector.
• Citizen surveys and interviews will be conducted periodically to evaluate the effectiveness of existing
facilities and programs and system deficiencies.
' Incorporate citizens into the planning process at every level.
' • A citizen's Park and Recreation Commission is appointed by the City Council to advise the Council on
matters relative to parks, recreation and environmental planning.
' • Neighborhood groups are encouraged to participate in the planning of all major park improvements.
Establish high- quality planning design, and preservation standards in the development and maintenance of the
' system.
• Consistent with economic realities, innovative park and recreation development will be pursued.
• Park design and development will embody a balance between function and aesthetics, including the
conservation of natural resource areas.
' • Water resources in parks, including wetlands, will be preserved for habitat and wildlife corridors where
appropriate.
' • Consistent with economic realities, trees will be planted and maintained in those parts of parks not
' S -10
planned for open field uses. '
• Creativity in park design is encouraged to stress variety and diversity from park to park. '
• Where possible, park design may be used to establish a neighborhood improvement theme, or
complement redevelopment.
Maximize accessibility and use of park and recreation facilities by area residents. '
• Improve access to, signage for and information in support of Central Park thus driving increased ,
awareness and use.
• All park facilities will be connected and accessible using the City's system of bicycle /pedestrian trails
and /or collector sidewalk system. '
• Volunteers and service organizations in the community will be afforded opportunities for service in the
development and maintenance of the park and recreation system. ,
• The special place of the Mississippi National Recreational River Area in the park and recreation system
will be promoted and further developed. '
• Provide an identification system of all park areas, facilities and programs that is consistent, functional
and creative, and which identifies the total system as an attractive, identifiable feature of the city. '
• Through the use of signage, kiosks, and other forms of communication, a park system identity that is
aesthetic yet informational will be established and updated as necessary. '
• There will be an ongoing information and education process to make residents aware and knowledgeable
of park and recreation facilities and programs. '
Maximize the impact of resources dedicated for park and recreation facilities.
• A functional classification system for parks will identify the types of facilities appropriate for different ,
types of parks. Each park will be classified according to that system.
• Facility improvements and recreational programming provided in each park will be consistent with the '
classification scheme.
• The highest - priority improvements will be those that address health or safety concerns, reduce ,
maintenance costs, or address overall system deficiencies.
• Improvement and maintenance of the system will be pursued on a regular and continuous basis through '
the operating budget and the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) so as to avoid development of a costly
backlog of improvements.
5 -11
PARK AND OPEN SPACE NEEDS
The City's current park acreage and facilities are sufficient to meet the needs both of its present population and of
the projected 2030 population and number of households. Table 5 -4 evaluates parkland needs based on the
projected 2030 population of 29,500, using national guidelines. The table shows that although the City falls
somewhat short of land in community parks, it more than makes up for the deficit through the large amount of land
in neighborhood parks and special use parks. The "neighborhood parks" category includes play lots, playgrounds
and playfields. Under the City's proposed classification system, playfields will fulfill many of the active,
organized recreational functions of community parks, while the many special use parks will be used for individual
recreational activities such as hiking and nature study.
Table 5 -4: Comparison of Park Acreage with National Guidelines
Park Classification Acreage, Guideline 2030 Target Surplus/
1997 deficit
Community Parks 135 5 /1,000 pop. 148 (13)
Neighborhood 104 2/1,000 pop. 59 45
Parks
Special Use Parks 200+ no guideline
Furthermore, the distribution of parks across the City is such that each of the City's six neighborhoods has one
large community park or playfield and several playgrounds or play lots (see Table 5 -5 and Figure 5 -1). Most parts
' of the City are within walking distance of a neighborhood park (play lot, playground or playfield) and within a
short drive or bike ride of a community park.
Table 5 -5: Parks by Neighborhood
Neighbor- g Play lot Playground Playfield Community Special
hood Destination Use Park
1 - Central Garden City
' 2 - Northeast Riverdale Palmer Lake Evergreen
Firehouse East
3— Freeway Willow Lane Palmer Lake Palmer
Northwest West Lake
South
4- Bellvue Lions Central North
Southeast Grandview Mississippi
Regional
'
5- Lakeside Twin Lake Northport
Southwest Happy
6 - West Marlin Orchard Lane Kylawn Arboretum
' Central Wangstad Cahlander
' 5 -12
RELATIONSHIP T REGIONAL ,
O EGI O AL PARK FACILITIES
Three regional park/recreational facilities are located within Brooklyn Center: part of the North Mississippi
Regional Park, the Shingle Creek Trail and the Twin Lakes Trail.
NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK
A section of North Mississippi Regional Park is located along the Mississippi River from 53rd Avenue to 1 -694.
From 53rd to 57th Avenue, it includes the area between Lyndale Avenue and the river and from 57th Avenue to I- '
694 it includes the area between 1 -94 and the river. The primary improvements within Brooklyn Center are an off -
street bicycle path and a DNR fishing pier at the foot of the 1 -694 bridge. The bicycle path links to another in the
regional park in Minneapolis. At the park's north end the trail goes under the 1 -694 bridge, providing a connection to
the City's trail system at Willow Lane.
1 -94 is a significant barrier between the residents of Brooklyn Center (and Minneapolis) and the Regional Park.
Bridges over 1 -94 provide possibilities for City trail linkages at 53rd and 57th Avenues. The 53rd Avenue
Greenway improvement enhanced linkage to the park from the Brooklyn Center's Southeast Neighborhood
immediately to the west. As discussed in the Trail System section below, improved linkage to the park will result ,
from the proposed Brooklyn Center - Robbinsdale Twin Lakes Trail that will provide a connection to the park from
the Shingle Creek Trail and the proposed Crystal - Robbinsdale Trail as well as the neighborhoods along those
trails. Aside from the linkage, it is expected that the Twin Lakes Trail will "open up" the Mississippi riverfront to
Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis residents, who do not currently have a pleasant, easy means of reaching it. As ,
indicated in the Land Use Plan, the residential use of the properties along the west side of Lyndale Avenue from
53rd to 57th Avenues are proposed to continue. '
REGIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM
The North Hennepin Shingle Creek Trail running generally along Shingle Creek is part of the regional trail system
and was developed as part of the forty -mile North Hennepin Trail System loop. This Trail was constructed by
Brooklyn Center in conjunction with the development of Central /Garden City Parks and the Palmer Lake basin.
It is a very popular and heavily used trail year- round. Brooklyn Center is working in partnership with Three
Rivers Park District to define maintenance and reconstruction responsibilities and to explore options for
improvements. ,
Except for the short segment across the Brookdale Shopping Center, the trail is located entirely on City-owned
g Pp g y Y
parkland or open space. Major renovation or partial redevelopment of Brookdale would provide an opportunity to
improve this important segment and to protect it with an easement for public use.
The proposed Twin Lakes regional trail will connect the Crystal - Robbinsdale trail running along Highway 81 at a
point near Lower Twin Lake, to North Mississippi River Regional Park. This trail will run along the west side of
Lower Twin Lake and the east side of Middle and Upper Twin Lakes, through or around the Brookdale site and in
proximity of 57`" Avenue North (perhaps in the transmission line easement north of 57`") easterly to North
Mississippi Regional Park. Figure 5 -2 is a map of the City of Brooklyn Center showing both the city and
regional park and trail system within the City.
5 -13
o ?3rd Aee 73rd Ave 7 3rd Ave 73r0 Ava
Shingle Cree y :_. N net $ z y c Woodbne trr •
,Q g d c Noodb-P La a o c
�� T 7 West P Imer Lake Park = ` ` J r b ltl, O
i Amy La
71st Ave b Shingle Creek LL nu ' Addition tc evergreen
7 stAve East Palmer ark71gtAve 71stAve a ,- I B irook l i j. �� C
9
Everg een Park iverdale Park
w Palmer Lake
7{!th Ave : 70th Ave .Z ' ° 'n!h Ave
c > � c D
$ a Willov� P;.l� "rk¢ t7 urban 1 Irnrg!a N
° v Palmier Lake Park
'ostw►-, vo , , ._ 3 3 h8 u re 5 2
'
o w T o 0 0
N tv
q > 68m 68th Ave
Ave `d „ > x 68th Ave
' 58th Ave o > > A < i ? 68tH 4 _ D
O 14
67th Ave z F. , ;r Frewa� „ tPark C i d Re8 i O�� al Pa rks
671hAve tL all
5> , ;7th Ave filth A ve m
Haze La Shingle Cr k Trail Q m 1
66th Ave 66th Ave a 11C1 Trails S tjsteiii
Or r
ak - Mississi River
' — Wnrheste,La WinchesterLnCahland r rk �4 Fir tous Park PP
Z -
m Park "" R 55th A r
nA; qq
o Paul Or .•u Q m $ ® - ? fi T l
m y Q
64t Marlin Park h Ave ➢ /�e Rd 64th Ave ,—, ro ?_ 4th Avg
Eleanor La g Kep,enne 01 D Henry Rd f 69 A
' s entr Par V Sidewalks and On- Street Trails
Boulder Lax g 'ul �e t.+ ':.c. � Nash Rr
D m m z D Off- Street Trails
62nd Ave m 7 < [] Y '� 2 B2 ItVr*I(Md n its -
62nq Avc my
�-1 t '�`e in le reek �l Regional Trails
61st A:: Air m oretu ""roR @ North Missisi ; i Regional Park
1_Wangstad -Par 6'stAve I �utnttttt
= Proposed Twin Lake Regional Extension
Kylawn ark a o 0 60th Ave
City Parks
2A" s c Grandview Park
`
Z W � N Ssth . �
Regional Parks
' - 2 58th 112 Ave !�� -
x J Q '
v � r J t
" > 111111111111111 11111111 iitn fillntt�t�►tnt
Coun s �i.+., ^ 1
' m = 57th A.e , l ' /iGf4 I
—
BIHQueet Ld orthp rt
c'
Stith Ave ' A'� �y2 ¢ 56th Ave :Aj+ Ave .
Edd>erg D a )J 0
Foc on Dr
a
Lio 's Park 55th Ave < a I
4th Ave Bellvue - Park ` < d ,am Ave
' �, , Cent rbrook Golfcourse v < n
53rd PI k �
a x
Upper Twin Lake T �
Lakeside Park
Q�k Ct
St st Av -.
Happy Hollow rk 1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet N
E
Middle Twin Lake
Cih of s
BROOKIA N
46th Ave CENTER
47111 A,P
Twin LaVe Park _ Ryan Lake 20.30 C'nmprehensi► Plan SSOCIATE.,
1
0 Comprehensive Plan 2030
PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RESOURCE PLAN
his section of the Comprehensive Plan references or summarizes plans and background materials
that the City prepared has in three areas:
P
' Water System
' Wastewater System
■ Water Resources Management
WATER SYSTEM
The City of Brooklyn Center maintains a water pumping and delivery system that serves all parts of the
City. In the interests of greater convenience and efficiency, some owners of property bordering
neighboring communities are served by those communities' systems; likewise, some properties in
' neighboring communities are served by Brooklyn Center's system.
Water is derived from the Prairie Du Chien and the Jordan Sandstone aquifers via nine wells. In order to
conserve groundwater, the City of Brooklyn Center enacted Section 4 -202. Subdivision 2 of the City
Code to prohibit the sprinkling of lawns and gardens of properties with even numbered addresses on the
odd numbered days of the month and of properties with odd numbered addresses on the even numbered
' days of the month.
Storage and system pressure for the City's water system are provided by three elevated storage tanks with
' a total capacity of 3 million gallons. The system is capable of delivering up to 15 million gallons per day
through over 115 miles of water main, with the record daily use being almost 12 million gallons. The
facilities are monitored and controlled by a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system.
Part 1 of the Wellhead Protection Plan (WPP) that delineated a wellhead protection area (WHPA) and a
drinking water supply management area (DWSMA) and assessed the vulnerability of the system's wells and
aquifer within the DWSMA was approved by the State of Minnesota on August 24, 2004. The system is
' considered to be vulnerable to contamination because it appears that surface water is able to infiltrate and
recharge the aquifer. The levels of vulnerability in the DWSMA range from moderate to very high. Part 2
of the WPP for the City that includes the results of a potential contaminant source inventory, a potential
contaminant source management strategy, an emergency /alternative water supply contingency plan and a
wellhead protection program evaluation plan has also been approved by the State on November 5"', 2005.
The City has completed and received Metropolitan Council approval of its Water Supply Plan. System
storage is currently 3 million gallons, while average daily use varies, but can approach 3.5 million gallons. It
has been determined that additional ground storage capacity of 2 million gallons would be beneficial, but
' construction of that additional storage is not yet incorporated in the Capital Improvements Program.
Water treatment is not considered necessary at this time, but continuous monitoring of the Safe Drinking
' 6 -1
r
Water Act standards is necessary to determine if a water treatment plant should be considered in the r
future. Treatment may be necessary in the future because the system is vulnerable to contamination. 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.
r
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 mains '
as necessary; inspect, paint and repair towers; and maintain SCADA system.
WASTEWATER SYSTEM r
The sanitary sewer system consists of about 105 miles of gravity and force main. The City operates ten
sanitary sewer lift stations, which have been upgraded and integrated with the water utility's SCADA
system. The entire City is connected to the Metropolitan Wastewater System, and is served by five
mainline connections out of the City. No expansions of the trunk sewer system are proposed through 2030
No major system deficiencies exist. There are no on -site septic systems in the City, and all new r
development is required to connect to the local sanitary sewer system. There is one individual sewer
treatment system in Brooklyn Center located on the southwest side of Upper Twin Lake.
The City's current wastewater flow has been ranging just over 1,100 million gallons per year. This flow r
amount is expected to remain relatively stable in future years. As redevelopment occurs, flows would be
expected to increase slightly. r
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, r
the City's ongoing infiltration and inflow reduction efforts, water conservation measures, and an overall
trend toward fewer individuals per household. It is expected that the continuation of many of these
factors will somewhat mitigate any slight increases from redevelopment activities. There is a limited r
amount of additional industrial and redevelopment growth potential in the City. In addition, the City is in
the sixeenth year of a twenty- eight -year effort to reconstruct or rehabilitate neighborhood streets and
utilities. Of high priority are neighborhoods with high rates of suspected infiltration. Given these r
factors, it is not expected that flow will increase significantly.
Future improvements to the system will consist of continued maintenance through regular and routine
projects to maintain collection systems and lift stations; repair or reconstruct sanitary sewer main as
necessary; and maintain the SCADA system.
r
i
r
r
r
6 -2
r
.... m 73rd Ave 73rd Ave 7 3,u M.s =`•�
Shingle Creek ' m 9x ci ti j , of
g o +' m YJOOdbme La Woodbine La m � 9x A
C � W � 72nd Ave Q m n m m
Sr Ingle Creek `; > o a 72nd Ave- 3 0 2
Amy Le a a
•' O - m 72nd Ave m
71st Ave x 71 st Ave B rookl ij. n (: e nte r
%
r D Z7 0
Palmer Lake on VQ F 70th Ave
E
_. 11-ng La
' - - --- r -
69th = 6Srth Ave in �p h8ure 6 .1
t
O C
- - k Pkwy ➢ K 66th Ave c) `C
iR, Sr�nJ,e nt. '� �N Se wersheds
v � N
67th Ave 67th Ave m
c'
a 2
X94 m Le8eiZd
651h Ave d
' a _ " a • MCES Meter
n 3 3
g
64th Ave ' MCES Interceptor
m — ,I -694
' Meter Sh
M110
' Shingle Creek 62nd Ave
m < 61 st Ave M112
e—
s c N
60th Ave < £ In WOO
L
- _ 14". 59th Ave `� t
�- -58th- Ave -- G o � nty Ssu,A�e Q
O County- Rd =10 Q
- 57th -Ave— 57th Ave
m .A
>
An. Q 56th Ave Stith Ave
- - - _
E 0 < 5th Mississippi River
t T 5 Axe
= m % 110
z
Upper Twin Lake 0
M112 _ .,.
' 1 -MN -313
M 113 7,
1,600 800 0 1,600 Feet
' Q N E
1 -MN -314
Middle Twin Lake N Cik► of s
Z CENTER
LouCKS
Ryan Lake 2030 Comprehensive Plan
' Table 6- 1:Flow Projections Into The Metropolitan Wastewater System
' Projected Households Projected Flows
and Employees (in millions of gallons)
First Service Area Ave. Annual Wastewater Flow (MGY)/
' Year Households Employees Allowable Peak Hourly Flow (MGD)
' 2000* 11,430 16,698 1,114
2006* 11,207 13,131 999.5*
' 2010 11,800 18,200 1,084/7.72
2020 12,200 18,600 1,08417.72
' 2030 12,100 19,000 ` 1,03017.61 ,
Flows for 2000 and 2006 are actual flows. Projected future flows were based on modest redevelopment
' over the coming decades. 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 expected to decline slightly during the last ten years of the planning period due to
the limited opportunities for growth, and because of the City's aggressive efforts to reduce inflow and
' infiltration (1/I). The City's on -going street and infrastructure improvement program has included
extensive repairs and replacements of wastewater collection conduits identified as having 1/I problems.
These efforts will continue for at least the next 20 years.
INFILTRATION AND INFLOW INTO METROPOLITAN WASTEWATER
SYSTEM
t Brooklyn Center recognizes the need and importance of reducing infiltration and inflow (I/1) as
opportunities arise. 1/1 not only burdens the city with additional treatment costs, but also assists in
wearing and deterioration of the sewer infrastructure. Infrastructure susceptible to 1/1 is often in need of
' repair, increasing maintenance costs. Several different strategies are used to eliminate these problems,
including everything from individual spot leak repairs to massive infrastructure replacement projects.
The City's policy is to identify reasonable measures, efforts, and results that are feasible and attainable.
' Much of the infiltration is believed to originate from rainfall and runoff. Infrastructure repair and
improvements, as well as the implementation of measures to discourage storm water from potentially
entering the system, have typically been the most effective. However, ground water is also believed to
be a significant contributor to 1/1. Since ground water typically cannot be removed or altered, the City's
efforts to provide a tight conveyance system have been the best measured against that type of 1/1.
' Reasonable measures, efforts and results, as feasible and attainable are always reviewed, considered,
and implemented. They are described below.
An annual televised inspection program identifies many of the sewer main pipes and infrastructure with
' 6 -4
1
1/I problems. The City's sanitary sewer system, along with individual house services, and Metropolitan ,
Council interceptors have all been identified as conveyors of 1/1. 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 1/I. Through the City's annual neighborhood infrastructure improvement
program, these same mains are replaced when warranted 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 '
costly, but the reduction in 1/1, along with the removal of roots and other flow - restricting debris will
ultimately provide cost benefits in the long run.
The same infrastructure improvement program also provides storm drainage improvements throughout the
City. Because of the lack of storm sewer and flat grades, large quantities of storm water are often left
standing for extended periods and eventually infiltrate into the ground and into the sewer conveyance '
system. By systematically adding new storm sewer pipe, upgrading lines, and providing designated
ponding facilities, storm water can no longer be provided the opportunity to infiltrate into the sanitary
sewer system.
In addition, the City's street division annually inspects and repairs manholes and catch basins that are
identified with conditions that encourage 1/1. In 2009 the City is implementing an AMR (automatic meter '
reading) system. As part of the program, during the first year utility employees installing automated
meters will inspect for visible sump pump connections to the sanitary sewer and require corrective action.
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Brooklyn Center is located in two watersheds: the West Mississippi Watershed along the easterly third of '
the City, and the Shingle Creek Watershed. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
and the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission (jointly referred to as SCWM WMC)
are Watershed Management Organizations (WMOs) formed in 1984 using joint powers agreements
developed under authority of Minnesota Statutes 471.59 and 103B.201. Nine Hennepin County cities '
are located in the Shingle Creek Watershed whereas the West Mississippi Watershed contains parts of
five cities. Brooklyn Center is one of four cities located in the West Mississippi Watershed that is also '
located in the Shingle Creek Watershed. Because many cities located in the West Mississippi
Watershed are also located in the Shingle Creek Watershed, the Commissions for the two watersheds
work closely with each other.
First generation plan adopted in 1990 by the Commission for each of the watersheds pursuant to the '
State of Minnesota's Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act was primarily concerned with
managing the volume and rate of stormwater runoff. The Commissions prepared a joint Second '
Generation watershed Management Plan in 2004 and established standards in eight management areas,
including runoff management, floodplain management, shoreland management, water quality
monitoring, erosion and sedimentation control, stormwater treatment, wetlands management and
groundwater protection. The thrust of the Second Generation Management Plans adopted by each of '
the Commissions in May 2004 is to establish water resources priorities for the next ten years, identify
goals, and determine how best to achieve those goals.
The Commissions each adopted a major plan amendment to their Second Generation Management
'
p J P g
Plans in 2007 consisting of the following: '
• a Water Quality Plan that includes specific water quality goals for the lakes, streams
and wetlands in the watersheds and a specific set of management actions to manage and
improve those resources;
6 -5
• a revised capital improvements program; and
• a revised cost -share policy that provides that, if affected cities agree, 25% of the cost of
' qualifying capital projects would be funded by the county ad valorem tax levy across
all property in the watershed, with the balance of project costs paid for by the cities.
' In October of 2008, the two Commissions adopted minor amendments to the Second Generation
Management Plans, consisting of technical revisions to development rules and standards.
' BROOKLYN CENTER LOCAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
' Cities are required to update their local water management plans within two years of the adoption of a
Second Generation Management Plan by a watershed commission. Pursuant to this requirement, the
requirements of Minnesota Statute 103B,235 and Minnesota Rule 8410 and the standards set forth
t by the Commissions, the City of Brooklyn Center updated their local water management plan in June
2006. The updated local plan will serve as a comprehensive planning document to guide the City in
conserving, protecting, and managing local surface water resources.
' Goals and policies of the City of Brooklyn Center Local Water Management Plan (BC LWMP) are listed
below:
' Goal 1
To minimize public capital and maintenance expenditures necessary to control excessive
volumes and rates for stormwater runoff.
' Policy 1.1
Preserve existing storage capacities of protected waters, wetlands and natural water courses.
' Policy 1.2
Perform hydrologic and hydraulic modeling on a case -by -case basis to analyze runoff
characteristics for development and redevelopment projects.
' Policy 1.3
Limit stormwater runoff rates from development and redevelopment sites based on the design
' standards provided in Appendix A of the BC -LWMP.
Policy 1.4
' Provide additional storage either onsite or within the subwatershed where necessary to comply
with the standards provided in Appendix A of the BC- LWMP..
' Policy 1.5
Implement cost effective and efficient methods of stormwater management to limit public
expenditures.
' Policy 1.6
Coordinate the preservation and enhancement of storage areas where appropriate with state,
county and neighboring municipal agencies.
' Goal
To provide a reasonable level of stormwater flood protection within the City of Brooklyn Center to limit
6 -6
potential flood damage. '
Policy 2.1 '
Prohibit encroachment that will reduce the storage capacity of floodplains, unless
mitigating action is undertaken.
Policy 2.2 '
Allow only structures that have been flood - proofed or will not be subject to excessive damage in
the floodway fringe.
Policy 2.3
Establish a 5 -year rainfall event as the minimum criteria for new stormwater conveyance facility
designs. '
Policy 2.4
Require new habitable structures to be protected from flooding during the 100 -year rainfall event. '
Goal 3
To maintain or improve both surface water and groundwater quality. '
Policy 3.1
Promote the implementation of water quality best management practices for treatment and/or
control of stormwater runoff in accordance with the requirements as outlined in Appendix A of '
the BC -LWMP.
Policy 3.2 ,
Preserve and protect wetlands which provide natural treatment for runoff where
necessary to comply with the LWMP.
Policy 3.3 '
Support water quality monitoring efforts being undertaken by the SCWM WMC.
Policy 3.4 ,
Protect groundwater recharge areas from potential sources of contamination in
accordance with the City's Wellhead Protection Plan. '
Goal
To protect and enhance fish and water related wildlife habitats.
Policy 4.1 '
Promote those aspects of local shoreland regulations that enhance fish and wildlife habitat to the
extent feasible. '
Policy 4.2
Preserve protected waters and wetlands that provide habitat for game fish spawning and wildlife '
to the extent feasible.
Policy 4.3 t
Coordinate efforts to protect areas of significant natural communities with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
6 -7
Policy 4.4
Coordinate efforts to protect rare and endangered species with the Minnesota Department of
' Natural Resources.
Goal 5
To protect and enhance opportunities for water recreation.
Policy 5.1
Coordinate efforts with state, county and neighboring municipalities to enhance waterbased
' recreation to the extent practical.
Goal 6
To coordinate stormwater management efforts with the SCWM WMC, adjacent communities and citizens
within Brooklyn Center.
Policy 6.1
Work with adjacent municipalities and the SCWM WMC in planning and implementing mutually
beneficial regional type stormwater management improvements.
' Policy 6.2
Promote implementation of water quality improvements involving wetland 639W and Twin
Lakes as described in the Twin Lakes Management Plan. These goals and policies are intended
to incorporate the spirit of several regional, state and
federally mandated programs. They are not meant to replace or alter these programs, rules and
regulations, but to serve as an enhancement and provide some general policy guidelines. The
goals address the management strategies of both watershed management commissions, West
Mississippi and Shingle Creek, and are consistent with the objectives set forth in the State
Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) and the Federal Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP).
r
SHINGLE CREEK AND WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
COMMISSION AND BC LWMP GOALS AND POLICIES
Goals and policies outlined in the Shingle Creek Watershed and West Mississippi Watershed
Commissions Second Generation Watershed Management Plan are supported by goals and policies in the
City of Brooklyn Center Local Water Management Plan and City of Brooklyn Center Ordinances as
follows:
Management Area: Water Quantity
' • SCWM WMC Goal 1 and Policies 1.1 — 1.3 are supported by Goal 1 and Policies 1.1 — 1.4 and
1.6 of the BC LWMP Plan.
• SCWM WMC Policy 1.4 is addressed by City Ordinance 15 -106. The ordinance states that a
' storm water easement or drainage right of way will be provided for drainage where a subdivision
is traversed by a water course, drainage way, channel or stream. Utility easements will be
provided where necessary.
' • SCWM WMC Policy 1.5 is supported by Policies 3.3 and 6.1 of the BC LWMP.
• SCWM WMC Policy 1.6 is addressed in the City Ordinance in Chapter 35 — Zoning and in
' Policy 2.4 of this Plan.
6 -8
Management Area: Water Quality
• SCWM WMC Goal 2 and Policies 2.1 — 2.8 are supported by Goal 3 and Policies 3.1 — 3.4 and '
Goal 6 and Policies 6.1 and 6.2 of the BC LWMP.
Management Area: Recreation, Fish, and Wildlife '
• SCWM WMC Goal 3 and Policies 3.1 — 3.4 are supported by Goal 4 and Policies 4.1 — 4.4 and
Goal 5 and Policy 5.1 of the BC LWMP. Palmer Lake Basin is a DNR Regionally Significant
Ecological Area, and the Mississippi River and the Shingle Creek Corridor from Palmer Lake to '
the Mississippi River are Metro Priority Wildlife Corridors.
Management Area: Public Participation, Information and Education '
• SCWM WMC Goal 4 and Policies 4.1 — 4.6 are supported by Goal 6 and Policies 6.1 of the BC
LWMP.
Management Area: Ditches
I
• SCWM WMC Goal 5 is supported by Goal 6 and Policy 6.1 of the BC LWMP. ,
Management Area: Groundwater
• SCWM WMC Goal 6 and Policy 6.1 are supported by Goal 3 and Policy 3.4 of the BC LWMP.
• SCWM WMC Policy 6.2 is supported by Goal 6 and Policy 6.1 of the BC LWMP.
Management Area: Wetlands '
• SCWM WMC Goal 7 is supported by Goal 3 and Policies 3.1 and 3.2 of the BC LWMP.
• SCWM WMC Policies 7.1 — 7.3 are supported by Goal 6 and Policies 6.1 and 6.2 of the BC
LWMP, and by completion of the functions and values assessment which is addressed in Section
5: Implementation Plan.
Management Area: Erosion/Sedimentation
• SCWM WMC Goal 8 and Policies 8.1 and 8.4 are supported by the permit for land disturbing
activities and requirement of an erosion and sediment control plan presented in City Ordinance ,
Section 35 -235. The ordinance states that no construction, reconstruction, development,
redevelopment, grading, excavation, or other activity shall occur without first securing a permit
from the City if such activity causes a land disturbance of one acre or more of land or a land
disturbance of less than one acre if it is a part of a common plan of development of one acre or
more. The applicant must submit an erosion and sediment control plan with the application. The
plan shall be consistent with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Best Management
Practices Handbook.
• SCWM WMC Policy 8.3 is supported by Goal 6 and Policy 6.1 of the BC LWMP.
6 -9
FIGURE 6-2 Sanitary Sewer Flow Map
11 It h If H 1111 If 11 111 it if it I it 11 it if i f i t i 1 11 it it L It ' I it it it o i l, y if L If 11 11 11 IF to 11 to i
i I
A B D i iF G
T T
1.7
J1 'j
r
4 i
2
3
Y
r I I
LOCAL STREET 4
INDEX
X
1 —4 4 -4 •- • 4- 4 4- 4-j I
5 A
A-
'T
z
6
Sanitary Sewer Flow
�
Ciy of Brooklyn Center - Publk Works Department
' :•. ' 1, ` '` �' Flows To:
BROOKLYN BLVD CONNECTION
BROOKLYN PARK
METER 14
Q:= 7 METER 112
i.
MINNEAPOLIS
6-10
' Comprehensive Plan 2030
IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
' 1 mplementation of the recommendations proposed in this plan can be accomplished using a
variety of tools. The city can regulate land, offer incentives for its (re)development and
undertake improvement projects. These powers fall into three categories:
' • Official controls
• Development/Redevelopment
' • 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:
' 0 Adopt and incorporate Shoreland District regulations. 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.
0 Adopt a Critical Area Overlay District after the Mississippi River Critical Area and
MNRRA Plan is updated.
' The Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance includes a wide variety of residential, commercial and
industrial districts and a flexible planned -unit district.
' Zoning map changes will be considered when land use changes consistent with this plan are
proposed. In the few locations where the zoning map becomes inconsistent with the Land Use Plan
' map (Figure 2 -3) either when the plan is adopted or in the future, the zoning map will be
amended to be consistent with the intentions of the land use plan.
' The City has adopted a Critical Area Plan but not a Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance
governing the Mississippi River Corridor. The City will soon update its Critical Area Plan and
incorporate policies in response to the federal Mississippi River National Recreation Area
' Management Plan. Until a Critical Area Overlay District Ordinance is adopted, the City will
continue to use the Interim Development Regulations to ensure that all developments are
consistent with Critical Area guidelines. The river corridor is largely protected as parkland (the
' North Mississippi Regional Park) or fully developed with low- density housing.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL AREA
' The state of Minnesota, P ursuant to the Critical Areas Act of 1973 and Executive Order 7949,
' requires that each city along the Mississippi River prepare and adopt plans, capital improvement
programs and regulations consistent with state standards and guidelines for the Mississippi River
Critical Area corridor as designated in the Executive Order. The purpose of this requirement is to:
' A. Protect and preserve a unique and valuable state and regional resource
B. Prevent and mitigate irreversible damage to the resource
t 7 -1
C. Preserve and protect the river as an element in the national, state and regional '
transportation, sewer, water and recreational systems
D. Protect and preserve biological and ecological functions of the corridor.
Generally, the boundaries of the Critical Area extend approximately one - quarter mile or less '
back from each side of the river in Brooklyn Center.
Each City along the Mississippi River from Dayton to Hastings can choose to amend its Critical '
Area Plan to come into conformance with the policies of the MNRRA Management Plan.
The City of Brooklyn Center has an approved and adopted Mississippi River Critical Area Plan '
(1981). The City also prepared an overlay zoning district to help implement its Critical Area Plan,
but the zoning ordinance has not been amended to incorporate the district. '
MISSISSIPPI NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA
The Critical Area Plan update will aid the City in its efforts to address both the Tier I and Tier II '
provisions of the MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, which is necessary to qualify for
MNRRA implementation grants. '
In 1988, the United States Congress passed legislation creating the Mississippi National River and
Recreation Are ( MNRRA) as a unit of the national park system. The legislation calls for the '
National Park Service (NPS) to assist state and local units of government "to protect, preserve
and enhance the significant values of the waters and land of the Mississippi River Corridor within
the Saint Paul - Minneapolis Metropolitan Area." This new area encompasses a 72 -mile stretch of '
the Mississippi, including Brooklyn Center.
The Comprehensive Management Plan for MNRRA was approved by the Secretary of the Interior '
in 1995. This plan details goals that the Park Service has identified for the area and the
coordinating role that the agency will pursue with local governments.
Unlike a traditional national park such as Voyageurs or Yellowstone, the Park Service owns ,
little land. Instead, federal funds could become available to local governments that have plans
certified as consistent with the MNRRA plan for river corridor projects. '
CURRENT REQUIREMENTS AND RELATIONSHIP TO COMP PLAN
The City of Brooklyn Center updated its Critical Area Plan on February 10, 2003. This plan '
aids 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. t
This Critical Area Plan is hereby adopted into the Comprehensive Plan by reference and thus
has the full force of the rest of this plan. '
The Comprehensive Plan already contains many policies and plans that are highly supportive of
the Critical Area and MNRRA objectives. Through this plan, Brooklyn Center recognizes the '
river as a major amenity and a key element in its overall efforts toward improvement.
Consequently, this plan continues the previous policy of low density housing along the
riverfront north of 1 -694 and maintenance of North Mississippi Regional Park (in conjunction '
with Three Rivers Park District) south of 1 -694. An important new initiative in this
7 -2
comprehensive plan is the creation of a greenway in the vicinity of 57` Avenue leading across I-
94 to North Mississippi Regional Park.
DEVELOPMENT /REDEVELOPMENT
Several redevelopment project areas (RPAs) have been created within the City of Brooklyn
Center where the City's Economic Development Authority may exercise redevelopment powers
including acquiring, clearing and selling property for redevelopment. It will be necessary to
create additional RPAs if redevelopment recommended in this plan is to be implemented. Parcels
of land on which redevelopment powers are to be exercised will be put in RPAs when the EDA
desires to exercise its redevelopment powers.
Redevelopment activities are usually public - private partnerships, in which City involvement is
' usually initiated in response to private development initiatives. Financing of redevelopment
projects is often accomplished through tax increment finance districts that are created at the
same time as RPAs are created.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
' The 2009 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) (See Appendix C) outlines the capital
P g PP P
improvements proposed in this Comprehensive Plan, their approximate costs and a general
' time frame for implementation. It is recognized that this 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 preparing engineering or design studies and, therefore, are open to much refinement. It is
updated and refined annually.
Most of the activities listed 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 CEP
suggests general time frames for implementation of these activities, while recognizing that the
' costs and feasibility of each project must be determined individually. It does not include cost
estimates for redevelopment activities in which the EDA may become involved. Redevelopment
activities are usually public - private partnerships, in which City involvement is usually initiated
' in response to private development initiatives. Likewise, the financing of redevelopment projects
is often accomplished through tax increment finance districts, which are outside the usual
avenues of municipal funding.
' 7 -3
MCI
A
W
a
a
Group Results of Community Analysis and Visioning- June 30, 2008
2030 Comprehensive Plan- City of Brooklyn Center
1. What do you consider to be the best features, characteristics, aspects of Brooklyn Center that
should be preserved and enhanced?
Group 1
Parks, trails, Mississippi River
E.B.H.C.
City Management's effectiveness
Sense of neighborhood (needs to be maintained)
Proximity to downtown Minneapolis
i Freeway access
d Neighborhood schools, basic to neighborhood strength
f Diversity can be positive
s Owner - occupied housing builds strength in diversity
Mass transit
t
Library Center
Group 2
Preserve balance of quality housing and commercial property with emphasis on better
t utilization/maximizing commercially zoned property (perhaps expanding somewhat).
i Clean accessible water spaces for all to enjoy; ensure public access preserved /improved
Improve traffic flow and access to City Center and neighborhoods; improve public pathways;
r increase "green belting" at all traffic points /paths
i
Group 3
Earle Brown Conference Center- preserve and enhance
Parks and trails, trail access to the Mississippi River Regional Trails and community playfields
Housing and improvements to all types; creation of upscale housing opportunities
Affordable housing- maintain
Brookdale shopping/commercial opportunities- maintain and enhance
Location- proximity to downtown
Group 4
Parks, green space, trails
Location, access, mass transit
Neighborhoods, single family homes
Employment opportunities
2. Of the issues identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan (refer to handout), which have been
adequately addressed and which remain to be addressed? What issues not identified in the 2020
Comp Plan should be addressed in this Plan?
' u r
Gop 1
Streetscapes improved Brooklyn Blvd.; 57 " use as amenity
Owner - occupied senior housing
Revisit Opportunity Site vision
Redevelop stressed rental property
Revisit Brookdale vision
` f
Grouu 2 '
Consolidate school districts in Brooklyn Center
Brookdale economic viability and traffic patterns
57` and Logan '
Civic Center improvement /expansion
Group 3 '
Brooklyn Blvd. south of 65"'- development
Multi- family - needs continuous work on maintenance '
Foreclosed housing issues
Promoting the Opportunity Site
Preserving elementary school sites '
Grouu 4
Brooklyn Blvd.- overlay '
Redevelopment of underutilized sites
Humboldt Square
3. What is your vision of the ideal for Brooklyn Center in the year 2030? '
Group 1 '
Affordable, safe, comfortable
Slow speed limits on Brooklyn Blvd.
Great parks and trails '
Daylight Shingle Creek through Brookdale
Consolidate school district
Increase owner- occupied housing ,
' Family friendly
High -tech service and manufacturing jobs
Grouu 2 '
Brookdale- viable or redeveloped
Shingle Creek "daylighted" '
Senior housing- accessible
Town Center
Opportunity site 100% '
Crime level reduced below metro area
Group 3 '
Maximize on our great location
Maximize on a diverse tax base
i Great schools '
Clean, attractive Highway 100
Parks and trails
Bustling Brookdale! ,
Increase population to 30,000 to 35,000
October 2008
Group Results of Community Analysis and Visioning- October 8 &15
2030 Comprehensive Plan- City of Brooklyn Center
1. What do you consider to be the best features, characteristics, aspects of Brooklyn Center that
should be preserved and enhanced?
Group 1
Small town atmosphere
Location (close to everything)
Schools
Parks/Trails
' Well -built housing
. Mississippi River National Park
Huge opportunity sites (close in)
Pride of people
Group 2
Parks
Schools in parks
Proximity to downtown
Solid neighborhoods
Group 3
Linkage of parks and schools
Location of the City- vis -a -vis metro
6 minutes from the new major league baseball field
Preserved/enhanced multi -modal transportation
Mississippi River in a national park and recreation area
Twin Lakes- unique feature
Shingle Creek- ideal feature
Hennepin County Service Center
Trail system- North Mississippi Regional Trail
Less than one mile from North Star Commuter Train (linking city both north and south)
Belvue Park housing development enhanced to Humboldt
Belvue trail redevelopment corridor
Small town feel in large metro area
As a residential community preserve and reinvest in single- family and multi - family housing
Excellent parks enhanced through improved walking and bike trails
Excellent schools, 6 elementary to choose from
Earle Brown Heritage Center
2, Of the issues identified in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan (refer to handout), which have been
adequately addressed and which remain to be addressed? What issues not identified in the 2020
Comp Plan should be addressed in this Plan?
Addressed
Group 1:
53 Ave redo
Sewer /water /curb /gutter /streets
AA bond rating
Metro Transit terminal
Brooklyn Blvd. north of 1694 '
Group 2:
Southwest corner of city- Howe Fertilizer and Joslyn sites '
Twin Lakes area adjacent
Northbrook has been acquired
' 252 /Regal Theatre '
Police station north of BrCen High School
Need Addressing '
Group 1
School funding issues
Opportunity Site/57' and Logan incomplete '
Brookdale very partially redeveloped
Group 2 '
Apartments north of BrCen High School not appealing
Humboldt and 69 not thoroughly addressed
_. Garden City Elementary /63' Brooklyn Blvd. for the most part '
Group 3
+: Brooklyn Blvd. streetscape '
Brooklyn Blvd. exit from 1694- poor appearance and need for better landscaping
Need to work more effectively with the County on co. roads, especially Brooklyn Blvd.
i Daylight stormwater '
1;
Street beautification
Brookdale
Identification for City- banners or flowers as you enter on Brooklyn Blvd from north or south '
s Senior housing transition from independent living
Seniors in their homes - fixture support
Future transportation/post conventional automobile transportation t
Light rail
Number of low income /poor households
Key sites for development '
3. What is your vision of the ideal for Brooklyn Center in the year 2030?
Group 1 '
Redesignate City land between 252 & Camden as part of Evergreen Park & create pedestrian
bridge connecting Evergreen to Riverdale ,
Entertain a City -side school district or ensure we stay a critical element of Anoka #11
Build community! Telling why people live here or want to live here
Creating aesthetic improvements sponsored by citizens /city collaboration '
• grants
+ funding
• diligence of maintenance '
People need to know they can be heard, have a voice & to have a stake in our City
Group 2 '
Higher income housing/step up commercial improvement
Improve reputation
3�
Establish unique identity /distinct from Brooklyn Park
Easier transportation to downtown
Constructively build community & engage diversity
{� Take advantage of Mississippi River
Group 3
<� Increase storm water treatment
Increase number of rain gardens /the right planting low maintenance and right for Minnesota
Multi -modal transport plus more pedestrian friendly
a� Maintaining trails- bus shelters
Assisting to create community
Strategies to implement goals
Learn from other cities
Major attraction for Brooklyn Center
Image decoupled from Brooklyn Park
+� Change our name?
1
MCI
w
a
� � � � � � � � �■ir � � � � � � � � � �
l
REVIEW OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S OPPORTUNITY SITE
MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
PAGE
1 3
INTRODUCTION 1 i f 2
A. THE OPPORTUNITY SITE &tALTHORPE STUDY AREA & PURPOSES 2
B. THE CALTHORPE PLANNING PROCESS AND PLAN 3
s C. OPPORTUNITY SITE CONCEPT AND MASTER PLANNING 4
D. RESTORING SITE'S VIABILITY IN MARKETPLACE 5
E. REDEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS 5
z ,
i. Estimating and Funding the Financial Gap 5
ii. Reducing the Financial Gap 6
Community Open Space 6
Highway 100 District Configuration 6
Structured Parking 7
r
i,
F. STRATEGIC ACQUISITION APPROACHES 7
f i
G. OTHER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS STUDIED 8
i. Silver Lake Village —St. Anthony 8
ii. Excelsior and Grand —St. Louis Park 8
,- iii. Village in the Park—St. Louis Park 8
iv. Heart of the City -- Burnsville 9
H. OPPORTUNITY PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS 9
5 ��� January 2008
AS OCiATES
INTRODUCTION
_ In mid -2007, the City of Brooklyn Center requested qualifications from consultants to update its '
2000 Comprehensive Plan. The request indicated that the update should address incorporation of
the Opportunity Site Master Plan & Development Guidelines (the "Opportunity Plan ") prepared
early in 2006 into the Comprehensive Plan. The invitation to submit a formal proposal to prepare
the Comprehensive Plan update requested that the Opportunity PIan be reviewed to determine the '
viability and likelihood of successful implementation. This review considers the viability and
likelihood of successful implementation of the Opportunity Plan as well as the Plan's foundation,
central objective and economics. '
1'
In 2002, as part of a "Smart Growth" initiative, Calthorpe and Associates was engaged by the
Metropolitan Council and the City of Brooklyn Center to study a large area including the
Opportunity Site. That study and plan laid a foundation for the Opportunity Plan and this review
summarizes the Calthorpe Plan to provide a frame of reference and historical context for the Plan.
t , { This review also provides recommendations concerning changes to the Opportunity Plan that will '
maximize the impact of the Opportunity Site's redevelopment on its central objective: to enhance
and strengthen the economic viability of the area and its status in the regional marketplace.
Estimates of the cost of stimulating the project envisioned in the Opportunity Plan to occur and of
the capacity of a 20 -year tax increment finance district on the Opportunity site to pay those costs i
are provided. Changes to the Opportunity Plan that, if made, would result in reducing the
financing gap while not compromising design are recommended in the review. Finally, strategic
i approaches available to redeveloping cities to acquire and assemble property to overcome
restrictions on the use of eminent domain are discussed.
This review draws on experiences of redevelopment projects in the Twin Cities region that used
similar design processes. Specific projects that were studied and are summarized in this review
include Silver Lake Village in St. Anthony Village; Excelsior & Grand and Village in the Park in
St. Louis Park; and Heart of the City in Burnsville.
A. THE OPPORTUNITY SITE & CALTHORPE STUDY AREA & PURPOSES
1. The Opportunity Plan addresses redevelopment of a 100 -acre area strategically located between '
1 Brookdale Shopping Center and Interstate 94. it focuses on only part of the 500 -acre area that
was the subject of a "Smart Growth Twin Cities" study and report completed in 2003 by
Calthorpe Associates for the Metropolitan Council and the City of Brooklyn Center that included '
{ development of an illustrative plan. The Calthorpe study report included the Opportunity Site as
well as the area surrounding it as follows:
I . Brookdale Mall and service uses west of Brookdale; ,
2. The Hennepin County Library/Service Center, City Hall, Central Park and the
multifamily north of County Road 10 and west of Shingle Creek Parkway;
3. The area of office, multifamily and hospitality uses north and northeast of the
Opportunity Site; and '
1 4. An eight -acre triangle of land owned by the City on the east side of Highway 100 and
its intersections with County Road 10 and John Martin Drive.
4'
The Opportunity Plan "propose(s) recommendations that will reinforce and guide public /private
investment in a manner that will enhance and strengthen the viability of the area and recommend
Brooklyn Center as a regional point of destination." The Calthorpe report' illustrate (s) how Smart '
Growth development in an older suburban commercial area could serve to revitalize the area and
'.S ensure its long -term viability." Public transit and transit facilities are integral to Smart Growth
and in the Calthorpe Plans. '
2
S. THE CALTHORPE PLANNING PROCESS AND PLAN
Three alternative sketch concept plans for the 500 -acre study area were formulated as follows:
,__ • Concept A Twins Stadium Concept (page 28): Included a 40,000 -seat stadium with
9,500 dedicated parking stalls and requirement for an additional 3,000 shared stalls
for peak attendance.
• Concept B --Town Center Concept (page 29): A mixed -use neighborhood forms the
heart of the area between Brookdale Mall and the Earle Brown Center, creating a true
Town Center. Housing units (1400 total) constructed over a i 0 -year period, provide a
mixture of rental and ownership apartments, townhomes, work -live units.
Redevelopment includes a transit center and attractive street frontage facing primary
pedestrian routes. Summerchase and Target are retained at their current locations.
3 • Concept C---- Regional Center Concept (page 30): Adds regional retail center with
high concentration of jobs to the Town Center Concept including upgraded transit
f services and 1400 housing units. Major retail uses are consolidated in retail core
areas surrounding Brookdale. Target relocates to Summerchase, Summerchase
residents are accommodated in new affordable housing in mixed - income
developments located throughout the Town Center Area. Shingle Creek is daylighted,
new full service transit station is located on south side of County Road 10, pedestrian
walkways are improved, cultural center civic plaza -parks are located in the Town
A Center to create a regional attraction. Mixed office and residential uses locate above
ground -floor retail that front onto walkable, tree -lined streets.
A final illustrative concept plan similar to C above emerged from input received from the public
at open houses, and from the City Council and Finance Commission. This plan (page 40) includes
the following features:
• A mixture of the regional retail destination with a citizens' desire for a place
that will become the heart of the City.
• A new town center with new housing, some new and reconfigured streets,
two post - secondary schools, and a new system of neighborhood parks.
• 1400 new housing units, providing a variety of types (page 41).
• Relocation of Summerchase and blending of its residents into the Town
Center.
• Small -scale grocery store and other shops to serve the neighborhood.
• An office park.
• 250 room business -class hotel.
• New buildings for the Tech Center and Business School.
• At the heart of the Town Center is a system of major civic parks and plaza
for cultural activities.
• A network of new streets that crisscross the Town Center rather than the
super blocks of 15 -60 acres.
• A new transit center on the western portion of the Brookdale Ford site.
• Movement of major retail currently at the Town Center site to the Brookdale
area.
The Urban Design Framework (page 52) sets the direction for placement, orientation, massing of
new buildings in the Town Center so that the area redevelops in a pedestrian - friendly manner.
The goal is to shape change over time to create a town center with an active street life that mixes '
shops, workplaces, housing, recreation, and civic uses through design and street connectivity —
supporting the community and the pedestrians, enhancing civic spaces and connecting to the '
fabric of the City (page 52).
The Calthorpe study included significant public input, including stakeholder workshops and '
meetings to gather input on the area and on the concept plans. "Chapter 2: Concept Plan
Development" describes these public input processes and the Brooklyn Center City Council and
Finance Commission's recommendations concerning the plan are summarized on page 40. The '
Calthorpe report begins its summary of meetings held with the business community in the
summer of 2001 as follows: "There was a concern about a general decline in the area, as the
r building stock is aging and getting run -down and new retail development further out in the
1`
suburbs compete for customers." High retail vacancy rates, particularly in the Opportunity Site,
are evidence of the relative economic and physical obsolescence of the area as a retail draw
within the trade area. Restoration of the economic viability of the area is the central objective of
' City involvement in the area and in redevelopment of the Opportunity Site.
I
The Calthorpe Plan devotes much of the implementation chapter on transportation issues,
including shared parking, structured parking and transit facilities. The Plan identifies the transit '
i center's location within the area as a limited resource available to influence future development
patterns. The Plan discusses implementation issues on pages 60 through 62, though the discussion
on the use of eminent domain became out -of -date with changes in state statute. '
C. OPPORTUNITY SITE CONCEPT AND MASTER PLANNING
The Opportunity Plan's objective is to transform the site from an underperforming retail area into
a vibrant mixed -use neighborhood destination. Six alternatives, as follows, were explored as
means of accomplishing this in a manner consistent with the communities' vision:
• The Village at Shingle Creek '
• The Backyard Green
• Main Street
• The Urban Village '
• Earle Brown Parkway
• Interior Parkway
s.
Positive features of the six concept sketch plans identified through review and analysis were
synthesized into a master plan providing for five land -use districts as follows:
• Mixed -use center (20 acres) — Primarily retail uses on the first floor with housing or '
office uses above, a pedestrian friendly commercial center and community
destination.
• Shingle Creek.and Parkway Neighborhoods (15 and 22 acres, respectively) —A ,
range of medium- to high - density housing styles and choices for everyone from
empty nesters to young professionals. t
• Highway 100 Office District (15 acres) — High - density office to high - density
housing according to market demand '
• Community open space, trails and ponds (20 acres).
4 '
r
D. RESTORING SITE'S VIABILITY IN MARKETPLACE
The Opportunity Plan is intended to enhance and strengthen the economic viability of the area
and its status in the regional marketplace. Of the Opportunity Site, the part north across County
Road 10 from Brookdale possesses the greatest potential to create draw to benefit the area. The
master plan for the Opportunity Site includes a 20 -acre Mixed Use Center District in this location
j containing retail shops and restaurants on the first floor with office uses (or housing) above — a
360,000 square foot, pedestrian friendly commercial center and community destination. While
demand for this type of retail in the area exists, neither the Opportunity Plan nor the Calthorpe
Study project the time period required to absorb this amount of specialty retail and restaurant. The
i Illustrative Plan in the Calthorpe report designated the apartment building site directly north
across County Road 10 from Brookdale Mall for redevelopment with anchor retail. The
g� Opportunity Plan contains no anchor retail.
The Opportunity Site Plan does suggest that "big box" and "franchise" retailers in the Mixed Use
Center District would be considered, but that they should be conditioned on buildings being
wrapped with in -line shops, architecturally treated on all four sides, oriented (fagades) to major
streets and serviced with structured parking to minimize large surface lots. Streets segment this
q _ Mixed Use Center District into six sites on the Opportunity Site Master Plan and two to five -level
buildings on each site are suggested. This design is conducive to specialty retail and restaurant on
the first floor with office or housing above, but not to anchor retailers. Incorporating anchor retail
in the Mixed Use Center District would necessitate making adjustments to the master plan design.
E. REDEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS
Real estate development and the assumption of financial risks and rewards associated with it are
generally viewed as the private sector's role. In a capitalistic market, investment flows to where
d projected rates of return, adjusted for risk, are the greatest. Extra costs associated with
redevelopment as compared to vacant land development include building acquisition and
demolition, occupant relocation and soil contamination remediation. These extra costs of
redevelopment need to be assumed by a third party in order to give redevelopment the same profit
potential as vacant land development. Unless these extra costs of redevelopment are assumed
through a public incentive, land values in a redevelopment area need to decline to the point where
z they are less than bare land values by the value of the building and cost of building demolition
and soil contamination remediation before redevelopment will occur. (Without public
involvement there would be no legal requirement to compensate occupants for relocation.) This
downward spiral of declining land value and building decay can have a blighting impact far
beyond the original area in need of redevelopment if the public sector does not act to stimulate
i redevelopment when high vacancies are first observed. The Opportunity Site has not redeveloped
because of the extra costs associated with redeveloping it. The financial gap between a willing
developer's investment in the project and the cost of the project needs to be funded, financed or
subsidized in order to entice the private sector to undertake the project.
i� i. Estimating and Funding the Financial Gap
The extra land cost of redeveloping versus developing on vacant land needs to come from public
sources. These funding sources may include tax increment financing, tax increment fund balances
or special assessment financing for infrastructure (street, utilities, landscaping, street lights,
grading and park improvements) from the City, as well as grants, loans or loan guarantees from
the Metropolitan Council, the State of Minnesota or the federal government.
Tax increment financing is the funding source relied on most heavily in Minnesota to fill the
financing gap. While the vacancy rate in the buildings in the Opportunity Site is relatively high
.� 5
and many are economical] and physically obsolete not enough appear to be sub - standard
Y P Y Y � g PP
according to current statutory definition in order to make the findings necessary to create a tax
increment financing district. Thus special legislation will likely be required if tax increment '
financing is to be used to fill the financing gap. Attachment A is an estimate of the capacity for
financing project costs assuming special legislation is secured that would allow the City of
Brooklyn Center to collect 20 years of tax increments generated from the Opportunity Site from '
the uses set forth in the Opportunity Plan. Assuming that the cleared land can be sold for $6 per
square foot, the project cost capacity ranges from approximately $34 million to $97 million,
depending on the intensity level of redevelopment assumed. This compares with project costs of '
$86 million to $128 million as indicated on cost estimates shown on Attachment B. Thus
assuming special legislation can be secured that would allow a 20 -year tax increment financing
district to be created, assuming a district is created and assuming a redevelopment project of the
sort envisioned by the Opportunity Plan there would be a financing gap of $31 to $52 million. ,
ii. Reducing the Financial Gap
The uses and design of a redevelopment project impact the size of the financial gap that needs to ,
be filled to make a project economically feasible. Changes to several components of the master
plan for the Opportunity Site would reduce the size of the financial gap while not adversely
affecting design. '
Community Open Space
! . The master plan for the Opportunity site 'includes a 20 -acre community open green space running '
through the center of the site with a roadway running around its perimeter. The open space
contains ponds and perhaps an outdoor amphitheater, using the ponds as a backdrop. The ponds
. serve as rate and quality control for storm water runoff as well as an amenity to the project and '
they are looped by pedestrian/bike trails. Storm water ponds are also located on the master plan
between Highway 100 and its northwest frontage roads. The ponds on the master plan occupy
about eight acres of the land within the site, probably somewhat less than what will be required to
meet the minimum requirements of the Shingle Creek Watershed. While the 13 -14 acres of green '
space in the community open space, the trail looping around the ponds and the outdoor
amphitheater shown on the master plan are amenities to the project, they take up valuable land
and therefore increase the financial gap that needs to be filled. At the same time Central Park, a
48 -acre community park within a block of Shingle Creek Parkway west of the project, provides
the site with reasonably convenient access to parks and open spaces. Consideration should be
(: given to reducing the size of the green space and enhancing the connection of the project to '
Central Park in order to reduce the financial gap that needs to be filled to make the project
economically feasible.
Highway 100 District Configuration '
With exposure to significant traffic passing the site on — and accessing the site from — Highway
100, the Highway 100 District will be the signature, image - setting entry to the Opportunity Site
Redevelopment Project. A vertical and horizontal mix of office and residential uses, as well as '
' ancillary ground -floor retail will occur in this District, according to the Plan. At least 75% of the
required parking for the District will be structured and only 25% of the parking will be allowed in
surface lots. The more compact (versus elongated) the parking structure configuration, the lower '
the cost per parking space, the less detracting aesthetically and the shorter the distance from
parking spaces to destination for parkers. This District is about 300 feet in depth measured
perpendicular to Highway 100 making it likely that buildings and parking would need to be '
• stretched out along the highway frontage. Consideration should be given to increasing the width
of this district so that the parking may be clustered behind buildings to present the buildings to
Highway 100. This adjustment to the Highway 100 District could be accommodated by moving '
6
ilk
the part of the Parkway District adjacent to this District northwesterly and reducing the width
and therefore size — of the community open space.
Structured Parking
The Plan encourages structured parking instead of surface parking in both the Mixed Use Center
t_- and in the Highway 100 District. As indicated in the Calthorpe Study (page 55) the comparative
economics of land value to construction cost do not support structured parking. A surface parking
space costs about $7 per square foot or $2,500 per space to build, whereas a structured space
costs from $35 to $43 (median $39) per square foot or $12- 15,000 per space. Land for parking
must cost in excess of $32 per square foot ($39 minus $7) in order for economics to support
construction of structured parking. Land in the Opportunity Site is worth $8 to $30 (median $9)
f per square foot and therefore will need to increase by about $23 per square foot in order to make
construction of structured parking economic. In other words a public - incentive of $23 per square
foot of structured parking or about $8,000 per structured parking space would be required to
make it economical to construct structured parking. About one off - street parking space is required
{ per 200 square feet of office or retail and the annual tax increment collected from 200 square feet
a ($290 to $380) would not be adequate to pay off bonds to provide the required $8,000 up front
public incentive.
£� Outside funds could be used to offset the $23 per square foot differential to make construction of
parking spaces in a ramp economic. The City of St. Louis Park secured funding from the
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development and the Metropolitan
Council to help fi ll in the gap to construct structured parking at Excelsior & Grand. Tax
increment financing is another possible source of funding that may be used to make u this .
g P g Y p gap.
e
To some large users, particularly corporate office campuses, this economic gap in construction of
l� structured parking does not necessarily prevent them from building structured parking. For
example, it may be difficult to find a site large enough to accommodate such a user in a desirable
4
location and the benefits of consolidating operations in a single location may outweigh the extra
cost required to construct the structured parking.
F. NEW ACQUISITION APPROACHES
Since the Calthorpe study was completed early in 2003, restrictions placed on the use of eminent
domain (condemnation) make multiple - parcel redevelopment, like the Opportunity Site, more
challenging for cities. In many cases, cities no longer have the threat of eminent domain available
to use as leverage in their acquisition negotiations and as a result, cities need to be more strategic
in acquisition and assembly of land as part of their redevelopment efforts. Following are strategic
approaches that Brooklyn Center as a redeveloping city should consider to overcome restrictions
placed on the use of eminent domain:
• Cities need to be more open in their communication with owners of property in
redevelopment areas so they are looked on as potential buyers when owners are thinking
t of selling.
• Cities need to become more sophisticated in their understanding of the development
process to provide opportunities for investor - owners to reinvest in the redevelopment.
• Parties occupying one part of a redevelopment site may be good candidates for relocation
to a redeveloped part of the redevelopment site. (A couple of strong potential retail
anchors are currently located in the northern part of the Opportunity Site. Relocating
these users to new buildings in the south part of the Opportunity Site would not only
create draw to this area and consolidate new retail with the existing retail in Brookdale
D
7
Mall but would also free up locations in the north part of the Opportunity Site for '
additional redevelopment.)
G. OTHER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS STUDIED
The I00 -acre Opportunity Site is significantly larger than any of the other redevelopment projects
studied as part of this review. Silver Lake Village and Heart of the City are 57 acres and 54 acres
in size, respectively, and are a mixture of housing, office and commercial. The St. Louis Park
redevelopment projects studied are much smaller and more intensely developed than the other
projects. Excelsior & Grand at 15 acres is primarily housing with some first floor retail while ,
Village in the Park is eight acres and exclusively owner - occupied condominiums and row
townhomes. Following are summaries of these projects and attached is a table summarizing them.
i. Silver Lake Villag"#, Anthony
This project is located about five miles north of the Minneapolis central business district on Silver
Lake Road in St. Anthony Village. This project involved the redevelopment of the Apache Plaza '
Shopping Center and consists of 57 acres of land. Commercial and residential uses are segregated
on the site with commercial located along Silver Lake Road, a major street abutting the east side
` of the parcel. There is no structured parking in the project and the highest valued commercial land '
is worth $12 per square foot.
Commercial anchors in the project include a Cub Foods store, a Wal -mart store and a Waigreens
£ ' drug store, totaling 238,000 square feet. Additional retail and office of 85,000 square feet bring ,
the total commercial in the project to 323,000 square feet. The redevelopment project includes
263 market -rate rental housing units and 156 cottage and condominium housing units located
deeper on the site away from Silver Lake Road. The average density of the housing in the project ,
is 33.5 units per acre. The project contains an outdoor amphitheater with seating built into the
side of a storm water ponding area with the "stage" also serving as a piece of public art.
ii. Excelsior and Grand —St. Louis Park ,
Located about six miles from downtown, this 15 -acre redevelopment project is very dense as
compared to the Silver Lake Village project. The project consists of 644 housing units, about half '
condominium units and half rental. Condominium and rental housing are located on three floors
above 87,000 square feet of ground floor retail in three separate buildings.
Two parking structures in the blocks with rental housing accommodate 850 cars and the ,
condominium structures each accommodate parking underground. The overall housing density on
the site is 43 units per acre. At $10 per square foot, the highest valued Iand in the project does not
economically support structured parking. The City of St. Louis Park was able to secure funds ,
from the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development to assist in constructing the parking structures. A green public plaza leads off of
Excelsior Boulevard to Wolfe Park and the City's indoor recreation center. A piece of public art '
is featured in the plaza.
iii. Village in the Park ---St. Louis Park '
About six miles from downtown Minneapolis, this project consists of 251 condominium housing
units and 77 row townhouses on 7.7 acres of land for an overall density of 42.5 units per acre.
There is no structured parking in the project and there are no outstanding public features. It is '
significant that the condominium units routinely sold for two times the assessor's estimated
market value.
8 ,
iv. Heart of the City—Burnsville
This 54 -acre project is planned to contain a mix of uses including housing, retail and office. The
project has significant land area remaining to be redeveloped and is 15 miles from downtown
�. Minneapolis. Housing components constructed include 84 affordable and 63 market -rate rental
apartment units, and 209 condominium housing units. Retail of 38,500 square feet has been
risk constructed, and the project can accommodate significant additional retail. Structured parking has
been constructed in the project.
H. OPPORTUNITY PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS
' • The Plan and Guidelines are design oriented and have a weak foundation in the realities
_ of the marketplace and redevelopment financing.
+ The Master Plan limits the potential contribution that the Opportunity Site's
redevelopment could make to the restoration of viability of the area as a retail center.
• Adjustments to the master plan to make the Mixed Use Center District conducive to
anchor retail should be considered.
t • Adjustments to the master plan to increase the width of the Highway 100 District while at
the same time decreasing the Community Open Space area should be considered.
r • In conjunction with authorized modifications to the master plan, the Opportunity Plan
i should be exposed to the development community for solicitation of development
interest.
• Sources to fund the gap to stimulate the redevelopment of the Opportunity Site, in
addition to tax increment financing through special legislative authorization, should be
identified and pursued.
• Sources of funding to make structured parking more economically feasible should be
identified.
• Restrictions on the use of condemnation in acquiring the land in the Opportunity Site
. require the City to operate strategically.
i
a
a �.
s
a�
a�
9
Opportunity Site- Proiect Cost Capacity Estimate ATTCHMENT A
Jan. 2008
1. After- Development Value, Tax Capacity and Annual Tax
Units (sq.ft,) Mkt Val. /Unit(sq.ft.) Total Mkt Value Class Tax Capacity Value Tax Annual Tax Increment
Use - District Low Nigh Low Hlgh Low H- iah Rate Low High Rate Low Hioh
Res. - Shingle Cr. 525 900 125,000 175,000 65,625,000 157,500,000 0.01 656,250 1,575,000 1.20 787,500 1,890,000
Res.- Parkway 330 880 200,000 250,000 66,000,000 220,000,000 0.01 660,000 2,200,000 1.20 792,000 2,640,000
Mixed Use 174,000 360,000 60 70 10,440,000 25,200,000 0.02 208,800 504,000 1.20 250,560 604,800
Office -Hwy. 100 490,000 1,675,000 60 80 29,400,000 134,000,000 0.02 588,000 2,680,000 1.20 705,600 3,216,000
TOTAL 171,465,000 536,700,000 2,113,050 6,959,000 2,535,660 8,350,800
11. Less Before-Development Value, Tax Capacitv and Annual Tax
39,000,000 39,000,000 0.02 780,000 780,000 1.20 936,000 936,000
III. Eauals Captured Value, Tax Capacitv and Annual Tax Increment
1,599,660 7,414,800
1,333,050 6,179,000 1.20 1,599,660 7,414,800
IV, Proiect Cost Capacity
Interest Rate/ Number Years/ Annual Tax Increment Equals Present Value
0.050 20 1,599,660 7,414,800 (19,935,299) (92,404,797)
Present Value Divided by Interest Rate +1 =1.05 Equals Project Cost Capacity from TIF
(Capitalized interest) (17,220,861) (79,822,738)
Plus land sale proceeds: 72 acres x 43,560 sgft. /acre x $6 /sgft. Divided by 1.05 Equals (17,068,407) (17,068,407)
Equals Total Project Cost Capacity (34,289,268) (96,891,145)
Opportunitv Site- Redevelopment Cost Estimate ATTACHMENT B
Jan -O8
Structured Parkinq structured incentive required
square feet parking spaces at 11200 sq. ft. minimum % parking spaces at $8,000 per space
low high low high structured low high low high
Retail- Mixed Use 174,000 360,000 870 1800 0.95 827 1,710 6,612,000 13,680,000
Office- Hwy. 100 490,000 1,675,000 2450 8375 0.75 1,838 6,281 14,700,000 50,250,000
Subtotal 3,320 10,176 2,664 7,991 21,312,000 63,930,000
Property Acquistion and Relocation
value x 1.4
TIF #2 acres value acauisition cast
Target 9.02 8,300,000 11,620,000
Best Buy 2.90 2,900,000 4,060,000
Brookview Plaza 6.46 2,500,000 3,500,000
Inland Ryan 4.41 4,100,000 5,740,000
Susco Corporation 11.69 4,400,000 6,160,000
Brookdale Square 23.20 4,200,000 5,880,000
TIF #3
Brookdale Ford 8.61 4,100,000 5,740,000
Jani King 1.83 1,000,000 1,400,000
Godlend Value 1.61 1,500,000 2,100,000
Tire Plus & Buffet 1.35 1,100,000 1,540,000
Perkins 1.18 600,000 840,000
Health Partners 0.80 800,000 1,120,000
Mn School of Business 7.98 3,600,000 5,040,000
Subtotal 81.04 39,100,000 64,740,000 54,740,000 54,740,000
Subtotal Infrastructure {from Calthorpe Report} 9,800,000 9,800,000
Grand Total 85,852,000 128,470,000
Comparison of Redevelopment Proiects to Opportunity Site Prolect ATTACHMENT C
Dec. 2007
Pro'ieeCt: Heart of the City- Burnsville Excetsior&Grand- SLP VEllagelParkSLP Silver Lk. Vif: SL Anthony Proposed Opportunity Site
Public Features; Community Arts Center Brass Sculpture none Outdoor Ampitheater Trail around pond
Community Park with Ampitheater Town Green Public Art
Size: 54 acres 15 acres 7.7 acres 57 acres 92 acres
Uses:
I
Housing Units
Rental
Affordable 84 units 18 units
Market rate 63 units 320 units 263 units
Owner occupied 209 units 302 units 328 units 156 units
Total 356 units 640 328 units 419 units 1030-2080
Hotel Units
Retail Square Feet 38,500 sq. ft. 87,000 sq. ft. 322,500 sq. ft. 174,000- 360,000 sq. ft.
Office Square Feet 490,000- 1,675,000 sq, ft.
Structured Parking
Ramp yes 850 spaces yes
Underground 433 spaces
Total 1,283 spaces
� � � s � wie r l� �■s i � � r � �■r l� l� r■i +�
i
' Calthorpe Opportunity Site Plan
! I
- 1 r ^ F �, ��� � • '
1 1 J
firm
TA L
L LEGEND
1,1.rrd Mnd,4.lYefMs
Lfr10 LU
. 0m..
ci�yl:r t5 F :NAL CC) PI-A-'": 'ar t£It Srsae�n Cexaresalcm mel 7fa. Tit i46,;':o4.xet .
Mbd 4w
_ ?i6p .•.it719.79 eft .'r.T f:i!;��7! 79.7M YA'1't�S!!9 rCltlk:li SA'9 :If7::f�FIISI P:,1em. ise�rllaGy I:.Ytt,' . MIN V.
^044f.T Rt}t 6rt9: bd ?7, :[f 94.: 9+weviim 15 rtltdt4xf r<9t6 3Ytn14 949 i.t BoDt .Jt m6, B.t:9 and 3 4fi'
' traan. Yvef .04 wn tit 9x[67 to tte r!t . "4. n . Ma m *b v wlbp
70.,Mt'IMrf{
Tarrra.
Damon Farber/ESG Ogportunity Site Plan
0
JP
t
y Y
- I
}
w Z
�" - f • 11 Y ! R e 4 ARk
s a
L
U
Z
W
a
a
d
' City of Brookfyn Center
2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
�1
PROFILE
The 2009 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a lannin document that resents a fifteen-year overview of
P g P Y
scheduled capital projects to address the City's goals for maintaining public infrastructure. The CIP includes a
' long -term financing plan that allows the City to allocate funds for these projects based on assigned priorities.
The fifteen -year horizon of the CIP provides the City with an opportunity to evaluate project priorities
annually and to adjust the timing, scope and cost of projects as new information becomes available. The
' information contained in this plan represents an estimate of improvement costs based on present knowledge
and expected conditions. Changes in community priorities, infrastructure condition and inflation rates require
that adjustments be made on a routine basis.
' A capital improvement is defined as a major non - recurring expenditure related to the City's physical facilities
and grounds. The 2009 -2023 CIP makes a concerted effort to distinguish between major maintenance projects
' contained in the City's operating budgets and capital improvement projects financed through the City's capital
funds and proprietary funds. Typical expenditures include the cost to construct roads, utilities, parks, or
municipal structures.
' The CIP is predicated on the goals and policies established by the City Council, including the general
development, redevelopment, and maintenance policies that are part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. A
primary objective of the CIP is to identify projects that further these goals and policies in a manner consistent
with funding opportunities and in coordination with other improvement projects.
g PP P P J
1 CIP Project Types
The Capital Improvement Program proposes capital expenditures totaling $93 million over the next 15 years
' for basic improvements to the City's streets, parks, public utilities, and municipal buildings. A brief
description of the four functional areas is provided below.
' Public Utilities
The City operates five utility systems, four of which have projects included in the CIP — water, sanitary sewer,
storm drainage, and street lighting. A vast majority of the public utility improvements are constructed in
conjunction with street reconstruction projects. The remaining portion of public utilities projects include
improvements to water supply wells, water towers, lift stations and force mains.
Street Improvements
Street improvements include reconstruction of neighborhood streets and reconstruction of arterial and collector
streets. Proposed improvements include the installation or reconstruction of curb and gutter along public
' roadways. As noted earlier, street improvements are often accompanied by replacement of public utilities.
' CIP (2009 — 2023)
1
Park Improvements '
Park improvements include the construction of trails, shelters, playground equipment, athletic field lighting
and other facilities that enhance general park appearance and increase park usage by providing recreational
facilities that meet community needs. '
Capital Building Maintenance Improvements
Capital building maintenance improvements include short and long term building and facility improvements '
identified in the 18 -year Capital Building Maintenance Program approved in 2007.
CIP Funding Sources '
Capital expenditures by funding source for the fifteen -year period are shown in Table 1 and the accompanying
chart. Major funding sources are described below.
Public Utility Funds '
Customers are billed for services provided by the City's water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and street lighting
public utilities. Fees charged to customers are based on operating requirements and capital needs to ensure '
that equipment and facilities are replaced to maintain basic utility services. Annually the City Council
evaluates the needs of each public utility system and establishes rates for each system to meet those needs.
Capital Improvements Fund '
This fund is comprised of transfers from the General Fund, repayment of debt from the Golf Course operating
fund, and transfers from liquor operations. Typically the City Council has directed these funds towards
municipal facilities such as parks, trails, public buildings and other general purpose needs.
Special Assessment Collections '
Properties benefiting from street improvements are assessed a portion of the project costs in accordance with
the City's Special Assessment Policy. Every year the City Council establishes special assessment rates for
projects occurring the following year. Rates are typically adjusted annually to maintain the relative proportion ,
of special assessments to other funding sources.
Street Reconstruction Fund '
The Street Reconstruction Fund provides for the cost of local street improvements along roadways that are not
designated as municipal state aid routes. A majority of the revenue for this fund is generated from general
fund transfers and franchise fees charged for the use of public right -of -way by natural gas and electric utility '
companies. The City's ability to provide adequate revenue for the Street Reconstruction Fund is currently one
of the main limiting factors in determining the rate at which future street and utility improvements can be
accomplished. '
Municipal State Aid (MSA) Fund
State- shared gas taxes provide funding for street improvements and related costs for those roadways identified '
as MSA streets. The City has 21 miles of roadway identified as MSA streets and is therefore eligible to
receive funding based on this designation. The annual amount available is approximately $780,000 and
provides for maintenance and construction activities within the City's MSA street system. ,
Funds to be Determined
A dedicated funding source for portions of the Capital Building Maintenance Improvements is yet to be '
determined. The Liquor Store Enterprise fund is anticipated to be used in 2009.
CIP (2009 — 2023) '
2
Total Funding Average Annual Percent of
' Need 2009 -2023 Funding Need Total Need
I ater Utility $15,840,450 $1,056,030 17%
Sanitary Sewer Utility $12,273,950 $818,263 14%
Storm Drainage Utility $17,064,000 $1,137,600 18%
Street Lighting Utility $879,700 $58,647 1%
Municipal State Aid $9,085,000 $605,667 10%
' ;Street Reconstruction Fund $12,570,200 $838,013 13%
Capital Projects Fund $2,596,000 $173,067 3%
Special Assessment Collections $17,928,400 $1,195,226 19%
' Funds To Be Determined _ $5,084900 $338,994 5%
TOTAL $93,322,6001 $6,221,507 100%
TABLE 1. Capital Improvement Program - Summary by Funding Source
II
Capital Improvement Program by Funding Source
1 Special
Assessments, 19
Stre '. Sanitary
Construction, /o ewer, 14%
' Storm
Drainage, 18%
undsTo Be
MSA, 10%
' F � -
Determined, 5%
'
!Street >
Li ht 1% Capital
Light,
Projects, 3%
Table 2.Overview of projects and funding sources for the 2009 Capital Improvement Program. Annual
breakdowns for each project year are accompanied by a brief description of each project.
' CIP (2009 — 2023)
3
1 CIP PROJECT AREAS
2009-2016 '
u 1t i
Ui
NK
w I ,
- 1 I
I j �
c
1 � 1
- M M
�II
r
{ +jam ro
Je q
'L
Project and Proposed Reconstruction Year:
--^ Complete (64.6 miles - 62%)
Aldrich Neighborhood - 2009 '
lIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Creek Pkwy 1 69th Improvements - 2009
Dupont Avenue -2010
Twin Lake N/ Lakeside Neighborhood - 2010
Vincent Neighborhood - 2010 '
Logan Neighborhood- 2011
Unity Avenue - 2011
East Palmer Lake Neighborhood - 2012 '
Kylawn Park Neighborhood - 2013
Wangstad Park Neighborhood - 2014
63rd Avenue Reconstruction - 2015
Freeway Park Neighborhood - 2015 '
Palmer Lake West Neighborhood -2016
City of Freeway Blvd West Reconstruction -2016
BROOKLYN
CENTER '
November 2008
' CIP PROJECT AREAS
2017-2023
- _
1'
C yy
�. . _. K7
T
- rTI
F
LT
s
r
i
N�l, -
j1 _
�
Project and Proposed Reconstruction Year:
---_— Complete (64.6 miles -62 %)
- L�2 e =<^ Evergreen Neighborhood - 2017
Firehouse Park Neighborhood - 2018
Interstate Neighborhood - 2019
Grandview Neighborhood - 2020
Logan, 57th and Lilac Dr. Reconstruction Area - 2020
iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIiRyan Lake Reconstruction Area - 2021
Northwest Neighborhood - 2022
51st Avenue Reconstruction - 2023
+•f Lyndale Reconstruction Area - 2023
X ty
of =53rd Reconstruction Area - 2023
KLYN
TER
November 2008
Table 2
Capital Improvement Program (2009 - 2023)
Revised November 12, 2008
Special Street MSA Storm Drainage Sanitary Sewer Water Street Light Capital Projects To Be Total Project
Project Assessments Reconst. Fund Fund Utility Utility Utility Utility Fund Determined Cost
2009
Aldrich Neighborhood $441,000 $850,000 $U $1,447,000 $285,000 $205,000 $38,000 $0 $0 $3,266,000
Wetland 639W participation with SCWMC $0 $U $U $165,800 $0 $0 $0 . $0 $0 $165,800
Shingle Ck Trail - Central Park to CR 10 $U $U $0 $0 $ll $0 $0 $95,000 $0 $95,000
Arboretum South Parking Lot Reconstruction $0 $0 $0 $0 to $0 $0 $21,000 $0 $21,000
West Central Park Trail Rehabilitation $U $0 $0 $0 $U $0 $0 $140,000 $0 $140,000
Automated Meter Reading Program $0 $0 $U $0 $687,250 $2,061,750 $0 $0 $0 $2,749,000
Centerbrook Golf Course Watermain Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 -- $190,000 $0_ $0 $0 $190,000
Sanitary Sewer Lining at Brooklyn Dr. and 1 -694 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $51,000
Shingle Creek Pkwy /69th Ave Street Improv $0 $0 $650,000 $0 _ _ $ 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $650,000
Emergency Bypass for Lift Station 6 $U $U $U $0 $1U2,006 $0 $0 $0 $0 $102,000
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2009 $U $0 $6 $0 $19,906 $56,100 $0 $0 $172,500 $248,500
Northport Tennis Court Resurfacing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $24,000 $0 $24,000
West Palmer Park Tennis Court Resurfacing $U $0 $0 $0 $U $0 $0 $22,000 $0 $22,000
Riverdale Open Picnic Shelter $0 $0 to $0 $0 $0 $0 $68,000 $0 $68,000
2009 Subtotal $441,000 $850,000 $650,000 $1,612,800 $1,145,150 $2,512,850 $38,000 $370,000 $172,500 $7,792,300
2010
Dupont Avenue Reconstruction $816,000 $0 $1,365,000 $563,000 $308,000 $290,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $3,367,000
Twin Lake North / Lakeside Neighborhood $904,000 $1,365,006 $77,000 $1,108,000 $970,000 $902,000 $53,000 $0 $0 $5,319,000
Vincent Neighborhood $75,000 $117,000 $0 $155,000 $45,000 $26,000 $0 $0 $0 $418,000
Storm Water Ponds 12.002 & 12 -003 Dredging $0 $0 $U $110,606 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $110,000
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2010 $U $0 $U $6 $19,200 $39,000 $0 $0 $172,800 $231,000
Willow Lane Open Picnic Shelter $0 $0 $U $6 $0 $0 $0 $70,000 $0 $70,000
Kylawn and Firehouse Park Trail Rehab. $U to $U $0 $U $6 $0 $62,000 $0 $62,000
2010 Subtotal $1,795,000 $1,422,000 $1,442,000 $1,936,000 $1,342,200 $1,257,000 $78,000 $132,000 $172,800 $9,577,000
2011
Logan Neighborhood Reconstruction $972,000 $906,000 $U $873,000 $395,000 $720,000 $54,000 $0 $0 $3,920,000
Lift Station No. 9 Force Main Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $415,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $415,000
Emer Generator Replacement for Lift Station No. 2 $0 $0 $U $ $60,966 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,900
. rraffic Signal Replace at SCP and 1 -94 $0 $0 $303,666 $U $U $U $0 $0 $0 $303,000
Storm Water Pond 12 -005 Rehab $0 $0 $0 $49,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $49,000
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2011 $0 $0 $0 $0 $55,boo $7,400 $0 $0 $474,200 $537,100
West Palmer Park Building Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $270,000 $0 $270,000
IInity Avenue Reconstruction $181,000 $128,000 $0 $89,000 $15,000 $206,000 $13,000 $0 $0 $632,000
2011 Subtotal $1,153,000 $1,034,000 $303,000 $1,011,000 $941,400 $933,400 $67,000 $270,000 $474,200 $6,187,000
2012
Evergreen Park Fence & Court Reconstruction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $77,000 $0 $77,000
Evergreen Athletic Field Lighting Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $105,000 $0 $105,000
Northport Park Building Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $275,000 $0 $275,000
Water Tower No. 2 - Painting $0 $0 $U $U $0 $718,000 $0 $0 $0 $718,000
Storm Water Pond 18 -001 Rehab $0 $0 $U $155,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $155,000
Storm Water Pond 46 -001 Rehab $0 $0 $0 $39,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $39,000
:, Pita] Building Maintenance Program 2012 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1'1,300 $25,300 $0 $0 $202,500 $245,100
East Palmer Lake Neighborhood Reconstruction $768,000 $860,000 $0 $756,000 $345,000 $315,000 $40,000 $0 $0 $3,084,000
2012 Subtotal $768,000 $860,000 $0 $950,000 $362,300 $1,058,300 $40,000 $457,000 $202,500 $4,698,100
M W Tabl
Table 2
Capital Improvement Program (2009 - 2023)
Revised November 12, 2008
Special Street MSA Storm Drainage Sanitary Sewer Water Street Light Capital Projects To Be Total Project
Project Assessments Reconst. Fund Fun Utility Utility Utility Fund Determined Cost
2013
baseball Backstop Replacements $0 $U $0 $U $U I $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $20,000
Replace Traffic Signals at 66th Ave & Hwy 252 $0 $0 $150,060 $0 $U $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000
Storm Water Pond 60 -001 Rehab $0 $U $0 $17,0000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $17,000
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2013 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,600 $0 $0 $565,200 $676,8001
Humboldt Ave N (53rd to 57th) Reconstruction $260,000 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $90,000 $28,000 $0 $0 $478,0001
Kylawn Park Neighborhood Reconstruction $1,358,006 $866,600 $5:78,000 $878,000 $1,0051000 $958,000 $51,000 $0 $0 $5,654,0001
2013 Subtotal $1,618,000 $866,000 $688,000 $895,000 $1,105,000 $1,159,600 $79,000 $20,000 $565,200 $6,995,8001
2014
Central Park Tennis Courts Resurfacing $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $0 $75,000'
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2014 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,900 $85,600 $0 $0 $81,900 $222,4001
Storm Water Pond 50 -001 Rehab $0 $0 $0 $69,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $69,0001
Willow Lane Trail Reconstruction $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $40,000
Wangstad Park Neighborhood Reconstruction $1,515,000 $1,002,000 $397,000 $965,000 $1,075,000 $1,005,000 $52,000 $0 $0 $6,011,0001
2014 Subtotal $1,515,000 $1,002,000 $397,000 $1,034,000 $1,129,900 $1,090,600 $52,000 $115,000 $81,900 $6,417,400
2015
Baseball Fence Replacement $0 $0 $0 $U $0 $0 $0 $35,000 $0 $35,000
Freeway Park Trail Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,000 $0 $28,000
Water Tower No. 3 Painting $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $410,000 $0 $0 $0 $410,000
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2015 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000 $123,600 $0 $0 $299,600 $426,200
Lions Park Trail Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $57,000 $0 $57,000
63rd Avenue North Reconstruction $286,000 $0 $2,009,000 $0 $112,000 $90,000 $53,000 $0 $0 $2,550,000
Freeway Park Neighborhood Reconstruction $1,085,000 $1,040,000 $0 $937,000 $880,000 $820,000 $45,000 $0 $0 $4,807,000
2015 Subtotal $1,371,000 $1,040,000 $2,009,000 $937,000 $995,000 $1,443,600 $98,000 $120,000 $299,600 $8,313,200
2016
Evergreen Park Trail Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $50,000
Brooklyn Blvd City Entrance Signs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,000 $0 $12,000
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2016 $0 $0 $0 $0 $110,800 $17,000 $0 $0 $137,100 $264,900
Storm Water Pond 12 -004 Rehab $0 $0 $0 $67,000 $U $0 $0 $0 $0 $67,000
69th Avenue Greenway Fence Rehab $0 $0 $0 $U $0 _ $0 $0 $36,000 $0 $36,000
Water Tower No. 1 Painting $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $360,000 $0 $0 $0 $360,000
Freeway Blvd West Reconstruction $235,000 $0 $215,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $450,000
Palmer Lake West Neighborhood Reconstruction $975,000 $660,000 _ $0 $1,200,000 $813,000 $753,000 $50,000 $0 $0 $4,451,000
2016 Subtotal $1,210,000 $663,000 $215,000 $1,267,000 $923,800 $1,130,000 $50,000 $98,000 $137,100 $5,690,900
2017
West River Rd Trail Replacement $0 $0 I $0 $0 I $U 0 $0 $115,000 $0 $115,000
$
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2017 I $0 $0 I .0 $0 I o0 $22,400 $0 $0
0 I $261,100 $283,500
Evergreen Neighborhood Reconstruction $1,527,00 $760,000 f $1,195,0$00 $1,500,000 f $'710,000 $1,305,000 $65,000 j $0 $0 $7,002,000
2017 Subtotal $1,527,000 $700,000 $1,195,000 $1,500,000 $710,000 $1,327,400 $65,000 $115,000 $261,100 $7,400,500
2018
bentral Park East Trail Replacement $0 Capital sBuilding rk Neighborhood hborhood Reconst not on I $1,903000 I $1,050000 $405,000 I $2,116000 I $82 I $735 000 I $70000 I $98 0 $0 I $389,5$0 $7$,106,000
Firehouse g
2018 Subtotal $1,903,000 $1,050,000 $405,000 $2,116,000 $847,600 $782,900 $70,000 $98,000 $389,500 $7,662,000
^4 �_ 2009 DRAFT CIP Table 2.xls
Table 2
Capital Improvement Program (2009 - 2023)
Revised November 12, 2008
Special Street MSA Storm Drainage Sanitary Sewer Water Street Light Capital Projects To Be Total Project
Project Assessments Reconst. Fund Fund utility Utility Utility Utility Fund Determined Cost
2019
Park Playground Equip Replacement $0 $6 $0 $0 $U $0 $0 $203,000 $0 $203,00011
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2019 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,600 I $11,300 $0 $0 $480,400 $494,3001
Interstate Neighborhood Reconstruction $1,120,000 $1,025,000 $0 $1,670,000 $1,090,000 $1,020,000 $48,000 1 $0 $0 $5,973,0001
2019 Subtotal $1,120,000 $1,025,000 $0 $1,670,000 $1,092,600 $1,031,300 $48,000 $203,000 $480,400 $6,670,300
2020
Park Playground Equip Replacement I $0 $0 R0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $207,000 $0 $207,000
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2020 $0 $0 $U $0 $6,300 $42,1 U0 $0 $0 $831,600 $880,000
Logan /Lilac/59thAvenue Reconstruction $450,000 $0 $1,075,000 $U $46,666 $150,000 $20,000 1 $0 $0 $1,741,0001
65
Grandview Neighborhood Reconstruction $2,070,000 $950,0ou $3Ub,000 $1,4,000 $1,175,000 $1,166,006 $84,000 I $0 1 $0 $7,149,000
2020 Subtotal $2,520,000 $950,000 $1,380,000 $1,465,000 $1,227,300 $1,292,100 $104,000 $207,000 $831,600 $9,977,000
2021
Park Playground Equip Replacement $0 $0 $0 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $211,000 $0 $211,0001
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,100 $0 $0 $0 $95,700 $98,8001
Ryan Lake Industrial Park $335,000 1 $165,6$00 $0 $437,000 $211,000 $541,000 $32,000 $0 $0 1 $1,721,0001
2021 Subtotal $335,000 $165,000 $0 $437,000 $214,100 $541,000 $32,000 $211,000 $95,700 $2,030,8001
2022
Palmer Lake Trail Mill and Overlay $0 $0 $U $0 $U $0 $0 1 $180,000 1 $0 $180,0001
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2022 $0 $0 $0 $0 _ $3,600 $37,700 $0 $0 1 $366,300 $407,6001
Northwest Area Neighborhood Mill & Overlay $125,000 $216,600 $U $35,000 $25,000 1 $25,000 $0 $0 1 $0 1 $425,0001
2022 Subtotal $125,000 $215,000 $0 $35,000 $28,600 $62,700 $0 $180,000 $366,300 $1,012,600
2023
Capital Building Maintenance Program 2023 $0 $0 1 $0 _ _$ $4,000 1 $7,700 $0 1 $0 1 $554,500 1 $566,200
51st Avenue Reconstruction $74,000 $137,300 $0 $'25,000 $30,000 1 $30,000 $7,500 $0 $0 $303,800
53rd Avenue Reconstruction Area $353,300 $40 $401,000 $143,200 $145,000 $155,000 $40,200 $0 1 $0 $1,645,700
Lyndale Avenue Reconstruction Area $100,100 $185,900 $0 $30,000 $30,000 $25,000 $11,000 $0 1 $0 1 $382,000
2023 Subtotal $527,400 $731,200 $401,000 $198,200 $209,000 $217,700 $58,700 $0 $554,500 $2,897,700
2009 DRAFT CIP Table 2.xls
01) Me u
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS ,
2009 — 2023 Capital Improvement Program
} City of Brooklyn Center
Street and Utility Improvement Projects
Aldrich Neighborhood Improvements
Humboldt Avenue South Improvements '
Dupont Avenue Neighborhood Improvements
Twin Lake North Improvements
Logan Neighborhood Improvements
Unity Avenue Improvements
East Palmer Lake Neighborhood Improvements ,
Kylawn Park Neighborhood Improvements
Wangstad Park Neighborhood Improvements
'.. 63` Avenue Improvements ,
Freeway Park Neighborhood Improvements
Freeway Boulevard West Improvements
j Vincent Neighborhood Improvements
Palmer Lake West Improvements
Evergreen Park Neighborhood Improvements
Firehouse Park Neighborhood Improvements
' Interstate Neighborhood Improvements
Logan, 59 and Lilac Drive Improvements
Grandview Park Neighborhood Improvements
? Ryan Lake Industrial Park Improvements ,
51" Avenue North Improvements
53` Avenue Neighborhood Improvements
Lyndale Avenue Neighborhood Improvements ,
Miscellaneous Water Main and Sanitary Sewer Improvements
Automated Meter Reading Program
Lining Sanitary Sewer Under I -694 at Brooklyn Drive
Emergency Bypass for Lift Station No. 6
Centerbrook Golf Course Water Main Improvements
Water Tower No. 1 Painting
Water Tower No. 2 Painting
Water Tower No. 3 Painting
Project Summary ,
2009 Capital Improvement Program
i Storm Water Improvements
t� Wetland 639W
Storm Water Pond 12 -002
Storm Water Pond 12 -003
Storm Water Pond 12 -004
$� Storm Water Pond 12 -005
Storm Water Pond 18 -001
Storm Water Pond 46 -001
Storm Water Pond 50 -001
Storm Water Pond 60 -001
Park and Trail Improvements
Shingle Creek Trail Improvements
Arboretum Park South Parking Lot Reconstruction
{ j West Central Park Trail Improvements
Northport Tennis Court Resurfacing
West Palmer Park Tennis Court Resurfacing
Riverdale Park Open Picnic Shelter
Willow Lane Park Open Picnic Shelter
.� Firehouse Park Trail Improvements
Kylawn Park Trail Improvements
West Palmer Park Improvements
Evergreen Park Fence and Tennis Court Reconstruction
Evergreen Athletic Field Lighting Replacement
Northport Park Building
Baseball Backstop Replacements
Central Park Tennis Court Resurfacing
Willow Lane Park Trail Improvements
Baseball Fence Replacement
Freeway Park Trail Improvements
Lions Park Trail Improvements
Evergreen Park Trail Improvements
Brooklyn Boulevard City Entrance Signs
69` Avenue Greenway Fence Rehabilitation
West River Road Trail Improvements
Central Park East Trail Improvements
Play Ground Equipment Replacement
Palmer Lake Trail Mill and Overlay
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
` Aldrich Neighborhood Improvements
The Aldrich Neighborhood project area extends from Dupont — H � H
Avenue to Interstate 94 and from 59 Avenue to 57 Avenue.
Isz jr ' z
The project area contains a total of 8,010 linear feet of local
' streets. The neighborhood consists of approximately 103 = W
" residential properties. ?� -
- A
Streets
The majority of the streets in the project area were originally
` constructed in 1968 through 1969. Existing streets are
generally 30 feet wide with no curb and gutter. The street
pavement is deteriorated throughout most of the neighborhood B
due to the age of the pavement and inadequate drainage.
Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of the street subgrade, installation of curb and
` [ gutter to improve drainage and full depth replacement of bituminous street pavement. '
Water main
t The existing water main in the Aldrich Neighborhood area consists of 6 -inch, 8 -inch and 10 -inch diameter
} cast iron pipe throughout the project area and 24 -inch diameter steel water main along 59` Avenue. A
majority of the existing cast iron waterman was installed between 1964 and 1968 and is believed to have
an internal lining. New segments of 8 -inch diameter water main and sanitary sewer were installed on the
southern part of Camden Avenue as part of the 1996 -06 project. A condition survey must be conducted
for the existing water system in the neighborhood to determine the extent of corrosion. Water records
indicate one main break has occurred within the neighborhood. The water main is in fair condition based
on current maintenance records. The current project cost estimate includes replacement of watermain
along Aldrich, Bryant and Camden Avenues due to isolated areas of corrosion or as necessary to allow for
the replacement of sanitary sewer and trunk storm sewer within the neighborhood.
Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary sewer consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe lateral sewers along local
streets and a 12 -inch diameter reinforced concrete trunk sewer along the Xcel easement between 57"'
Avenue and 58` Avenue. These sewers were originally installed between 1959 and 1962.
Approximately 75 percent of the sanitary sewer is subjected to problems with root intrusion. Root sawing
must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system conveyance capacity. The condition of the
sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated as fair to poor. The current project cost estimate
includes replacement of approximately 50 percent of the 8 -inch diameter sanitary sewer. The sanitary
' sewer located along Camden Avenue must be lowered to facilitate the installation of a new trunk storm
sewer between 57` and 59"' Avenues.
Storm Sewer
A substantial portion of the southeastern section of the city drains through two trunk storm sewers located
along 59 Avenue and along the west side of Interstate 94. These trunk storm sewers, installed in 1952,
: are under -sized and do not provide sufficient capacity to convey storm water runoff through the
neighborhood and under Interstate 94. The installation of new trunk storm sewers along Camden Avenue,
59` Avenue and under I -94 is necessary to prevent local flooding. The current project cost estimate
includes the replacement of storm sewer throughout the project area, boring a new trunk storm line under
Interstate 94 and installation of two precast water quality treatment devises. A detailed description of the
proposed storm drainage improvements are further described in a feasibility report titled "59` Avenue
Trunk Storm Sewer Improvements" prepared by Bonestroo & Associates in 2006.
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
z
'a th
Shingle Creek Parkway and 69 Avenue Street Improvements
s �9
.e b
J '
i
. d
TT� /
The Shingle Creek Parkway and 69 Avenue project area extends from Brooklyn Blvd to Shingle Creek
Pkwy along 69` Avenue and from 69` Avenue to the Shingle Creek Bridge along Shingle Creek Pkwy.
The project area contains a total of 5,692 linear feet of local streets.
Streets
This segment of roadway is designated as a Municipal State Aid Route. 69` Avenue was reconstructed in
1993. Shingle Creek Pkwy was most recently reconstructed in 1995. Existing streets are generally 70 to
85 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter and raised concrete medians. The street pavement exhibits a
moderate rate of deterioration due to higher volumes of traffic. The current cost estimate assumes street
improvements that consist of approximately 25 p ercent curb replacement, 10 p ercent sidewalk
replacement, 25 percent concrete apron replacement, a 2 -inch mill and overlay of the bituminous
pavement on 69` Avenue between Brooklyn Blvd and Drew Avenue and full depth pavement
replacement on the remainder of the project.
_ Water main
The existing water main in the Shingle Creek Pkwy and 69` Avenue project area consists of 10 -inch, 16-
inch and 18 -inch diameter cast iron pipe (CIP) installed between 1956 and 1969. A second 16 -inch
diameter ductile iron pipe water main was installed on 69 Avenue in 1993 when the road was
reconstructed. The water main is in good condition based on current maintenance records. The current
project cost estimate includes no water main replacement.
k" Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary sewer along 69` Avenue consists of 8 -inch and 18 -inch diameter poly vinyl chloride
P (PVC) pipe installed in 1993. The existing sanitary sewer on Shingle Creek Pkwy consists of 10 -inch
diameter vitrified clay pipe installed in 1969. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the
neighborhood is rated as good. The current project cost estimate includes no sanitary sewer replacement.
Storm Sewer
The storm sewer on 69` Avenue consists of 12 -inch to 27 -inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe that
drains to Palmer Lake. This storm sewer was installed in 1956 and 1993. The storm sewer on Shingle
Creek Pkwy consists of 12 -inch to 48 -inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe that drains to Shingle Creek.
This storm sewer was installed in 1969. The condition of the storm sewer within the neighborhood is
rated as good. The current project cost estimate includes replacing storm structure castings and isolated
portions of lateral storm sewer as necessary.
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
Humboldt Avenue South Improvements
rovements p
The Humboldt Avenue South project area extends from 53` Avenue to 57"' – + - d F+d U � t
Avenue. The total project length is approximately 2,660 linear feet. The _ ,,,,, a� H = _
neighborhood consists of approximately 56 residential properties. —
Streets
This segment of roadway is a Hennepin County Roadway. Humboldt -
Avenue was originally constructed between 1966 and 1969. Existing streets -
} are generally 36 feet wide with no curb and gutter. The street pavement is x
deteriorated due to the age of the pavement and inadequate drainage. This - -- = Q V
project is included in the City's CEP due to a potential cost sharing agreement - for the street and drainage improvements and funding for water main and -�
sanitary sewer improvements as described below.
Water main
s The existing water main in the Humboldt Avenue South project area consists
of 6 -inch diameter cast iron pipe (CIP) installed in 1966. A condition survey
' must be conducted for the existing water system in the project area to _
determine the extent of corrosion. The water main is in fair condition based _
on current maintenance records. The current project cost estimate assumes _
1 that water main will be replaced between 53` and 55` Avenues to coincide =
with sanitary sewer replacement. _ 1
Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary sewer consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay g pipe lateral sewers. These sewers
were originally installed in 1952. Sanitary sewer between 53' and 55 Avenues is subjected to frequent
problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system
conveyance capacity. The current project cost estimate includes replacement of sanitary sewer between
` 53` and 55` Avenues.
i
Storm Sewer
j The storm sewer on Humboldt Avenue consists of 18 -inch diameter corrugated metal pipe that drains to a
i trunk line along 55"' Avenue. This storm sewer was installed in 1952. The current project cost estimate
includes replacing 100 percent of the storm sewer. The cost estimate assumes that Brooklyn Center may
. contribute to a portion of the storm drainage cost for the project.
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
i
f� 5 ,
i
Dupont Avenue Neighborhood Improvements
The Dupont Avenue Neighborhood project area extends from 73` Avenue to 57`
Avenue. The total project length is 10,007 feet. The neighborhood consists of
approximately 140 residential properties and the Brooklyn Center High School e
property and one city parcel.
t
Streets
The entire length of the project area is designated as a Minnesota State Aid Route.
The majority of the streets in the project area were originally constructed between
1963 and 1968. The existing street between 57 Avenue and 67` Avenue is 42 feet
wide with concrete curb and gutter. The existing street between 67` Avenue and 73`
a Avenue are 30 feet wide with no curb and gutter. The overall pavement condition
rating is fair to poor. Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of
the street subgrade, installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement` "`"� VME
of bituminous street pavement between 59 Avenue and Lilac Drive N and between �� o�
67` Avenue and 73` Avenue. Proposed improvements for the remaining areas
include 20 percent curb replacement, 10 percent sidewalk replacement and
installation on new street pavement.
Water main
f� The existing water main in the south portion of the project area is 6 -inch diameter
cast iron pipe installed in 1968 and 1969. Dupont Avenue between Interstate 94 and
69 Avenue contains a 30 -inch steel water main installed in 1963. The water main
between 69 Avenue and 73` Avenue consists of 6 -inch and 12 -inch cast iron pipe
installed in 1961 and 1962. A majority of the existing water main is believed to have
a cement based internal liner. The corrosion rate within the project area has not been
thoroughly documented at this time. However, there is a history of water main breaks along Dupont
Avenue between 69 and 73rd. The current project estimate includes complete water main replacement
between 59 Avenue and Lilac Drive N and between 67` Avenue and 73` Avenue. No water main
replacement is anticipated in the remaining areas.
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer in the project area consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed in
1960, 1961 and 1967. Approximately 25 percent of the sanitary sewer is subjected to frequent problems
with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system
conveyance capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated as fair.
The current project cost estimate includes 100 percent sanitary sewer replacement between 57 Avenue
e� and Lilac Drive N and between 67` Avenue and 73` Avenue.
Storm Sewer
A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in the existing storm sewer system
and conveyed to the existing trunk storm sewer lines flowing to the Mississippi River. These trunk storm
lines area located on 70 Avenue, 65 Avenue, 59 Avenue and 57` Avenue. The current project cost
estimate includes 100 percent storm sewer replacement between 57` Avenue and Lilac Drive N and
between 67" Avenue and 73` Avenue. The cost estimate also includes the replacement of approximately
5 catch basins and approximately 700 feet of smaller diameter lateral storm pipe in the remaining areas.
w�
' Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
i
Twin Lake North Imp rovements
The north portion of the Twin Lake North project area extends O J v Vl i
from County Road 10 to 55 Ave, and from Admiral Lane to
Brooklyn Blvd. The south portion of the project area extends
from 53` Ave. to 50 Ave., and from East Twin Lake Blvd to
Highway 100. The total project length is 15,745 feet. The
neighborhood consists of approximately 209 residential
properties (R1 and R4) and 4 commercial properties (C1).
Streets
L1J�1]S�' g
51" Avenue east of Brooklyn Blvd is a designated Municipal
State Aid Route. The majority of the streets in the project area 1
were originally constructed in 1965 and 1967. Existing streets
are generally 30 feet wide with no curb and gutter. The service
9 road along Brooklyn Boulevard is currently 25 feet wide. The
street pavement is deteriorated throughout most of the
neighborhood. The overall pavement condition rating is fair to „
poor. Proposed street improvements consist of the
reconstruction of the street subgrade, installation of curb and��
gutter to improve drainage and placement of bituminous street
pavement. - - -- -
Water main
The existing water main in the north portion of the project area is 6 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed
t in 1965. The south portion of the project area contains 6 -inch and 8 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed
in 1966 and 1967. A majority of the existing water main is believed to have a cement based internal liner.
The corrosion rate within the project area has not been thoroughly documented at this time. However,
there is a history of water main breaks along East Twin Lake Blvd. and Great View Avenue. The current
project estimate assumes complete replacement of the water main within the project area.
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer in the north portion of the project area consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe
' (VCP) installed in 1956 and 1958. The south portion of the project area contains 8 -inch diameter VCP
installed in 1958 and 1960. Approximately 75 percent of the sanitary sewer is subjected to frequent
problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system
conveyance capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated as
poor. Complete replacement of all sanitary sewer pipes and access structures are proposed as part of the
project. Further investigation of the sewer line within Brooklyn Boulevard is necessary to determine if
cured -in -place pipe rehabilitation is necessary or warranted.
Storm Sewer
A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in the existing storm sewer system
and conveyed to the regional storm water treatment facility in Centerbrook Golf Course. Runoff from the
portion of the project area south of 53` Avenue and West of France Avenue is conveyed to Twin Lake. A
portion of the existing storm sewer system within the project area could be salvaged, although it is
anticipated that expansion of the system and higher capacity will be needed to minimize local flooding.
The current project cost estimate assumes complete replacement of the storm sewer system as part of the
scheduled neighborhood improvements. The current cost estimate includes an in -line treatment device to
remove sediment prior to discharging runoff into Twin Lake.
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
J
Logan Neighborhood Improvements
The Logan Neighborhood project area extends from Logan Avenue to 7-AM AW N
` Humboldt Avenue and from 73 Avenue to 69` Avenue. The project area
includes a total of approximately 12,321 feet of local streets. The i
if neighborhood consists of approximately 210 single family residential E —_
properties (RI) and 1 multi - family residential property (R5). }
Streets Y
The majority of the streets in the project area were originally constructed
in 1962 through 1969. Existing streets are generally 30 feet wide with no x T A N
curb and gutter. Poor surface drainage and low stability subgrade material
has resulted in deteriorated pavement throughout the neighborhood.
` Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of the street _
subgrade, installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and
placement of bituminous street pavement.
°
[1, J
Water main
Existing water main in the Logan Neighborhood area consists of 6 -inch
69TH AVE N 1 4�
and 10 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed between 1960 and 1969. '
Higher corrosion rates have been noted within a majority of the project area. Water records indicate
q thirteen main breaks have occurred within the area. Several isolation valves have also failed within the
project area. Complete water main replacement within the project area is scheduled.
t
Sanitary Sewer
t Existing sanitary sewer within the neighborhood consists of 8 -inch and 10 -inch diameter vitrified clay
pipe originally installed in 1960 and 1965. A short segment of sanitary sewer along Irving Avenue was
installed in 1978. Approximately 30 percent of the sanitary sewer is subjected to frequent problems with
root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system conveyance
capacity. A televising inspection is necessary to determine the extent of sanitary sewer replacement is
justified. The current project cost estimate includes the replacement of 50 percent of the sanitary sewer
pipes and access structures within the neighborhood. The cost estimate also includes cured -in -place pipe
s rehabilitation for the 10 -inch diameter sanitary sewer extending along 71" Avenue from Logan Avenue to
Humboldt Avenue. The actual cost may need to be adjusted upon completion of a condition survey.
Storm Sewer
The existing storm sewer in the project area ranges in size from 18 -inch to 33 -inch diameter reinforced
concrete pipe. The project area contains one trunk storm line running through an easement from 73`
Avenue to 71 Avenue, then flowing east to Humboldt Avenue. The current project cost estimate
assumes that an expansion and replacement of a vast majority of the storm sewer system will be necessary
6, as part of the scheduled neighborhood improvements. The current estimate does not include replacement
of the trunk storm sewer noted above.
J
Project Summary
2009 Capita! Improvement Program
Unit Avenue Improvements
Y P
The Unity Avenue project area extends from the north city limits to 69
` Avenue. The total project length is 2,786 feet. The neighborhood
consists of approximately 100 residential properties (R3).
Streets
The Unity Avenue was originally constructed in 1978. The existing 4
street is 30 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. The overall '
pavement condition rating is fair. Private streets adjacent to Unity
Avenue, such as 71', 72 and 73 Circle, are not included as part of the
T project. Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of 1
the of bituminous street pavement and replacement of concrete curb as
' necessary based on the extent of water main replacement on the west
side of Unity Avenue.
Water main
The existing water main in the project area is 8 -inch and 10 -inch
diameter ductile iron pipe installed in 1977 and 1978. The corrosion
rate within the project area has not been thoroughly documented at this
time. The Public Utility Division will excavate and inspect various
- } fittings to determine the extent of water main replacement that is
warranted. Water records indicate that two main breaks have occurred within the neighborhood.
Elevated corrosion rates have been documented within this segment of watermain. The current project
estimate includes replacement of water main along Unity Avenue.
. P Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer in the north portion of the project area consists of 8 -inch and 10 -inch diameter poly
vinyl chloride (PVC) pipe installed in 1977. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the 1
neighborhood is rated as good. The current project estimate includes replacement sanitary sewer castings
only.
Storm Sewer r
A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in the existing storm sewer system
and conveyed to the storm water ponds surrounding Unity Avenue. The existing storm sewer in the
project area consists of 15 -inch to 24 -inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe installed in 1978. The
current project cost estimate includes replacing storm structure castings and isolated portions of lateral
storm sewer as necessary.
i
1
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
East Palmer Lake Neighborhood Improvements
g P
The East Palmer Lake Neighborhood project area extends from Penn
Avenue to Morgan Avenue and from 69th Avenue to 73 Avenue. The
project area includes a total of approximately 10,460 feet of local streets. 4
The neighborhood consists of approximately 169 single family residential _
properties.
Streets
The majority of the streets in the project area were originally constructed
a
between 1962 and 1969. Existing streets are generally 30 feet wide with no
curb and gutter. Poor surface drainage and low stability subgrade material "
has resulted in deteriorated pavement throughout the neighborhood. x
Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of the street
subgrade, installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement — ;-
of bituminous street pavement. x---
Water main
Existing water main in the East Palmer Lake Neighborhood area consists of —
6 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed between 1960 and 1969. Water OM AVE h
records indicate that no water main breaks have occurred within the project
area. The Public Utility Division will excavate and inspect various fittings to determine the extent of
water main replacement that is warranted. The replacement of approximately 50 percent of the water
main within the project area is currently included in the project cost estimate to facilitate replacement of
sanitary sewer as noted below.
Sanitary Sewer
Existing sanitary sewer within the neighborhood consists of 8 -inch and 10 -inch diameter vitrified clay
pipe originally installed in 1960 and 1965. Approximately 30 percent of the sanitary sewer is subjected to
frequent problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the
system conveyance capacity. A televising inspection is necessary to determine the extent of sanitary
sewer replacement is justified. An estimated 50 percent of the sewer system is in poor condition. The
current project cost estimate assumes replacement of 50 percent of the sanitary sewer pipes and access
structures. The actual cost may be reduced upon completion of a condition survey.
Storm Sewer
The existing storm sewer ranges in size from 15 -inch to 21 -inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe. The
project area contains three small storm sewer lines that run to Palmer Lake. Much of the small diameter
storm sewer must be reconfigured to reduce local flooding and preserve street pavement. The current cost
estimate assumes replacement of all storm sewer in the project area.
Project Summary
2009 Capita( Improvement Program
K lawn Park Neighborhood Improvements
Y g P
The north portion of the Kylawn Park 1 I it ❑ LE s mot
Neighborhood project area extends from County _—
Road 10 to 61" Ave, and from June Ave to _ - -- '-
Brooklyn Blvd. The south portion of the project - r
area includes 58` Place and Major Ave. The total -
project length is 15,311 feet. The neighborhood '
consists of approximately 279 residential ,
properties (R1 and R4) and 1 commercial property R®
(C1). ®R - r
In
Streets
June Avenue from County Road 10 to 61S` Avenue
is designated as a Municipal State Aid Route. The
majority of the streets in the project area were
originally constructed in 1965 and 1968. Existing F
streets are generally 30 feet wide with no curb and
gutter. The street pavement is deteriorated throughout most of the neighborhood. The overall pavement
condition rating is poor. Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of the street
subgrade, installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement of bituminous street
pavement. '
Water main
The existing water main on June Avenue is 8 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed in 1955. The
remaining project area consists of 6 -inch cast iron pipe installed between 1963 and 1966. A majority of
the existing water main is believed to have a cement based internal liner. The corrosion rate within the
project area has not been thoroughly documented at this time. Water records indicate that three main
breaks have occurred within the neighborhood. In general, cast iron water main is highly vulnerable to
leaks and breaks when disturbed by replacement of adjacent sanitary sewer as noted below. The current
project estimate includes complete replacement of water main within the project area to facilitate the
replacement of sanitary sewer as noted below.
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer along Major Avenue consists for 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed in
1967. The remaining project area contains 8 -inch and 10 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe installed
between 1956 and 1959. Approximately 90 percent of the sanitary sewer is subjected to frequent
problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system
conveyance capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated as
poor. Complete replacement of all sanitary sewer pipes and access structures are proposed as part of the
project.
Storm Sewer
The storm water runoff from the southeast portion of the project area is collected in the existing storm
sewer system and conveyed to the regional storm water treatment facility in Centerbrook Golf Course.
Runoff from the southwest portion of the project area is conveyed to the Northport Park storm water
pond. Expansion of the storm system and increased conveyance capacity is needed to minimize local
flooding. The current project cost estimate assumes complete replacement of the storm sewer system as
part of the neighborhood improvements.
Project Summary
2009 Capital improvement Program
i
Wangstad Park Neighborhood Improvements
The Wangstad Park Neighborhood extends from " ' ' ' "� " �" — ` J -'
' Noble Ave. to Brooklyn Blvd and from 63` Ave.
to 60 Ave. The total project length is 15,884 feet.
The neighborhood consists of approximately 257 u
residential properties (R1 and R4) and 6 -� y °M° •�
commercial properties (C1).
Streets E
i
June Avenue from 61" to 63` is a designated
g Municipal State Aid Route. The majority of the
streets in the project area were originally
constructed between 1966 and 1968. Existing streets are generally 30 feet wide with no curb and gutter.
The street pavement is deteriorated throughout most of the neighborhood. The overall pavement
condition rating is poor. Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of the street
subgrade, installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement of bituminous street
pavement.
Water main
The existing water main in the project area is 6 -inch and 8 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed in 1955
and between 1960 and 1969. A majority of the existing water main is believed to have a cement based
internal liner. The corrosion rate within the project area has not been thoroughly documented at this time.
° Water records indicate that three main breaks have occurred within the neighborhood. In general, cast
iron water main is highly vulnerable to leaks and breaks when disturbed by replacement of adjacent
sanitary sewer as noted below. The current project estimate includes replacement of the water main
within the project area to facilitate the replacement of sanitary sewer as noted below.
?� Sanitary Sewer
t The sanitary sewer the project area consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed between
1956 and 1960. Approximately 85 percent of the sanitary sewer is subjected to frequent problems with
root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system conveyance
z� capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated as poor. Complete
replacement of all sanitary sewer pipes and access structures are proposed as part of the project.
Storm Sewer
The Wangstad Park Neighborhood has only one short stretch of storm sewer on 61 Avenue. An
expansion of the storm drainage system within the project area is necessary to reduce local flooding and
preserve street pavement. The existing storm sewer in the project area flows from France Avenue. to
Brooklyn Blvd. The pipe size and material are unknown. The cost estimate for this project area assumes
new storm sewer installation in the entire project area.
�r
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
f 3
e
' r
63 d Avenue Improvements
�i�siilt ±
4 A
111111.1 I Hi I J I RA
JAKr rTT
�5 f5f5f115 I.
The 63` Avenue project area extends from the west City Limits to Brooklyn Boulevard. The project area
contains a total of 5,709 linear feet of local streets. The neighborhood consists of approximately 55
residential properties (RI to R4) and 1 commercial zoned property (C2).
Streets ,
This segment of roadway is designated a Municipal State Aid Route. 63` Avenue was originally
constructed in 1965. The existing street is 43 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. Proposed street
improvements consist of the replacement of curb and gutter to improve drainage, full depth replacement
of bituminous street pavement and complete sidewalk replacement.
Water main
The existing water main in the 63` Avenue project area consists of 6 -inch and 10 -inch diameter cast iron
pipe (CEP) installed between 1956 and 1958. A condition survey must be conducted for the existing
water system in the project area to determine the extent of corrosion. Water records indicate three main
breaks have occurred within the project corridor. The water main is in fair condition based on current
I maintenance records. The current project cost estimate includes replacement of approximately 20 percent
r
water main and miscellaneous hydrants as necessary in the project area.
Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary sewer consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe lateral sewers. These sewers
were originally installed between 1956 and 1960. Approximately 35 percent of the sanitary sewer is
subjected to frequent problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to
maintain the system conveyance capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the
neighborhood is rated as fair. The current project cost estimate includes cast -in -place pipe (CIPP) in 35
g P J
percent of the sanitary sewer.
Storm Sewer
�d -inch and 15-
= 63 Avenue contains two storm drainage systems. The first drainage system consists of 12
inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe. This system flows to Orchard Avenue and then to the storm
es from 18 -inch to 36 -inch reinforced
drainage pond in Cahlander Park. The second storm system ranges
concrete i e. This system drains to Brooklyn Boulevard and then to Shingle Creek. The current project
PP
Y Y .
it of catch basin structures, castings and various pipe laterals.
cost estimate includes replacing a majority g
P g
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
i�
1� Freeway Park Neighborhood Improvements
The Freeway Park Neighborhood project area J "W N
extends from Grimes Ave to Xerxes Ave and from
69 Ave to Interstate 94. The project area - < < ® ea
includes a total of approximately 12,869 feet of - 6e .VEM = m
local streets. The neighborhood consists of
approximately 216 residential properties. N =®
' Streets 6llN AVE N w 3 %m
The majority of the streets in the project area were
INTERSTAT E 94 =-
originally constructed between 1967 and 1968. _
Existing streets are generally 30 feet wide with no
curb and gutter. Poor surface drainage and low stability subgrade material has resulted in deteriorated
pavement throughout the neighborhood. Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of
the street subgrade, installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement of bituminous street
pavement.
Water main
Existing water main in the Freeway Park Neighborhood consists of 6 -inch diameter cast iron pipe
installed between 1956 and 1960. Existing water main along France Ave. consists of 16 -inch cast iron
pipe installed in 1956. This water main is trunk feeder from Water Tower No. 1 on the corner of 69`
Avenue. and France Avenue. Higher corrosion rates have been noted within a majority of the project area.
° Water records indicate thirteen main breaks have occurred within the area. The current cost estimate
assumes 100 percent of the water main in the project area will be replaced.
Sanitary Sewer
Existing sanitary sewer within the neighborhood consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe originally
installed between 1956 and 1961. A sanitary sewer trunk line consisting of 21 -inch diameter corrugated
metal pipe runs along Ewing Avenue, 68"' Avenue. and Drew Avenue. A cured -in -place liner was
II installed along the 21 -inch diameter trunk sanitary sewer as part of project 1995 -11. This portion of the
sanitary sewer collection system is not proposed to be replaced with the project. Approximately 50
t� percent of the remaining sanitary sewer is subjected to frequent problems with root intrusion. Root
sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system conveyance capacity. At least 50
percent of the sewer system is in poor condition. Replacement of the 8 -inch diameter sanitary sewer
pipes and access structures are proposed as part of the project.
Storm Sewer
The Freeway Park improvement area consists of five small diameter storm sewer lines draining to 69 "'
Avenue and Interstate 94. The existing storm sewer ranges in size from 12 -inch to 21 -inch diameter
reinforced concrete pipe. The current cost estimate assumes replacement of the storm sewer in the
improvement area to increase conveyance capacity and minimize local flooding during larger storm
events.
s
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
Freeway oulevard West Improvements
Y P
The Freeway Blvd West project area extends from a
Xerxes Avenue. to the Shingle Creek Bridge. The
project area contains a total of 2,826 linear feet of ® ®
local streets. The neighborhood consists of
approximately 9 commercial/industrial properties.
Streets ,
This segment of roadway is designated as a Municipal
State Aid Route. Freeway Blvd was originally
constructed in 1974. The existing street is generally
45 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. The street
pavement exhibits a moderate rate of deteriorated due to higher volumes of traffic. The current cost
estimate assumes street improvements that consist of approximately 15 percent curb replacement, 10
percent sidewalk replacement, 25 percent concrete apron replacement and a 2 %2 -inch mill and overlay of
the bituminous pavement.
Water main
The existing water main in the Freeway Blvd West project area consists of 12 -inch diameter cast iron pipe
installed in 1974. The water main is in good condition based on current maintenance records. The
current project cost estimate includes no water main replacement. '
f Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary sewer along the west half of the project area consists of 15 -inch diameter reinforced
concrete pipe installed in 1996. The existing sanitary sewer on the east half of the project area consists of
= 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe installed in 1974. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within
the neighborhood is rated as good. The current project cost estimate includes no sanitary sewer
` ? replacement.
Storm Sewer
The storm sewer on Freeway Blvd consists of 12 -inch to 30 -inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe that
drains to Shingle Creek. This storm sewer was installed in 1974. The current project cost estimate
includes replacing structure castings and isolated pipe laterals as necessary within the project area.
i
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
I
ei hborhood Improvements
incent N g p
The Vincent Neighborhood project area extends from the 1 I I
Centerbrook Golf Course to 53` Avenue and from Highway N uuc DR
100 to Vincent Avenue. The total project length is 1,616 feet.
The neighborhood consists of approximately 15 residential 5-RD i AYE —
properties. —
r� Streets
1 The majority of the streets in the project area were originally y— a=
constructed in 1956. Existing streets are generally 30 feet / w —
wide with no curb and gutter. The street pavement is
deteriorated throughout most of the neighborhood. The overall
pavement condition rating is fair to poor. Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of
the street subgrade, installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement of bituminous street
pavement.
Water main
The existing water main in the project area consists of 6 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed in 1973 and
12 -inch and 16 -inch diameter steel water main installed in 1965. A majority of the existing water main is
believed to have a cement based internal liner. Water records indicate one main break has occurred
Y� within the neighborhood. The current project estimate includes replacement of the 6 -inch diameter cast
iron water main within the project area.
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer in the project area consists of 9 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed in
1954. The sanitary sewer in the project area extends along back property lines north of 53r Avenue then
runs south along Vincent Avenue. The entire sanitary sewer is subjected to frequent problems with root
intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system conveyance
system within the neighborhood capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer is rated as poor. The g
current project estimate includes replacement of the sanitary sewer along Vincent Avenue and cured -in-
place rehabilitation of the sanitary sewer along the rear yards.
Storm Sewer
A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in the existing storm sewer system
south of 53` Avenue. The current project cost estimate assumes installation of new storm sewer in the
$_ neighborhood due to the need to increased capacity of local storm sewers and address minor local
flooding issues.
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
r�
t
j Palmer Lake West Improvements ,
The Palmer Lake West Neighborhood project area extends from the north '
City limits to 69` Ave. and from France Ave. to West Palmer Lake Dr. The
total project length is 11,621 feet. The neighborhood consists of
3 approximately 198 residential properties." ,
_ w
Streets
The majority of the streets in the project area were originally constructed in = ,
1956 and 1957. Existing streets are generally 30 feet wide with no curb and
gutter. The street pavement is deteriorated throughout most of the = 5
neighborhood. The overall pavement condition rating is fair to poor. ,
Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of the street
subgrade, installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement ~
of bituminous street pavement. ^ff
Water main
The existing water main is 6 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed in 1956 and 1957. A majority of the
existing water main is believed to have a cement based internal liner. The corrosion rate within the
project area has not been thoroughly documented at this time. However, the project area has a history of
water main breaks along West Palmer Lake Dr., Ewing Ave. and Woodbine Lane. Water records indicate
seven main breaks have occurred within the area. The current project estimate includes complete water ,
main replacement.
_ Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer in the project area consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed in ,
# 1956 and 1957. Lift Station No. 3 is located in the project area on West Palmer Lake Drive. The lift
station was reconstructed in 1982, the force main was replaced in 1992, and the control cabinet was
replaced in 2003. Approximately 75 percent of the sanitary sewer in the project area is subjected to
frequent problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the
system conveyance capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated
as poor. Complete replacement of all sanitary sewer pipes and access structures are proposed as part of '
i the project.
Storm Sewer
An expansion of the storm drainage system within the project area is necessary to reduce local flooding
and preserve street pavement. A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in
the existing storm sewer system and conveyed to a regional storm water management pond adjacent to
Palmer Lake. A trunk storm sewer line extends along back property lines north of Urban Ave. This line '
consists of 54 -inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe installed in 1956. Expansion of the existing storm
sewer system and higher capacity will be needed to minimize local flooding. The current project cost
estimate assumes reconstruction of the existing storm sewer system within the street right -of -way, but ,
does not include the replacement of the 54 -inch diameter trunk storm sewer within the rear yards.
Project Summary
2009 Capital improvement Program
Evergreen Park Neighborhood Improvements
The Evergreen Park Neighborhood project area extends
from Humboldt Ave. to State Highway 252 and from 69"' �^
Ave. to 73` Ave. Dupont Ave. is not included in the 3
project area. The total project length is 16,996 feet. The
neighborhood consists of approximately 214 residential ,, 3
properties (R1 to R5).
Streets
70' Avenue is designated as a Municipal State Aid Route.
The majority of the streets in the project area were r
originally constructed between 1963 and 1966. Existing _
streets are generally 30 feet wide with no curb and gutter. _
70` Ave. from Dupont to Hwy 252 has concrete curb and D l l -Am
gutter and ranges in size from 30 to 65 feet wide. 70
Ave. was constructed in 1982. The street pavement is deteriorated throughout most of the neighborhood.
The overall pavement condition rating is fair to poor. Proposed street improvements consist of the
reconstruction of the street subgrade, installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement of
bituminous street pavement.
r � Water main
The Evergreen project area contains a complex water main system. This area contains five municipal
wells and one water tower. The existing water main ranges in size from 6 -inch diameter cast iron pipe to
g 30 -inch ductile iron pipe. The main line water main in the residential areas generally consists of 6 -inch
cast iron pipe installed between 1961 and 1965. A majority of the existing water main is believed to have
a cement based internal liner. There is a history of water main breaks along 72 "d Ave., Woodbine Lane
and Camden Ave. Water records indicate twenty main breaks have occurred within the neighborhood.
The project design process must include a detailed hydraulics study using the City's water distribution
computer model to determine any warranted modifications to water main sizes and configuration. The
current project estimate assumes replacement of the older cast iron water main.
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer in the project area consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed in
1961 and 15 -inch reinforced concrete pipe installed in 1960. The south portion of the project area
contains 8 -inch diameter VCP installed in the 1958 and 1960. Approximately 25 percent of the sanitary
i sewer is subjected to frequent problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual
basis to maintain the system conveyance capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the
g� neighborhood is rated as fair. The current cost estimate includes 50 percent replacement of the sanitary
sewer.
Storm Sewer
A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in the existing storm sewer system
a and conveyed to the Mississippi River. Emerson Ave., Bryant Ave. and Camden Ave. have storm
drainage systems that flow to 70 "' Ave. and then to the Mississippi River. The trunk line on 70` Ave.
consists of pipe ranging in size from 42 -inch to 66 -inch reinforced concrete pipe installed in 1960. The
current project cost estimate assumes complete reconstruction of the existing storm system in the project
area. The condition of the trunk storm sewer pipe along 70 Avenue must be evaluated to determine the
remaining service life. The project estimate includes construction of a stormwater pond located to the
north of 70` Avenue and east of Camden Avenue to treat regional storm water runoff prior to discharging
to the Mississippi River.
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
x�
Firehouse Park Neighborhood Improvements
' tends from '
The Firehouse Park Neighborhood project area ex t ( f `} ti� l �l 11 fj
69 Avenue to Interstate 94 and from Humboldt Avenue to
Highway 252. Dupont Avenue and 65` Avenue are not
included in the project area. The total project length is F,
21,456 feet. The neighborhood consists of approximately
305 single family residential properties (R1) and 14 multi- s
family properties (R4 and R5). —
Streets
67"' Avenue is designated as a Municipal State Aid Route. o '
The majority of the streets in the project area were originally '
_ constructed between 1964 and 1967. Existing streets are L '
generally 30 feet wide with no curb and gutter. The street
pavement is deteriorated throughout most of the
neighborhood. The overall pavement condition rating is
' poor. Proposed street improvements consist of the
reconstruction of the street subgrade, installation of curb andr,�;�� _ t
gutter to improve drainage and placement of bituminous
street pavement.
,
Water main
The existing water main in the project area is 6 -inch and 8 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed between
1961 a nd 1969. Ave. A In 197
4 , a 16 -inch diameter ductile iron water main was installed along 64 A
9 69.
majority of the existing water main is believed to have a cement based internal liner. The corrosion rate
within the project area has not been thoroughly documented at this time. The current project estimate
includes replacement of approximately 50 percent of the water main within the project area. The
estimated water main costs will need to be refined by conducting further field inspections.
Sanitary Sewer ,
The sanitary sewer in the north portion of the project area consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe
(VCP) installed between 1961 and 1968 and between 1971 andl974. Approximately 25 percent of the
sanitary sewer is subjected to frequent problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on
an annual basis to maintain the system conveyance capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system
within the neighborhood is rated as fair. The current project estimate includes replacement of
approximately 50 percent of sanitary sewer pipes and access structures.
Storm Sewer ,
A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in the existing storm sewer system
and conveyed to the trunk storm sewer line on 65` Avenue, and then to the Mississippi River. Runoff
from the portion of the project area north of 68` Avenue is conveyed to the trunk storm sewer line on 69` '
Avenue. The current project cost assumes reconstruction and expansion of the residential storm sewer
system, but does not include replacement of the trunk storm sewer along 65` and 69` Avenues.
Project Summary '
2009 Capital Improvement Program
Interstate Neighborhood Improvements
g P
The Interstate Neighborhood project area extends from Interstate 94 to 59"' =�
Avenue and from Dupont Avenue to Lyndale Avenue. The total project
length is 14,821 feet. The neighborhood consists of approximately 214
j1 residential properties (RI).
i
Streets ?
The majority of the streets in the project area were originally constructed in °*
1 1968 and 1969. Existing streets are generally 30 feet wide with concrete
curb and gutter. The street pavement is showing signs of distress
r� throughout most of the neighborhood. Proposed street improvements «
consist of the replacement of curb and gutter as necessary and placement of
t bituminous street pavement.
s Water main
i The existing water main in the project area consists of 6 -inch and 8 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed
in 1969. Colfax Avenue contains a 24 -inch steel water main installed in 1964. A majority of the existing
water main is believed to have a cement based internal liner. There is no history of water main breaks in
the project area. In 2019, the water main system will be in service for 50 to 55 years. Cast iron water
main is highly vulnerable to leaks and breaks when disturbed by replacement of adjacent sanitary sewer.
The current project estimate assumes complete replacement of the water main to facilitate the sanitary
sewer replacement noted below.
t_
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer in the project area consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed in
,_ 1960. Approximately 90 percent of the sanitary sewer is subjected to frequent problems with root
intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system conveyance
capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated as poor. Complete
t o replacement of all sanitary sewer pipes and access structures are proposed as part of the project.
.� Storm Sewer
A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in the existing storm sewer system
and conveyed to the storm trunk line on 59` Avenue and then to the Mississippi River. Replacement of
the trunk storm sewer along 59 Avenue and an in -line water quality treatment device is proposed as part
of the Aldrich Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement project. The current project cost estimate
assumes complete reconstruction of the storm drainage system within the neighborhood due to the need to
increased capacity of local storm sewers and the expansion of the system to address minor local flooding
issues.
J
J
J
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
x�
to Drive Improvements
Logan, 59 and Lilac p
} This project area includes Logan Avenue from FP
57` Avenue to Lilac Drive N, 59` from Lilac �" / W. -Ow"
_
p
„Y.I
Drive N to Dupont Avenue and Lilac Dr. N
f from Logan Avenue to 59` Avenue. The total t =,
project length is 3,761 feet. The neighborhood —
consists of approximately 19 residential —
properties (RI to R5) and 5 commercial zoned s
properties (Cl and C2).
Streets
The entire project area is designated as a
Municipal State Aid Route. The majority of
the streets in the project area were originally constructed in 1966. The existing roads are 30 to 35 feet
wide. Logan Avenue and Lilac Dr. N have concrete curb and gutter, and 59` Avenue has no curb. The '
street pavement is deteriorated throughout most of the neighborhood. The overall pavement condition
rating is fair to poor. Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of the street subgrade,
l installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement of bituminous street pavement.
Water main
The existing water main along Logan and Lilac Dr. is 10 -inch diameter cast iron pipe installed in 1965
} and 16 -inch diameter cast iron main along 59` Avenue installed in 1969. A majority of the existing water
main is believed to have a cement based internal liner. The corrosion rate within the project area has not
_) been thoroughly documented at this time. Utility records indicate that there has been one water main
break along Logan Avenue. However, the Public Utilities Division will need to excavate and inspect
1 various fittings to determine the extent of water main replacement that is warranted. The current project
estimate includes replacement of water main along Logan Avenue and Lilac Drive only.
s
� Sanitary Sewer
The only sanitary sewer in the project area runs along Logan Avenue. This sanitary sewer was lined with
cured -in -place pipe (CIPP) in 2005. Manhole casting replacement is the only proposed sanitary sewer
improvement for the project.
..i
Storm Sewer
{ A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in the existing trunk line along 59"' ,
Avenue. This line consists of 24" to 36" corrugated metal pipe. A second storm lines runs south along
Logan Avenue to 57 Avenue. This line consists of 21" to 42" RCP installed in 1988. The current
project cost estimate assumes replacement of the corrugated metal pipe alone 59"' Avenue as part of the '
scheduled neighborhood improvements.
$
Project Summary '
2009 Capital Improvement Program
Grandview Park Neighborhood Improvements
The Grandview Park Neighborhood project area extends Interstate 694 �
to 57` Avenue and from Logan Avenue to Dupont Avenue. The total
project length Is 28,821 feet. The neighborhood consists of
approximately 345 residential properties (Rl) and 4 multi - family
' properties (R6).
Streets /�
w The majority of the streets in the project area were originally
constructed between 1964 and 1969. Existing streets are generally 30
feet wide with no curb and gutter. The street pavement is deteriorated
throughout most of the neighborhood. The overall pavement condition /
rating is fair to poor. Proposed street improvements consist of the
reconstruction of the street subgrade, installation of curb and gutter to
improve drainage and placement of bituminous street pavement.
Water main
The existing water main in the north portion of the project area is 6 -inch and 8 -inch diameter cast iron
pipe installed between 1964 and 1969. A 16 -inch steel water main runs along Emerson Avenue from 57
to 59` A majority of the existing water main is believed to have a cement based internal liner. Water
records indicate two main breaks have occurred within the neighborhood. The current project estimate
includes replacement of approximately 50 to 75 percent of the water main within the project area. The
16 -inch steel water main along Emerson Avenue potently could be replaced with C900 plastic water main
a Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer in the north portion of the project area consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe
(VCP) installed in 1960 and 1963. Approximately 50 percent of the sanitary sewer is subjected to
frequent problems with root intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the
{ system conveyance capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated
as fair to poor. The current project estimate includes replacement of approximately 50 to 75 percent of
the sanitary sewer system within the project area.
Storm Sewer
A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in the existing storm sewer system
and conveyed to the trunk storm sewer line on 59` Avenue and then to the Mississippi River. A portion
of the existing storm sewer system within the project area could be salvaged, although it is anticipated
that expansion of the system and additional conveyance capacity will be needed to minimize local
flooding. The current project cost estimate includes replacement of 75 percent of the local drainage
system within the neighborhood.
Project Summary
2009 Capita( Improvement Program
Ryan Lake Industrial Park Improvements '
The Ryan Lake project area includes Lilac Drive N from
48"' Avenue to the dead end, 48` Avenue and Dusharm
Drive from Drew Avenue to the dead end and 47`
Avenue from Drew Avenue to the dead end. The total
'. project length is 1,932 feet. The neighborhood consists
48TH AVE N
of approximately 12 industrial properties and 3 multi-
' family properties (R5). } �,
47TH AVE N
`
Streets
lllltl�
. The majority of the streets in the project area were '
originally constructed in 1958 and 1960. The western
portion of 47"' Avenue and Drew Avenue were
reconstructed in 2002. The western portion of 48"' Avenue was reconstructed in 2005. The remaining
street sections are 25 to 40 feet wide with no curb and gutter. The street pavement is deteriorated and in
poor condition. Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of the street subgrade,
installation of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement of bituminous street pavement.
Water main i
The existing water main on Lilac Drive N and 48"' Avenue consists of 10 -inch diameter cast iron pipe
installed in 1958. The water main on 47` Avenue consists of 6 -inch cast iron pipe installed in 1960. The '
s current project estimate assumes complete replacement of the water main in the project area. The cost
estimate also includes the cost of jacking new water main under the railroad tracks from Dusharm Drive
to 49 Avenue.
4
� Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer in the project area consists of 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) installed in
j 1960. The sanitary sewer along 47"' Avenue and 48` Avenue is subjected to frequent problems with root
intrusion. Root sawing must be performed on an annual basis to maintain the system conveyance
capacity. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated as fair to poor.
Complete replacement of all sanitary sewer pipes and access structures are proposed as part of the project.
Storm Sewer '
A majority of the storm water runoff from the project area is collected in the existing storm sewer system
and conveyed to Ryan Lake. Runoff from Lilac Drive is conveyed to storm drainage ditches along
Highway 100. The current project cost estimate assumes reconstruction of all of the existing storm sewer
system. The cost estimate also includes installation of a small storm water management pond at the
intersection of 48 Avenue and Dusharm Drive within City owned property adjacent to Ryan Lake. '
Project Summary ,
2009 Capital Improvement Program
« m
~� Avenue North Improvemen
The 5l Avenue y �ec\uceuex*:udabnmol85
'-'
feet south ofOak Street mn Twin Lake Blvd EW
tJ
France Avenue. The total project length iul.l7l
feet. The neighborhood consists of ~
approximately 25 residential properties.
OAK ST N
0tr*wbx
�
The 5l" Avenue project area was originally
uouobnobedio199U. 7.be exiodugxbootio306eot _J
�
wide vv6bconcrete curb and gu�ec After the | ~~~=�' �
year � �%3�m����w���e��d �e ' ^^^— '
^ ' uc�vic�oyol�. �z*poxmioboo{
expected
F-T-
improvements consist of reconstruction ofthe ! ' — -- ----
�
bituminous street pavement and replacement nf
.-r
the concrete curb and gutter uonecessary.
Water Main
The existing water main iu the 5l' Avenue project ur0000uxiotoof8-iucbdiuooeterdnodlebouy' o
�-
installed io199O. The water main ixiu good condition based uu current maintenance records. Water
�
main repairs should be limited to the replacement of miscellaneous valve and hydrants based on current
conditions.
Sanitary Sewer
The ouoi1m��sewer iude 5l" Avenue pu��tarea consists uf8-iuobdiunu�u�polyv��vlub\or��(P\/C)
pipe installed iul99U. The condition of the sanitary sewer system within the neighborhood is rated as
good. The current project estimate includes the replacement on sanitary sewer castings only.
Storm Sewer
�~
The storm sewer runoff from the 5l" Avenue project ooeuiouo!lno|odiudboezimdugotoonoevveroyooem
and conveyed 0o the storm water pond west of5l" Avenue. The existing storm sewer iu the project area
consists of 15-inch to 21-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe installed in 1990. The current project
cost estimate includes replacing the storm sewer structure castings and isolated portions of lateral storm
sewer uunecessary.
Project Summary
zOV9 Capital Improvement Program
53` Avenue Neighborhood Improvements
The 53 Avenue project area
extends on 53 Avenue from - T
m i
FA-
L �
Penn Avenue to 4 Street N. -H 41
4
The project area also
. ..............
includes James and Knox
A.
between 55 1h Avenue and -
1.
4
53 Avenue, and 54
Avenue between Logan F , HN
_w..., _ t_ - _ _ -�
Avenue and Irving Avenue'
•
The project area includes a
total of 9,426 feet of local streets. The neighborhood consists of approximately 100 residential properties.
Streets
53 Avenue is designated as a Municipal State Aid Route. 53 Avenue is also the border between
Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis. The north portion of 53 Avenue is maintained by Brooklyn Center
and the south portion is maintained by Minneapolis. The existing streets in the project area are 30 to 32
feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. 53 Avenue was constructed in 1985, and Knox, James and 54th
Avenues were constructed in 1994. Proposed street improvements consist of the reconstruction of the
street subgrade, installation new of curb and gutter to improve drainage and placement of bituminous
street pavement on 53 Avenue. Proposed improvements for the remaining areas consist of new street
pavement and replacement of isolated sections of concrete curb and gutter as necessary.
Water Main
The existing watermain on 53 Avenue is 6-inch diameter cast iron pipe (CIP) installed between 1965
and 1969. The existing watermain in the remainder of the project area is 6-inch diameter ductile iron pipe
(DIP) installed in 1994. The corrosion rate within the project area has not been thoroughly documented at
this time. The current project estimate includes complete water main replacement on 53 Avenue. No
water main replacement is anticipated in the remaining project area. The project cost estimate also
includes an emergency connection with Minneapolis if formal inter - communication arrangements can be
established for this connection. Brooklyn Center staff will need to contact the Minneapolis Water Utility
to discuss this potential emergency connection.
Sanitary Sewer
The sanitary sewer on 53 Avenue consists of 8-inch and 9-inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP)
installed between 1952 and 1959. The sanitary sewer in the remainder of the project area consists of 10
inch diameter poly vinyl chloride (PVC) installed in 1994. The condition of the sanitary sewer system
within the neighborhood is rated as fair. The current project cost estimate includes sanitary sewer
replacement on 53 Avenue. The remainder of the project area includes the replacement on sanitary
sewer castings only.
Storm Sewer
The majority of the storm sewer runoff in the project area drains to the trunk storm sewer line on 55'
Avenue and is conveyed to the Mississippi River. The storm sewer on 53 consists of 12-inch diameter
to 15 inch diameter reinforce concrete pipe installed between 1952 and 1979. The storm sewer on the
remainder of the project consists of 12-inch diameter to 18-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe
installed in 1994. The current project cost estimate includes replacement of 50 percent of the storm sewer
laterals and structure on 53 Avenue. Replacement of storm sewer castings is anticipated in the
remainder of the project area.
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
r�
Lyndale Avenue Neighborhood Improvements
r;
The Lyndale Avenue project area extents from 57"
_J --t—
Avenue to 55 Avenue and includes the 56"' Avenue
and 55 `h Avenue cul-de-sacs. The current project
length is 1,905 feet. The neighborhood consists of 11
residential properties (R2 and R4).
56R AVE H
Streets
The streets in the project area were constructed in
i E13
1985. The existing streets area 30 feet wide with
concrete curb and gutter. Proposed improvements
5�5 AVE: N
include 20 percent curb replacement and installation P r": \F%
of new street pavement. 7
j
Water Main
The existing water main in the project area consists of
6-inch diameter ductile iron pipe (DIP) installed in
1978 and 1985. The water main is in good condition
L
T_
based on current maintenance records. The current
project cost estimate includes replacement of
F1
miscellaneous valves and hydrants as necessary.
Sanitary Sewer
The existing sanitary sewer consists of 24-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe installed in 1959. This
`� sanitary sewer line is the main trunk line that carries the sanitary flow from the eastern third of Brooklyn
Center to a lift station on Lyndale Avenue south of 55 `h Avenue. The condition of the sanitary sewer in
the neighborhood is rated fair. The current project cost estimate includes replacement of sanitary services
and replacement of sanitary sewer castings. Cured-in-place lining of the trunk sanitary sewer may be
necessary based on future televising inspections.
Storm Sewer
w� A substantial portion of the southeast section of the city drains through the trunk storm sewer located
along 55 Avenue. The existing trunk storm sewer line consists of 36 -inch diameter reinforced concrete
pipe installed in 1952. The remainder of the project area consists of 12-inch diameter to 18-inch diameter
`� reinforced pipe installed in 1955 and 1985. The current project cost estimate includes replacing the storm
sewer structure castings and isolated portions of lateral storm sewer as necessary.
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
Water Main and Sanitary Sewer Improvements
,
Miscellaneous W y rovements P
Emergency Bypass for Lift Station No. 6 '
Lift Station No. 6, located at 3900 Lakebreeze Avenue, receives wastewater flow from a service area
of approximately 130 acres within the southwest portion of the city. Wastewater is then pumped into
a force main that conveys the flow north from the lift station under the Canadian Pacific Railroad '
tracks to a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) interceptor extending along 50"'
Avenue North.
' Prior to the Trunk Highway 100 improvements at the France Avenue interchange, the city had a
casing under the railroad tracks for the purposes of installing an emergency by -pass line from the lift
station to the MCES interceptor along 50 Avenue. During the TH 100 project, this casing was '
removed as part of the grade adjustments completed along the railroad tracks. Installation of a
temporary by -pass line from the lift station to the interceptor would be very difficult and time
consuming now that a casing under the railroad tracks is not available. In the event of a force main
break, wastewater would be discharged into the MnDOT right -of -way and eventually into
downstream surface waters until an emergency bypass could be installed.
The proposed project consists of installing a new 10 -inch diameter casing under the railroad tracks by ,
horizontal directional drilling methods. Access structures would also be placed at both the north end
and south end of the casing to allow access for installation of a temporary bypass hose.
' Centerbrook Golf Course Water Main Improvements
Proposed construction includes replacement of the existing 16 -inch diameter steel watermain through
the Centerbrook Golf Course from Russell Avenue to the Shingle Creek pedestrian bridge. '
Replacement of an existing 16 -inch valve near Water Tower No. 3 is also included in the project. A
section of this water main was excavated in 2005 to repair a leak. Further inspection revealed that
° the timber pilings were partially deteriorated and isolated sections of the exterior coating on the steel ,
water main were beginning to fail.
Water Tower No. I Painting
The 500,000 gallon elevated storage tank located at 69` Avenue and France Avenue was last painted
in 1999 with complete interior reconditioning and exterior spot repairs. The estimated service life for
the paint coating is 15 years. The proposed paint coating improvements consist of interior spot repair '
and exterior coating replacement.
Water Tower No. 2 Painting
The one - million gallon elevated storage tank located at 69` Avenue and Dupont Avenue was last
' painted in 1997 when spot repairs were completed for the interior coating and the exterior of the
structure was painted. The estimated service life for the paint coating is 15 years. The proposed
' paint coating improvements consist of complete replacement of the interior and exterior paint ,
coatings.
Water Tower No. 3 Painting '
The 1.5 million gallon elevated storage tank located within the Centerbrook Golf Course was last
painted in 1998 with completed interior reconditioning and exterior spot repairs. Exterior spot
repairs were also completed on the fluted column in 2005 as part of an exterior pressure washing
project. The proposed paint coating improvements consist of interior spot repair and exterior coating
replacement.
& Project Summary
2009 Capita( Improvement Program
Storm Water Improvements
Wetland 639W
The Twin and Ryan Lakes Nutrient TMDL Report and the 2003 Twin Lakes Management Plan
identify DNR Wetland 639W as a significant source of phosphorus to the Twin Lakes /Ryan Lake
system. These reports indicate that Wetland 639W contains high levels of phosphorous within the
sediments that have accumulated from the upstream watershed. Water quality sampling conducted in
2003 indicated that the average total phosphorous concentrations double between the inlet and outlet
of the wetland. Wetland 639W contributes an estimated 730 pounds of total phosphorous per year
into Upper Twin Lake and nearly half of this is in readily available dissolved form. This load
represents one of the largest sources of the total phosphorus to Upper Twin Lake.
The purpose of this project is to substantially reduce the amount of phosphorous release from
Wetland 639W by modifying the hydraulic characteristics and/or implementing active treatment
methods. This large wetland complex is located adjacent to the Crystal Airport. Three alternatives
for achieving this have been proposed in past studies: 1.) partial diversion of flow around the
wetland; 2.) dechannelization and increased storage within the wetland; and 3.) an alum ferric
chloride treatment system. The initial project development phase would include a feasibility study to
determine the most appropriate and cost effective option for achieving a reduction in phosphorous
loads release from the wetland.
This project would be implemented through a cooperative arrangement between the Shingle Creek
b Watershed Management Commission and the Cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, Crystal and
New Hope. The estimated project cost included in the Capital Improvement Program consists of the
estimated portion of the total project cost for Brooklyn Center.
Storm Water Management Basins
.� In 2005, the City of Brooklyn Center hired the consulting firm of Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik &
Associates to conduct a condition assessment of 30 storm water management ponds located
throughout the City. The assessment process resulted in a list of improvements to address problems
with shoreline erosion, sediment accumulation, inlet and outlet blockages and other miscellaneous
maintenance issues. Below is a description of the projects that were not considered routine annual
maintenance work normally addressed as part of the annual operating budget for the Storm Drainage
Utility.
t� Storm Water Pond 12 -002
Pond 12 -002 is located within the west central portion of the golf course. The basin receives runoff
a� from approximately 400 acres within the southwest portion of the City. Pond deficiencies noted
during the inspection include, shoreline erosion along the eastern portion of the pond; an erosion
channel that has cut through the berm separating pond 12 -002 from pond 12 -003; and a large volume
$� of accumulated sediments within the pond. Proposed improvements consist of repairing erosion
areas and removal of a portion of the accumulated sediment.
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
J
Storm Water Pond 12 -003
Pond 12 -002 is located within the west central portion of the golf course and includes a concrete
headwall structure connecting Ponds 12 -002, 12 -003 and 12 -004. The basin receives runoff from '
approximately 400 acres within the southwest portion of the City, the same drainage area as 12 -002.
Pond deficiencies noted during the inspection include shoreline erosion along the north and east sides
of the pond. The concrete headwall structure is filling with sediment with an average of one foot of '
sediment in the trench and three feet of sediment near the weir outlet. Proposed improvements
consist of repairing erosion areas, removal of sediment from the headwall trench and near the outlets
' of the headwall structure. '
Storm Water Pond 12 -004
Pond 12 -004 is located within the northern portion of the golf course. The basin receives runoff from '
the Brookdale Shopping Center. The pond has lost approximately 20 percent of the wet volume due
to sediment accumulation over the first 8 years of operation. By the year 2016, the pond is expected
to loose approximately 45 percent of the wet volume due to sediment accumulation. Proposed work
. consists of the removal of accumulated sediments to restore the water quality treatment function of '
the storm water pond.
Storm Water Pond 12 -005 '
Pond 12 -005 receives runoff from the upstream ponds 12 -002 and 12 -004. The condition survey
revealed that an excessive volume of sediment has accumulated in the pond and has decreased the
wet storage volume necessary to provide water quality treatment. The proposed work consists of
removing the accumulated sediment.
Storm Water Pond 18 -001 ,
Pond 18 -001 is located northwest of Northport Park. The pond receives runoff from approximately
120 acres of upstream drainage area. This basin has filled with an extensive amount of sediment
r over the past 40 to 50 years. A majority of this basin is likely classified as jurisdictional wetland
under the Wetland Conservation Act. However, the basin has lost many of the wetland values due to ,
the accumulation of sediment. The proposed project consists of excavating sediment from the basin
to restore the flow capacity through the wetland and restore a wet pool volume with an average depth
of 2 to 3 feet in the central part of the wetland. Fringe areas would be restored with native wetland ,
species.
Storm Water Pond 46 -001 '
Pond 46 -001 is located within the northern portion of Orchard Lane Park. The pond receives runoff
from approximately 60 acres of residential development located west of Orchard Lane Park and
approximately 50 acres located north of Interstate 94/694. The pond is was originally design as a ,
detention basin without wet volume to provide additional water quality benefit. The proposed
improvements consist of excavating wet storage volume below the invert of the outlet pipe to
increase the water quality treatment performance of the basin. ,
Storm Water Pond 50 -001
Pond 50 -001 is located within Cahlander Park. The pond receives runoff from approximately 230
acres of upstream residential development. Due to the large watershed to pond area ratio, this pond '
is subject to higher rates of sediment accumulation and potential erosion issues. Traces of
hydrocarbon pollutants were noted in the sediment during the most recent site inspection. The
proposed project consists of dredging and properly disposing of sediment from the pond and repairs '
to various shoreline erosion issues.
Project Summary
2009 Capita( Improvement Program
Storm Water Pond 60 -001
Pond 60 -001 is located west of Xerxes Avenue and south of Brooklyn Drive within Central Park.
The pond receives runoff from approximately 85 acres of upstream residential development. This
pond was constructed in 2003. By 2013, preliminary estimates indicate that approximately 30 to 40
percent of the wet volume will be lost due to sediment accumulation. The proposed work consists of
removal of sediment and installation of a skimmer structure to enhance the water quality treatment
performance of the pond.
�I
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
Park and Trail Improvements ,
Shingle Creek Trail Improvements '
r ,
Proposed construction includes replacement of the trail system along Shingle Creek from the south
City Hall parking lot to County Road 10. Parallel biking and walking trails would be removed and '
r replaced with a single ten foot wide trail section.
Arboretum Park South Parking Lot Reconstruction
Proposed construction includes replacement of the bituminous pavement within the south parking lot t
of Arboretum Park.
West Central Park Trail Improvements ,
Proposed construction includes replacing the bituminous trail system within Central Park west of
Shingle Creek. The project cost estimate includes relocation of a portion of the bituminous trail
along Shingle Creek away from the creek edge to prevent flooding and sinking of the new trail. An
eight foot wide trail section is proposed.
Northport Tennis Court Resurfacing
Proposed construction includes the resurfacing and rehabilitation of the tennis courts located within
become an increased priority Northport Park. Maintenance of this facility has b p y due to the elimination
of tennis courts within Kylawn Park in 2007. '
i
West Palmer Park Tennis Court Resurfacing
Proposed construction includes the resurfacing and rehabilitation of the tennis courts located within '
West Palmer Park. Maintenance of this facility has become an increased priority due to the
elimination of tennis courts within Kylawn Park in 2007.
Riverdale Park Open Picnic Shelter
Proposed construction activities include the replacement of the existing shelter building with a small
picnic shelter and installation of one security light. The picnic shelter structure would be similar in
design to the open picnic shelters located within Firehouse Park and Happy Hollow Park. '
? Willow Lane Park Open Picnic Shelter
The former Willow Lane Park building was lost to a fire in 2004. Proposed construction activities
include the installation of a small picnic shelter and installation of one security light. The picnic
shelter structure would be similar in design to the open picnic shelters located within Firehouse Park
` and Happy Hollow Park.
Firehouse Park Trail Improvements
Proposed construction includes replacement of the entire bituminous trail system within Firehouse '
Park. Extension of the north trail section to the north baseball diamond is also proposed. An eight
foot wide trail section is proposed.
Kylawn Park Trail Improvements
Proposed construction includes replacement of the bituminous trail system along the north part of
Kylawn Park and through the playground area. An eight foot trail is proposed. The south portion of
the trail system, installed in 1998, is not scheduled to be replaced. '
Project Summary '
2009 Capital Improvement Program
West Palmer Park Improvements
Proposed construction activities include the replacement of the existing park building and
replacement of four park lights. The new structure is scheduled to include picnic facilities, one
unisex restroom and a small utility area. The new shelter will be consistent with the park building
constructed in Kylawn Park in 2007/2008.
Evergreen Park Fence and Tennis Court Reconstruction
Proposed construction includes replacement of the soccer field fence and gate, replacement of the
baseball and softball outfield fences and resurfacing the tennis courts within Evergreen Park.
Evergreen Athletic Field Lighting Replacement
Proposed construction includes replacement of the elevated outdoor lighting system for the athletic
fields located within Evergreen Park. This project includes replacement of the existing lighting
system. The project does not include substantial expansion of the current lighting system.
Northport Park Building
Proposed construction activities include the replacement of the existing shelter building. The new
structure is scheduled to include picnic facilities, one unisex restroom and a small utility area. The
new shelter will be consistent with the park building constructed in Kylawn Park in 2007/2008.
Baseball Backstop Replacements
Proposed construction includes replacement of the baseball backstop fences at Central Park, Freeway
Park and Willow Lane Park.
Central Park Tennis Court Resurfacing
Proposed construction includes the removal of two existing tennis courts and resurfacing of the two
i remaining two tennis courts within Central Park.
Willow Lane Park Trail Improvements
a_ Proposed construction includes replacement of the trail system within Willow Lane Park. An eight
foot wide trail section is proposed.
Baseball Fence Replacement
Proposed construction includes replacement of the line fences at Central Park and East Palmer Lake
Park and the replacement of the line and outfield fences at Northport Park.
s
Freeway Park Trail Improvements
Proposed construction includes replacement of the trail system within Freeway Park. An eight foot
wide trail section is proposed.
Lions Park Trail Improvements
Proposed construction includes replacement of the trail system within Lions Park. Parallel biking
and walking trails would be removed and replaced with a single ten foot wide trail section.
Evergreen Park Trail Improvements
Proposed construction includes replacement of the bituminous trail within Evergreen Park.
Replacement of the trail along 70 Avenue is not part of the project. An eight foot wide trail section
is proposed.
Project Summary
2009 Capital Improvement Program
I
f
Brooklyn Boulevard City Entrance Signs
Proposed improvements include painting the existing City entrance signs and cedar fences
surrounding the signs located along Brooklyn Boulevard at the Minneapolis and Brooklyn Park
borders.
69 Avenue Greenway Fence Rehabilitation
II ,
Proposed construction includes refinishing the wood fen ce along the north side of the 69` Avenue ,
greenway between Brooklyn Boulevard and Palmer Lake Drive.
}
West River Road Trail Improvements
Proposed construction includes replacement of the bituminous trail along West River Road from 73r
Avenue to 66`' Avenue. A ten foot wide trail section is proposed.
Central Park East Trail Improvements
Proposed construction includes replacement of the bituminous trail system within the eastern portion
of Central Park. The trail segment proposed for replacement is between Interstate 94 and the south '
' City Hall parking lot, east of Shingle Creek. A ten foot wide trail section is proposed along the main
trail corridor and an eight foot wide trail section is proposed for the adjacent pedestrian trails.
Play round Equipment Replacement
Y P
Proposed construction includes replacing park play ground equipment over a five year period_ A
i total of 20 arks with playground equipment are located within Brooklyn Center. Four parks are
P P Yg '
scheduled for replacement each year over the five year period. An assessment of the play ground
equipment will need to be done to determine replacement priority.
Palmer Lake Trail Mill and Overlay '
system extending around Palmer
ion includes resurfacing of the existing trail s g
Proposed constrict g s Y
P g
i. Lake. This trail was last reconstructed in 2005 with an expected maximum service life of 15 to 20
1 years due to the soil stability issues within the park area.
}
i
z
Project Summary '
2009 Capital Improvement Program
i
A
A
W
a
a
<C
w � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � .r
it!! I f 1 i 5 1 i
1.1 fill eR !
]o PALMER LAKE PARK
i l
I- Z-!44T
0 : 4
.7
fety 1 -1
.%A
Safety
Zone B 1 –4.
t
LOCAL STREET 4
INDEX
' s - /: .'
7
Brooklyn Center Zoning
*7 ZONINGDISTRICTS ci 02 R2
cmi PuDr-IA R3
CVR5/R4 PuDr,2 R4 N
1 CIA PUDA1 MR5 w E
G2 PUDMI RG
S
yr „ — 11 PUDR3 R7
12 PUDMIXEO
R1
' .,,,, <wu .. I _ ..,« —• C—al R— Boundary
C—ral Com— D,U
City P—
.2 05 I ms.
Brooklyn Center GIS ..-. 11100 E