The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2010 03-22 CCP Regular Session Public Copy • Agenda March 22, 2010 Brooklyn Center Legislative Issues Meeting 6:00 -6:45 p.m. Council Commission Conference Room Call to Order and welcome Mayor Willson Councilmember introductions and opening remarks: Opening Comments • Senator Scheid • Representative Hilstrom • Commissioner Opat General Discussion • Next Steps Adjournment 6:45 PM Page 1 of 6 I • Acknowledgements: County of Hennepin Joint Community Police Partnership For several years the County has provided funding for this very valuable program. The estimated annual value to Brooklyn Center exceeds $120,000. Without County support it would be very difficult to continue this activity. This program has improved relationships with new citizens and facilitated the attraction of a more diverse work force. Bass lake Road Streetscape The County support of this major improvement will have a significant impact on the image of the community and our redevelopment efforts. Out of total project cost of $4,246,000 the County has agreed to contribute up to $798,500. The County has also agreed to perform the badly needed repaving of the roadway through this corridor. Shingle Creek Daylighting Study • This County funded initiative has helped provide an important vision enhancing the value of this hidden resource in our community. The long term benefits should exceed the study costs many times over. Shingle Creek Joint Creek Enhancement Study This County funded initiative when complete will further enhance the value of this natural resource. By coordinating with Brooklyn Park a unified synergistic vision should be created. Mill and Overlay Summer 2009 Brooklyn Blvd South of 65 Avenue The mill and overlay project with an' estimated cost of $100,000 was much needed and welcomed improvement to our shared road system. State of Minnesota 4d tax legislation requiring crime free designation We believe this legislation will prove to be another valuable tool in the City's resource kit as we make strides to maintain and improve residential neighborhoods. • Page 2 of 6 Group home limitations We understand that both State legislators are proposing/supporting le g islation to minimize the concentration of group homes in our community. We believe this type of effort furthers the Council goal to improve residential neighborhoods and protect property values of our homeowners. Foreclosure prevention We understand that both State Legislators are proposing/supporting legislation that will help home owners avoid foreclosure. All efforts in this regard will be of significant value to the City of Brooklyn Center which has among the highest per capita foreclosure rates in the State. Howe Fertilizer Redevelopment We appreciate the efforts of Senator Scheid to break the deadlock involving the private developer and the Department of Agriculture to facilitate the redevelopment of this significant commercial property. Unfortunately it appears that more effort may be required to allow this property to return to productive use in the near future. Page 3 of 6 • 2010 Issues: County 1) FBI Recovery Bonds The EDA has committed to issuing recovery bonds in support of the FBI Office Project if possible. In many ways this is the most significant redevelopment project in Brooklyn Center in more than a decade. Of course these bonds can only be issued if the County concurs with our request. We understand that the County has a limited allocation of $40 million in bonding authority and that there is an issuance deadline of December 31 We are unaware of any competing projects and we believe there may not be a more beneficial project to consider. Therefore, we urge the support of the County Board to provide the final impetus that we believe will assure the completion of this extraordinarily import project. 2) Brooklyn Boulevard Reconstruction 1 -94 to Hwy 100 The City Comprehensive Plan envisions a substantial improvement of this major corridor to make it more attractive and safe for pedestrians and drivers. The City has • taken action to acquire properties along this corridor. Reconstruction of the road surface along with streetscape and other improvements are much needed and long overdue. As a County Road the City is in large part dependent upon the County to participate as a major partner for this project. 3) County Road 57 (Humboldt Avenue from 53 to 57 Avenues This joint project is included in the City and County CIPs and includes much needed reconstruction of the roadway and utilities along with streetscape enhancements. Improvements to the County Road that runs through one of Brooklyn Center's residential neighborhoods will greatly enhance this area. 4) Appointments to Library Board The City Council feels that the Library Board plays an important role in the community and that local representation on this policy making body is very important. • Page 4 of 6 5) Grant Funding • Given limited resources the City must continue to make request for grant funding. These grants have typically been in the area of public safety, recreation and economic development. Your continued support for these efforts is greatly appreciated. State Government 1) Local Government Aid In fiscal 2008 the City of Brooklyn Center was unallotted $ 540,535 in LGA payments. In 2009 Brooklyn Center was unallotted $463,500 in LGA payments. In 2010 the City of Brooklyn Center was unallotted $ 1,069,471 in LGA Payments. In 2010 the City Of Brooklyn Center adopted a budget that in included $ 411,378 in LGA and $629,850 in Market Value Homestead Credits. If the proposal of the Governor is adopted the City Of Brooklyn Center will lose all of the budgeted LGA and MVHC $1,041,228. The General Fund Budget of the City Of Brooklyn Center is $16.443 million. The proposed reductions represent 6.33% of the current year budget. • If this level of cuts is sustained in 2011 the property tax levy could increase by 7.67% or services will have to be cut by to make up the difference. This level of reductions cannot be accomplished without a severe reduction in basic services. a. Levy Limits Should the State Aid reductions be sustained in 2011, the City must have the flexibility to increase its levy. Otherwise services will undoubtedly be very apparent service cuts. b. Levy back provisions unallotment As stated above, the ability to levy -back lost aid will be critical if the City is to minimize service impact of the proposed reduction in State Aid. c. Continued special levies The City currently uses the Police /Fire Special Levy and the foreclosure special levy. Continuation of these levies will be critical to maintaining critical services in the City. • Page 5 of 6 . 2) PERA There are legislative proposals being circulated to improve the solvency of the Public Employee Retirement Program. We agree that the long term solvency of this fund is critical. The proposal to deduce cost of the program should be pursed. Temporary increases in contributions may necessary also. We believe increases should be temporary recognizing these increases may also require a levy increase or service reductions. 3) Rental property maintenance clarification We believe the ability of the City to regulate the maintenance of rental properties is of the highest priority. The legislation that is pending to clarify City authority to regulate should be strongly supported. 4) Peace Officers Standards and Training and Fire Safety Training Fund Cuts Legislation has been proposed to reduce or eliminate State funding for critical State mandated training for Police and Fire Fighters. We implore each legislator to resist • using these designated funds for local government training as a means of solving the States funding gap. In Brooklyn Center these funds have provided up to $22, 000 annually to offset the cost of necessary basic training for our police and firefighters. 5) Market Value Homestead Credit While it may be appropriate for the State to provide tax relief to low income citizens based on property tax values, when the credit is not reimbursed to the City all property tax payers and citizens pay for this relief in the form of higher property taxes or reduced services. It may be more appropriate that State tax relief to taxpayers should be provided in a direct payment to the citizen not as a pass through to the City. 6) Brookdale Mall The State and the County have been very supportive of past efforts to improve the redevelopment opportunities for this extremely important 80 acre site. At this time we are unaware of owner's plans for redevelopment. The City wants to return this property to the highest and best use possible. We want it to provide long lasting value to the Citizens of Brooklyn Center over the long term. We expect that any • proposal Page 6 of 6 • CITY COUNCIL MEETING City of Brooklyn Center March 22, 2010 AGENDA 1. Informal Open Forum with City Council — 6:45 p.m. provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens. Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen for informational purposes only. 2. Invocation — 7 P .m. 3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting —The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. 4. Roll Call . 5. Pledge of Allegiance 6. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda —The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration Items. a. Approval of Minutes 1. March 8, 2010 — Study Session 2. March 8, 2010 — Regular Session 3. March 8, 2010 — Work Session b. Licenses C. Amend 2010 City Council Meeting Schedule (moves canvass of City Primary Election from September 15 to August 11) d. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -01, 02, 03 and 04, Dupont Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements • CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- March 22, 2010 • e. Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement g P for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -05, 06, 07 and 08, Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements f. Resolution Amending Water Utility Rates 7. Presentations / Proclamations /Recognitions/Donations a. 2009 Annual Report Fire Department — Fire Chief Lee Gatlin 8. Public Hearings a. Proposed Special Assessments for Delinquent Weed Removal Costs —This item was continued from March 8, 2010, for the following five properties: 6233 Scott Ave N, 5834 Fremont Ave N, 4013 65th Ave N, 7007 Drew Ave N, and 5424 Fremont Ave N 1. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Weed Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls Requested Council Action: — Motion to re -open Public Hearing. — Motion to take public input. — Motion to close Public Hearing. — Motion to adopt resolution. • 9. Planning Commission Items a. Resolution Adopting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of Brooklyn Center Requested Council Action: — Motion to adopt resolution. 10. Council Consideration Items a. Resolution Authorizing the Community Activities, Recreation and Services Department to Apply for Grant Funding Through the Hennepin Youth Sports Program Requested Council Action: — Motion to adopt resolution. b. Resolution Amending Special Assessment Levy No. 17589, Improvement Project No. 2010 -01, Dupont Area Neighborhood Street Improvements Requested Council Action: — Motion to adopt resolution. 11. Council Report 12. Adjournment i I� City Council Agenda Item No. 6a • MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION MARCH 8, 2010 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Tim Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Excused Absence: Councilmember Kay Lasman. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Tim Willson opened the meeting for the purpose of Informal Open Forum. • Carol Kleven, 5835 Zenith Avenue N., updated the Council on the February 25, 2010, Tobacco Free Youth breakfast meeting she had attended. She reported on topics addressed and locations where tobacco sales and signage have been removed. Ms. Kleven stated she wanted to share the good news with the Council and provided them with the card that is given to store managers to encourage the removal of tobacco signs that are posted lower than three feet. No one else wished to address the City Council. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:50 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION Councilmember Roche requested a moment of silence and personal reflection as the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 7:00 p.m. • 4. ROLL CALL 03/08/10 -1- DRAFT Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Tim Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Excused Absence: K A present were City Manager Curt Bo ane Abs Councilmember a Lasman. Also rese g y, Director of Y P tY g Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and • Community Standards Vicki Schleuning, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. I 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, to add Item 6j, Resolution Stating Support for the Community Access Preservation act (HR 3745), and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. February 22, 2010 — Study Session 2. February 22, 2010 — Regular Session 6b. LICENSES MECHANICAL 7 Metro Heating and Air 609 150th Avenue NE, Ham Lake Air Mechanical Inc. 16411 Aberdeen Street NE, Ham Lake Centraire Htg & AIC 7402 Washington Ave. S, Eden Prairie Corporate Mechanical 5114 Hillsboro Avenue N, New Hope Corval Constructors, Inc. 1633 Eustis Street, St. Paul • J's Heating & AlC 6060 LaBeaux Avenue NE, Albertville • L Johnson Heating & AZC 19620 Jackson Street NE, East Bethel Fireside Hearth & Home 2700 Fairview Avenue N, Roseville Genz Ryan Plb & Htg 2200 West Highway 13, Burnsville Golden Valley Heating 5182 West Broadway, Crystal Gorham Oien Mechanical 841 Forest Avenue E, Mora Harris Companies 909 Montreal Circle, St. Paul Hoine Energy Center 2415 Annapolis Lane N, Plymouth Integrity Heating 810 3rd Avenue NW, Faribault Infinity Heating and Air 1017 Meadowood Drive, Brooklyn Park JTS Heating and Air PO Box, 1101, Forest Lake LBP Mechanical Inc. 315 Royalston Avenue N, Minneapolis M & D Plumbing & Htg 11050 26th Street NE, St. Michael McDowal Company P.O. Box 606,'Waite Park Metropolitan Mechanical 7340 Washington Ave. S, Eden Prairie Metro Heating and Cooling 255 Roselawn Avenue E, St. Paul Practical Systems 4342B Shady Oak Road, Hopkins Priority Air Mechanical 101 East Isanti Parkway, Isanti Riccar Heating & AlC 2387 Station Parkway NW, Andover River City Sheet Metal 8290 Main Street NE, Fridley • Ron's Mechanical 12020 Old Brick Yard Road, Shakopee 03/08/10 -2- DRAFT Royalton Heating & AlC 4120 85th Avenue N, Brooklyn Park Schadegg Mechanical Inc. 225 Bridgepoint Drive,, So St. Paul Sharp Heating & AlC 7221 University Avenue NE; Fridley Solid Refrigeration LLC 1125 American Blvd. E, Bloomington . Southtown Refrigeration 6325 Sandburg E.oad, Golden Valley Spectrum Sign Systems 2025 Gateway Circle, Centerville Standard Heating & AIC 130 Plymouth Avenue N, Minneapolis Wenzel Heating & AIC 4145 Old Sibley Mem. Highway, Eagan RENTAL INITIAL 4216 Lakebreeze Avenue Ita Ekah 1401 72 Avenue N. Chad Tesmer 5649 Northport Drive Jennifer Vanleer RENEWAL 531362 nd Avenue N. Doua Yang 481063 d Avenue N. Paul Miller 6136 Brooklyn Boulevard Shannon Benalshaikh 6012 Halifax Ave. N. Kris Knosalla 6807 Humboldt Ave. N. C203 Marianne Javorski 6813 Humboldt Ave. N. B302 Gilbert Gamino 3306 Quarles Rd. John &. Sonja Simpson SIGN HANGER • Crosstown Sign 16307 Aberdeen Street NE, Ham Lake Topline Advertising 11775 Justen Circle #A, Maple Grove 6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -45 ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING AWARD OF CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2010 -12 CONTRACT 2010 -E, 2010 STREET SEAL COATING 6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -46 ACCEPTING THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FROM DONALD SALVERDA AND ASSOCIATES FROM THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL AND DEPARTMENT HEADS 2010 LEADERSHIP PLANNING AND TEAM BUILDING RETREAT AND ADOPTING A MISSION STATEMENT, VALUES STATEMENT, AND GOALS PROGRAM 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -47 APPROVING THE CLASSIFICATION OF TAX FORFEITED LAND AT 6856 WEST RIVER ROAD AS NON - CONSERVATION TO HENNEPIN COUNTY 6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -48 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A SITE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CLEAR WIRELESS LLC 6g. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -49 OPTING NOT TO WAIVE LIMITED TORT • LIABILITY FOR 2010 03/08/10 -3- DRAFT 6h. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -50 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO WRITE OFF UNCOLLECTABLE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND RETURNED CHECKS 6i. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -51 ADOPTING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED • JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR A COALITION OF METROPOLITAN COMMUNITIES 6j. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -52 STATING SUPPORT FOR THE COMMUNITY ACCESS PRESERVATION ACT (HR 3745) Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS / PROCLAMATIONS /RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -53 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION TO DELLA YOUNG FOR HER DEDICATED PUBLIC SERVICE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -53 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation to Della Young for her Dedicated Public Service on the Planning Commission. Mayor Willson recited Resolution No. 2010 -53 and noted Ms. Young is a trained hydrologist and continues to serve the City on the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission. Motion passed unanimously. • 8. PUBLIC HEARING 8a. PROPOSED SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS, DELINQUENT ABATEMENT REMOVAL COSTS, AND DELINQUENT ADMINISTRATIVE VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, stated the purpose of the Public Hearing, and advised of payment options. Councilmember Yelich referenced the list of proposed assessments and asked if the City has documentation for each cost. Mr. Boganey answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Paul Yang, 6233 Scott Avenue North, addressed the Council and stated he had received three assessment notices for his property but never been warned about the tall grass or need for removal. Mr. Yang stated if he had been notified, he would not request the Council appeal the charge. He stated he works hard, usually has three jobs, does not know how the City can do this, did not believe the City mowed the grass, and asked for fairness to a minority resident. Mr. Yang requested a copy of any record mailed to him that proved he resisted the ordinance. • 03/08/10 -4- DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated if the City Clerk received an appeal prior to the public hearing or a property owner comes forward with an appeal, staff recommends the Council refer any substantive objections to staff and continue the public hearing on that particular address. • Arnold Miller addressed the Council and stated he is appearing on behalf of his mother, Loraine Miller, who owns 5834 Fremont Avenue N. He explained normally y takes care of the property. However, her lawn mower would not start and it took two days for it to be repaired. When he returned to mow his mother's yard, the grass had already been cut. Mr. Miller explained they use a professional lawn service so he assumed they had cut the grass. However, a couple weeks later, his mother received a notice saying she owed the City $269. He stated that when the grass was cut, it was not long but the dandelions were taller. Mr. Miller stated he came to the City Hall to see what had happened to incur this high cost and staff said a notice had been sent. Mr. Miller stated he receives all of his mother's mail at his address and no notice was sent. He stated he would have mowed the grass in two days so it would have been rectified and questioned how the City can charge $119.18 to mow the grass plus an administration fee of $150, which is five times higher than charged by a professional lawn service. Mr. Miller stated his father was one of the first home owners in Brooklyn Center, built the first ice rink and warming house, and did a lot for this City. He restated that his mother is 88 years old and asked that there be some give and take. He felt the charge was unjust. Ting Lin Liu addressed the Council and stated she is appearing on behalf of her father, Gao Qiang Liu, who owns 4013 65`" Avenue N. She explained their entire family went to China in June due to her grandmother's illness and did not return until September 12, 2009, after her grandmother's burial. Ms. Liu stated they received the first letter on February 17, 2010. Previously they lived in Winona, Minnesota, and did not know Brooklyn Center had such a charge so they did not ask • anyone to care for the grass while they were in China. Ms. Liu explained the trip to China and funeral expenses cost her family a lot of money and asked the Council to consider a full or partial waiver since this is a first offense and she guarantees it will not happen again. Wendy Larson, 7007 Drew Avenue N., addressed the Council and stated she received a notice she owes $305.76 for weed and tall grass removal. However, this was a foreclosed property that she did not own until November 20, 2009, so she did not believe she was responsible to pay this fee. She stated the certified notice is dated February 17, 2010. Bill McCrum, 5424 Fremont Avenue N., addressed the Council and explained that he and his son were remodeling the house. It had appraised for $215,000 but people were willing to pay only $150,000 so they decided to get a rental permit. He stated that was the first time he heard about the $269 fee to mow the yard. Mr. McCrum stated he was not aware the City had mowed the lawn but had been out of town for a while. He stated they are trying to make ends meet until the real estate market goes back up and they can sell the house. Mr. McCrum stated he would appreciate the Council's consideration of his request to waive the fee based on a financial hardship. Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -54 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR • DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS 03/08/10 -5- DRAFT Mayor Willson noted that no appeals had been requested for this assessment. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -54 Certifying Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs to the Hennepin County • Tax Rolls. Motion passed unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -55 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Mayor Willson noted the Council had received five requests for consideration for this assessment. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -55 Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Weed Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls, with exception of the following properties: 6233 Scott Avenue North, 5834 Fremont Avenue North, 4013 65 Avenue North, 7007 Drew Avenue North, and 5424 Fremont Avenue North. City Attorney LeFevere suggested the motion be amended to continue the public hearing since additional testimony may be received on the five appeals. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to amend the motion to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -55 Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Weed Removal Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls, and to continue the public hearing for the following properties: • 6233 Scott Avenue North, 5834 Fremont Avenue North, 4013 65 Avenue North, 7007 Drew Avenue North, and 5424 Fremont Avenue North, pending recommendation from City staff. Mayor Willson asked the five property owners to provide additional documentation, if any, to staff who will be reviewing their request. Amended motion passed unanimously. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -56 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ABATEMENT COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -56 Certifying Special Assessments for Abatement Costs to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. Motion passed unanimously. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -57 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VACANT BUILDING REGISTRATION COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -57 Certifying Special Assessments for Administrative Vacant Building Registration Costs to • the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. 03/08/10 -6- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. Mayor Willson noted the City has hired a private contractor for this work so the City may have already incurred cost. If that is the case, he did not support the City subsidizing the cost. Mr. Boganey advised the City has already incurred all of the costs identified on the special assessment. 8b. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, stated the purpose of the Public Hearing, and options for payment. Should there be substantive objections, he recommended Council continue the public hearing for that particular property and direct staff to provide a report. Discussion ensued that the grand total is $224,650.61, an upward trend from past years, and requested staff provide a history report. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Caren Beelen, 7120 Logan Avenue N., addressed the Council and read an appeal requesting her overdue water bill of $239.88 not be placed on taxes so she can begin to make payments to bring it current, which she cannot do if certified to taxes. She explained that she has paid her water bill for the past 21 years, was currently unemployed, but hoped to gain employment in 2010. • Councilmember Ryan stated he has also been downsized and empathized with Ms. Beelen's situation. He stated the Council will take this under consideration and if it does go onto taxes, the actual amount may be manageable. Councilmember Yelich referenced Ms. Beelen's payment history, noting from 2004 to 2008 she had been able to pay the water bill. Ms. Beelen stated she has paid her bills on time from 1988 to 2008 but in 2009 she lost her job and had to cut back. City Attorney LeFevere clarified that if Council certified this amount to taxes, it would not be collected until taxes in 2011 so Ms. Beelen would have time to set money aside. Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -58 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICE ACCOUNTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -58 Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Public Utility Service Accounts to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls and to continue the public hearing for the following property: 7120 • Logan Avenue North pending recommendation from City staff. Motion passed unanimously. 03/08/10 -7- DRAFT 8c. TWIN LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug presented the agenda item and reviewed the • Public Hearing process that would be followed tonight. Should there be substantive objections, he recommended Council continue the public hearing for that particular property to a future meeting. Mr. Lillehaug presented Improvement Project No. 2010 -05, 06, 07, and 08 by describing the project areas and improvements to be made. Mr. Lillehaug referenced the updated comments provided to the Council, noting some residents do not support the improvement due to concerns with paying for the project at this time. Staff recommends the Council authorize the project and certify special assessments. Discussion ensued regarding the impact to the overall project scheduling in years going forward if the Council chose to omit a street improvement project in a given year. It was noted that about 65 miles of the 110 miles of City streets have been completed with 30 some miles remaining. It was also noted that some of the utility service is 50 years old. If a project is delayed one year, it would delay every neighborhood by one year. In that case, neighborhoods scheduled in 2020 would be beyond their schedule for reconstruction. In addition, construction costs get more expensive when delayed and currently construction bids are competitive. The Council also discussed the City's potential liability should a project be delayed and a sanitary sewer failure occur. 1. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -59 ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICAITONS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2010 -05, 06, 07, AND 08, TWIN LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE AND UTILITY • IMPROVEMENTS Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Chester Ertl, 5131 Ewing Avenue N., stated he does sewer cleaning for friends and is still cutting roots from a friend's sewer line who lives on the new street behind the auto parts store. He wondered how good of a job is being done and whether trees will be removed from his front yard. Brad Schumacher, 5240 Drew Avenue N., stated he is still paying for the sidewalk on 53 Avenue and would prefer to wait a year. He suggested this project be delayed until next year when it can be added to another project, which would save residents one year from paying on it. Mr. Schumacher felt the economy was starting to recover so next year it may not "hurt" as much. Todd Schneider, 5037 Drew Avenue N., asked what is involved in special assessments and requested additional information on the project's actual costs. Joseph Torkelson, 5340 Lilac Drive N., asked if there will be a disruption in front of his property for the entire six -month period or will the contractor complete one neighborhood before moving to another neighborhood. Kimberly Elgren, 5112 Drew Avenue N., asked why this neighborhood was not completed all at one . time so heavy equipment a ui ment did not to come in on the new streets. 03/08/10 -8- DRAFT Steve Elgren, 5112 Drew Avenue N., stated concern that emergency vehicle access may be cut off from his neighborhood due to the tracks on one end and the streets being torn up. He advised there • is a lot of heavy vehicle traffic on his residential street and asked if the road is going to be reconstructed deep enough to last. Mr. Elgren asked the City to enforce its ordinances to protect the streets being constructed, noting residents bring semi trailers on the residential roads, which is prohibited. Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. City Attorney LeFevere advised the resolution under consideration requires four affirmative votes but the City does not commit to move forward with the project until the contract is awarded. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -59 Ordering Improvements and Authorizing Preparation of Plans and Specifications for Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -05, 06, 07, and 08, Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements. The Council discussed that the City's sewer line and service ends at the property line, does not extend to the house, and this improvement will assure the link to the City's pipe is in good working order. Mr. Boganey encouraged any citizen who perceives an ordinance violation to call City Hall or 911 because the City will follow up on Code violations. Mr. Lillehaug responded to resident's comments by explaining the project would replace the City's trunk line to the property line, not the private portion that extends to the house. Staff will coordinate with property owners with regard to tree removal, which will not be identified until the final plan stage. With regard to the suggestion to delay this project and combine it with a project next year, Mr. Lillehaug explained it would be difficult for staff to handle two projects in one year without hiring outside consultants. He stated the project will be constructed in stages and staff will work with the contractor to minimize impact and assure private and emergency vehicle access is maintained. Motion passed unanimously. 2. RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -60 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2010 -05 AND 2010 -06, TWIN LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Yelich informed the audience that this portion of the Public Hearing is to address the assessment being recommended for this project. • Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to close the Public Hearing. 03/08/10 -9- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -60 Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -05 and 2010 -06, Twin • Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Storm Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. Motion passed unanimously. 8d. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY SYSTEM, ADDING SECTIONS 18 -201 TO 18 -211 TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item, and recommended the Public Hearing be continued to April 12, 2010, so proper legal notice can be published. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to continue the Public Hearing to April 12, 2010, so legal notice can be properly published. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS -None. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. CRITERIA FOR RENTAL LICENSE CATEGORIES . Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning presented the background, purpose and implication of license category criteria, and summary of property Code violations. Discussion ensued regarding the rental criteria, which would create an incentive to maintain property to Code, thus reducing violations, nuisances, and the City's administrative costs. It was acknowledged that sound property management practices directly impact a reduction in the number of complaints received. In addition, the process will help owners better manage their property. The Council commended staff for their work to create this licensing process. Councilmember Yelich asked the City Attorney if this is defensible criteria. City Attorney LeFevere stated the City's old provisional licensing was in itself fairly innovative and this is a step beyond and a more sophisticated approach with more analysis behind it. City Attorney LeFevere indicated he cannot say it won't be challenged or will be successfully defended since he does not know what the challenges will be. However, staff has done as much as they can to complete a sound analysis and statistical basis for the policy. Mr. Boganey agreed this was a novel approach and stated he believed it would be defensible because the landlord has a significant amount of control over what his/her fee will actually be. Councilmember Yelich stated that is a good point and he has seen in the past that management of the • property can make a difference in reducing problems with rental properties. He stated he wanted to 03/08/10 -10- DRAFT emphasize that property owners and managers need to be a partner in making the City better and this process sends a clear message. • Councilmember Roche noted 22% of the properties would fall under Type IV, which is significant and a quick measurable metric the City can check, once implemented. Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to approve criteria establishing rental license categories. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR RENTAL LICENSES Ms. Schleuning stated staff recommends this item be removed from the agenda. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to table consideration until staff has prepared and presented a rental fee analysis. Discussion ensued regarding documentation that 20% of the properties are causing 80% of the problems and the need to base fees at a level that covers the cost of services. It was noted staff would like to analyze the effect this program will have and assure the right fees are in place prior to adoption of the 2011 budget. Motion passed unanimously. • 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Yelich reported on his attendance at the following events: • February 26, 2010, he was invited to read to the Evergreen Park World Studies Elementary School first grade class • March 2, 2010, Odyssey Academy Charter School open house and science fair • March 6, 2010, Northwest Metro Roundtable for the Historical Society Councilmember Yelich announced the April 3, 2010, meeting with Hennepin County Commissioner Stenglein regarding the Victory Memorial Drive project. Councilmember Roche encouraged residents to take advantage of the City's upcoming swimming lesson program and the economical exercise room at the Civic Center. He stated he was not able to attend the open ceremony of the Brooklyn Center High School Clinic but wanted to congratulate the School District. Councilmember Ryan reported on his attendance at the following events: • March 2, 2010, Odyssey Academy science fair • March 3, 2010, Brooklyn Center Centennial Planning Commission • March 6, 2010, Town Meeting held by local State Legislators Mayor Willson reported on his attendance at the Brooklyn Center High School Clinic opening and ribbon cutting ceremony. He thanked Park Nicollet and the Pohlad Foundation, which have been instrumental in raising donations. 03/08/10 -11- DRAFT Mayor Willson stated it is his great pleasure to offer and read a Proclamation declaring March 12, 2010, to be Police Chief Scott Bechthold Day. Mayor Willson stated that Police Chief Bechthold has been a good friend and wished him well as he moves on to other endeavors. Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to adopt a PROCLAMATION • Declaring March 12, 2010, to be Police Chief Scott Bechthold Day in the City of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Ryan noted that per the Police Chiefs last report, violent crime is down 17% and property crime is down 17 %, an outstanding achievement. Mr. Boganey stated his appreciation that Police Chief Bechthold should take advantage of the opportunity presented , to him. He commended Police Chief Bechthold for his outstanding and honest leadership as a public servant, who had served Brooklyn Center with great integrity and professionalism. Motion passed unanimously. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Roche seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 9:18 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 03/08/10 -12- DRAFT { MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC S DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 8, 2010 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Tim Willson at 9:27 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers /Commissioners Tim Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Excused Absence: Councilmember /Commissioner Kay Lasman. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • UTILITY CONSERVATION RATE — IRRIGATION SYSTEMS City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item. Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet reviewed the background and presented staff's recommended water rates for high water consumption and irrigation meters under the current water conservation rate. It was noted that based on these rates, the Water Fund base revenues would increase less than $5,000. Mr. Boganey explained staff is looking for consistency so all are treated in a similar fashion. He noted that Option 1 is intended to discourage irrigation because it makes the argument of trying to conserve water. Option 2 does not treat irrigation unfavorably or better than water being used for other purposes. Mayor Willson noted the City requires irrigation for new building sites so that needs to be taken into consideration. He indicated support for Option 2. Councilmember Ryan concurred and stated that Option 2 is consistent with policy. He noted the City cannot have prohibitive irrigation water rates since it has required, through the Planning Commission, that landscaping be irrigated. • 03/08/10 -1- DRAFT r Councilmember Yelich stated he did not know that an irrigation meter was an option. Mr. Jordet stated irrigation meters are usually used on commercial properties so while they are charged for irrigation water, that water consumption is not included in the sewer fee. Council discussion ensued regarding types of irrigation systems that provide more efficient water delivery to landscaping. Councilmember Yelich supported encouraging conservation practices and the conservation rate would be an incentive to discourage wasteful water use. He noted that if the property is of a large size, even if using all the best practices, they would still pay the highest rate. Mr. Jordet stated that is correct and once the consumption is known after several months, staff can look at that data and make a recommendation whether to base sewer charges on water consumption. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to place this item on the next Council agenda. TIF DISTRICT NO.2 — USE OF TAX INCREMENT Mr. Boganey introduced the item and stated staff would like feedback and direction from Council on the possible use of Tax Increment District 2 funds and necessary budget amendment. He said staff does not have a specific recommendation in how to use the current $1.9 million and $1.7 million that will become available over the next two years. It was noted the project decertifies on December 31, 2011, and funds have to be expended before that date. Mr. Boganey listed several projects that could be financed through these funds. • Councilmember Yelich stated his preference to approach redevelopment by putting these funds into public infrastructur to inerea e attractiveness of commercial corridors as opposed to acquiring more property that may or may not get redeveloped. He noted the City has more control over public infrastructure; it is very visible evidence and a symbol to the public that the Council cares about its City and wants it attractive for commercial investment. Mr. Boganey advised that public infrastructure would be an eligible use and noted that Brooklyn Boulevard, a gateway into the City, could be considered for such improvements. He noted that in six months, staff will have a good idea what will happen with Brookdale Center and the Opportunity Site. Mayor Willson felt it would be beneficial to use these dollars to increase the local economy to bring in jobs and increase the City's tax base. He stated the Council has about one year to make this decision and can lobby hard for contingency funds focused towards redevelopment, bringing in jobs, and raising the tax base. Mayor Willson stated he does not support beautification projects unless there are no other redevelopment projects available. Councilmember Ryan indicated he would not be opposed to public infrastructure improvements. He noted the City did the Bass Lake Road project because additional funding was available so the City could leverage its funds to gain additional funds. He stated he would favor delaying a decision until staff identifies key opportunities. Councilmember Ryan stated he wants to have an S 03/08/10 -2- DRAFT open mind about what will give the City the most leverage with its limited dollars, especially considering the State's budget shortfalls. Councilmember Roche stated the last thing the City would do is to give the money back, so that is not an option. Also, the money cannot be put into the General Fund. He asked whether these funds can be leveraged to extend the Bass Lake Road project over Highway 100 and up to Logan Avenue. Mr. Boganey explained staff is analyzing whether the City has funds available for that project extension. Councilmember Roche asked how the City prepares to roll out the infrastructure for the FBI site, noting the prep work needs to be completed to enhance that area including Humboldt Avenue. He stated his support to make something happen sooner rather than later. Mr. Boganey stated if Bass Lake Road is to be extended, it would be the most cost effective to do it this year as part of the current project. He noted the FBI project won't be completed until December of 2011 so any Humboldt Avenue improvements could follow that project. He noted this may be the last large pool of money the City will have in a long time to make an impact on development. Councilmember Roche stated support to use the funding for infrastructure or as a catalyst for development. Councilmember Yelich noted the Council will be meeting with legislators and can ask whether • there is an opportunity for matching or multiple funding streams for a Humboldt Avenue or Brooklyn Boulevard project. Councilmember Ryan concurred with the need to keep as many options open as possible. Councilmember Yelich felt it was clear that City improvement projects create a psychological impetus for property owners to make improvements, which generate jobs and promotes interest in the community. Councilmember Roche suggested the Council revisit this issue after the meeting with State legislators. The Council discussed the available funds in each of the TIF Districts and Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel provided an update on TIF fund balances. LEGISLATIVE ISSUES Mr. Boganey presented a draft agenda for the March 22, 2010, meeting with legislators and requested the Council's input. Councilmember Ryan commented on the importance of citizens being informed about what happened with Brookdale Center that caused it to fail. • 03/08/10 -3- DRAFT Councilmember Roche stated the City does not have proper representation in the Hennepin County Library System. He noted that rules for appointment require geographical appointments • and suggested this be added to the topic list. Mr. Boganey suggested that each Councilmember be allowed to raise their specific comment or speak to their issue of concern during the meeting. Councilmember Yelich stated he spoke with County Commissioner Mike Opat, who indicated an interest in learning of the Council's priorities. Councilmember Ryan stated his support for having members make individual comment. He stated an important issue to him is not cutting back on key essential services and to ask legislators whether the City will get back to some reasonable level of support. Councilmember Ryan'stated Brooklyn Center has a lot of homeowners at the lower level of income so he would like to hold the line on property takes. He asked staff to include that item in the topic list. Mr. Boganey stated he will update the memorandum and provide it to staff prior to sending it to the legislators. Councilmember Yelich stated he will not be available to attend meetings from March 22 -April 12, 2010, so he will respond to the Legislator's meeting in writing. The majority consensus of the City Council was that Mayor Willson will conduct introductions and opening remarks, each Council Member will then have the opportunity to speak to one or two concerns, legislators can address individual concerns or more global issues. Consensus was also reached that the list of issues contained in staff's memorandum will be provided to the legislators prior to the meeting date. . ADJOURNMENT Councilmember /Commissioner Ryan moved and Councilmember /Commissioner Roche seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:45 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. • 03/08/10 -4- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION MARCH 8, 2010 CITY HALL — COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson at 5:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Tim Roche, Dan Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Excused Absence: Councilmember Kay Lasman. Also present were Executive Director Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal & Support Services Dan Jordet, Public Works Director /City Engineer Steve Lillehaug, Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards Vickie Schleuning, IT Director Patty Hartwig, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere, and Carla Wirth, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Also present: Chris Charlebois, LOGIS TRAINING ON NEW PHONES IT Director Patty Hartwig and Chris Charlebois of LOGIS provided a short training session on the new City Hall telephones and answered questions of the Council. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to provide a PDF instruction file and create a consistent telephone greeting for Council's voice mailbox. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Councilmember Ryan requested discussion on the memorandum from Mayor Willson relating to support for the Community Access Preservation Act (HR 3745). He recalled there had been a previous discussion of this matter last year that was similar to this intent. Mayor Willson explained this is the second consideration of the same model and with the same concern regarding loss of local control of cable access. He requested this item be added as Item 6j on the Consent Agenda. The majority consensus of the City Council was to add Consent Agenda Item No. 6j, Resolution Stating Support for the Community Access Preservation Act (HR 3745). • 03/08/10 -1- DRAFT Councilmember Yelich requested discussion on agenda Item 10b, Resolution Amending the Fee • Schedule for Rental Licenses, which staff is recommending for deferral. He noted the City's Finance Policy indicates fee schedules should be reviewed by the City Council on an annual basis. Councilmember Yelich stated that he does not object to staff's recommendation but would like to receive information on staff's analysis and justification of the fee schedule so he can be assured the fees support the program and it would not be subsidized by property taxes. City Manager Curt Boganey noted staff brings the fee schedule to the Council for approval on an annual basis; however, each single fee is not reviewed on an annual basis. He explained that staff completed an analysis of the City's cost, compared fees in place, and believes the adjustments need to be made. Mr. Boganey reviewed past actions related to the fees established for duplexes up to apartments and indicated staff is asking that Item l0b be deferred to allow time to complete a more thorough analysis of all fees and what will happen after the new ordinance goes into effect, since it may significantly modify the properties in each Type and revenue collection. Councilmember Roche referenced consent agenda Item 6f, Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Site Lease Agreement with Clear Wireless LLC, noting said lease will bring $27,000 into the Water Utility Fund. He commended staff for pursuing this antenna lease. Councilmember Ryan concurred and requested a report on the dollar estimate from antenna leases. • MISCELLANEOUS Councilmember Ryan explained that a resident who lives on Dupont Avenue, south of 67 Avenue, had contacted him requesting to change election. The Dupont Avenue improvement project involved a resurface and spot replacement of curb so there is a considerable difference between the assessment for that project and an assessment for a complete street and utility replacement project. Councilmember Ryan advised that this resident indicated he made a mistake by deferring this assessment and is now requesting to change election and accept the assessment for the current Dupont Avenue project. Councilmember Ryan asked the Council to accept this homeowner's request to change that election and incur the assessment for the Dupont Avenue project. Mayor Willson asked if there would be an impact to the project. Mr. Boganey advised it would not affect the other assessments or this particular project. The Council indicated no objection to considering the request. Mr. Boganey stated staff will place this request on the next Council agenda to assure it does not go beyond the established deadline. Councilmember Roche requested discussion on the community gardens program and asked whether there will be a spring launch. Mr. Boganey stated a few things need to be resolved and • the goal is a late spring or early summer launch. If that is not possible, staff will prepare a report 03/08/10 -2- DRAFT to the Council. Councilmember Yelich reported on the message he received from Lisa Yankton, the new president of the Brooklyn Historical Society, asking whether the City would be open to having one or two cases in City Hall to display artifacts. He explained the context of this request is related to the foreclosure sale of Brookdale Center and availability of several jeweler display cases. The Council discussed the need to assure the City would have absolute editorial rights over the display case content and that an appropriate location be found that did not hinder traffic flow. Mr. Boganey stated if the Council is supportive, staff will obtain more information to determine what is being proposed, if reasonable location can be identified, and have dialog with the Historical Society about the content. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to investigate the request and provide an update prior to Council consideration. DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS GARBAGE HAULERS STUDY • Councilmember Yelich stated he has been approached by several residents regarding the high number of garbage haulers that drive up and down residential streets. These residents have expressed concern from the perspective of traffic, impact to the quality of life due to early morning hours, noise, and dropped litter. Councilmember Yelich stated he also questions the overall impact to the City's roadways. He noted that the City licenses 14 garbage haulers and suggested staff provide factual information on the impact, identify strategies to minimi or reduce the impact, and address the environmental sustainability goal. Councilmember Yelich noted the City has one designated hauler for recycled materials as part of a joint cooperative agreement. He referenced a goal in the recycling cooperative agreement and maintained it was appropriate to have the same goal with garbage haulers to reduce impacts to the City. Councilmember Roche noted that 14 garbage haulers may be licensed but he believed there were only 8 active garbage haulers in Brooklyn Center. He agreed there were too many garbage trucks on the City's streets and wondered about the amount of wear and tear on the City's infrastructure. Councilmember Roche stated he would like to put a cap on the number of garbage hauler licenses and may support having only one licensed garbage hauler. Councilmember Ryan stated he had also received an inquiry from a resident in a detailed e-mail and appreciates that Councilmember Yelich brought this matter forward. He stated there may be a potential conflict between several very laudable goals, such as limiting impact on streets, and the other advantages of having licenses open to qualified haulers so consumers can get the best price. Councilmember Ryan stated it may be a poor idea to have only one waste hauler because • if the hauler is unionized and involved in a strike, the City's garbage would not be removed. He stated he was unaware the City had so many licensed haulers and would support looking at 03/08/10 -3- DRAFT whether the number could be limited and still assure competitive prices for residents. Councilmember Ryan suggested the City Engineer provide information about the impact on the City's streets. Mayor Willson stated this issue is brought forward every few years. In the past, there has been concern about competition and what each individual homeowner is paying for collection. In addition, residents like to have choices and many are loyal customers and unwilling to change haulers. Mayor Willson noted that this has been looked at closely in the past and found there may be three or four garbage trucks through a neighborhood, but not all eight. Councilmember Roche stated he understands that residents may be concerned if the number of haulers is reduced but he would question the long -term cost to taxpayers should the number of haulers not be limited sooner or later. He also questioned how that would align with the City's strategic goals. Councilmember Yelich stated that at this time he has no preconceived notions about offering solutions but would like staff to identify facts on the impact to the City and a process to minim overall impacts. He indicated that he recognizes the issues of competitive pricing and loyalty, and had talked with some haulers who indicated an interest to participate in the process. Councilmember Yelich questioned if competitive pricing is good for recycling, why it is not also good for regular garbage hauling, especially since more items are being recycled than in the past. Mr. Boganey stated he does not believe most cities would be involved in recycling except that it • is mandated. He stated staff will prepare a report that addresses the questions raised but would request enough time to complete a meaningful report. Mr. Boganey stated he spoke with Councilmember Lasman today and she had asked him to pass on her experience that this issue has come up before and there has been strong sentiment from residents who want to maintain their own individual consumer choice. The majority consensus of the City Council acknowledged the City is currently short- staffed and favored considering the topic again by the end of next year when staff will have had enough time to produce a meaningful report on the environmental impacts of the garbage trucks. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to close the Study Session at 6:42 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. RECONVENE STUDY SESSION Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Roche seconded to reconvene the Study Session at 6:50 p.m. 03/08/10 -4- DRAFT • Motion passed unanimously. CITY BUS TRANSIT Councilmember Roche described a circular bus route that travels up Humboldt Avenue, turns right onto 69 Avenue, right onto Dupont Avenue, and then back to the Transit Center. He stated he has witnessed that individuals who use this transit route live in areas that the route does not travel. Councilmember Roche suggested the City petition the Transit Authority to extend and more efficiently design a route to the apartment complexes since a large segment of those residents use this circular route. Mr. Boganey stated that Metro Transit has a process and parameters to determine route alignment but may consider a modification if it can be demonstrated they will attract more riders and generate more revenue. The majority consensus of the City Council was to direct staff to contact Metro Transit staff about this request. It was indicated that Councilmember Roche should be directly involved in the process to communicate the issue and provide additional information to support the request. COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE TO BROOKLYN HISTORICAL SOCIETY Mayor Willson explained the last time the Council discussed the request of the Brooklyn Historical Society for appointment of a Councilmember, it was indicated that it would be fine if a member wanted to serve voluntarily as a nonvoting member. However, it was not warranted to make an official Council appointment since there was no benefit to the City to do so with the Brooklyn Historical Society versus other organizations. It was noted that appointment is appropriate when the City has a Joint Powers Agreement in place with the organization. Mr. Boganey stated he spoke with Councilmember Lasman today and she had asked him to pass on her sense on this issue and had reiterated the Mayor's stated position. Councilmember Lasman had indicated that her opinion has not changed from the previous discussion on the issue; a Councilmember can voluntarily attend but she did not favor the appointment of an official liaison. Councilmember Ryan concurred with the position of Mayor Willson and Councilmember Lasman. He stated he appreciates Councilmember Yelich volunteering to attend and offered to attend in his place should a scheduling conflict arise. Mayor Willson advised that he had previously served as the Director of the Brooklyn Historical Society. Councilmember Yelich stated the City has an asset in the Earle Brown Heritage Center, which is a significant historical icon. Part of the question is how important the Earle Brown Heritage Center is from a historical perspective and whether there are some synergies that would benefit the City in terms of education and making better use of that facility. He noted the City is in the process of recruiting a General Manager for that property who may have ideas related to this 03/08/10 -5- DRAFT topic. Councilmember Yelich stated that is the question in his mind, how important is the • historical context to that property as a City asset, and building on it. It was the majority consensus of the City Council that it would be fine if a member wanted to serve voluntarily as a nonvoting member. However, it was not warranted to make an official Council appointment. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Roche moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Study Session at 6:59 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. • 03/08/10 -6- DRAFT City Council Agenda Item No. 6b • • COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: March 16, 2010 • TO: Curt Bo ane City Manager g Y, t3' g FROM: Maria Rosenbaum, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: Licenses for City Council Approval Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the following licenses at its March 22, 2010, meeting. Background: The following businesses /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each business /person has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate applications, and paid proper fees. Applicants for rental dwelling licenses are in . compliance with Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances, unless comments are noted below the property address on the attached rental report. GARBAGE COLLECTION VEHICLE LePage & Sons, Inc. 3118162 "d Lane NW, Andover MECHANICAL B & D Plumbing Htg & Air 4145 MacKenzie Court, St. Michael Burnomatic Mooney & Redlir 2925 Garfield Avenue S, Minneapolis Comfort Matters Heating 10981 4 th Street, Hanover DeZiel Heating and Air Inc. 1612 3` Avenue NE, Buffalo Erickson Plumbing & Htg 147192 nd Lane Ne, Blaine Gilbert Mechanical 4451 West 76 Street, Edina Hinding Heating & Air Inc. 915 W 78 Street, St. Paul Kevin's Heating and Cooling 6474 20 Avenue S, Hugo Lane Valente Industries 5395 Jackson Drive, Moundsview Pierce Refrigeration 19202 "d Avenue, Anoka Quality Refrigeration Inc. 6237 Penn Avenue S, Richfield Residential Heating & Air 1815 E 41" Street, Minneapolis SCR Inc. 604 Lincoln Avenue NE, St. Cloud Seasonal Control Mechanical Div. 6225 Cambridge Street #29, St. Louis Park Sedgwick Heating & Air 8910 Wentworth Avenue So, Bloomington Southside Heating & Air 10314 Harriet Avenue S, Bloomington PUBLIC DANCE Brooklyn Center Grill, LLC 2590 Freeway Boulevard • .Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM RENTAL See attached report. • TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT Brookdale Foods Market Inc. 5808 Xerxes Avenue N Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust ft nsp . • M F"A . x. " ,. ., �. .w .'" �„`Yg;39;, : :' ...,3.' .r,.r�{ :' . _ ik" 1304 68th Ln Single Family Initial Samuel Holloway None per 12 -911 Ordinance OK OK 5918 Admiral Ln Single Family Initial Emeka Okeakpu None per 12 -911 Ordinance OK OK 6037 Brooklyn Blvd Multi Family 1 Aggravated Assault, 1 Assult, 3 Thefts, 1 y Renewal N B Properties LLP Disturbing Peace (.55 calls for service per 12- OK OK Northbrook Apts 1 81dg/11Units Q 13 Ordinance . 3614 -16 50th Ave N Multi Family Renewal Kjirsten Bjerke- Keenan None per 12 -911 Ordinance OK OK 1 Bldg /4Units 4703 68th Ave N Single Family Renewal Bernard McDonough None per 12 -911 Ordinance OK OK 1706 71st Ave N Single Family Renewal Patricia Sandeen None per 12 -911 Ordinance OK OK 3901 Burquest Ln Single Family Renewal Edwin Ngang None per 12 -911 Ordinance OK OK 5801 Dupont Ave N Single Family Renewal John & Joan Ford None per 12 -911 Ordinance OK OK 5325 Humboldt Ave N Single Family Renewal Linda Mitchell None per 12 -911 Ordinance OK OK 4825 Twin Lake Ave Single Family Renewal Rena Chrysler None per 12 -911 Ordinance OK OK City Council Agenda Item No. 6c • • COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • TO: Curt Bo ane City Manager g Y� Y g FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk DATE: March 15, 2010 SUBJECT: Amend 2010 City Council Meeting Schedule Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider amending the 2010 City Council meeting schedule to change the date of the canvass of City Primary Election returns from Wednesday, September 15, to Wednesday, August 11, 2010. Background: On March 3, 2010, Governor Pawlenty signed a bill to move the date of the State Primary Election from September 14 to August 10, which also moves the City's Primary Election. The City Council adopted its 2010 meeting schedule in December 2009, including the canvass of City Primary Election returns scheduled for the day following the anticipated September 14 City Primary, Wednesday, September 15. With the move of the date to August 10, the canvass of • City Primary Election returns needs to be rescheduled. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. City of Brooklyn Center AMENDED 03122110 2010 City Council Meeting Schedule Regular City Coo Special City Council Meetings C I i 'C tlrrf rs = "`'t 9 ` z> All dates are Monday unless otherwise noted. %. City�Hai January 23 (Saturday) 8:00 a.m. Facilitated Retreat EBHC S a 6:30 p .m. April (T /W A il6 Study/Work ork Se i n ss o 0 6:0 .m. , Y p p ( Y) Informal Open Forum 6:45 p.m. Joint Session w /Commissions CH April 19 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 7:00 p.m. Board of Appeal & Equalization CC Work Session immediately following June 7 6:30 p.m. Work Session w /Auditor and Budget Work Session (Continued) Regular Session w /Financial Commission CC Brooklyn Center City Co uncil w y ty u regularly r: meets the 2nd an 4 h d t Monday each month, unless Monday is a holiday. August 30 6:30 p.m. January 11 Budget Work Session January 25 w /Financial Commission CC February 8 February 22 March 8 (5:45 p.m, start time) October 4 6:30 p.m. March 22 Budget Work Session April 12 w /Financial Commission CC April 26 October 18 6:30 p.m. May 10 Budget Work Session (Enterprise Funds) May 24 w /Financial Commission CC June 14 November 3 (Wednesday) 5:00 P.M. June 28 Canvass City General Election Returns CC July 12 November 15 6:30 p.m. July 26 Budget Work Session August 9 w /Financial Commission CC August 23 November 29 7:00 p.m. September 13 2011 Budget Hearing CC September 27 October 11 (Columbus Day) October 25 November 8 November 22 December 13 All dates are subject to change. Call City Hall at 1 9 Y 763 - 569 -3300 to verify dates and times. Strikethrough indicates meeting has been CANCELED. CH — Constitution Hall located at Community Center CR — Council /Commission Conference Room located in lower level City Hall CC — Council Chambers located in upper level City Hall EBHC — Earle Brown Heritage Center, 6155 Earle Brown Drive City Council Agenda Item No. 6d • • COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM DATE: March 16, 2010 TO: Curt Bo ane City Manager g Y� Y g FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement pP g P g for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -01, 02, 03 and 04, Dupont Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the attached resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -01, 02, 03 and 04, Dupont Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements. Background: On February 22, 2010, City Council conducted a series of two public hearings on the proposed Dupont Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements. At that meeting, City Council ordered the improvements and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for the project. Construction plans, specifications and contract documents have been prepared for the project. The overall scope of the project remains consistent with the improvements outlined in the feasibility study. Staff is prepared to begin the project bidding process upon authorization from the City Council. The bidding process would involve advertisement of the project in the City's official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin magazine. Sealed bids would be collected, opened on a scheduled bid opening date, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer. Staff anticipates that the bid results will be presented to the City Council for consideration at the May 10, 2010, City Council meeting. Budget Issues: The total project cost is estimated to be $3,459,000. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from sources as described in the project feasibility report previously accepted by the City Council on January 25, 2010, and presented to the Council at the February 22, 2010, meeting. Council Goals: Strategic: 5. We will continue to maintain and upgrade City infrastructure improvements Ongoing: 6. We will ensure the City drinking water is high quality and that the storm water is properly managed llic inic: l,u rnilc, ,u; 1111 it. 1, 1 - Ic uo;, uc /r , uunun/rr 1 /1,11 whun rr.N the gtut/it 1/ iiji uu;I ju' rr 1 /11' lill hl o u,, Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2010 -01, 02, 03 AND 04, DUPONT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council, by Resolution No. 2010 -42, ordered Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -01, 02, 03 and 04 and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the Dupont Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements; and WHEREAS, said plans and specifications have been prepared under the direction of the City Engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The plans and specifications for Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -01, 02, 03 and 04 are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Engineer or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. March 22, 2010 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. PLAN SYMBOLS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS THE 20M EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRAN3PORTITION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION% SHALL 00— A TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM AND BE INSTILLED IN ACCORDANCE TO HE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEV BAN WLlTCDl AND PART VLTIELD MANUAL FOR TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL ZONE LAYOUTS.. DUPONT AVENUE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DEL CITY PROJECT NO. 2010-05 INDEX mwRS A, .Em. . .......... . . CONSTRUCTION PLAN FOR k SANITARY SEWER III WATERMAIN, SHEET NOs SHEET DESCRIPTION AA ................... I .................. ............. I TITLE SHEET PRAIMPE,. ,�j.GN A OF ' ESTIMATED S SIG & ..................... .............. .. ............................................................................................................................... ....... 4 2 :3 6 S N YOF UT ESTIMATED QUANTITIES . .ML...... . I EARTHWORK SUMMARY AND STANDARD PLATES ........................ LOCATED ON PUPPRI AVENUE. FROM .................................... 5111AVENW. ..... ........ .. ................ TO 73RO AVEU 515 CONSTRUCTION AND SOILS NOTES ...... . ...... ............. ............. ................... .............. .................... 9 -IS 16 OUSTING UTILITY TABULATIONS 18 .19 TYPICAL SECTIONS 20-20 STANDARD PLAN SHEETS S.A.P. 109-I07 -010 22-31 LANDSCAPE PLANTING DETAILS 32-36 TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS GROSS LENGTH IAWJ3 FEET AX!6 MILES ALIGNMENT ......... C. A PLANS AND TABULATIONS ........ .. ...... M 37-32 BRIDGES -LENGTH YEET 9,19Z TOPOGRAPHY MILES S.A.P. 109-107-010 40-44 AND UTILITY PLANS EXCEPTIONS- LENGTH .. .. S .42.40.. FEET MILES END CONSTRUCTION :49 REMOVAL PLANS 50 45 S8 CONSTRUCTION LANS AND PROFILES . UN, IVAN .................. NET LENGTH k9.991P _FEET 4A. MILES DUPONT 59-64 INTERSECTION N DETAILS : . . . ................. LENGTH AND DESCRIPTION BASED UPON DUPO AVE STA. 205+40.73 '74 513 STORM SEWER PLAN AND PROFILE To DRAINAGE TABULATIONS. PROFILES. AND DETAILS IS slow 80 SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN PLANS EROS 95-99 SIGNING AM STRIPING PLANS 90 94 N CONTROL AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT PLANS 100 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS 107 -125 CRo;; SECTIONS . . ........... . .................. ........... .............. ...... ............ .................... ............................... A, . . ............................... NAW. YN . . . ......... THIS PLAN CONTAINS 125 SHEETS . . . ....... • ........................... HICONSULTING GROUP, INC. City I HONEST CEVIFY "AT THIS PLAN WAS PWAREQ BY WE OR ---.• ------------ HOW UNDEA, 0 DIRECT SUPSRVISION AND THAT I AM A OLKY LIDEASED S.A.P. 109-107-010 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MRAMENTA. fits A= BEGIN CONSTRUCTION SIGNATURE ... ...... ... ........ DUPONT . DATE xx LIC. NM XX PRIWF NAME xx ....................................... STA. 100 UTILITY SYMBOLS APPROVED ................. OF ............... ZQ ?PR LOCATION DwRie suit I* tma"EIR; REVIEWED CU .CT ................ COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AID FkA.WPOLICY NTY .Am. WIN ... ................. .. ........... 20 FROM FOR STXTk iff' ENOINEFA ;6 - DISTRICT MEIRP --------------- SCALES DESIGN DESIGNATION INDEX MAP 3000. FORD DUPONT AVE. N. GENERAL LAYOUT 300 R_VALUE PLAN 100 $9 AOT (Cuo Yowl 2010 • . PROFILE .Ta MIT Futwe Yeal 2M S...9........ X-SECTION PAVEMENT DESIGN FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION cm III OF TRAFFIC LANES RAx REVISION NILOF PARKING LANES DATE SHEET ND. APPROVED 11 ESALS 1201 AMPOAR W OemilgN Spead lum B..d OR, %lGht Clairarvas NOW of eye / Nalght of ObJect ft Dhls-od Ot, .1 PREPAR SOW Mt AMIN SPECIFICATION AID SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS PROJECT. AM ANY RE-USE of THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN IS UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL 0. —0 OR SPECIFICATIONS ON OTHER PROJEC IS NOT I-TIMED OR AUTHORIZED BY THE KSIWF: LIABILIT THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO GUIDELINES OF CUASCE ]B-OZ. S.A.P. _!Q9 �MT . .. 10 ........ .................... .. ANY RE-USE M OTHER PROJECTS 19 THE R9SPQASI0ILIIY OF THE PERSON. AGENCY. ON CORPORATION USING ENTITLED STANDARD GUIDELINES FDA THE COLLECTION AM DEPICTION OF UISTING xC PLAN OR SPECIFICATION DATA rPCW 1�!E ORTECT SUBSURVA�S SHEET NO . ...... I . .... OF SHUTS DUPONT AVENUE 2' (TYP.) BLVD DUPONT AVENUE STYP. gg S. 11.0' 2' (TYP.I BLVO. iL.O' 11.0' 11.0• (TYP.) VAR. B.G. 11.0' 13.0' 10' ITYP.) 5' a )n WALK SHLD. THRU THRU SHLD. WALK BLVD SHLD. THRU THRU BLVD. ' WALK aD gg� OE NRI PROFILE 661t CBGO � PRFIL ' - pIM] CpApE 1 _0.02 "0.02 0_02 0.02_ _ --1 / 0.02- 8616 CBO 1 . INSET fNSET C �'.. -I.0• �1.0' INSET C S" PERVIOUS CONCRETE WALK S" PERVIOUS CONCRETE WALK 4" TOPSOIL AND SOD 4• TOPSOIL AND SOD WALK SPECIAL )5� INSET A COMPACTED SUtGRADE WALK AS)5" CONCRETE INSET B COMPACTED SUBORADE DUPONT AVENUE (57TH AVE TO 67TH AVE) DUPONT AVENUE (67TH AVE TO T3RD AVE) STA. 100+00.00 TO STA. 166+00.00 STA. 166+00.00 TO STA. 205 +40.73 E DUPONT AVENUE yy 2' (TYP.) BLVD. 2' (TYP.) BLVD-] g . fTYP.h _� 11.0' 11.0' 11.0' 11.0' fTyP.) WALK SHLD. THRU THRU SHLD. WALK E DUPONT AVENUE 8618 Ciao B�6yy l VAR. 15.0' 13.0' VAR. Pg E ©C6di 6 � BLVD - - THRU - -- THRU - -- BLVD _ _ - 0. � 0.02- 0 IB C6f) S' "S'iS il•tt•,lt, ,,., PROFILE BC � ORAOE INSET 1 INSET C -0.02 1 5• PERVIOUS CONCRETE WALK 5• PERVIOUS CONCRETE WALK �— -- _-' {PAID FOq AS 5' CONCRETE COMPACTED SUBGRAOE WALK FOR AS S' CONCRETE WALK SPECIAL) INSET A CALK SPECIAL) 4" TOPSOIL AND S00 1" TOPSOIL AND SOD COMPACTED SUBGRADE INSET A DUPONT AVENUE (57TH AVE TO 67TH AVE) CURB REPLACEMENT DUPONT AVENUE (67TH AVE TO 73RD AVE) © INTERSECTIONS © (DUPONT AVENUE W.5' ITYP.I 1 9.5' fTYP. 7 s ITYP.) 4.5'- • 13.0' 15.0' _• 4.5' 1 7yp. WALK THRU THRU W CWW — M 14 GR N W l 1 A 02- f a "' NOTES. SEE AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR CURB AND GUTTER L EVENT LOCATIONS © SF,E A@%k MIND �4NSTIiUCTION PLANS FOR SIDEWALK COMPACTED SUBGRAOE RkPI CEME `OCA BNS INSET A Q3 BACKFILL WITH SUITABLE GRADING MATERIAL FOR �ITIONAL INF FOR RAIN ADDITfONAL INFORMATION 1@ SEE DRAINAGE PLANS FOR CURB CUT LOCATIONS DUPONT AVENUE (57TH AVE TO 67TH AVE) ® A RN M O11o0 AND LANDSCAP R INTERSECTIONS 1 ID STA 90 y a.m1y TMf Inb ga..wpebeflenw rwerT IC A RI0"T N0. IRA" BT ^„•;"� ,, ;,. P,„. ow S.VUw CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SHEET 1 M R r Tn. KTmr N Kw,"xrTa SESIGNED BT Et hlm NCR. JONATHAN M.PHERSON T Na p_eTRUeE CONSULTING TYPICAL SECTIONS IB City rRosc CHECKED Br DUPONT AVENUE OF Eil`Ra bQC er • cqo .R.R� -- . ----- RFpiti&f - -'--' zaa-GS ...xrxERSON GROUP, INC. ...�MIYWt- WVIM�TGiY.TSOf .Gpi om. 1ieNU. • 4TI60 CM . N0. 7012 125 SIDEWALK (3) RUBY STAR PURPLE CONEFLM WER 151 BUTTERFLY MILKWEED (3) PARDON NE DAYLILY �f10) LITTLE BLUESTEM GRASS PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SBI BLACK -EYED SUSAN FACE OF CURB LEGEND (10) BLUE OAT GRASS O DECIDUOUS SHRUB NO TES- 1. 1 PLANTS IN WWWT ARE NOT TO O PERENNIAL PLANT EXCEED 25' HE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. RECEIVE 2- LANDSCAPING AND RAIN GARDEN TYPE A — BEHIND CURB IN BUMPOUT w -mw.r PLANT LIST SYMBOL `BOTANM NAME i IDBCIDUOW $WAS AM JAMNS md.—pa AMMn MpC AUTUMN YAGG CHOKEBfBiRY LANDSCAPE EDGER (PLASTIC) AROUND ENTIRE P CS (4) KARL FOERSTER GRASS _ LANTING BED ALL9MANS OCI PACT DOGWOOD t3) BLACK CHOKESERRY OR DOGWOOD PER33 P - AND BRASSES ( 5) FRAGRANT GIANT HYSSOP � AF � ° t11 LITTLE BLUESTEM GRASS I rRAaNANT GuMNT M7SSOP AN "" � ft w OM IPUIWU DE A37M IASC�.pr tueroaw AS SUTrl9FLYMILKwEw EP It.cIxMCM ywpsMTtuEY SIB ., (IRUBY SIAM PURPLE CONEFLOW®t Hs Il#RnUIaeINrf F'oan AY' LO I "PilluGii iiE MYUI.Y SAOaDA +011IKMC+ aM.ilis'LOea.0 ' LB lu LEI wobw (5) PARDON ME DAYLILY AIYENT TRAP (SEE DETAILS RH - --# e 99) BLACK -EYED SUSAN FACE OF CURB TB I fs biho r G EYED SUBM) rnWi cncowtA CN I Wb , f - iSWRaMORT fMMmAPzrW AQMM10r w dFmw STREET PV I IU1RL FOB18TOt R!m ORI1S6 P**— x"vgwu pd- Sky S PRANWE SKY SINITOIM ORASB 6 BH ',PR ® oRASS RAIN GARDEN TYPE B — BEHIND CURB IN GRASS AREA (APPROX SIZE 10'x20') SS �SMKaaAPAan uoprlum . IIJTf1.EtB1ftTBt GRASS .. I Mroef wrr a toot m10 olon M.oRlooxoM1x rnyerr RA 57.74 •ID M0.1FCT x0. DW BY I 5 , CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SHEET oeszeneo ev CONSULTING 29 ri piM xox� JONATHAN MoPNERSON s••�±e_Ors_ LANDSCAPE PLANTING DETAILS mepi As F N GROUP, DUPONT AVENUE gg� xo o• Rv cso APM KIM. 125 y cs OF INC. 125 47360 Caw. xo. ro LEGEND tl4ff INPLACE ROADWAY Q C PEDESTRIAN CURB RAND i Z — — PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PER MN/DOT STANDARD PLATE 7036 ® 4" CONCRETE WALK o We 1aD ® 6• CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT < ® B• CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT II I II III N k DUPnYT fimAI mum I PLAN W SEWER 1. PROFILE FOR RAINWATER STREET SEE STORM ET RADII I A BARREN CURB CUT LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. RALIGNM ENT STATION LOCATION i CONSTR4�TION SEE REMOVAT LOCATIL PLANS FOR CURB AND SIDE WALK E!T. Iiririiine MAT. ii II I "III I 1100 a LIMITS ACEMENONS. II II u 6707 s7ts I 572 REPL 5 CONSTRUCT 6• CONCRETE WALK SPECIAL IN BOIAEVARDS III 20.0'R I II I "/W � g e FROM 67TN AVE TO TN AVE 6616 C60 Y� 660 I I EX. R/W +39.8 _4IU GM a -- -- -- -- 20 EX. ph ! \- 20.0'R B61B Ci8 Ex. R/W ' � � ( 3 6714 CONSTRUCTION I I ! 3700 LIMITS BEGIN SAP 109 -107 -010 M DUPI NT STA 100+1:0.00 i 194S.74 B.M. ELEV , HYDRANT ■ TOP Of SW CORNER OF :. ... DUPONT AVE AND 5TTH AVE :.. : .:. , .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. i ... .. ... ...i ,. ... .. ..... r ...... .......... ................... .... ;. .. ;..... i... . :'::;::.:::::! :...:::.:...:.... :':..:...... ' iii n.::.:::::!::::::::!..: (iii :..?' :i:- 860 ...... ........ ...............!.......... ; .........!.........;.........;. : :... ;...::::::'::....:; : 1 .......:..... ...........:............... ............................... .. ...... ................. i...... ............,.........:........ ..... .. .. .. .:......... .. ... ....................!..................,........,..................{...... ............!.........;........ ........ i.........,.............::::: '::::::......::::::::::i . ... ....::1::::::::: : . i ... #........ L. . ::::::..::!..:......! .. .. .. ............ .:.............. .. .........: BSO :.. ...... .. ........:.... {.........:........:.... o ::i::i:i BSO _...__...__......_. ................................................... ..__......._... .................. ... . ...... - - ......... - ... ' !......... ..... t...................... .,...... ... ...........;......... ... ,. . . .. #.........:. .1 : . .......:.. ...... ........................... ........! ;..................;.........• - - - " - i ........ : ...............! .. td 8 0 .......................... ............................... •..... ... . !. 040 .... ?.:::.....; .. ! ... ....�:'.::i::' E.......... ..... ;........;.. , _.....__ ......... .__ y._..__.. .._..a..._._._.__:.._..__._..._ ........._....._... .._._ ...:.:...:..._:._:_.:.:..: ........ ......... ......... .... ....:.........:. .. .... ..: �:: ................ +........ .. ... .. .. .....:...... ... ..._ ........ ... . ... ...... .. .. .. ... .........:.... ... ....._... ?. ... , ..... .... ...:.... .... ...... ... ..... is :. ":. i.':. :::..:..... ... . ... no :..... �:: e3o.... ....... #. . :.........:.. ....! .......... .......:..................:.... : ... :..... ...: ::i: w ,..... ... .. .... ................ .:... ..i ......:......... ; ! ! . !... .............. :... .. :. . ... .... .... ..: .... :..: . ....!..... ... ...; ..• .:: ... .. SOOit00::.: :101!i00: is i:.;i:.:: i102W0:.' t0 .. .�:fO1400 ;:. ...... . ..........:......................................... ..........._.........._.......- . ... ........ ......_.._..!........__...._._. _ ......... ..:. i.. ...._......_. ... _.:. i...:. :.............:..............-- _...............,............_..........._....__:......_.........:!_ :.:....._...._•..._..........__ :........... ._...:........_.....:_= :._:.:.: _.:`:.:. :...:.:...__t.................. .. !.. .. ' .. ..... ............... .: ::: i::,.:...., 1_ • • • . • . • • . ...... • ... ... .... t 11.r,b .xMfY loaf m� YIa:4 W.W1bWlpy x r.OAff STAie AID PWWO:T NB...' .... ....... DRAWN BT .::. .. . .. :. _ s 7 � CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER ( SHEET THAN . xslwsD B. CONSULTING 50 JONA McPHERSON A - CITY MGJKT NN CONSTRUCTION PLAN i PROFILE CNECNED BY DUPONT AVENUE OF -�� NO A E BY CND APPN � �� a_ NEYISIINI Y010 -as 1YVNIDtSIX1 GROUP, INC. Ans� ••• \701YV11- WVlon \T01211'OI.00N Dal. :I.YN.. 47160 CdW. N0. 7012 125 LEGEND ' —_ — INPLACE ROADWAY z STREET RADII z STREET RADII a m 100 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION RA ALIGNMENT IUS ALIGNMENT AL STATION LOCATION ,n , aCL owr ISTATION 1oc +xes W RAD Ts.a 1T. = ? g!�,1Nr uz.TZS 35.a LT. ® 6 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT ` ( _ 2aa d1PaNf }Qci21.o 35 LT. < 20� gHONf 02 +e32 3sa RT. 1 2aa OOPONT 106AR1 35.a1.r. 3aa' p1i!roxT ON5T.4 — LT. ® 8- CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT D-- 1 Ina bLkWt 10cHT.0 t DUPONT co 9smucrta+ II !--! I i IMITS !�-'! 63 � 3927 20.0'R I I I S - 823 J I SB37 , 3808 3731 I 5737 3801 5807 3813 5818 8618 C6G 20.0 � BB18 � 5919 0 o I I =•616 C60 B61B C&G') 2 EX. R/W / 0.0'R 11 I I I 'R S„ .83.2 40.5 20.0 IOE 1a. �. 1 10 Lis 11 < . �yy +f 2.0 .5•- .3�5_ -42.0 ry I I p — 1' �� T,R ❑ ♦ 3 ' 1 ® li c+98. �!`-- ___ -_ - -_ Tr -- y I I I I 20.0 R " 1 II 20.0' R ' I I I20. 0'A 20.0'R I 111 CONSTRUCTION EX. RI. ---PPP I 1 74 3742 861 C�►O !1 9618 Cat LIMITS 8636 C►0 < I Sma I �� I 5618 3624 5632 I 58M SB49 I 5858 C � 1 1 S� 5008 I 3012 I I 5916 RCMCR! NOTee� p � II I—J . SEE STORM SEWER PLAN 6 PROFILE FOR RAINWATER II II MOTr�, DARDEN CURB CUT LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. SEE REMOVAL PLANS FOR CURB AM SIDE WALT( 0 CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS. PER MN/OQT STANDARD PLATE 7036 5.4. ELEV. = 845.76 CONSTRUCT 5 CONCRETE WALK SPECIAL IN BOULEVARDS ® 4- CONCRETE WALK T SW CORNER FROM 57TH AVE TO 65TN AVE DUPONT AVE AND 58TH AVE T .................. I.........:.........!......... ...... ..:.... ;....,....... : .......................... ...:...................:....... ....� .. ... .. .. .. .....I. ....:. .... ... ..:. ..... ... . ...... .. ..... .. .......:... . : ........... ................. ... .... ......:..:. _ :..... :........ :........:.........:.........:.........:.... .....:.........:....:.......... i . ...................... ! ......... :......... ......... .... .. ... .. ... ..: ...... i.........:..,......,. ........,......:::i......i.. {.... . ............. .... .... ........ ................... .. ... ...... .. .. .. ..... ..':. '.�' 660 ...._ 5::.::.:.:, ». .................................... ............................... .......:.........:.........:.........: .........:.........:..:...:.:.. ..........! ...... ..:...... ............................... ... k ;.. •i .. .. .... ..........:.... ... ... .. , .. .......:... ............................... t........: .......:....... ..:............:....:.........; .......:...... !............. :�. ...............:. .......:.........:.........:... . ........... . k... ! . ....... ......... ...................,.........,.........!...... ..;........,........;........., m ....: ............................... :............... m .. ...... 954._.. ............ ...............:....... ............................... -. 454......_......_ ...._...,..__.._ ............... ........:.................... ............................... ......:.........:..... . , ......... ........:..... ..... ......................... ........ .:.........:................... �................... !....... .:.........:.........:......... !:::: " :::: n ... ! .. .... ........ ........ , .. ..... ... 1111[ii..iiiii;:ti�ai[i:i' iii... ........_....... .................!,..... !.... ..:.........:.. , . .. f...................! ........!........:.....:.::::.. !ik: 3 .......... I ...... ...........:..................: E ; :. ..':.:...ii ..:.........:........ . ..._.....___:__...__._..,__....._-........__..._.:._._ .............:......._.. ....._!......._....!........_._ .:..... .....__.... +..... _!...._._...... ».:. . . ...._.._°___»..........:..._............. 1.:.:.:.:.:.....:_........_._....:....... ...........L.' ° _._...._..:...: ... t. +..::.. ... . »......__ ...:.........:....... .. .... . . .............. ,.......: ...�.. ! .......:.... .. ... ... ::'}:::.... !: .... .rk'.::: ,. :i ... ..: .. :��• ::: .. :':�::iWi� ;:fit" ! ... ..... t .......................................................................... i........:........:.........!........ .........!.........;.........;. ::I::::::::.. .'... . s o ................................:::.:::::.:::::::............. ..............:................ _.444..... #........; .:........:........:........:.........:.. .......:.........:.........:... ... ExssnNO. CRDUMDLIME. . .....,.............:::::!::::: ........... :..... .:...........:.::..:...... I.:.:::... t ! . .. .. .. .. .... .. ... .. .. ! .i... . .......... ..... .............. , .. .. :.. .. .. ... :....... .. .... ...... ........i.. :.. ... ... ... .. ... .. . .. ......... ........ ... ! ............. .. ..... ,......... ...:...,.,... .....,..... .. .. 7 .... . ....... .... ... ..... ........... .. ...... .... ,.. ... ........:..... .. .. +.. ... .. . I. . ..... ... :.... .. .. : :. s .......... ... .... ... ....... ... ......: o ......:........ :.. .. .. .:.... ........ ... .......... :. lo�.00...... ios-oo low4w.... » ao. .. , ....ios!oo.....i .....las.00.... ,. l3MTeoo..... ;..::.132«00:.: i3s+o0 : .:.ur..00::::..i.::: aid* oo._ .....:..:..::>! ru:.:. :.:.:.._...:...:.__..._ ?..._:.. :: :. -' - ... _ �... • 1n�.nr .�!.. x,er m. m.. w.mm.n...x r.e-.. STATE AM I.A.T Na Ou— 0r $ -, ... I:::::::� CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SHEET , . ..,.. ..... .x....,... ,„..,m -..,. m. ,a,,,, ,,�_ N TH N M o2s1axc0E r CONSULTING CONSTRUCTION PLAN 4 PROFILE 51 Pnm Mar JONATHAN McPNER30N 4ECKE =R- DUPONT AVENUE OF Tj CITY PROJECT N0. CXECREO R7 :5 N0 DATE , BY , cx0 !APP11; a v 0x m10•a5 cP" G ROUP ! INC. 125 war ... \M12�xf- , M ►1qv \f�t} ryM pMx :�� . 4 71 60 _C01,Y. N0. T012 LEGEND tlo= ® CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP INPLACE ROADWAY PER MN/DOT STANDARD PLATE 7036 Z PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ® 4" CONCRETE WALK e0 too 2 _ ® 8• CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 4C N ® s- CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT I 6 II.�,•,�`II ` lE DUPONT LIIMITS SB47 0616 CBO I " A ' 6001 8007 8075 6023 8028 I 6035 I , 6041 8047 CV` I I BLOT I c 59 ❑47 ZO_C'R " n ❑ / 8618 qQ py R 20.0'R C; I I II I I i I B63B CBQ 11 EX. f I I 20".0-it X22.7 N. 200' R mN _ -- � �_� -Q . j ..�. `$ �_ 120- m• f 1 • �, 129._. I1 1 .I_,� tM5'_ Q �� i6' a2I I� w y 1 WI i V. e.B� x±59 iI I III �� I �lP I1 I 20.0`R I uu �� 20.0'R 20.0•R 20.0'R CONSTRUCTION EX. R/W 6924 I - 84 B cm LIMITS I r� I BB0B CBO ' 8618 ; 6708 ❑ _ 5938 I , 86uuu6 CiQ I 6008 6012 i I 6016 8024 6030 I 6036 , 8042 STREET RADII STREET RADII OcMmau aercc, RADIUS ALICNNEHT STATRNN LOCATION �RAONS ALIONMFJR SFAFIONI LOCATION SEE STORM SEVER PLAN B PROFILE FOR RAINMATER � MtIRONT Oe.s3a LID` 1T, RE OMEN CURB CUT LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. - 20" - F - - SSEEEE REMOVAL PLANS FOR CURL AND SIDE WALK - Wd uo. u I I I 1 B.M. ELEV. ®B45.87 IEPLACEIENT LOCATIONS. TOP CONSTRUCT 5' CONCRETE WALK SPECIAL IN BOULEVARDS r HYDRAN CORNER OF FROM 577H AVE TO 65TH AVE .. . . :........!... .. AVE ......:::::::::::: : ................. .+......... ,......... ......... ......... ... ... ..: ...... .. .... ...:......... ........ .:.........:.........:.:....::: �.: � .. _.. .._.......__..._. _. .... ..... .._ »...._._.. .... _..._ ............ u...._.___..._ ......_......: _............ -_• __......__.._._._......._:..... .._ »._.....o-....._...._.....:_. ...._.__..._:_.___....._ :............_......... ._ ............. •._ _} ...... .... ......... ........t........ ...,..: ........................ .::..:.. ee'.:.:::.... s ............ ..... _..._... .:........ : { ;......... ! .. .......`..... .. .. ....... ......... r..... ....:........ :.. ... ....... .:.. .W .........:......... ......... ......... ... I. .... ... .....�.. ..t .........:... . ! .. t......... •.. ......,:......... €......... I.........I...::: •.; .......:: ;::': :::::::: gy p:::.. ,....... .�::::::::: i_ . ... . ..................t........, .... p.. ... {... ................: ..... ?. �...... t E. BOTH AYE ..f ........i..... ..... .... t ' ::ir.:ir:. .::E't81ST :AY6 M••:•:: r.•,.t....... "` ................ .......... .......:....:...:'r:•, °•: ..................:.....,... {.::......!..:.:::.:i.. .... ...'W YIfC ,'tTU1TCN EKi5. TR10. OR0Ulp!' kiN� ;k....i..___....._....,._..._.. _ ...; ..,, .......... .. ............. {......... ,..... ............................................;....... ..;.......,.........;........;. ......, ........ ,.........;.......: ..... .. . . .. ..... . .... ......... ... ......... ... .. .... .. .. tt : ... ....................... . ............::::......... ::1 ::.ii 3 : .... ...:..... . , . ! .............. ............ { ;::::::::: ._....._.___... ....... ................. .l.................:........... ..... .. ...;........,.....;. EXI$T1NQ. QRbUlIOC INE,.:. �: : t(:::.:..::;:... :: j:::.:.:::�t _ .. ..... .. ... .. .. 3 .. ....... ;.......:...... ! .... ... .. _ : ..i.........:ii::i{ - ......_.._ . : . ................... . ........ ......---.. t . ................ ........ .................. t::: ......:.........�::......!:.... :............ t .......:.........:........ ?:.. ....... ... .......:............................................. ..................:............ .. ...... ...................... ........:........ : • , ! .................... ........... :........! . ....,...... '.. i::.i:' i j- -» li ........... ..... .....................:......... .............. ....... ......:............. ... ........................ .....,..:...: '.' ..: .. E..... .: ...+ ....: ... .. :.... ;.. . . .., .. S1Ts00...... ;.... 1L6�700......,.. S18t00.. ..12Df100...... ;... .121W0. .122fA0....:: '13]s00 .�.. ...'12!}00:::::::.:.'.: S25�O0:::.:::::: 126ifOD.....t 12TlD0........:.:.128!MO :::.: .:... ...::::::::: �.........: ... i. ....•.........€ ..... ........................:...... .:........:..:...:..i... '.I..::::.:E..:...:.: t ; • ..... ......... + ,7 pn•rN� oN I 'Tal T8- MW9PIIOJ6CT N0, +6GIECN €FORT .... t ................. .. 3e - JONATHAN NCPXERSON °2Na� y o -tee CONSULTING COY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SHEET CON STRUCTION PLAN i PROFILE SZ xo - 0A ei 1 5,A6 r. • "" "- -° A2Y1 GROUP, INC. DUPONT AVENUE 28 6SP' '-p ai¢tt,u�r • + • naeu Oar• .,, t�IpN• 47160 rgq{, TQl2 • i • I \ LEGEND CFNFRA! NQTESf SEE STORM SEWER PLAN 8 PROFILE FOR RAINWATER INPLACE ROADWAY GARDEN CURB CUT LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SEE REMOVAL PLANS FOR CURB AND SIDE WALK 4J ® 6 W • CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS. 6J UCT 8• CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT CONSTRUCT CONCRETE WALK SPECIAL IN BOULEVARDS AV FROM UCT AVE TO BETH AVE NO TFSI N I 'y ® CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP 10 f E DUP0 dT \\ , r� y PER MWDOT STANDARD PLATE 7036 CONSTRLCTION ® 4- CONCRETE WALK f LIMITS j 16 8113 I I ' L 8 6125 8138 ' � fl 71001 6207 I 6213 � 6219 � B B616 Ci6 � P o so Too o I III I 8618 O80 p B61B 8618 C4G o„ II 20.0' R 20. D' R CBC EX. R/W : 20.0' R {S.0' R N M4.2 + 0.5 I +98.0 , +31.9 +34.1_ ` _ _ _ Fyl 130 5 \ Q 0. — • ig - --- 11 ` I. 15' u 1s� 140 �. �W l[ LL �� rs lT'• --- _ M4.3 '— if 'f f +3D 4 +74.1 ,20.0'R 20.O;R MS I �� I I N 99.0 I 1 35.0'R / DUPONT STA 136.34.10 FF3 BS38 CY6 B61B C86 R/W 0618 CiG 1 75.0'6 3 • 811{ � 8122 ❑ 6130 8138 I I 8200 I I I 8208 I 6212 8218 6224 t\ B6u c&G CONSTRICTION— LIMITS STREET RADII STREET RADII I RADIUS ALIRNIEN7 LOCATION RADIUS ALIGNMENT STATION LOCATION _ T5-0• QLIP41/T IN Nl2 ss.aLr. B.M. ELEV. 849.81 I I 1 112• I 41M TsvplT ll N 7A 4"• 'FIT. I TOP OF HYDRANT WT 1 t-vra ssmL tvaNT CO OF 62ND AVE ............:...... WT tasu ss.a Wr. ,...... ... . ! I ,..._.__.._...;.........! .........!... _ ......... ...............:. .:.........: L ..... :. ........._. ..... .. .... .......... .. ;....... .. .. ... :...... ...........:................... . ;.. . :: i ::::.:..:.:.:.:::: I ............ ........... _. ...,.........,.........:.:.:....:... ..........:.........:....:'_:., ..... ,. .. I .. .. .... ..................... .. ......... ... - _ - .......... ... .....:.................. .. ........... ... .... ... i i .......:....... ......... .................. w. , l.::.:.:..!:........ i..'.... ! . .. ...... ... ......... ........ .. , !.. ...,: .i. .;" :'::'..; . ..... :::. ..... ......... •.. .... .... ... ......... ........... .... .....:...... . ........:.................................:....... .:.........:.........:......... ...... . .....__.._. ,_...._._.._.: ......................._.._....__.._.._____.».._........ ...... ............... ,.............. _:......._....... !._ ......... ...._.:_._..._._... _........_......_........_..............:.:...:.:.:. i.:...............:.<.:.:.:...:........!...._...:::.....!.:.:.:.:.:.::..:!.....:...._.......:...._..__.....:...:...::.::.....:.:.....::..... i.....:...:._:.:.:. i.:.:.:..._:.:_.:.!.-_-:.:.:...._ j.: ...: ».:.........i._._._......_. ...._.....__...I,.....___._... ... ..._..... . ............... .... ....... ........... ............................... .... . ............................... .. .............. .. .... i...................... .......:....................... .: I ••:::....I .................. .....:'.,....... ::....................'. , ... t ..!.......... .. . I ....... :.... ................ ..:...................<........ .... ., .......:........., .......:..:'.:::':!::.._...!... ::{:i i.iri�iiiii.. ....:....... ..........,_ .................:....................................................._....._........_.. _:..........._......,.._...... . ......... ......... ............................... .. ..... ............... ........:...................... .... :... .. ......... ........ ........ ........ ...!... .I... .. .. ... i ,.. .... ... .:. . ... ... .... .. : .. a .....: .. .' °n:;: ,...... ..! ... .... ........ ... .... .....:.........:.........:..... ........+....... I .. ; ..t:... . ....:.... . ......... ..... :. .................. ............................... ..... .. .. .... ::i:::�:::: .. ...:... y ....:......... +........., ... ..... :.... .... :. , .. . .. . .............. 7_ ... »_.....__........._.._....._ ....!._....... ................_._.._.._...... _... kxNk. A.. k. ...__,..._.._................._ 1...... .....1.11,AS:.Q19.:.:.;........ ;........: _._.._._.. :: .... .............:....... a y ...... i .......... ............................... ... .............................:. W ..............:........ .. .. .. i. .. ..� ......... ...... .:. .....!........ .,.........:.........!......... ,.........!.........:.... . .......:.......:........ A. i.........i ..... ........ ..... ................:::::.....:...: :.. ..;..... . 1 ........ .. :..................:....... .,. ... ................. .. ..:. .. !' ... � .,. : .'. ::::::.:':::.....!.:...: EIfI541NG. GROUIbLINE ..:.:::.::::: isc.' ....:.........:.. :. . • ...! ........:................. ............. ...... ;..::. :..:.. . ...:.........:................. .......:........ i ... .:.. .... ..... .i ...... .:. .......!:.. .: ...i:...'.:::i::..:::.: i.........::: .. ..... »._........i :: :: .. ............... : .... ..._:. ..:............_ !..._......-- ---....__...._...- s..:.. _ $' .'.:174!00::.',:` .. 175.300 ::i36^eoo.:':.:E': . :169!00:' :136W0:.:�' "i .. ....O ..' . :.'..L . iaFt9r�010MOJECT N0. Ri BFANBE ....... ;.... ! ... .. CITY PROJECT N0. CHEC6E0 BT ......... ..:.. :. ..!•. ..:.. .. DRAWN BY CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SHEET DEUGNm er CONSULTING CONSTRUCTION PLAN B PROFILE 53 M1M Mm. 30NATHAN NO DUPONT AVENUE OF 0 3 x0 DA eT Tx0 YP6 REVISION za0 -as I J.""ENSIIN GROUP, INC. � 125 ° ... \7011\111- YY\Plm \TOIf.O01.0@I Oat. Lla.na. • �TI6G_ CdN1. N0. T012 MOTEss LEGEND 0 CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN CURS RAMP INPLACE ROADWAY PER MM/OOT STANDARD PLATE 7036 , PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ® 4' CONCRETE WALK , Z , ® 6• CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT 2 ® 5 CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT H I < I V = 49 DRIVE v1:RS IL DUPONT � 1 CONSTRUCTION i 8JJ7 8343 } , 8 'a 1 6407 841J 8419 LIMITS 1101 O + o R ' I __I 861 �I f ❑ u o 20.0 N g• — ' !� 20.0' R I EX. R/W — $ 2.6 145 �i. � 3 � -v -_ --- ----- 11 , ----... - -,, i�Q -- -- � ° I3. F Z, -- —- - -Li�• - , IJ ___ _-- - -+� -- - -` - - -- - - - - -_ —.,. . ®J 0. r i 1I �1' � «� .r III \ 861 :!e.4 j � I � 1I1 I I J I \ 3 S6L8 pc ' `ssis 866 // / I E%T.—R/ —M r� /( I 1 I CONSTRU TION I !� ry D UPONT STA 113 «73.60 , I I I LIMITS I D d , Eli I 0342 I 1 8 I 64u14 8422 BNO WNWU H91M SEE STOMI SEVER PLAN k PROFILE FOR RAINWATER �. A GARDEN CURB CUT LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. SEE REMOVAL PLANS FOR CURB AM SIDE WALK STREET RADII REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS. r _ RADIUS ALIONYEN LEV T STATION LOCATION CONSTRUCT B• CONCRETE WALK SPECIAL IN BOILEVARDS I zLd °"' 1 - o�«7r" . - ¢ - 1 g ' ° gkT ! FOUPOTNT . 846.03 FROM 37TH AVE TO 85TH AVE >s9.9• 1 iii_ 3W�T. CORNER OF i........ ::........:........... ......:...... AVE AND 6 4TH AVE ! : ..................:............ ::::... ..; ......... ......... ..... .... ... ...:........i........., ........... ....... ......... I.........:......... .....:......... ....... �:::.: i !. ;. ................. . i..... . . ...................................................:.........:.................:.........,..................:.........:. ........:.........,............ ..r:_ :_: ......::. »,...... -: :. «:._.:.;.:.:.;.,. «,.:.._ _:. «... r . : ''' : -. : ..._ ;. ___....« ........................... ......... j................. ... .: :... ! .................... ?......:.:.........:.........:........,..... ....:.......................... . ........:......... :::::{:::,:::,:! : :::::::::...................... :.. :.... , .... ... ......... ......... .... �.... ......... f..... .... ....,......... ,......... .........,...... .!. ...... ..................:......... ..................:... ... .. ... .......... ........ ....... .:......... ......... ;......... ..... ..... j ...........................:............................ } .........,....... ..:.........:.........,........ , .......}.........;:..::'::.:::::: :::.........!:::::::........... .........:................ ...... .........�.... ... .I.........I................... .. .. ... .. :: ' ......... ......... ... .. ... ......... ......... ......... i........ ?.. ......... . ...... ......... ....... ,....... ! ........ .... ..!.. ..., �.. .......!......... ......... i......... i.........:.... .....; ........ i................... ;.. ..... !. .... .............:.........;....... .; ......... t......... ........ ..k........:j': Q^ 660 :.................. , .... .... ..;.........!.........;.. .......:........:.........:,... ......., ..........:............... f.. i .... ::::::::: : ...... .........._a.._...._......._... . . + .. .. _t..._ ..,. :.. _ ; _ . .. .:.._ .... : 81TIN:AYg.:...... :'E'c3,i31 :AVE' ` ...... . ......... .... .... ....1......... ......... ......... ......... ... .... ......::. .... ..:':.:..::.. :. i:.::::::: i: . ; .. 7} y♦ :. ... .....Ip .... .............. ■■ .......... ......... .....w ..... .., .. } : } ... . ......,.........,......... .. : .1 ........ ;.::.:..:' +' ................ .. }......... ........... ...... ..... .......... ......... . ... ..! ...'!::.: ... .. ii 7�.. . j ....... ! ' !::::::::a::.::::::. ai j :...................: ........... ............................... ............... ........:: ..... ......:.........:...... :.............. ! j ........... :j __....!............ :.. A _ I.. ..f1iL+00 I47:+00.... .....N ::::..?.. 419 "i3i!i00' ' w00 ! `'p'r:i:::::: !• ........... ....._._...._._........._....._ ._........[_............_........?..._..................._................................................,_........................_.............................,......_......._..,..._.._._._!* 44.........._...................;! a4.........».;....._..._.....,............._....,_....._...... ..........._...._.........._. ?� .._.. ��3l iy l......._..... .._.f44!4«. »._ ... _.�Q... 1 ............... 1 3 . .. .::?::..... :...................: : ... ......, ....k... Tkellan. a• rwrf STATE M0 RwNECT N0. .: •• UR— OT ...... .... .. ... .......... .... .. ........ ..... .... O cx[rxco fir CONSULTING , ....... CENTER ... CONSTRUCTION PLAN CENTER SHEET JONATHAN IwPHERSON _ CITY OF BROOKE 9e 9 ggAUaS S PROFILE 54 MZOWNR0.ccr "' rgssm _ � GROUP, INC. DUPONT AVENUE OF TOIP _ 47160 COW. x0. 125 gs� .. . \7012WI- WAPIar,\TOIT.tI'00.DON DWx lipnx • LEGEND GENERAL NOTES. / D STO CURB WT LLOAANNTIWPROFILEDFOR RAINWATER �+ INPLACE ROADWAY PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SEE REMOVAL PLANS FGR CURB AND SIDE WALK ® 6" CONCRETE ORIVEWAT PAVEMENT 0 sa la0 j REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS. a "wou m f..T ® 8• CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT j. t DUPONT 8707 4D B618 Cho CONSTRUCTION 8618 C&C p 20.0'R o uoitl EK. R/W� LIMITS N +02. w� I � V =."_ _ = �_ I1' 19c '16 1 8 I' arW N= 1 {— 2 J Ex. 18 CLI; 1p 11 C I ® � 3 8618 CAG A 20.0'fl 8838 OG CONSTRUCTION 9600 6808 6812 I 8018 6824 H 6636 8842 LIMITS f I 6700 J I BGIF.S! ® CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN CIARI RAMP STREET RADII PER MI/DOT STANDARD PLATE 7036 RADIUS ALIGNMENT STATION LOCATION ® 4• CONCRETE WALK ag: ol;orMr ssssi.2 IyR.•T• }J. B.M. ELEV. 917.38 a• isi ±ie.a �Rr. TOP ,OF HYDRANT ® CONSTRUCT BITUMINOUS PATCH AS d�Pax '6c.na �sa•Lr. Se CORNER 0 DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD DIPONT AVE AND 67TH AVE :..... 3 ................... .....................!::..... ............................. . 1.........! ........:......... 1.... .......................:....... ....... 1.................:.........!.. .......�..................:.:.: - :.........• .............. .............l.........!...... !.........: !....... ..:...................!........ ! 1:::::::':!::: ::::::,......:::!:::::::::;..." 1. ........1.................::!.. ..... ..... ..... ... 1.:.. .. :.... .......... .... ..... : ................ ...................... ............................... . .. ... .... .....:.........:............... ... ... .. .......... .. ... : 3':.:.:...:..... ,1. ;........ . .................. .....................:......... - ......._....._a .........! . ... .. ....... . ....... . .:.........: .. ty :.... .. .. .... ......... ......... ........ .:.........'.........;...................:........ ........ ...;.........:......... .................... e60 y 6 .... . .... ... ...... .. ........ .. ...... ..... .. ... C... ......!........ _ .. ........ ... ... .. . .. .. .. .. ............::::'.. I.:..... ..:':: ... .... ... .. .:(:::.:..:.�: :......... .... .......... ...... .................E. .... ..... ... ..1 ............... ... ... .. ::�..:.:::.:::�•: _._._ ......... ... ............... ........ .........;.........; .! ! ..............i....................................... ..................,............ k ............................ 3 :......: k.........E:.: "!:::::... ....... a1 ....................................... .........................EIQST3 G• ....,........ ...... .. ! ..:!::::::::�::::::.. ...!.........:. ::i:',' r3 .............. ............................... . ............ '.... i ............ ............... ..... .. ;.......... ....... ;......... .. , ..! !OROUNOI:INE : YA,L ...� .......i ... I.. .. ..........:.... ... ..... ........... ...... ii .... ....:.........:.........:...... ........ .........._ ..:...... .. ::i:::::•: . ...._ .. .. ....... -�,. .................._._........................_... .._..........:......_........:. :.:._:. ....: :,::': !.... ...., MRS .... ......... ......... ....... .!. .,.. !.. .. ;.. .,.......... ... .,...... .. .,...... (. �... .4 ....�� .� .;.........j...... W . ,......... ..g ....1 ......... ......... ...... ................... ....... ....:. .......:...... ...:..... :..1 .... ......... ... ... ... .... .. ........... .. .. .. .. ..:... ... :. ................. ..........:........ .. .... :.........:.. ''' .... .w .. 7 .. ............... .. :!::... �j.:. ... e40:........:.........:. ........!..................... .:.... ............................... 940 .. 1 ........ .:......... ............ ...... .. :.. :. ..,. : ... :..... ...:.... ... �_.. :............. ... .. : ... ... .:................. ::'K: x:153 ::" ::i:::.:':::7::::::::: ..........: ............... 1.............. ........................ ,.. ,... ....!........,....... ..... :F ADES- Af E '. ........__.. 3...... i ............................:.........•.................:......... t...... .............,.........;....... :. .::::::::::: TO P' I :4N..... G ':j ::: 'i': ... ! :... :...... ! :................. .......... ............................ .., ! ......;'. '::CTOP: QSN'ISRED SURFACE .:j_. ... .. .. .... .. .. .:...... . .............._.: ......7.........:. ; :.................. : ... ..:... .....:........ :a::;.::::a ::::::::r:.: ..................•......... t.....,...................... :................:........:.... ..,................ ... .. .. ! ... 16ko¢ !:i' : ... sli:ooi:::6:iiii :isrieao:::::. ' ..' :' 630 .. ....... ..155{!DO:...........18R!00 : ............157»00...... 15.;..00:. ... ... 160.00 . 18L• WO. ...'j..'::'166.00'::':j::::'a8J :00: . -! .164;.00 ...._. ...._.. .............. } ! ...............!.. .. :........•.........;......:'` ........ .. C NO. os- lor-oN _ .. :. : :.. PHERSON ro . T .I x...eT °•� k^•'^^._ ••P• STATE RIO PROJECT W. ORNM aT CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SHEET C � . e..r . � w«• .. a.«. ,.e.. l s. vxc Y rri ,,,,,,� a• JONATHAN AN MO �q 8!�__Q T O SULTING CONSTRUCTION ALAN i PROFILE 55 O CITY P A SS No O• fir D RPPR — REYISIIX. PROJECT Na I CHECREO BY GROUP, INC. I DUPONT AVENUE OF 2010 -o ,— C lECP6uu! B� JsrB 125 :.'Zg ... \7012 \NI- WVIa,\T01l110r.00R 0.. • �Il�p =vn•. 47160 COYM. xe, T {2 LEGEND GENERAL NOTESf NOWSI _ SEE STORM SEWER PLAN It PROFILE FOR RAINWATER 0 CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP { INPLACE ROADWAY GARDEN CURB CUT LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. PER MN/DOT STANDARD PLATE 1036 , PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION SEE REMOVAL PLANS FOR CURB AND SIDE WALK ® 4" CONCRETE WALK o as tw ® 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS. ® CONSTRUCT BITUMINOUS PATCH AS ® ' DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD B" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT ! a g DUPONT a I P 8823 , in 8801 8723 8713 I 8737 871 I 8819 ' 88Jt F--�, BBIB CR CONSTIW'TION 8607 ' 8618 CAO ° I I LIM I � I I BB { G# I I EX. Rn I I I .O'R 30.0'R-- ° I +6811 % I+87.2 110 ^ „ + e' wQ .°. X Il. ~� N _ '50.3 w „ei ..� lY'� �� • �+„ I I I LXR11S 8610 iG 6112 8724 8730 873 8742 I 8812 I I 8818 8824 I 8830 8842 ; 8808 ❑ El F I I �JJ LINITB STREET RADII RADIIS ALIGNMENT STATION LOCATION D!vwrt ,? B.Y. ELEV, 847.38 30 ° T AT• TOP OF HYDRANT araN HOUSE • 6801 #1111: .. ,1111 ...................... .i ... . ... ... .....+ .................:......... ............... :......... :..... i. .. 1111 1111. 1111. .. ... ... ... ........ ........:........ !.. :. ,1111.. ........ 1111. .. .....:...' :' :� i': i' .._ ... ................... ... .. ;. ....... ?..... ..............................; 1111 1111. 1111. !........ #... :::' - _.. ... 1111 . ..........:..... ..............: 1111 1111 ......... ......... ..........:..... 111,1.. ....,... 1111... ,.............. ..:..... 1111 ;. 1111.. 1111. .. 1111. ......... 1111... .. .. 1111 .. ................. .i.. ... .......:.............. .. , 11,11 1111 .:...... ... � ........ :.........• 37 1111. .......... . ... 1111... ... ... !. .. ..! ... ? , ..: #::' !1111:':. j..: ... '# '. ............... . ,. .., .. ; 1111 . ... 1111. 1111 .. _ 1111 ........ r........._......: . ................- •........_.... _• .. :'. « «..__....... !.:..__......... i............_... . :. « :.: « :. . ...L :. .... « . . !1_111 «1111 «:.:.1. « : :_:.:. :. « :: .. .. .. j......:. j.:... .:....:.:.#.....:.....: .. ...:........: :....'. :';'...' :.' 1111 : :....... � 1111 ... 11 ................. . 1111 :......... :, ,1111... ,1111. . 1111.. 1,111... .,......... ................... " � :....i � . ':' ?:: .._._ , ' N ....53: ,......:: r.::c:::$:r::::::r...... ,..:'::::: j': a:::::!::$ is : :::'r:::' ::::.::::.::::::.::!. ....... i;� $ ';. . .................. 1111 j ... .!.. ,1111:. ..: ..p.p w ':':''":; L':' pr.....gt.... f::::.t::::`: .... ....... 1 ......... . .. .. ...1111.. I.....:. _1111.. �.y ..... �.? ., qy... .. r . r ......��..... .. #_ •.. 1111. .j.... .. #1111 ., 1111 . y ................. 1,111 1111. .�....... .. i.. p ..�,y.... :IC7 •T." :::1 i. 1111.. ?. .. r ., 1111 .. T! 1111 ., 1111.. .:...... .. .. ... .. 1111. 1111. 1111 ..'0C'r :: E:: #.:: 1111:: i:: .,, �... ,1111 1111. ........._. ............. .......... pp .. _ .. _................ ...._...... . __.._._.....:._. �O!1.� _.. ._ lw. m:...__... a ... :... :... :... :.._ :........._: _ i1A.:.:.:.:_ . p Y.. F� Y�...«:...,. wM..._.....: i.:.::.:.:_.:_.___:.:.« i_ :. :. :.:. :. :. : :..... _ .......... . ......._. 1111_. # :• • • ... ' :...... :.# 1111 • :'{ :•-'•- -:T. ...,...r.r_ . R. y' .. ..........._.................., . .. �.......:.:. � :' :' :' :' :'- •' :' #:.......,..r:. -� 1+111. ? 1111 -- __ «�,n. :.: : :._ .� :._ :.�A . :.. : z..�a .. .......,.... # ............ ::::::::t ..........: 1111 11 8 : : : : :: :! : :'. : : : : : ? :: �P! : : : ?: "ro ;, #; „ e:..; ?.:j:::::.::: tia m;...; r$ :. �f. i. :.' :. „ ! :ee 1111 #a e: n 1111: •i:::::: # .. .. 1111 .s.....v ....PP ........... ... ... n ...><........N... 1y. .:.'r.•. r ..w.::..:7r...:.w . ti r r : k» • .................. ?.. 111 1 . .. .. I .... ............ A............;.......................... .......,.,..................... ..# . .. . :. :: 11_11..__ ........ '$::: :.>. ^ .i : ^ s 1111'.. y' ., {..._ ? � >, .s 1111... .... :..».,'� :........ ,:,. ,......... 1111 . .......:. .......:.... ::: i: .... ..;. �. ............ :''.::::."' .. >.... : :I : :: : : : : : : ........ : ? :: : : : :• :: {1111 :: 1111 1111 ........... # .........:....... 1}111.. ,,. ..�....... #1111' : : : ? :! , " :. #.: : »►: :.W . :... J:: :....;. {,ii,iii :.# E : : : : :..... ._ .. ... ........... 1111. 1111 :; :......;... ., ...._ 1111. . 1111.. ; ......... .. ... 1111:' .. ; .. :.., .. .; .. #: :: «. :: 1...11......._..... !. #111'1'. :. :. : ? :__: d'a ..........:........:......... ............... :!!.�.!..... #.,.., .. ! .. , 1111 .;.: ., .. 11 ��.# ' :' :' : : : :i : : : : : : : :'1 : : : :i :' :-•I :::....:.f :.........: ........ :.........�..... ., j... 1111 ,... ....,.j...... ;1111. ... :. ... , .;......... 1111 .. 11,11. 1111. ... .: j.:.:::::: . _........ .................. ............... ... .. 1111.. ... . ... ......... ........... 1111 .. .. ... .., .. .. ......... #. .... .. ......... .. ...... •: ::j: :...:::. .. . .. 1111. ..' .,. ; i .. : .. .. .. .. .. ' ... ! {1111: . ..... ........,; 1111. .' :! :' : : :,: : .......... ... 1111 . .........I ................ . 11..... 11. .. # .. ... ............ :... ..!. :i ' ' : :' :. _ i . ': ?1111:..' 1'111.' #... :...... i .........:.........I ..................!........... .. ......... ............... :......... :..... I... , , ! 1111 ............... :. . ,1111.. ..� ......:::::: ..................:..... ... 1111 . ...... .... : .......................... ...................... .................. :.........,.. 1111 1111.:: : ... # , .. 1111: '1 .. ,' :, : : : :! :' : : :' : : : : : :... , : : : # i .............. j............ .. ...... E ... ! .... ! . :::::::.. i .:. 1111 ............... 1111...... .. ..., .,. EI(2§TI .. :N�� . L .... . .! 111 1... �..,... 1111... 1111 ... - ...__ ......... ........... ........,.........# : T °'�... ;11,11' '1111:. j...::.:..j:....:..: j::......: _ ........ . n ....................... #.........s. ... .. 1111... ? .... 11.1.1, 1111. : ........ : ..... 1111 ? .. : : : . : :' : : : .............. ,.. 1111... 1111.. 1111 ........... eso .. X49....._...._...__..... .,. __......._ ........._.._._._....__�__..... 1111.. #._...___.... -� - -- 1__111_ _1111 . _..._.._...:. ._........_._. ?..._....._.._... , _ ........., _ 1111. - __._#- 1111... �:„ ....:........................ ...:......... :....... :........, :........;........:... - - - .. ♦ .. ... : .; ........: .... , 1111.. .. .. ........ ......... 1111 1111. .........:............... .. 1111. ... .., ,. .:. ... .. : .. t. 111 ... ......... ... . ...r . .. '... 1111... , 1111 . ......... ~.. 1111 .......... ......... ......... ......... .. 1111,. .. . . :......... : .........:......... •.........:......... j....... ........ ,1111 ...; .......: ........:.........:....... 1111. + 1111 .._...._..., .._..._ ..... ......... O .,. 1111. ......... ......... 1111 1111 #.........;......... ;.. ... .......$ ........:...............,. :: j.. i.. . p , ........ i 1111... 1111... .. .. .. ... ...� .., 1111# ". , , 1111 ... 1111 .. 1111 1111 : ... .. , ... 1111? .............. ... 1111... .. ............:.. '.. : 4 : .s.i.� �_ `1111. .. 1111 ......... ......... 1111.. .. ......... ,......... 1111.. ...:.........?.. 1111: ?:::::::.. !......... :......... 1111 • 1111... .: ........ 1111 ..: .. 1111... .. 1111..! ......... .......... #1111. 1111 " 111}1 .......,... 1111:!: : : i::::::::: E::::::::: : #.::::::.. �� : : : :: #1111 1111:? 1111.. .?1111. ... ::.:::.:!:::.: : a _.......... _.._..... :.._.........__xD.AR #. . .,.. 1111. 1111 1111..; 1111 ,,:::.... ....,::::::::: ...............___..._._..., ..._...:.._............._........--_._._;-._......__.._._. _.....__�_...__..._,...._._.... .: _._...�....._....... .4414 __.._.___ !........., ........ 1111 ... ............ .........:.........t .. �.:. :�� 1111. �i�� : .. ... ,... 1111. :. - .:.,y ' ........... .. ...- : ::......... :....: . _1___111.. � ............. . 1111.._ 1111:.. _._.__ .................. 1111 .. ,11 11.............,.:... :.:. :.# "1111... .. .. ..............:....... 1111 1111 .. ................ ..., 1111... !......... :. 1111:.. ., .. .. 1111.. :.........!......... ?.........:..... :.. : :... # ............. ::'.::!:::::': j : _1111: 0 :........:......., 1111 11!11:.. .. # ......................... j .. ? . ....... 1111 .. .. .. . #. ................. ,......... ......... ... ., i.........!.......... ... {.. i N •_• .............. ... : 1111.. 1111: .. 1111 11'11 ........... - j. 1111. 1111.. 1111..: 1111... : ........... .............. �........ � ......... #......... ,1111... .,.. 1111.. ...................... ... .:.........:. 1111. .. ... :.. 1111 .�. : :.'....:..: ::!::::: :' : : ? : : :' : : : :'!. : :' � ::::::: #1111: : ?.......;� ...............:;::.:::::, .........;....:.....:. ' ' ;1111... � : :...•... ...1.111.. ..1.111... : �.. W 1111. 111 ...: :.........:.:.:::::: �:::::::::: : : : : : :... : : : : ............:..... . 0 ,1111... T ; .... 1111 # ..................:....... . 1111. ;.......::.... . :. :# :. : :. : :. : :.... : : :. :... :... a : : : :: :i :i iii: :iii' { :i'... : - B4 q ..; . ........... 1111 1111. 1111. . 1111 :.......:.......;:. :: 4�.. _.. #_._._.._ ..............._.. .......,__........._.L......... ......... ..._...._.,._......_........__. _ r - _., ....._...........__. .__.._..._.......__...._....... _...._.._..._.....__...... _.._._.....__........- - ,...... 11 ... ........... :.................., .. ..: ................ ?.........: ... � :' "1»1__ ! ............. 11 1111 ..:........;....... ., ,�.. 1111... 1111 1111:.. 1111:! .. �: K SS .__;.,...:.:._.... .. :. :.;. :.. :. :.... .. ..... ... .......... .......... 1 ...K.w.1.2....... :. ., ... I. 1111. t......K.N.134... .. ! 111 1... ;... ... ;x...112 i..: .K.� 72. Si ........................... .. ...GR .. Y ... ..;....... 11(11:: : :j : : :�: �.... : ................... 1. P94F1?$....AOE... 1..E... 1111 1111. "c . $9p1:Yi0.lEiiiiii ............. .. ! .. #W4NDA . .:. 'ij:::: { - • 1111 ..: ........ 1111 ............ ........ ..1TOP f 1 .. .. .. .. .......:...... 1111... NISMED ACE .. .. ? : . # ... .........................:..... . ..................... :....... :. }'11'11 : I ....._....._ _...__......_:_._..__..:_..__._......:..._.._._.._. .._._._.__.._. :...._.__........ _.._......_.:..._.. ._..,._.._.........._:........._........:....._ ............:..................:.............:..._!._.......:.:.:...:.........:...:..._:.....:.:.....«:.:.#._:.......:.:.;...#_.::::.:_.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::.:.':.:.:.:.:.:...:._#.:........ ....... :. :................`. : :. _... .... .::..... ;. .......:. 1111. • . ... 1111 ....:.......,.. 1111 1111.. ......;.. , . ,_.. ....,...... ' :�; :. : :: ?.........# .......: ....... ........................... :... 1111 i..,.. .. j 1111 ... 1111 111 . ... : ............. :.....................1..11 :. . :.. :`.. ..: 1111 1111 . #.........,.. 1111: .. .. ...,...... : ........ :.................• .......;.:..:. ;' : #.........;..... 1,111,.. 11;11.. . 1 111 .........: .........:....... ..................... ?......... 1111..! .......I...................:.. 11;11.. 1111. ............... 1111. ..;..:::..;...':. ... i. ........: ............... ................ ............. #................. # .................;............. ......,......,..1.....174:..... ....!.... . ;. � .t. 1111 ! ... i... ..'.IT. i'lT6ie00. . : :IT : . :..28RaA0t : : : :281w00... :.. #'...:...:# .. I60..!00 .. :......I6Pr...... : :' #11111 aTOH!00. ]Tl!M0. ...27 1111 :'! :. .x13?.AO, r ' j. A!YAO ,... . S15NKN1 :': T +.'OO :: :II Bw00 830 1111. ':'!' 1111: 1;111 .. ............................................ :........._.......:......._.._. _1_111.. .._._....._.._ . ... 1111 1111. .... ....__... .._........_ .................._ - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - 1111._._ ....._.: .......... ..........._................... _1111. ............. .:.........:.........,.........:..,.., ...i' :-• : :: : :rr : :r: : : :' :-�:.... . .......... :........,...,..... :. �. .:- .. .. 1111 1111. ... 1111. • . ;.. .:. 1111 1111... :.. .., 1111 ..............:. 1111 ::.........:':..:..:.;....... � ...............:........,.............................:.........:...................... .... :......... :................ i {klnT xar11 JON��4 HAN YaPHU.N : . ................. ... .. .....:........ . 1111.. .......... 1111 ................ ................. 1111.. ,1111. 1111 ..; r m n N •+ sure 410 r!Maeer N0. GR4NN 6. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SHEET r_:_ .y ar. "t .w.•N.N" a:y tea- teT -61f A..YElri 7" ° 2 6 O p' • CONSULTING CONSTRICTION PLAN 4 PROFILE 56 "Ga Cl" PNDACT NO. CNECaEO 9r S s 0418 nr 848 IPPf - .. � •.•••. T Y�S'IYN �.NeaNE!!a GROUP, INC. DUPONT AVENUE OF 6S: .• :�io.avllrNnr!anTOfiaet.eex sm. .„,. • 4rlso No. r0u 125 I e • • f J W 1. In nn Z STREET RADII ' N RADIUS ALIGNMENT STATION LOCATION - G I VW � ` 7 ' I DUPONT h LM , CONSTRUCTION LIMITS I 1 6907 i !� ❑ 8921 6927 7001 7007 7017 7025 7071 1107 I I [ I I � n I 7019 I I 707] I 7043 � � I 1 1 o I I 1100 L� eels ac � '< 20.1 ' R 20.0' R II I E %. R/W I 20.0' R °w -'� +86.2 I :I ❑ +3A.5 'Q v5 r +04.1 b Y!(f 5 !!! riA !!! $ ! J D a' - .03.s� II. 1111 () N +32.37 =$ h1,' 1 , t „ .1 �o IN 5615 014-1 x. R/W-+ � � J �; � (& 2 �'R �N CC B61a C8G i zo.o'R II 1 E l L CONSTR LEGEND CONSTRUCTION 7700 _ _ _ 60 TC�• I �� INPIACE ROADWAY (1) CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP GENERAL NOTES PR CONSTRUCTION PER MNiDOr STANDARD PLATE 7038 STREET RADII 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT ® 4• CONCRETE BALK SEE STORM SEWER PLAN 8 PROFILE FOR RAINWATER L.1 ALIGNMENT SATION LOCATION B.M. ELEV. >. 850.66 ® CARDEN CURB CUT LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. I Mu• I DlParr u3.a3 as.a AT. ® e" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT ® CONSTRUCT BITUIIINd15 PATCH AS S� REMOVAL PLANS FOR MM AND SIDE WALK a �oxJ J " s3.3it 3 aiT: TOP OF HYDRANT DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD 1 ,%•. P. oN��ff !__!j SE CORNER OF REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS L24 °' our°Nr DUPONT AVE AND 72ND AVE ;. .........:...... :... .:.....:......! ......� ......................... ..:........:.........:........: !. b. ° .. , ..... .......... ......... ::::::.......... ..... .. .. .. ..... ................... t.........,.... .....:......... :... ....:... i . ...... ..........:. ..... ..........:.:.:: . gi�pp. , ....:: i C 1., . C�' .. .. ......... :: f -------- . .. t.,...... ......,,.. ................. ..........................:... I . ..........................:... ......::!::::.::..:. ........:......... 660 960 .....:................_:... _....._ ._..... r _:... :.:.:........:.. :.:.:........._............. :yid l"Ik. ..!...» _......._... .._.._..,.__....._._.._...._... _._.._ ............. ............... 4 p ... .. e . .. ...: ........ ..........:.........:.........: ...._ ..... ...M . ... . ! a+ i .. ..... ... :.........:...... ..:......... :. J ... ,. ... .?.. .. .. .. .. ..... .. ....:.. p p ,�:. .... . .......... wT. W........, rT.. W__..._ �W............__....._.-_ ....:............._.......-...........__......_....._._. _._..JIJW..........T]Y...... ,........... ,..... ..........._!......- ..........; .._............;._....... ,.. ...._ .:.::.:.: .:.:.:.:.:::..........ice.:...: ...... ... ...... ,. .... .... ............ i:::::... .:.........,.........I ... ... ..... .... ..... :.:;;:::.::::.::.:..... , ... .. .. ._ .......... .. .. ... .., .... ..... ........ ! .E%15TS%6 CROHImLINE. ::f':•:'::': ' .::' "`:i;. :...... ! .... ..................... ....................:.......... .... . ::! :...... ... ....:. - 6so _....,.__............._......._. y ......__ ..............._._.....__......._..._... y .._........_....._..............,....._....._._. ; _.».._..........,......__....._..,...................:._..._.._.....---.........._..........._....,....._...........,.........__...,..._...... ........,.._....._........:.... .......... ............_....,....__..._._. . ? ................... ; ....... Vl _... E S N (.. .. ... .,.. w . ...! i ... ...!.. ........ u • ...:..:::....... .....:........ : .....:........ __...._.__..,.._ .._........._. _.....__....!._...._.__ ............ ......._... sc. _.._..............._........._.....................,...................._................,.................,...... ..........,.__. »...._.......... ..._......_....- »_.... ..:.._..........,.....__.. i... :1 :.... . :....... .. ° . y .. ...... .!...... , .. .. .. .?..... ..j .... R ..! ... ........ ...K.,. TT ... .............. .. ........ ♦.1D00,..... ..., .........,.........;.........;. .. .: K ,. FINISHED �::':: ..i .. � .. ,. .. .. . 4 ..., .. .. .. ... ,... .. .; PROFILE CRAOE.. AT:f: ,. 90 .V ' :'.......... .. .. .. ... ......� ........................ SU . ..� ............. ... .... ..;......... ;.........,.........,.......... . ...................;......... tTOP .RP,ACE1 ... ; ..... ... .. .... ... .... ... ...:... . .. ... .. . . ... ... ..... ..:.. ...................... A . : ... I .... ......... .:...... � ..... ..... .... ........ ..... .................. : .. ... ... !..... .................. .,.. ..... ........ :.... . 630 630 ....__..._.....:.._.._......__.._._-_.__....... ...._......_......_........._.. ..:.:. ;:.'. ---=�" "! :::. ......�:I:i:iiii�:ii�iiiii� rr:'i:ij:ii:�: iii; I- .;........_.........._.._ ..................._...........-_.............;_..............._- .:. ! ...... :... . ..:........:......:............ .:.... .... .... .. ... ..... ... ... ijii..... ..... ..... :::....:...... 4'. '..i: 1 ........:..:....::.. . . .. .. .. :'aoo.i�iyoD" ::ie: :.x93woo :.ii+ieoo:::. z xe3»oo ; x tNao ... Sw o :;': .. 'ia :oo . :...:aei.00::....1.....1ae m...:.....:.1e5«oo.. oe z.00:;:. ezwo. : ! :. ouATH�N e�•HE d cI7r ND . .... e BY E .. CONSULTING CONSTR U PLA lk PROFILE $7 §YLW Imp ROOKLYN CENTER SHEET N 4 A5 6 •" I NC. NT AVENUE OF NO er CND u PR REVISION 201D•DS LYOPNERSON GROUP I 125 ;,jE' ...v0ii�i[- m�rlanTat2rw.Da DM. is . 47160 DDw. NO. J i — — _ LEGEND Q = INPLACE ROADWAY i J f W PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1z' Z ` i ® e• CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT � 9• CONCRETE p CONCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT DUP E NT $ M I_ , � ti CON= T CTION GENERAL NOTES - RU LIY: TS I I I I I u , I SEE STORM SEVER PLAN i PROFILE FOR RAINWATER 701 El 7207 7213 7219 7225 I III 7231 7237 I 7243 l J I 724 I � I ' I DARDEN CURB CUT LOCATIONS AND DETAILS. o I I I I I I I 1 8930 C9C I ,EX. R/M \ \- 20.0'R , \I I 20.0R ! 8639 CI,O /t01 II tlDI O! 9 -_ SEE REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS. FOR CURB AND SIDE WALK ^� I I REPLACEMENT LOCATIONS. 20.O'R ' q °:$ rB' 4 I•S 115 e' _ j C S PED ESTRIAN I } LOG - 2Q51»y q ® PER YN /DOTSTANDARD PLATE 7036 Al a• f3' ® 4• CONCRETE WALK �! r '�'' f %N %% _ �j . y - -�� q - ® CONSTR!1CT BITUMINOUS PATCH AS wi- / DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER IN THE FIELD III I ' I JI20.0'R I 20.0'R I 20.0'R q 7200 7206 I ! 7212 7219 7224 I 72]9 I 7242 I I I 7254 I 1 1019 i I 1 CONSTRUCTION 1019 u o LIMITS f I STREET RADII 1 r -!�-�, • „„ I RADIUS ALIGNMENT STATIGI LOCATION END SAP 209 -1 !7-010 34Y !±"_M.: AIR ±s.+ .,Q.g : . _ DUPONT STA 206 4 N0.T3 `^ 1 I Lm 2WIN Ll. I B. M. ELEV. = 851.59 1 £ �'--__ -- u0 ' TOP I OF HYDRANT LF SM CO RNER OF _... OUPONT A AND ?3RD AVE .. 3:...'..:. . .... ........:! :........:..:.. .....:.........:..:....:...:.. ..:......... . ...........:....... ;: .am ago . .... .:...... ♦t !........ .•.........!.........:......... 7.... ...... i ......... :.........!......... ...::::'k: m:.....f::: .: .... ....:......... ::::::::.:!:::::: 1:: . !::..... ..:..... .: 7: i7r !.... ...' ai .. .... .. .:..... ..,.. .fa.........ln... .. ............,.. ...........:...,. :..PROiILDRAOfi:'.:AT: ......._.._.._ .......... .................. 3........ .:.........;......... !.........,,........ {..,..., ...: .,.... ! ...........................:. .....:..;.................. :SQR ACEN i.......... ........:..... .... !....... ...........,.........,..... ......!.wP.i.. .... r W ..,.... .....:.................. ..; ::1TOP.:EINISXED:SURFAWI >:.:::: ..... .. .... ......... ... r�N� .... yy11yy .............. ....___......._ .... .................._..........................__........_._...._._.__«_«._.._...___..___...... _._..._$,�........_.....�d..... _.....__......:................._................._:...._.._.......«...«...._._......:..._.._....... ._._.._....._...,... «........:: ;........ ..::._:.!._:. 513.:.:.:.!:. �` e. lu.:......$ i1.:.: m......._.._.._:._:.......... _::_ i: ............ .:.'. i.:.:...:.:.:.: �.:...:.....__........._ ......! ..................:.... ::...:....:....:..............: .. s:...::..:. :: i::......:1:........� ! S !.........! .........:.......... .........:.::...............!. .:.::.!...: ....!..::.::.:!::::::.:: €:::::: ...... o .. ..... .................... ....... .....,.........;.............. ..:.........,.........,.......,. :............................. ... BXiSTIN6.0 L ... .......• .................... ............................... ........ �.........,. .... :..... .. .. ... ........ ,.. .R }D.... .. ..., .. , .., ... •c7]97 xYEi:i�..' ...... Fjq ................ ... ...... ....... .. .... ....: ........ 5 Fl ! eo ..:........:....... .....................:.....:... 0 _... _.......__.. .......__ .._.._.. - -- .._ .............................. _........._ ........__..._...........................:...- ... _.... ..._............_:._.....__...._._........_._. .:_.._........._........._.. - -- :....__...........:..........._..,..,..._«...-.._._.......«__«:......_........_..__....__._'.... .._........._,._..._..:.:.:.:.! .:.:: ,. ...... ....................!..:::: ...... ::: !........ ,.. .....,.........,.............. ;.roao9l7fE LN.. + • : t:::: :::: ::::::::::!::::.::i::::: $ ....... ....:........: ......:....... �.........!., ...... !. i.:::::: i:::::::.. ..... .. ..:::.:�:..:. ! .. .. ! .: ..... ...... .... .. N : .:.:.:::.. iii. iiti: iiiiii :is:ii:ii.::.iiir�'�i�::•��i� iii' �" :: ii:'c:'::�i::: ii�i::ii.:i' i !40 ! ....... ...... ........ ......... :.............................. ...... ..:...................:........ :....... ..:.........:.........:........ ......... ... +iiiiiiiliiiiiri !410 _......__.. _...._....__..._.......__... ...._.._ ....................... .................. _._.......__.......__.._._._._. ......._......_..._..............._.._._.__............-_...........:.. .._._._.............._•......_ .................... ... .......... ........ ... ., ..................• ........... ,.................. :j:::::.. . ..., ... ='126.!. .. .tr::' :i.... : 80' CO' : Y :C' :::: ;.. ... 1 . .........:..... ,. .iiiiiiiiiii:ii:i�i Y30 .....i............ ......:.........:......... r.:: :::'.:.........!...._....: 199 .._.._ ..........:..:. .......•'kCO... ...:... ..198!00 AOQk00.: ..... ..20L!l00:.:... ! :.:...202W0:.' ! t ::20RCO.. . .:. ; . 2O4N:00...:. ! .'203'k00.:.:: a.::.:. , L I:. ....._.... .................._........._.. ..._....... .... _.__...... ...........__._......._.__.._._ ...._..._..... ... .: 1 • Nnh n:vs My MN. •G•a »I••nens rvnorf oI 94 . >' + w -• » Vw 4 + •' `" •^ "° °• ms',ur E ` r MO ;. v. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SHEET L' I 1n• uu 1.�» Stai s� r,.»wM "°"' DES1oNE0 9Y t ii M1IM Nam. JONATHAN MCPHERSON -9 WE CoxsuLrixc CONSTRUCTION PLAN k PROFILE 58 p ' CITY PROhtr ND. CNECAEO BY DUPONT AVENUE OF �• NO it '9Y 'I CAO 4RR I�vi5I011 20N-os 1111YNERi1V1 Gxovr INC. S.l: ... \101II \Nl -M1V ICU \7012- CPOI.00N ppfv Iww • _4746.Q_.. 125 • City Council Agenda Item No. 6e i COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: March 16, 2010 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer d SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -05, 06, 07 and 08, Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the attached resolution approving plans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -05, 06, 07 and 08, Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements. Background: On March 8, 2010, City Council conducted a series of two public hearings on the proposed Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements. At that meeting, City Council ordered the improvements and directed staff to prepare plans and specifications for the project. Construction plans, specifications and contract documents have been prepared for the project. The overall scope of the project remains consistent with the improvements outlined in the feasibility • study. Staff is prepared to begin the project bidding process upon authorization from the City Council. The bidding process would involve advertisement of the project in the City's official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin magazine. Sealed bids would be collected, opened on a scheduled bid opening date, and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer. Staff anticipates that the bid results will be presented to the City Council for consideration at the May 10, 2010, City Council meeting. Budget Issues: The total project cost is estimated to be $5,604,000. Funding sources for the project are budgeted from sources as described in the project feasibility report previously accepted by the City Council on February 8, 2010, and presented to the Council at the March 8, 2010, meeting. Council Goals: Strategic: 5. We will continue to maintain and upgrade City infrastructure improvements Ongoing: 6. We will ensure the City drinking water is high quality and that the storm water is properly managed • Vi�unn: Ensn irt^ rnr utn -<< fit t i! .r ,. �,ilr rnnunnuit! 1hni rnhunrr, thr ipialiri aJ lilr and prewl the pilhiic 11 'rni Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2010 -05, 06, 07 AND 08, TWIN LAKE AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council, by Resolution No. 2010 -59, ordered Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -05, 06, 07 and 08 and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the Twin Lake Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements; and WHEREAS, said plans and specifications have been prepared under the direction of the City Engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: I . The plans and specifications for Improvement Project Nos. 2010 -05, 06,07 and 08 are hereby approved and ordered filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and • in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and shall state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and the City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the Council on the issuc of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier's check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for 5 percent of the amount of such bid. March 22, 2010 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member n upon vote being taken thereon the following and p g g voted in favor thereof: • and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. GOVERNING SPECIFICATIONS CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER THE 2005 EDITION OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION. AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CENTER STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR UTILITY AND STREET CONSTRUCTION SHALL GOVERN. PLANS FOR GRADING, BITUMINOUS PAVING, CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER, STORM SEWER, SANITARY SEWER, WATERMAIN AND MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION INDEX 2010 TWIN LAKE NORTH STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION i TITLE SHEET CITY PROJECT NOS. 2010 -05, 06, 07 AND 08 2.5 GENERAL T OF 4,5 STATEMENT d: ESTIMATED QUANTITIES 6 CONSTRUCTION /SOILS NOTES 7 SANITARY SEWER TABULATION e STORM SEWER TABULATION LEGEND a TYPICAL SECTION PROPOSED CURB k GUTTER..... — "� _ I 10-12 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER STANDARD PLATES DUSTING SANITARY SEWER....... — > -- 1 IS -17 TEMPORARY SEDIMENT CONTROL PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER.... —F-- " "_„ .% I Ie STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN EXISTING STORM SEWER �+ -- 19 TREE REMOVAL PLAN PROPOSED STORM SEWER 20 -30 STORM SEWER R A STREET CONSTRUCTION PLANS DUSTING WAIEAMAIN ................. 51 -41 SARTARY SEWER AND WATERMALN PLAN PROPOSED WATERMAIN .............. - 42,43 INTERSECTION DETAILS DUSTING SANITARY MANHOLE ............... © - I 44 -55 PROPOSED SANITARY MANHOLE ............ • CROSS SECTIONS . _ _ - I Bt -BS DUSTING STORM MANHOLE .................... 0 CSAH 50 VVV CENTS SEWER JA CKING PLAN PROPOSED STORM MANHOLE .................• ,f Oi CEN7ERBROOK WAIERMAN PLAN DUSTING CATCH BAS IN ....................._.... ®BI PROPOSED CATCH 'I 01,02 JAMES dRdE NORTH WATERMNN PLAN BASIN ..............._....... +0 El OR RAIL UTILTY CROSSING PLAN DUSTING HYDRANT. ........__ ..................... PROPOSED HYDRANT. ............................_ $ DUSTING GATE VALVE ............................. PROPOSED GATE VALVE .........................ID \ DUSTING WATER MANHOLE .......... _......... ® T. 1 •� PROPOSED WATER MANHOLE. ................. • - ,SI DOSING CURB Box ............ _ ............... . e PROPOSED CURB BOX ........................... a UTILITY POLL LIGHT POLE ................. _..$• ELECTRIC MANHOLE. ................___..........0 N 1Hi5 PLAN CONTAINS 84 SHEETS. BURNED GAS MAIN ..................... - 83RD AVE N ELECTRIC (UNDERGROUND)........ —._..— 1 . ELECTRIC (0 EA .............. —m — CABLE TV (UNOQRGROUND)...... —u� -- - g CABLE TV (OVERHEAD) ............. —u�w— 111 g TELEPHONE (UNOERGRWND)....— >.P'�— TELEPHONE (OVERHEAD) ........... —mod— 94 FIBER OPTIC (UNDERGROUND)... —� �— FIER OPTIC (OVERHEAD).........— '+o• RIGHT-OF- RIGHT WAY .. .......................- .. -.. -. PROPERTY LINE ... .....................- ..- .. -.._ L I I CITY OF WOOD FENCE ............................. -D 10 CHAIN LINK FENCE ................... —A —• — BROOKLYN CENTER i � � _.� OEaDUoNS TREE. ...... _........... E3 `', SETH AVE N HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CONIFERGU5 TREE ................. N SHRUB .. • ... ............................•.. ® YARD 6 i - ` I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS 0n ........................... ` - --', u PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY ORIECT SUPERVISION AND THAT MAILBOx ......................... .. ............................... 4 L AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS STREET SIGN .......................... + \ I OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STOP SIGN .............................. T 53RD AVE .� TEST BORING, ® SCALES 1 PLAN 60' SIGNATURE: DATE: PRINTED NAME: STEVEN L ULEHAUG L NO. 41866 PROFILE L HORR. , Vl]i' Ott OF BROOKLYN CENTER ENGINEER P ATH AVE TVAN LAKE NORTH PROJECT AREA I PLM REMOKINS 2010 -05, 06. 07 AND 08 DATE "IT NM APPROWD BY PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY: HENNEPIN DISTRICT: METRO I I Tp: TR SUR10 THE IVES FOI T N Iles PUN IS URItt WAUtt EEW1 D. THIS ACE U IDYLL WAS ALL TRAFFIC CO NT RO L D EVICES RS' SHALL CON M AND BE N ANLS THE'MINMANUAL IION *MINNESOTA MANUAL AOLOO ro THE OSINES FOR THE CGIJLC71011 AND DEPICTION ON EXISTING EXISTING SU GI111FA¢ NO eIWItt DATA OERWWWED LIIV19I IRAAW QI 0 CONTROL OEW C IN YUIO PAR7 T M. M, B TSID MANUAL FO II 1pi0R PAF MT 7RC CONI S. ZONE LAYOUV. THE SUS® ON U'SUTY UK LOCATIONS SHOWN ON TINE PUN SHEETS ME ONLY MPROMMAIE CONTRA SHALL CALL 'coPHER sTA1E ONE cAu: Lest -oe ooa2) FOR EIScr LOCATIONS BLFORE cOMYENONo wax AIB SHEET NO ........ ....... GF ....... ?E?5...... SHEETS I 1 ! 1 I I • i i I j � ! i i ' {i j ' �.. ' fir. °� i � �J i�� ! C]iQ i I I QI l ii , ; i 1 I j �/ / —' 1�31Af�aRl'd7i — "" T. T' i t • �] i ' ' i � 1 cola o� ��.._.._.. i Q Jt � ' I i El II ff I a l i � '� � it .._ _..- � -.._ - _ _ _ , _ i I t� 9� � SCALE � FEET x,er so, as w mm msr a'm' nw nn wwt s�raaort a mwr au nanrm w r a um w um auvnm. ro m,r, w aar usm nrasata I aw d CITY PROJECT CITY OF arm .aw w' ur r nc mE r aarmi 4 w 20t0 - BROOKLYN CENTER sn� a,e w � NORTH PROJECT AREA NENNEPM camy TA , moves mwm fU11L` SiflEH L LLUMAUE M. W. 41M W 0 cc a � � o 0 H u L..-L a b .. I i I I ._.._.. I 1 I ii J _. .J�L.._.._j1- .. YMi rdfi o Q� �TCi �d To�E � � ; fi 'r , r `..... pt U ON: _.. +.._..� �..T � TL..+.. J�. .�.. +.71..T..JT.. +.... +..T6_.'+ ki iL..1.. � .. .1..J L�� il!!�'.9�i!:4._;G_..J • ., • �.' '1;..1.._.._.. �� 63 T T r.•MTd�T.. l r .._.._L .._....J� I! :. I CL i i i i _.._..J L.._..�.._..J L..�.._. L..1..1..1.. l__I .:. .. �..1..�..�..�..1..1..1..�.. 1..x..1.._.._..1 .._..J L.._.._.._.._ Z N311Y 3711YNi -'T ._.._.. _... T .._.. T .._.. T .._..� r .. T .... T .._.. r .. T .._.._.. T .._..�� .. - T .. T .. T � ,� .. r �—..� r .._.._.. i . OcWi . ErL Of j' I ` ii ....................... ._.._.._.._.._.._ .._1._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._. ...... .................................. ...... ...... -.- ...... ...... ........................ — ...... ...... ................. ............. .............. LLAG CH m rl • F L . : 53 '' 534J 3 5328 _5 �48 El MRDAVKM ----------- --------- -- ...... ...... ------ -- --- ---- ----- ---- ------ ...... ...... ------ ------ ------ ...... ...... ...... N --- ---------------- - ----------- lqo 9 ss V Igo L IIMT CITY OF, CITY PROJECT --l BROOKLYN CENTER scwuunc DAM'_ 2010-05 EAST PROJECT AREA .HENNMW COUNTY AWAOESOTA PIIINfOD NWC SIM L ULL04AUG UC M0 418" ALL STREETS FX(:I lI A�N�_ @ROOY BLVD. FRONTAGE RD, LYING N PRTH QF ,Y AVE. N.. NORTHPORT DR.. LILAC DR. N.. XERXES AVE, N.. AND VINCENT AVE, N. DETAIL A 2.0' TYPE LV4 WEARING COURSE MIX DESIGNATION (LVWE450308) EX. R/W 30' TYP, (yARIES)Q r C 30' TYP. (VARIES)© EX. R/W 2.0' TYPE LV3 NON - WEARING COURSE MIX DESIGNATION (LVNW350308) 10' 7YP�AL 10' TTFJCAL I 8" AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5, MnDOT 2211 (VARIES) 0 15 - - 15 (VARIES)® MAX SVARIES) /� 8618 CdcG 2.00R 2.00R 8618 CdcG - 1_3 MAX LVARIM- I - _ _ - -1 —I 1 ♦— � / I — 1 1 'I 4" TOPSOIL AND SOD DETAIL B —4' TOPSOIL AND SOD TYPICAL SIDEWALK REPAIR COMPACTED SUBGRADE FINISHED SOD MUST —+ DETAIL A MATCH AT SIDEWALK , 207n7. Iff TYP. SOD MSTALLATION AT SIDEWALK REPAIR LOC. RTHPORT D SOD WITH 4" PREMIUM TOPSOIL BORROW, R. SU 4 " -6" AS NECESSARY FOR ' INSTALLATION OF SOD AND TOPSOIL TYP. SIDEWALK REPAIR C GONG. SIDEWALK EX. R/W E %• R/W 6" AGGREG 30' TYP. (VARIES) © 30 MNDOT SPEC. ' TYP. (VARIES)© C. BASE, CLASS 5 C. 2211 L 5'o 10' TYPICAL 10' TYPICAL WgLK ®� ( VARIES) - 15' (VARIES) Q 0 /// ---8618 C$G 8618 C&G I n 20R 1:3 MAX (VAR_) 2.00R 2.00% 1_3 MAX LVARIQSL, _ _ _ - -1 - - - -^ ' NOTES: 4" TOPSOIL AND SOD m BACK FILL WITH SUITABLE GRADING MATERIAL —4" TOPSOIL AND SOD L V SEE CROSS SECTIONS COMPACTED SUBGRADE m ��U WITMRAMPS BE CONCRETE — COMPACTED SUBGRADE ® SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR R/W DETAIL B LOCATIONS DETAIL A Tyke So. r. GNS r NPVr ,ieor mnr nxr ne wvauos a iran ro P"9Wm a r �� CITY OF 001 uar Gf wr a Gl uAr a rims qTY PROJECT TWIN LAKE NORTH XX BROOKLYN CENTER mwn fe are :h" 2mo os TYPICAL SECTION H64NEPN/ C=4V. MNIESOTA PIIWRD Kvm 8MVIN L LLL64AUG UR NG. 418" BROOKLYN BL VD. FRONTAGE RD. LYING NORTH OF 57 AVE, N. DETAIL A EX. R/W 30' TYP, (VARIES) © 30' TYP. (VARIESIn EX. R/W -^- -4 - - . _ 2.0" TYPE LV4 WEARING COURSE MIX DESIGNATION (LVWE450308) (V AfA VAR. i , WALK (VARIES) i4' 14' 1 ( Va ® I — ,— BITUMINOUS TACK COAT TYP. 4 R�ES) - - • 2.0' TYPE LV3 NON- WEARING COURSE MIX DESIGNATION (LVNW380308) � VAR 1:3 MAX (VAR. /-8618 C&G 8618 C &G 2.00X 2.00X -\ 1_3 MAX SVARIESL _ _ - - - -i 8" AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5. MnDOT 2211 k4 L 4" TOPSOIL AND SOD 4' TOPSOIL AND SOD COMPACTED SUBGRAOE DETAIL B — COMPACTED SUBGRADE TYPICAL SIDEWALK REPAIR DETAIL B DETAIL A FINISHED SOD MUST — 4` TOPSOIL AND SOD MATCH AT SIDEWALK 5' 2 _ 00 % m oEWALK AIR LD:;. SOD WITH 4" PREMIUM TOPSOIL BORROW, BROOKLYN BLVD, FRONTAGE, RD, L YING SOUTH OF 57TH AVE, N. INSTALLATION OF OF sOO AND TYP. SIDEWALK REPAIR 4" GONG. SIDEWALK EX. R/W 30' TYP. (VARIES) © r E 30' TYP. (VARIES)© EX. R/W 6" AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 '. 4 TP• W,u 6' I MN00T SPEC. 2211 (VAIq V TW - p c® - - :VARIES) 1f" 15' 1 f S) ®I VAR 0 7 8618 C&G 8618 c&G - _ _ _ :3 MAX (VAR. 2.00X 2.00% 1_3 MAX IV O)- - -1 A7 CIDEWAI H AIR I er ,,, r.::.... .,.... n .::......... - SOD WITH 4" PREMIUM TOPSOIL BORROW, SUBOUT a -8' AS NECESSARY FOR Y `J pptF51 - `� • �1 / 1 N L INSTALLATION OF SOD AND TOPSOIL_ 4" TOPSOIL AND SOD 4 TOPSOIL AND SOD NOTES" COMPACTED SUBGRADE (D BACK FILL WITH SUITABLE GRADING MATERIAL COMPACTED SUBGRADE MATCH GRDE M EXISTING YARD. 71E IN DETAIL 8 LOCATION VAARIES. SEE CROSS SECTIONS. DETAIL A ® PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE 4' TOPSOIL AND SOD CONSTRUCTED WITH 6" CONCRETE. ® SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR R/W LOCATIONS. SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR TYPICAL SIDEWALK REPAIR Twmv seta Pa ovE n iwsw , ,asr wear nev wa w ,mr .0 nwxw a w voPe w awa oPO aa� uv® Ns000ea _ C PRa�cr CITY OF a vow No err a "c ws vooaew 2010 -05 T1MIN CAKE NORTH xx XX BROOKLYN CENTER I saNAVIPe: Dae I .AS TYPICAL SECTION °T NENNU N COUNTY, MW ESOTA PRNRC KUM STEWN L ULIEHMIG PE U0 No. 41ON XX VINCENT AVE. N. EX. R/W 30' TYP. (VARIES)© E 30' TYP. (VARIES)Q4 EX. R/W DETAIL A I 1 ' 12 (VAR ESjL 12.50.SO' 1Q' (VARIES) I � VARIES) 8618 C &G 8618 C &G I- — — — — _ 1:3 MAX VARIES) 2.0OX 2.00X _1_3 MAX 1 RI €SL.. _ _ — — — I ® — 2.0" TYPE LV4 WEARING COURSE MIX DESIGNATION (LVWE450308) t — BITUMINOUS TACK COAT N 2.0 ME LVS NON WEARING COURSE MIX BESIGNAINN (LVNW3583N) 4" TOPSOIL AND 500 6" AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5, MnDOT 2211 —4" TOPSOIL AND SOD COMPACTED SUBGRADE DETAIL A I i XFRXES AVE. N. AND LILAC DR. N. I I NOTES: EX. R/W 30' TYP. (VARIES)© r L 30' TYP. (VARIES)© EX' R/W m BACK FILL WITH SUITABLE GRADING MATERIAL I 1Q' Tlrlg& 1 _„ 1` ,� 10' TYPICAL L VARIES. SEE CROSS SECTIONS. VARIES) (VARIES) ® 8618 C&G 8618 C &G ( ® ® PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE f- — — — _ — 1:3 _MAX (VARIES) _ 2.00X 2.o0X _ 1:3 MAX SVARIESl _ _ _ — — — a CONSTRUCTED WITH 6' CONCRETE. PLANS SEE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR R/W t t IV ® LOCATIONS. —{11— l :':• """ — I 1 — TYPICAL SIDE REPAIR FOR 4" TOPSOIL AND SOD —4" TOPSOIL AND SOD COMPACTED SUBGRADE DETAIL A Towel swum Mt xn uaE n N ?x011 I a w ' it xo n m qTY PROJECT xx t CITY OF oam 1.aw Pl w a n� mur s 1N"mN. ® w � 2o10 - OS TWIN LAKE NORTH X ){ OOKLYN CENTER I sxxanuNE: a,c TYPICAL SECTION a ' E r s H. , PE PW COUNTY, ANCAMOiA WsNRD NNE: 91EYfN L ULlDINIG, PE UC. W. 410N I wa XX City Council Agenda Item No. 6f • • COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: 17 March 2010 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Daniel Jordet, Director of Fiscal & Support Services SUBJECT: Water Rates — Irrigation Meter Rate Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council establish an Irrigation Meter water rate. Background: Irrigation water meter services are, for the most part, larger than 3 /4" in diameter. This places them outside the Water Conservation rate parameters and groups them with other commercial and industrial meters at a base rate of $ 1.34 per 1,000 gallons with a minimum usage calculated depending on the meter size (see the attached utility rate schedule). In addition, billing for these meters is handled differently in different situations. The basis for these differences appears to be past practice. Some meters are removed and stored on site by the • user. These services are not charged a fee for service availability in the winter months. Some meters remain in place but have no water flow during the winter months but continue to pay the minimum usage charge in the rate schedule. Some meters are removed by City staff in the fall and reinstalled in the spring. Those services are sometimes charged a fee and sometimes not charged a fee, depending on the past practice. There is no written policy for billing of irrigation water meters during winter months. In order to bring consistency to the billing and handling of irrigation water meters, staff is asking that the following rate be adopted as a standard rate for all irrigation services regardless of the meter size or the installation/removal status or time of year. Water Conservation Rate: For meter sizes of 5/8" and 3/4" and for all meters classified as Irrigation Meters Quarterly Base Charge (for availability of service) $ 6.50 Consumption Charge (per 1,000 gallons of water usage): First 30,000 gallons $ 1.07 3 1,000 to 60,000 gallons $ 1. 61,000 gallons and greater $ 2.001 1 f life ant! preserves the public Trust ;19ission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the rluali(V o COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: proposal. Water Fund base revenues will increase • related to this ro There are no additional costs p p Y� sli htl less than $ 5,000). I g Council Goals: Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources • • mission: Ensuring an attractive clean sae conununity that enhances the r ualliv of life and preserves the public trust Base Rate for 2010 - $1.34 per 1,000 Gallons • Quarterly Minimum Rates - Based On Meter Size Meter Size 2010 Quarterly Minimum Charoe 1 . $ 18.76 (14,000 gal min) 1 $ 24.20 (18,000 gal min) 2 . $ 46.90 (35,000 gal min) 3 . $ 93.B0 (70,000 gal min) 4• $158.12 (116,000 gal min) 6 . $361.80 (270,000 gal min) B . $ 683.40 10' $ 911.20 Water Conservation Rate Meter Size 2010 Base Charoe (Der quarter) w 5/B' and 3/4" $6.50 .__.l Thousands of Gallons Consumption Charoe (Der 1.000 Gallons used) 0 to 30 $1.07 W 31 to 60 $1.34 61 and greater $2.01 V Meter Purchase Fee for 518 "residential meter: $52.00 (included on first bill) Turn On Fee: $31.00 (M -F 7.•30 -3:00) $83.00 (After Hours, Weekends d Holidays) Uj Quarterly Residential Base Rates Sinale Family Apartment Senior Citizen $ 63.87 $44.71 $ 35.13 • Non Residential Rate: $2.57 per 1,000 Gallons I ' .. ... Quart A. IY Rates 3 tfv. Per Dwellino Unit: 2010 Charoe Single, Double LL __ & Multiple Family Residential (opts x #of units) $ 3.B4 Z Per Acre W Parks $ 6.40 Schools, Government Bldgs & Churches $12.80 Retail and Service /Office $19.20 Commercial and Industrial $19.20 Vacant Land and Open Space As Assigned V .... . .. _ .............. ... ..... AK- Quarterly Rates Per Acre Base Rate $ 57.33 Cemeteries and Golf Courses $ 14.33 Parks $ 28.67 Single Family, Duplex, Townhouse $ 14.33 per lot School and Government Bldgs $ 71.66 Multiple Family and Churches $172.00 Commercial and Industrial $286.65 Vacant Land As Assigned Quarterl Rate of $8.27 its adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved • RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2010 WATER UTILITY RATES Center is required b WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn q y Minnesota Statutes 473.121, subdivision 2, to adopt and implement a rate structure for water sales that will promote and encourage water conservation; and WHEREAS, the increasing block method of structuring water rates was adopted by the City Council in October of 2009 as the most appropriate method for the City to implement the required water rte structure; and WHEREAS, the water conservation rate should be extended to cover irrigation meters as well as 5/8" and 3/4" residential meters. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the 2010 water rates be amended to add irrigation meters to the existing Water Conservation Rate schedule as follows, effective for all billings after May 1, 2010: Water Conservation Rate • Meter Size Base Charge (per Quarter) 5/8" and 3/4" and all meters classified as $ 6.50 Irrip-ation Meters Thousands of Gallons Consumtion Charae (per 1.00 Gallons used) 0 to 30 $ 1.07 31 to 60 $ 1.34 61 and greater $ 2.01 March 22, 2010 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • City Council Agenda Item No. 7a • COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Lee Gatlin, Fire Chief DATE: March 17, 2010 SUBJECT: Fire Department 2009 Council Report Recommendation: Presentation is information only. No Council action is required. Background: On behalf of the fire department, the Fire Chief will present, through a PowerPoint presentation, • the departments' results and activities in review for 2009. Our overall calls for service were up and new initiatives are working well. The citizens' survey conducted by Decision Resources, Ltd. indicates community satisfaction of the fire department. Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 1. We will ensure a safe secure community. I I I II ' Message from the Chief City Of It is my pleasure to present this summary of the fire department Brooklyn Center activities for the calendar year of 2009. The fire department re- i sponded to 1226 calls for service, which represents an 11% in- Mayor crease from 2008. Of that total, 156 were cases of actual fire, Tim Willson which represent about 12.7% of our activity. There were 550 calls for EMS, representing 44.8% of our response. In October City Council Kay Lasman of 2009, the fire department increased the types of EMS calls it Tim Roche responded to on weekends only. The increase in EMS call represents our effort to assist our p olice officers b responding West Fire Station Dan Ryan p p y P g 6250 Brooklyn Boulevard Mark Yelich to EMS calls that the fire department would not have normally responded to, thus allowing officers to return quickly to patrol - City Manager ling the streets and being more visible in the community. Curt Boganey Over and beyond our emergency activity, we continue to prepare to respond with a very comprehensive training program for all of our members. We deliver fire prevention programs from fire inspection services to public fire safety education. A Pandemic Flu Plan was developed and completed under the auspices of the City's Emergency Management program.�� The fire department is very active, efficient, and effective. This is — possible because of the tremendous support we receive from the • Mayor, City Council, and City Manager, the cooperation we re- ceive from other City Departments, and the commitment and dedication of all of our members. I thank everyone for making Brooklyn Center this an exemplary organization. East Fire Station Fire Department Chief Lee Gatlin 6500 Dupont Avenue N. Chief Officers & Staff Fire Chief Mission Statement Lee Gatlin, Jr. The mission of the Brooklyn Center Fire Department is to deliver to our community the highest Assistant Chief quality fire, medical and emergency services. Greg Jones District Chiefs Guiding Principles Jeff Frybarger Kent Korman Vision Statement Core Values Captains To be recognized by the community and our We believe that our people are our most impor- Todd Berg peers as: tant asset. We embrace these core values: Gary Crass Jeremy Hulke • A model of excellence in providing fire pro- • Safety Matt Koegl tection, EMS and related services • Professionalism P Training Officers • A department dedicated to continuous im- • Pride Doug Bentzen provement to every detail of the services we • Integrity Joseph Faust provide •Commitment Fire Inspector • A department that promotes an environ- • Compassion • Joseph Faust ment of tolerance, trust and involvement • Camaraderie Fire Education Officer • A department responsive to the commu- • Concern John Polz nity's needs and concems • Caring li Fire Department Organization & Personnel • Fire Chief Administrative Coordinator Assistant Chief ( : Public District Chief West Tra�ng District Chief East Inspections Ed.cation Division D Captains (2) Captains (2) i i Firefighters Firefighters I I Firefighter Personnel Summary Count Percentage Total Firefighters 36 Total Minority 5 Total Males 36 100% White 31 86.1% Black 5 13.9% Staff Commitment • Over 2,880 staff hours spent training • Over 500 staff hours devoted to public education activities • Station is staffed every night from 8 PM to 5:30 AM Monday through Thursday evening and continuously from 8 PM Friday evening to 5:30 AM Monday morning. • The Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association raised over $5,000 for the Muscular Dystrophy Association • -2- 2009 Statistics • Incidents • Calls for service in 2004-2009 2009 increased by 1400 11 % over 2008. 1226 1200 - 1024 1062 1103 • 156 actual fires oc- 1000 - 905 j curred in 2009, repre- senting 12.7% of our 800 activity. 600 EMS calls accounted 400 - for 550 calls for ser- vice, or 44.8% of our 200 activity. 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009 Call Summary (Duty Call vs. Non -Duty Call) • Non -Duty, 555, 45% Duty Calls, 671, 55 . 2009 Duty Call Summary 2009 Non -Duty Call Summary (671 Duty Calls) (555 Incidents) Alarms P 5% Fire a. p 46% 2% Medicals Medical 7% 71% Misc. 19% • Misc. HazMat 15% 26% PI Fire Mutual Aid 1%4% 4% 3 Average Number of Calls By Day • 5.0 4.5 � BCFD averaged 3.5 calls per day in 2009. 4.0 ' 3.5 3.0 October 16, 2009 experienced the high - 2.5 est call volume of the year with 16 calls. 2.0 1.5 In 2009 there were 13 days that had no 1.0 0.5 emergency calls. 0.0 aa � aa J aaJ ha�� 5aaA aaJ cap, 2009 Fires By Type Mutual Aid 70 In 2009, Brooklyn Center Fire De- 60 partment provided mutual aid to the 50 following cities: 40 30 BROOKLYN PARK 16 • 20 CRYSTAL 1 FRIDLEY 2 10 ffff� PLYMOUTH 1 0 ROBBINSDALE 3 Buildings Vegetation Transportation Dumpster Misc. ST. LOUIS PARK 1 (structure, cooking, trash) Response Times Averages Duty Crew vs. Non -Duty Crew 00:08:38 00:07:12 2009 00:05:46 y �1 M �t,k Response Times (Excluding Mutual Aid) 00:04:19 -w- Duty Crew 06:31- Overall for all emergency incidents 00:02:53 00:01:26 Non -Duty 06:12 -Duty Crew ® 06:51- Non -Duty Crew 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 5 Year Avg. -4- Fire Inspections • Inspections performed by the Fire De- public about fire and life safety is- partment are done in a 3 year cycle. In sues. 2009, there have been 105 inspections/ • Information collected during these re- inspections performed. The position inspections is used by fire personnel of Fire Inspector was not staffed on a to make decisions in the event of regular basis until June of 2009. emergencies. • Reduce the loss of life and property Fire code violations are prevented by fire. by providing information on fire • Fire inspections are an opportunity code requirements during routine to educate business owners and the inspections. Public Education 2009 Fire Prevention Week theme Other Events: was: "Stay Fire Smart — Don't Get . National Night Out Burned." . Neighborhood Meetings • 25 events during that week. . Youth events • Approximately 1,300 children . Faith -based events (emphasis on kindergarten, 1 st grade, • preschool and day cares). Business requests • Accomplished utilizing 4 firefighters 'Open Houses working 30 -40 hours each. New in 2009 • Duty Officer Program — Has been implemented to provide a continuation of service when Duty Crew is unavailable. Each weekend, a chief officer is as- signed to monitor the availability of the duty crew and respond as needed. • Firefighter Response System — Provides real time response data on fire station computers of firefighters responding to the stations. This will allow for im- proved incident command decisions on the scene of structure fires and will al- low for more timely requests if mutual aid is needed. Looking Forward to 2010 • Recruiting efforts will emphasize promoting the department to women candi- dates and targeting candidates with daytime availability. • Exploring a Junior Firefighter program. -5- Appendix— Incident Summary • 2009 Incidents (Includes Mutual Aids) FIRE INCIDENTS Building fire 35 Fires in structure other than in a building 1 Cooking fire, confined to container 22 Trash or rubbish fire, contained 1 Fire in portable building, fixed location 1 Mobile property (vehicle) fire, Other 1 Passenger vehicle fire 25 Road freight or transport vehicle fire 2 Natural vegetation fire, Other 4 Forest, woods or wildland fire 3 Brush or brush - and -grass mixture fire 2 Grass fire 8 Outside rubbish fire, Other 1 Outside rubbish, trash or waste fire 2 Dumpster or other outside trash receptacle fire 10 Outside stationary compactor /compacted trash fire 1 • Special outside fire, Other 3 Overpressure rupture, explosion, overheat other 3 Overpressure rupture of steam pipe or pipeline 1 Excessive heat, scorch burns with no ignition 4 Dispatched & canceled en route - Fire 26 Total Fire 156 EMS /RESCUE Rescue, EMS incident, other 170 Medical assist, assist EMS crew 106 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 46 Motor vehicle accident with injuries 3 Motor Vehicle Accident with no injuries 1 Search for lost person, other 1 Extrication, rescue, Other 2 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 3 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 3 Water & ice - related rescue, other 2 Rescue or EMS standby 1 Defective elevator, no occupants 2 Assist invalid 16 Dispatched & canceled en route - Medical 187 Dispatched & canceled en route - PI 7 Total EMS /Rescue 550 -6- Appendix— Incident Summary • 2009 Incidents (Includes Mutual Aids) HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS Hazardous condition, Other 1 Gasoline or other flammable liquid spill 3 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 18 Oil or other combustible liquid spill 1 Toxic condition, Other 2 Carbon monoxide incident 23 Electrical wiring /equipment problem, Other 6 Heat from short circuit (wiring), defective /worn 1 Overheated motor 5 Power line down 8 Arcing, shorted electrical equipment 9 Vehicle accident, general cleanup 7 Attempted burning, illegal action, Other 1 Total Hazardous Conditions 85 • ALARMS False alarm or false call, Other 34 Malicious, mischievous false call, Other 6 Municipal alarm system, malicious false alarm 1 Telephone, malicious false alarm 2 Local alarm system, malicious false alarm 4 System malfunction, Other 5 Sprinkler activation due to malfunction 1 Smoke detector activation due to malfunction 12 Alarm system sounded due to malfunction 23 CO detector activation due to malfunction 6 Unintentional transmission of alarm, Other 4 Sprinkler activation, no fire - unintentional 7 Smoke detector activation, no fire - unintentional 26 Detector activation, no fire - unintentional 10 Alarm system activation, no fire - unintentional 60 Carbon monoxide detector activation, no CO 27 Dispatched & canceled en route - Alarm 34 Total Alarms 262 -7- Appendix— Incident Summary 2009 Incidents (Includes Mutual Aids) MISCELLANEOUS Service Call, other 3 Person in distress, Other 2 Water or steam leak 5 Smoke or odor removal 7 Assist police or other governmental agency 1 Good intent call, Other 10 Dispatched & cancelled en route 4 Wrong location 1 No Incident found on arrival at dispatch address 8 Steam, Other gas mistaken for smoke, Other 4 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 18 Steam, vapor, fog or dust thought to be smoke 2 Smoke from barbecue, tar kettle 1 EMS call , party transported by non -fire agency 2 HazMat release investigation w /no HazMat 31 Special type of incident, Other 1 Citizen complaint - Rec Fire in Compliance 22 Citizen complaint - Rec Fire not in Compliance 37 Dispatched & canceled en route - Miscellaneous 3 Dispatched & cancelled en route - Mutual Aid 11 -s- • City Council Agenda Item No. 8a COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: March 17, 2010 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager THROUGH: Vickie Schleuning, Assistant City Manager/Director of Building and Community Standards FROM: Jesse Anderson, Housing and Community Standards Supervisor SUBJECT: Assessment Hearing Appeals Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval/adoption of the enclosed resolution. Background: At the City Council Meeting on March 8 2010 council requested additional information for certain persons who appealed their assessments. All of the appealed assessments were the results of one or more grass abatements and/or reinspection fees that were issued in the summer of 2009. The property owners at the time of the violations were given notice to correct the long grass violations at their property and all fees were processed as a pending special assessment. . The pending special assessment amounts are available to the public, including title companies when a property is purchased. Please see the attached assessed certification roll for these properties. One change is recommended due to the timing of the reinspection and closing of the property. Budget Issues: Most of the fees appealed were directly related to cost that the city incurred as a result of hiring a contractor to correct the violations at the property. Council Goals: Strategic: 3. We will stabilize and improve residential neighborhoods Ongoing: 1. We will provide streamlined, cost effective, quality services with limited resources Attachments: Summary of Appealed Properties Resolution Assessed certification roll Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 6233 Scott Ave N Xai Lor /Paul Yang Appellants Appeal: Paul Yang was concerned that he never received the violation notices for the long grass. (Mr. Yang would not have received the violation notices because he was not the owner at the time of the violations) Findings: There were two long grass violation cases at this property in the summer of 2009 prior to the current owner purchasing the property. One resulted in an abatement conducted by the city and an inspection fee as a result of a repeat violation at the property. (The property owner purchased the property prior to the pending assessment being processed for the $100.00 2 "d inspection fee) The timeframe on the reinspection fee was so close to the purchase date that it would not have shown up on the pending assessment list for the closing company. Due to the timing of the purchase and the inspection fee we believe the$100.00 reinspection fee could be dismissed. Action Dates Violation Type Action Fees 6/9/2009 Long Grass Violation Notice 6/22/2009 Long Grass Cut By City Owner Invoiced /Pendin • 9 7/1/2009 Long Grass Assessment for Abatement $305.76 9/10/2009 Long Grass Inspection 9/11/2009 Long Grass Violation Notice Property Sold to Current 09/11/2009 Owners Invoiced /Pending 9/21/2009 Long Grass Assessment Inspection Fee $100.00 ,Y. COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • 4013 65 Ave N Gao Qiang Liu Appellants Appeal: Ting Lin Liu (speaking on behalf of her father Gao Qiang Liu) stated that during the time of the violations her entire family was in china as a result of a family member's illness and a funeral. Ms. Liu stated they were unaware of the grass requirement and would have obtained mowing service while they were gone if they had known about the requirement. Findings: The property had two long grass violation cases during the summer of 2009. In both cases the grass was cut by the city contractor. Also an inspection fee was charged as a result of a repeat violation at the property. The property is currently a license rental property. The current property owner purchased the property before the violations and abatements were conducted. Action Dates Violation Type Action Fees 07/01/2009 Long Grass Violation Notice 07/12/2009 Long Grass Cut By City Owner Invoiced /Pending 07/28/2009 Long Grass Assessment for Abatement $294.28 09/02/2009 Long Grass Violation Notice 09/02/2009 Long Grass Inspection 09/14/2009 Long Grass Cut By City Owner Invoiced /Pending 09/22/2009 Long Grass Assessment for Abatement $282.26 Owner Invoice /Pending 09/22/2009 Long Grass Assessment for Inspection Fee $100.00 Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, sae cominunity that enhances the quality of life andpreserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • 401365 TI Ave N (Pictures) Film T r .s, • 08/31/2009 7 w ` x • Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM 7007 Drew Ave N Wendy Larson Appellants Appeal: Wendy Larson stated that she did not own the property until November 20, 2009 and believes that she should not be responsible to pay this fee. Findinqs: The property is currently owner occupied and had one long grass violation case which resulted in the grass being cut by the City. The current property owner purchased the property after the violations and abatements were conducted. The property had pending assessment when the owner purchased the property. The $305.76 abatement fee is not on the certification list because it has been, paid by the current owner. Action Dates Violation Type Action Fees 06/16/2009 Long Grass Violations Notice 06/26/2009 Long_ Grass Cut By City Owner Invoiced /Pending 07/01/2009 Long Grass Assessment for Abatement $305.76 • r tr t - 1 Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • 5424 Fremont Ave N Luxor Properties LLC Appellants Appeal: Bill McCrum stated that he was unable to sell the house due to the market, so he decided to rent the property. Mr. McCrum stated he was unaware the city had mowed the lawn because he had been out of town for a while. Mr. McCrum requested that the fee be waived due to financial hardship. Findings: The property had two long grass cases in the summer of 2009. One of the cases resulted in the city cutting the grass and the other resulted in an inspection fee and the owner having the grass cut. The current property owner was issued violation notices and invoiced for the abatement and inspection fee. • Action Dates Violation Type Action Fees 05/15/2009 Long Grass Violation Notice 05/27/2009 Long Grass Cut By City Owner Invoiced /Pending 06/03/2009 Lon Grass Assessment for Abatement $257.83 06/30/2009 Long Grass Inspection 06/30/2009 Long Grass Violation Notice 1 07/09/2009 Long Grass Cut By Owner Owner Invoiced /Pending 07/14/2009 Long Grass Assessment for Inspection Fee $100.00 Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust 1' 1 • I F 3 *� S O , s � e f .; .� � 'fir � �} • � P }__ � �� 4Y_ : t 'k "r � r � .�i k�� ,tt � k�'�s F r ��.. •� `� t�� - ,t,�, � �� k+� . x X''> . F � a6:a: D KN� ' 1cN f �'�"i ♦ t > .5 II v� COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • 5834 Fremont Ave N Loraine Miller Appellants Appeal: Arnold Miller (speaking on behalf of his Mother Loraine Miller) attempted to cut the grass after the violation notice was received however the lawn mower broke and it took two days to fix. During that time the city had cut the grass. He also stated that the grass wasn't long and just the dandelions were long. Findinas: The property had one long grass violation case in the summer of 2009. This case resulted in the grass being cut by the city contractor. The current property owner owned the property during the time of the enforcement actions and was sent a notice and invoice. Action Dates Violation Type Action Fees 5/15/2009 Long Grass Violation Notice 5/27/2009 Long Grass Cut By City Owner Invoiced /Pending 06/03/2009 Long Grass Assessment for Abatement $269.81 y- r r R 1 P 1 k; II A ii c G kt - s l Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Member introduced the following resolution and moves its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS WHEREAS, the Weed Inspector of the City of Brooklyn Center has caused noxious weeds and tall grass to be cut down on properties within the City under the authority of Minnesota Statutes Section 18 -78 and City Ordinance Section 19 -1601 through 19 -1604; and WHEREAS, ON March 22, 2010, certain weed destruction accounts for removal of said weeds and tall grass remained unpaid; and WHEREAS, The following list of unpaid accounts from 2009, a copy of which is attached hereto and made part hereof by reference, has been prepared by the City Clerk, tabulating those properties where an unpaid weed destruction account is to be assessed, with the amounts to be assessed; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute authorizes the certification of delinquent weed destruction accounts to the County tax rolls for collection; and • WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for weed destruction costs. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota that: 1. The special assessment roll of unpaid weed destruction accounts incurred during the year 2009 is hereby adopted and certified as Levy No. 17598. 2. The special assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad valorem taxes in 2011, in one annual installment with interest thereon at six (6) percent per annum and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from May 1, 2010 through December 31, 2011. 3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before April 30, 2010. After April 30, 2010, he or she may pay the total special assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from May 1, 2010, through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the close • of business November 29, 2010 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • 4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplication of this assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal taxes. Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. and the following voted against the same: whereon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • - -- - - -- ..... �_ Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Or dad Special Assessment Certified Roil (Grass/Weeds) Weed Destruction Municipal Code No. 22 Capital Special Total Pending Interest Assessment Amount Levy No. Owner Name(s) Property Address Property ID Amount Charge Charge Certified 01- 118- 21 -22- 17598 Lora_ ine Miller 5834 Fremont Ave N 0028 $269.81 $10 $30 $309_ .81 01- 118- 21 -33- 17598 Luxor Properties LLC 5424 Fremont Ave N 0169 $357.83 $10 $30 $397.83 33- 119- 21-43- 17598 Xai Lor Paul Yang 6233 Scott Ave N 0058 $305.76 $10 $30 $445.76 34- 119- 21 -31- 17598 Gao Qiang Liu 4013 65th Ave_ N 0085 $576.54 $10 $30 $616.54 • • Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust • City Council Agenda Item No. 9a COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: March 17, 2010 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update for the City of Brooklyn Center Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval/adoption of a Resolution Adopting the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. Background: The process of preparing the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update began with a joint meeting of the City Council, Planning Commission, Housing Commission and park and Recreation Commission on June 30, 2008 to review the 2020 Comp Plan, to recognize community planning accomplishments over the last ten years and to forecast community planning issues. • Public informational meetings were held on October 8, 2008 and October 15, 2008. The draft Comprehensive Plan was submitted to adjoining communities, Hennepin County School Districts, Watershed Districts and other Governmental Agencies and Districts on November 25, 2008. The Planning Commission, Housing Commission and Park and Recreation Commission have discussed the draft Comprehensive Plan update at several meetings during this planning process. On January 29, 2009 and March 26, 2009 joint meetings were held by the Planning Commission and Housing Commission to coordinate their review and comments. The Planning Commission held public hearings on the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update on February 26, 2009 and on April 30, 2009. On May 14, 2009, the Planning Commission moved to recommend that the City Council grant preliminary approval to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan update and authorize the submittal to the Metropolitan Council. On May 26, 2009, the City Council accepted the Planning Commission recommendation and moved to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -72 Resolution Granting Preliminary Approval and Authorizing the Formal Submission of the City of Brooklyn Center's 2030 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council as Required by Minnesota State Law (Metropolitan Land Planning Act). • Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enhances the quality of life and preserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM On December 9, 2009, the Metropolitan Council reviewed the City's Comprehensive Plan update and found that the plan met all Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements, conforms to the • regional system plans including transportation, aviation, water resources management and parks, is consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, and is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. The Metropolitan Council adopted the following recommendations: 1. Authorize the City of Brooklyn Center to put its 2030 Comprehensive Plan update into effect. 2. Advise the City to: a. Participate in Council activities to monitor redevelopment and infill in developd communities. b. Address the advisory comments in the Review Record addressing transportation, water supply and implementation. 3. Approve the City of Brooklyn Center's Tier H Comprehensive Sewer Plan. On February 25, 2010, the Planning Commission discussed the technical changes /additions to the plan and the next steps in the City's adoption and implementation process. At the March 11 2010 Planning ommission meeting the Planning Commission unanimous) g g g Y approved the adopting of Resolution No. 2010 -01, a Resolution Recommending that the Brooklyn Center City Council Adopt the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. Budget Issues: • There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Select not more than two. Strategic: 2. We will aggressively proceed with implementation of City's redevelopment plans Ongoing: 5. We will improve the image of the City with citizens and others • Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe community that enlurnces the quality of life and preserves the public trust • adoption: Member introduced the following resolution and moved its RESOLUTION NO. 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 H 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. 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 THEREF BE IT RESOLVED b the City Council of the City of i Y Y Y Brooklyn enter adopts the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update. Yn P P P • Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the- same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • • Metropolitan Council v December 10, 2009 Gary Eitel, Community Development Director City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: City of Brooklyn Center 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, Notice of Metropolitan Council Action Metropolitan Council Review File No. 20616 -1 Metropolitan Council District 2, Tony Pistilli Dear Mr. Eitel: The Metropolitan Council reviewed the City of Brooklyn Center's Comprehensive Plan Update (Update) at its meeting on December 9, 2009, and based its review on the attached report and analysis. The Council found that the Update meets all Metropolitan Land Planning Act requirements, conforms to the regional system plans including transportation, aviation, water resources management and parks, is consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, and is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions. In addition to the Advisory Comments and Review Record, the Council adopted the following recommendations. 1. Authorize the City of Brooklyn Center to put its 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update into effect. 2. Advise the City to: a) Participate in Council activities to monitor redevelopment and infill in Developed communities. b) Address the advisory comments in the Review Record addressing transportation, water supply and implementation. 3. Approve the City of Brooklyn Center's Tier II Comprehensive Sewer Plan. Please consult the attached staff report for important information about the City's next steps. Note that the report includes the Council's actions on page 1, general advisory comments on page 2, and specific comments for technical review areas throughout the report. The final copy of the Update needs to include all supplemental information and changes made during the review. • www.metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101 -1805 • (651) 602 -1000 • Fax (651) 602 -1550 • TTY (651) 291 -0904 An Equal Opportunity Ernployer Gary Eitel, City of Brooklyn Center December 10, 2009 Page 2 • Congratulations on completing this important project. It was a pleasure to work with the City's staff and consultants throughout the review process. Sincerely, V C. Phyllis Hanson, Manager Local Planning Assistance cc: Tod Sherman, Development Reviews Coordinator, MnDOT Metro Division Rebecca Wooden, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Steve Johnson, National Park Service, MNRRA Tony Pistilli, Metropolitan Council, District 2 Tori Dupre, Sector Representative/Principal Reviewer Cheryl Olsen, Reviews Coordinator • • ?N' 1CommDeviLP AtCommunities�Brooklyn C,enterll etterstBrooklvn Center 2009 CPU 20616 -1 Post Council Action.doc • adoption: Member Parks introduced the following resolution and moved its PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2010-01 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE 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 H 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Advisory Commission of the City of Brooklyn Center that 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update is hereby submitted to the City Council for formal adoption. i Date v Chair �, ATTEST: retary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Kuykendal l and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Chair Rahn, Commissioners Kuykendall, Morgan and Parks. 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 e 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 ' ` I 111 i If it 'if 'if a If it 11 111 it it It It if IF if It 11 11 1! it if i ll t i f 1 11 it it L It 1, it it it I i ll .11 if It f 11 Is 11 IF i s is h A B D i iF G T T _.7 r.., , � y . J ,s rJ .,, If'� . y a '.!'P ; �, , ' � : � ' i' � 1 Ir a � � �- ; � _ ,.Q -. r 4 i 2 3 Y r I I LOCAL STREET 4 INDEX V==— 1 —4 4 -4 •- • 4- 4 4- 1 5 A- z 14 6 Sanitary Sewer Flow Crt of amold Center - Public Work Department ' ,.� ' 1 i i ` �` �' Flows To: BROOKLYN 80111 CONNECTION Easy- -B ROOKLYN PARK it METER 110 7 METER W 1. 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 1 Calthorpe Opportunity Site Plan Ss.....,. ti 1 fJ r� ' me K �..a 1 i . 14P 1 LEGEND - � I ..Od.1 - � .. 0m. ,; F�eL CO:ti CEPT PL -N 'er !6!5 r mk 3m CexA -r oc,9/f Mel rea. 7:,:.n !. >rrio.t s ef5 .f.•f:!!9-::I! J93X .Ylfltr aw. reitfic:i;Y sxs':w3.i rffJC,':9r: P!d ertrise- �:e.ey ;!r!rt; - w.wi� . v-.e27,4! Jr!i::io , V,7n:Lf 8..9 jwevi!.': x r!mi. -n Yf Y4fh 4 943 1..M01,1 mi., sr-9, 9.9 9 +I[Y' myref :J.p:.7: Yee 9r[dl t7 FtY f./rN:N. � . wM Ww +y OwlFp l 1 1 1 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 e ! PALMER LAKE PARK _ ties ; � E I- Z-!44T fety %A Safety Zone B r LOCAL STREET 4 INDEX V's 7 Brooklyn Center Zoning 02 - *7 ZONINGDISTRICTS ci R2 cmi PuDr-IA R3 CVR5/R4 PuDr,2 R4 N 1 5 S t e . u . wwa<ouJ� �. CIA PUDA1 MR5 w E G2 PUDMI RG s T 11 PUDR3 R7 12 PUDMIXEO 01 R1 ' .,,,, <wu .. I _ ..,« —• C—ral Com— D,U City P— .2 01 I ms. Brooklyn Center GIS COE City Council Agenda Item No. 10a COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, recreation and Services SUBJECT: Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Grant Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider adoption of attached resolution supporting an application for a Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Grant Background: Hennepin County is seeking local units of government interested in developing facilities for amateur sports or recreation. Legislation authorizing the building of the new Twins stadium allows Hennepin County to grant $2.4 million dollars this grant cycle to Hennepin County communities to assist with developing these facilities. These grants will be made through the Hennepin Youth Sports Program. The purpose of these grants will be to allow municipalities, park districts or school districts to create, expand or improve sport or recreational facilities to enhance opportunities for athletics and recreation. • In November 2009 the City partnered with the Brooklyn Center School District on a Hennepin County Youth Sports grant request for the youthWRAP muti - purpose building addition at Brooklyn Center High School. That request was not successful. It will be our intention to improve the application and work with the School District on re- submission of that grant request. Additionally, we plan to submit a separate application for improvements to the soccer field at Willow Lane Park. Demand for soccer facilities has grown over the last few years, putting strain on the existing fields. As the usage has increased, we have had considerable difficulty in balancing the increased demand, along with providing adequate playing surfaces. The lack of irrigation at the Willow Lane field significantly restricts the number of events that can be played. Improvements to the Widow Lane Park field would allow us to schedule additional soccer activities, while maintaining adequate turf conditions. The anticipated improvements at Willow Lane Park would include, re- design of the field, excavation of poor soils, re- graded site for proper drainage, new top soil imported and an irrigation system installed. Grant submission requirements call for the local governmental unit making the application provide a resolution from their governing body authorizing the application submission. Accordingly, a resolution is attached for City Council consideration. Mission: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe comtnunily that enhances the qualitp of life andpreserves the public trust COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM Budget Issues: . If successful, this grant request would provide for improvements not currently anticipated in the General or Capital Improvements Fund budgets. Council Goals: Strategic: 5. We will continue to maintain and upgrade City infrastructure improvements • iflisslon: Ensuring an attractive, clean, safe cormnunity that enhances the rlualitV of life and preserves the public trust its adoption: introduced the following resolution and moved p Member g RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, RECREATION AND SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDING THROUGH THE HENNEPIN YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAM WHEREAS, Hennepin County, via its Hennepin Youth Sports Program,provides for capital funds to assist local government units of Hennepin County for the development of sport or recreation facilities; and WHEREAS,the City of Brooklyn Center desires to develop a soccer field at Willow Lane Park for the purpose of benefiting youth athletics; and WHEREAS the Community Activities,Recreation and Services Department intends to submit a grant request for said improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center I. The estimate of the total cost of developing PROJECT shall be $196,750 and the City of Brooklyn Center is requesting $169,500 from the Hennepin Youth Sports Program and will assume responsibility for a match requirement of $27,250 (in-kind). II. The City of Brooklyn Center agrees to own, assume one hundred (100)percent of operation costs for the Willow Lane soccer field and will operate the Willow Lane soccer field for its intended purpose for the functional life of the facility, which is estimated to be 20 years. III. The City of Brooklyn Center agrees to enter into necessary and required agreements with Hennepin County for the specific purpose of constructing a sport or recreational facility and long term program direction. IV. That the Mayor and/or City Manager is authorized and directed to execute said application and serve as official liaison with Hennepin County or its authorized representative. March 22, 2010 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. City Council Agenda Item No. lOb COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM • DATE: March 16, 2010 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager R FROM: Steve Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer d SUBJECT: Resolution Amending Special Assessment Levy No. 17589, Improvement Project No. 2010 -01, Dupont Area Neighborhood Street Improvements Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider approval of the resolution amending special assessment Levy No. 17589, Improvement Project No. 2010 -01, Dupont Area Neighborhood Street Improvements. Background: On February 22, 2010, the City Council certified special assessments for Improvement Project No. 2010 -01, Dupont Area Neighborhood Street Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. The assessment roll has not yet been forwarded to the County. Following the public hearings for the Dupont Avenue project, the property owner of 5837 Dupont Avenue North contacted Councilmember Ryan requesting to amend the certified special assessment levy roll for his property. At the March 8, 2010, Council meeting, the Council directed staff to formally bring this issue to the Council for reconsideration. • This resident owns a corner lot and had the P option to ay for the current Dupont Avenue project or p pay for the future neighborhood reconstruction project that is planned in 2020 for the adjacent street of 59 Avenue North. He initially chose to pay for the future project but has subsequently decided and requested to pay for the current Dupont Avenue project. Upon approval, the certified levy roll will be amended and the property of 5837 Dupont Avenue North will be added to the levy roll No. 17589 with a special assessment in the amount of $2,567.00. Budget Issues: The current funding for the project will be adjusted by increasing the special assessment funding and decreasing the street reconstruction funding in the amount of $2,576.00. Council Goals: Strategic: 5. We will continue to maintain and upgrade City infrastructure improvements Ongoing: 6. We will ensure the City drinking water is high quality and that the storm water is properly managed .Vistiwr: f:rrsrrrirr till attractive, ck•arr, 'wfi ctrtrrnranitr that enhanccc the quality of life and preserves the public n•u.st Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. • RESOLUTION AMENDING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LEVY NO. 17589, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2010 -01, DUPONT AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the City Council certified assessments for the Dupont Area Neighborhood Street and Storm Drainage Improvements, Project No. 2010 -01 to Hennepin County on February 22, 2010; and WHEREAS, the corner property owned by Ronald Hulke at 5837 Dupont Avenue North had the option to accept the 2010 street assessment amount of $2,576.00 or wait to be assessed in cn n ction• and h when the adjacent street 59 Avenue North under reconstruction; the future � undergoes reco g WHEREAS, said owner initially opted to wait to be assessed for the future project and therefore was not included on the 2010 levy roll; and WHEREAS, said owner subsequently contacted the City and requested to be assessed in 2010 as part of the reconstruction project on Dupont Avenue North. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Special Assessment Levy No. 17589 is hereby amended to include the • special assessment for street improvements in the amount of $2,576.00 for the property located at 5837 Dupont Avenue North, PID 01- 118 -21 -23 -0091, and said special assessment is hereby accepted. March 22, 2010 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. • City of Brooklyn Center A Millennium Community February 5, 2010 RONALD R HULKE COLLEEN M HULKE 5837 DUPONT AVE N BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430 RE: 5837 Dupont Ave N Dear Ronald Hulke and Colleen Hulke: This letter pertains to the proposed special assessments for 2010 street improvements along Dupont Avenue North. Because your property is located at the intersection of two public streets (a corner property), you may choose to accept the street improvement assessment for the current improvements along Dupont Avenue North or you may choose to wait until 59 Avenue is reconstructed, which is planned for 2020. If you choose to wait until 59 Avenue is reconstructed, please be aware that the street assessment rate may be greater than the current rate per lot. Please indicate your choice in the appropriate box below and return that portion of the letter to the Engineering Office, City of Brooklyn Center, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 no later than February 16, 2010. Please contact me at 763 -569 -3328 or email slillehau , 2(a)ci.brooklvn - center.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely, Steven L. Lillehaug, P.E. Director of Public Works M71 Yes, I choose to be assessed at this time for the Dupont Area Neighborhood Street lonSl Improvements that are proposed to be done abutting my property. No, I choose to be assessed when street improvements are done on 59 Avenue. Signature Address ^ / 7' 6 Date • 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone & TDD Number Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 -2199 (763) 569 -3400 City Hall & TDD Number (763) 569 -3300 FAX (763) 569 -3434 FAX (763) 569 -3494 L www. cityo f brook lyncenter. org I AGENDA CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION • March 22, 2010 Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers City Hall A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary. ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Major Plan Amendment to the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission's Second Generation Watershed Management Plan 2. EBHC Link Update PENDING LIST FOR FUTURE WORK SESSIONS Later /Ongoing I . Sister City Update — Curt 2. 57th and Logan Update 3. Strategic Outcome Reports • a. Prosecutor Services 4. Community Schools Update 5. Ordinance Amendments — Farmers Market 6. 2011 Brooklyn Center Celebration Update 7. Crime Free Housing Update 8. Neighborhood Designations 9. Junk and Inoperable Vehicles Update — Back Yard Parking 10. Minn. Stat. 273.128 4d Rental Properties — Annual Report 11.6101 Beard -6037 Brooklyn Blvd Update — May 12. Local Government Aid Policy 13. Shingle Creek County Study 14. Brookdale Mall Update 15. Joslyn/City Property Remediation Update 16. Prosecutor's Contract 17. Department Year End Reports 18. Community Garden Program 19. Active Living Program 20. RER — Howe Fertilizer Update 21. Garbage Hauler Report Work Session Agenda Item No. 1 MEMORANDUM - COUNCIL WORK SESSION • DATE: March 16, 2010 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Steven Lillehaug, Director of Public Works /City Engineer SUBJECT: Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission's Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Amendment Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council evaluate and provide comments pertaining to a proposed major plan amendment to the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission's Second Generation Watershed Management Plan. No formal action is required. Background: The attached letter from the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions dated February 12, 2010, and the proposed amendments to Appendix G from the Commission's watershed management plan are being provided for your review and comment. Council Policy Issues: Does the City Council support the Major Plan Amendment? Does the City Council support exceeding the maximum annual levy guideline for 2010? • Budget Issues: There are no budget issues to consider. Council Goals: Strategic: 5. We will continue to maintain and upgrade City infrastructure improvements Ongoing: 6. We will ensure the City drinking water is high quality and that the storm water is properly managed 1lissiun: Grrsurirr, an attractive, ctccru, s4e courrn fill itt• brat enhances the quality of li /e andpreserves the p"blic trust � Shinc. reek Watershed Management Commission • 3235 Fernbrook Lane N • Plymouth, MN 55447 Tel: 763.553.1144 • Fax: 763.553.9326 Email: iudie(@ioss.biz • Website: www.shinglecreek.org 1 February 12, 2010 Cities and Review Agencies: Enclosed please find for your review and comment a proposed Major Plan Amendment to the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions' Second Generation Watershed Management Plan. The Commissions will take public comment on this Major Plan Amendment until 4:30 p.m. Tuesday, April 13, 2010. The purpose of this Major Plan Amendment is to revise the Capital Improvement Program to add seven projects including, for the first time, four projects in West Mississippi. Other projects are proposed to be rescheduled to other years at the request of the respective cities. Please note that this Amendment does not include consideration of a Cost Share Program to supplement the CIP, which will pursue a separate track. With the proposed revision the capital levy in 2011 for 2010 projects is estimated to be $762,500, exceeding the $500,000 maximum annual levy guideline. Three of the five 2010 projects have been awarded significant grant funding. Of the $1,550,000 estimated total cost for the Wetland 639W, 45th Avenue Pond, and Brooklyn Center Shingle Creek restoration projects, $588,125 will be funded by grants and $387,500 is proposed to be funded by Commission cost share, with the balance funded by the respective cities. The proposed Minneapolis project would be eligible for up to $250,000 of Commission cost share, with the balance funded by the city. All these projects are TMDL implementation projects. One of the proposed 2010 projects is in West Mississippi, in Champlin. Any levy for projects in Shingle Creek is applied only to property in Shingle Creek, while any levy for projects in West Mississippi is applied only to property in West Mississippi. O As part of the CIP and budget project review process, the Commissions' Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will review the projects and make a cost share recommendation to the Commissions. The Commissions would appreciate your comment on the potential for the Hennepin County capital levy on behalf of Shingle Creek to exceed $500,000 in 2011. In 2010 that levy is $100,000; in 2009 it was $107,500; and in 2008 it was $340,625. Please note that this Major Plan Amendment proposes to revise the CIP only and does not commit the Commissions or the member cities to undertake any of the projects contained therein. Each project must be considered at a public hearing prior to being ordered. A public hearing will be held on this proposed Major Plan Amendment Thursday, May 13, 2010 at the Commissions' regular meeting time of 12:45 p.m. Prior to that date a notice of public hearing will be published as well as sent to you in accordance with statutory requirements. Please submit comments to Judie Anderson at JASS, 3235 Fernbrook Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447, or iudieC@iass.biz. We appreciate your review and look forward to your comments. Sincerely, Tivi a Gaystepts Tina Carstens, Chair Cc: BWSR —Brad Wozney, Jim Haertel DNR — Charlotte Cohn City of Brooklyn Park Commissioner Dept. of Agriculture - Becky Balk Shingle Creek WMC, West Mississippi WMC Dept. of Health — Art Persons, Terry Bovee Cc: Commissioners Metropolitan Council - Judy Sventek TAC Members MPCA — David Johnson, John Hensel, Denise Leezer MnDOT - Beth Neuendorf, Nick Tiedeken City Managers Hennepin County - Joel Settles City Engineers Commission Staff Hennepin Conservation Dist. -Kim Boyce • Three Rivers Park District- Randy Lehr Z: \Shingle Creek \ManagementPlan \2010 \L - conveying 2010 CIP Major Plan Amendment to cities and review agencies.doc Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Champlin • Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth • Robbinsdale Table G -2 Capital Improvement Program `° ? (Combined Watersheds) o= am M CO 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 201.3 201.4 w MANAGEMENT PLANS = Lake Management Plans $15,000 w y P hase II Stream Assessment CD j @ Wetland Management Plan $20,000 a co �duate GFet -8C) �e�tt -1 9- N 10.000 m 3 Generation Plan $125,000 CD w 39 CAPITAL PROJECTS �a Shingle Creek Restoration, BBlvd to Candlewood w New Hope - Wincrest Pond $290,000 Co Maple Grove Pond P51 $1,459,000 3 Crystal Lake Water Quality -&4044 Wo S I .uit0.000 CD Maple Grove Pond P57 S648,000 o Twin Lake Wetland 639W Imnr $120,000 N.N41A 557 0.000 3 Crystal Twin Oak Pond $310,000 w y New Hope 45 Ave Pond S5s0.04u) 5550.000 9 o y Shingle Creek Restoration, CR 10 to 1694 $430,000 Shingle Creek Restoration, Regent to Noble 750.001 1 > S574,000 3 n S855.000 5855 3 C o,t Share Proarans 5500,000 5500.000 S500.000 5500.000 CD a N linneapolis 37"' A venue (;reeliwa\ 54.000.000 o \ Icado Lake Dray\ do« n $) UU.000 lass Creek Ba tik Stabili ti70.u00 Subtotal, Commission Contribution $322,500 S3I9 �-(3 j - -W SA08 A) 5350,000 S231,250 GSP CSP 5430,000 S100,000 S799,50 +C:SP +CST [08; .)(10 1.2-,= al, -il!(1 SL- 3?H.— 'j(1Y' SLUfiB.(IU(1 So 9 C'SP CS/1 Subtotal, City Contribution $1, 426,500 5137,300 5300.000 6,99 +CSP +CSP -1 1 �Y-0N0 ; 51, -H� l I1-IN 82-,03 - XffiS S1.424,000 S925.000 � Total Capital Projects $1,749,000 GSP c SP S430,000 S1,000,000 G,19 8,0(1(i +C:S/ +CSP T Q a- K sv � N � O O V Appendix G • CIP Projects and Funding Projects proposed for the Interim CIP are described below. It is the current intent of the Commissions to finance these projects using Funding Option 1, the revised Cost Share Policy. However, in the event cities are unable to agree on how to share the City Apportionment, or for some other reason the Commission determines that it is infeasible to go forward using Option 1, then the Commission, as authorized in the Joint Powers Agreement, may go forward using Option 2 or Option 3 as described below. Option 1 - Cost Share Policy For capital projects that have been identified in a Commission - adopted or approved TMDL or management plan: project, 1. The Commission's share should be 25 percent of the cost ofthe p � , to a maximum sh are of $250,000. 2. The Commission's share should be funded through the ad valorem tax method — spread across all taxpayers within the watershed. 3. The Commission should use a maximum annual levy of $500,000 as a working guideline. 4. The cities' share should be 75 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to the cities as follows, or in some other manner acceptable to them: a. The area directly benefiting from the project should be apportioned 25 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to cities based on, for example, proportion of lake or stream frontage. b. Fifty percent of the cost of the project should be apportioned based on contributing/ benefiting area. The basis of this apportionment would likely be unique to each project. 5. The cities can each decide the funding mechanism that is best suited to them for payment of their share, for example through special assessments, storm drainage utility, general tax levy, or watershed management tax district. Option 2 - 100 Percent Ad Valorem Tax Levy Under the authority provided by Minn Stat 10313.251 Section VIII, Subd. 5, the Commissions have the authority to certify for payment by the county all or part of the cost of an approved capital improvement. The JPA provides that if cities are unable to come to a cost sharing agreement, then the Commission may order the project by funding 100 percent of the project cost from the Hennepin County ad valorem tax levy. Option 3 —100 percent Apportionment to Cities Projects may also be 100 percent funded by cities. The JPA provides two alternates: projects may be funded through a negotiated cost share between cities having land in the affected subwatershed. Or, projects may be funded by apportioning the cost of the project across all the cities in the watershed using the same 50% land area / 50% tax capacity formula as the general assessments to cities. The latter may be amended by the Commission if it is clear that one or more of the cities receive a special benefit from the project. i Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -8 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Major Plan Amendment No. 3-4 / Seple+4ber_2 gFebruary 2010 Appendix G • 2007 -- ProjeEtscl P FROJ r✓cTS New Hope Wincrest Pond This project includes expansion of an existing pond located between Winnetka Avenue and Sumter Avenue, north of the Wincrest Apartments into a two -cell pond system. The purpose of the project is to increase both the water quality treatment volume and flood storage volume of the existing pond. Stormwater treatment efficiency will be increased, and periodic overtopping that now causes erosion will be eliminated. The area treated by this pond drains to Upper Twin Lake. The TMDL for that lake requires phosphorus load to be reduced through retrofitting the subwatershed with additional treatment. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated New Hope Wincrest Pond Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost Share) 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $72,500 $217,500 $290,000 2 — Ad Valorem Tax Levv $290 $0 $290,000 1 3 —City Apportionment $0 $290,000 $290,000 Maple Grove Pond P51 Maple Grove plans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide pollutant load reduction, volume and peak rate attenuation, and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would serve 312 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The proposed project would upsize the pond to provide treatment beyond the minimum required by Commission standards • and would provide an estimated additional 94 pounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as reduction of other pollutants. The project cost here is the additional cost to upsize the pond to achieve greater pollutant removal. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Maple Grove Pond P51 Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost Share) 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $250,000 $1,209,000 $1,459,000 2 — Ad Valorem Tax Levy $1,459,000 $0 $1,459,000 3 — City Apportionment $0 $1,459,000. $1,459,000 2008 a.., e t s Robbinsdale Crystal Lake Water Quality Improvements The project involves the construction of infrastructure that would enable the withdrawal of hypolimnetic water from the lake, and its pumping to an upstream point for flow back through a series of vegetated ponds prior to re -entry into the lake. The purpose is to reduce high internal phosphorus loading of the lake by withdrawal of phosphorus -rich hypolimnetic water, resulting in the prevention of excessive algal blooms and improvement in water quality. This project is in the Initial TMDL Management Recommendations for Crystal Lake. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Crystal Lake Water Quality Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost Improvements Share) 1 - Revised Cost Share Policv $100,000 $300,000 $400,000 1 2 — Ad Valorem Tax Levv $400,000 $0 $400,000 3 — City Apportionment $0 I $400,000 $400,000 • Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -9 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Major Plan Amendment No. 3 -4 / Sepie ;her- 2A(- 9February 2010 Appendix G Maple Grove Pond P57 • Maple Grove plans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide pollutant load reduction, volume and peak rate attenuation, and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would serve 93 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The proposed project would upsize the pond to provide treatment beyond the minimum required by Commission standards and would provide an estimated additional 14 pounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as reduction of other pollutants. The project cost here is the additional cost to upsize the pond to achieve greater pollutant removal. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Maple Grove Pond P57 Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost Share) 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $162,000 $486,000 $648,000 2 — Ad Valorem Tax Levy I $648 $0 $648,0001 3 — City Apportionment $0 $648,000 $648,000 Twin Lake Wetland 639W Improvements The Twin Lake Management Plan and TMDL both identified restoration of this wetland as key to reducing subwatershed phosphorus loading to Upper Twin Lake. The wetland is located north of Upper Twin Lake in Brooklyn Center and Crystal; a majority of the wetland is located on property owned by the Metropolitan Airports Commission and is commonly referred to as the MAC Nature Preserve. Three alternatives for achieving this reduction have been identified: 1) partial diversion of flow around the wetland; 2) dechannelization and increased storage within the wetland; and 3) an alum ferric chloride treatment system. This initial project phase will be the completion of a feasibility • study to determine the most appropriate and cost effective option for achieving the desired phosphorus load reduction and the preparation of plans and specifications for the selected option. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Twin Lake Wetland 639W Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost Share) 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $30,000 $90,000 $120,000 2 — Ad Valorem Tax Levy $120,000 $0 $120,000 3 — City Apportionment $0 $120,000 $120,000 , Crystal Twin Oak Pond. There is little stormwater treatment in the watershed draining to Upper Twin Lake. The Twin Lake Management Plan and TMDL both identified the need to retrofit the watershed with treatment BMPs when opportunities arise. Redevelopment adjacent to Twin Oak Park in Crystal provides an opportunity to construct a new regional stormwater pond to treat stormwater conveyed by the trunk storm sewer in Bass Lake Road. Low flows conveying the first flush of pollutants would be diverted into this new pond, providing a significant amount of phosphorus and sediment removal prior to discharge into Upper Twin Lake. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Crystal Twin Oak Pond Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost Share) 1 Revised Cost Share Policy $77,500 $232,500 $310,000 2 — Ad Valorem Tax Levy $310,000 $0 $310,000 3 — City Apportionment $0 $310,000 $310,000 • Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -10 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Major Plan Amendment No. 3-4 / Sepleix ber- 2809February 2010 Appendix G • t 4TW 4' f; s je-O-; Twin Lake Wetland 639W Improvements This project is the construction of the most feasible and cost - effective restoration option identified in the feasibility study conducted in 2008 -9. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Twin Lake Wetland 639W Levy (Commission Share) (Cities' Share) Project Cost 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $142.500 $427,500 $570,000 2 - Ad Valorem Tax Levy $570,000 $0 $570,000 3 — City Apportionment $0 $570,000 $570,000 New Hope 45` Avenue Pond The project would convert an existing dry pond on 45` Avenue between Winnetka and Xylon Avenues to a wet pond to provide phosphorus removal from an 80 acre subwatershed. The purpose of the project is to reduce pollutant loading to downstream water bodies. This subwatershed drains to the Crystal Memory Lane Pond system, which ultimately discharges to Lower Twin Lake. Increasing the size of the pond will also provide additional flood storage for the subwatershed. The TMDL for the Twin Lake system requires phosphorus loads to be reduced through retrofitting the subwatershed with additional treatment. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated New Hope 45 Ave Pond Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost • Share) � 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $137,500 $412,500 $550,000 { 2 - Ad Valorem Tax Levy $550.000 $0 $550,000 3 - City Apportionment $0 $550,000 $550,000 Maple Grove Pond P33 Maple Grove plans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide pollutant load reduction, volume and peak rate attenuation, and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would serve 123 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The proposed project would upsize the pond to provide treatment beyond the minimum required by Commission standards and would provide an estimated additional 17 pounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as reduction of other pollutants. The project cost here is the additional cost to upsize the pond to achieve greater pollutant removal. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Maple Grove Pond P33 Levy (Commission (Cities' Share)' Project Cost Share) 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $143,.500 $430,500 $574,000 1 2 - Ad Valorem Tax Levy $574,000 $0 $574,000 1 3 - City Apportionment $0 $574,000 $574,000 1 243- 1-8-P- +-elects Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -11 { Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Major Plan Amendment No. 3-4 / September-2 0-9 February 2010 Appendix G Shingle Creek Restoration, CR 10 to 1694 • The project would construct stream corridor improvements on Shingle Creek as recommended by the Shingle Creek Corridor Study and as anticipated will be recommended improvements in the Shingle Creek dissolved oxygen and impaired biotic TMDLs to be completed in 2009. The reach to be improved is from County Road 10 to Interstate Highway 94/694. The following improvements are proposed: streambank stabilization in eroding areas; removal of select trees to reduce canopy density; establishing or enhancing buffer vegetation; and installation of rock vanes and varied substrates. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated Shingle Creek Restoration, CR 10 Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Project Cost to I694 Share) 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $107,500 $322,500 $430,000 2 — Ad Valorem Tax Levy $430,000 $0 $430,0001 3 — City Apportionment $0 $430,000 $430,000 Shingle Creek Restoration, Regent to Noble Avenues The project would construct stream corridor improvements on Shingle Creek as recommended by the Shingle Creek Corridor Study and as anticipated will be recommended improvements in the Shingle Creek dissolved oxygen and impaired biotic TMDLs to be completed in 2009. The reach to be improved is from Regent Avenue to Noble Avenue North. The following improvements are proposed: streambank stabilization in eroding areas; removal of select trees to reduce canopy density; establishing or enhancing buffer vegetation; and installation of rock vanes and varied substrates. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax Levy City Apportionment Total Estimated • Shingle Creek Restoration, CR 10 to I694 (Commission Share) (Cities' Share) Project Cost 1 - Revised Cost Share Policy $187,500 $562,500 $750,000 2 — Ad Valorem Tax Levy $750,000 $0 $750,000 3 — City Apportionment $0 $750,000 $750,000 , Maple Grove Pond P55 Maple Grove plans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide pollutant load reduction, volume and peak rate attenuation, and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would serve 96 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The proposed project would upsize the pond to provide treatment beyond the minimum required by Commission standards and would provide an estimated additional 25 pounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as reduction of other pollutants. The project cost here is the additional cost to upsize the pond to achieve greater pollutant removal. Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax Levy City Apportionment Total Estimated Maple Grove Pond P55 (Commission Share) (Cities' Share) Project Cost 1 - Revised Cost Share Policv $213.625 $747,375 $855,000 2 — Ad Valorem Tax Levy $855,000 $0 $855,000 3 — City Apportionment $0 $855,000 $855,000 ,Wirueurnlis 37' . 4vertrre Gr•eemin av This protect is within Minneapolis' Flood Area 5, and located on 37 Avenue North between Penn and Knox Avenues North. T1 7e nroiect will abandon the roadwav alone 37` Avenue North and replace it with a bikt'nedestrian trail and -reen av, under <-yround and surface stormwater detention. - r Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-12 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Major Plan Amendment No. 3-41 SepteA;qbef- 20NFebruary 2010 Appendix G • filtration rain gardens. and structural stornawater treatment. This area discharges to Crvstil Lake, and 1 swill reduce the Volume of rtmoff. reduce !xlllutant loadim-T. and promote groundwater recharge. l (intiui i)put nti ul \'aiuicui I ax Lev t'itl Apportioxlmcitt Total Estimated �Iinrcai o{i ;' . \t nuc G m�a tumuli; icn S hare) (Cities' Sha Protect Cost ` R i,alC';a�!:ar I'_tic. 025 0,000 5� . 7 �O.000 S4,00 ? Va lui_ein Tax Lev \ 54.000.000 SO 54.000.000 3 City annortionment - - -- SO �4MOO.000 x;4.000.00(} I Nfec cloi -v Luke DI The Meadow Lake TMDL regtu an 8 nercent reduc in internal phosphorus load, and idennifies a draw do�,n as a means to reduce that internal load. The proposed dray- dawn will expose and consolidate the lake sediments and provide opportunity for the native seed bank to reestablish a utati 1n cc;t nnnlit�•. 1 ntn drawdown «N as conlnlctcd in 20)06 as earl nlor _. bch (!jct;tl t{ ti stir - ' - - - ,1 ' j of in outtllll dredgulu protect. Lakc residonts indicate that the vear followin- that nartial drawdown aquatic ve(etation was noticeably iirnzrovc(l. i Fundint Options \d Valorem Tax Levv City Anportionnlent Total Estimated Meado%v Lak Dr wdolvn (Commission Share) (C ities' - Share) Proiect Cost. i - ReyisedCost Share Polic y?;.(}( }(} 1 )7� J)00 5{t)U.0OO 2 -- Ad V Tax Le\ v I S 100.000 I S 100,000 5l City Amorti onmctlt ! ()0 L()()() 5 10 O,000 • Bass Creek Bank Stahi/i_tttinn Bass Creek ]it New Hone is experje stretnn bank instability and bank and channel erosion. Tills i pre }jcct ib to ,tL1bilizC 5,OU lect of , ,trc imh mk using bioen,tnecrin-T techniques, to reestablish ahout 1,100 feet of natIVC buffer._ and to armor three erosion -prone areas. Bass Creek is designated all hnpaired \1 Liter for Biotic inteiirtty. The project would incornorate root wads and other habitat inlrirovenlents to address that impairincrit. I) Fundim-) Options \d V iv n tilorem Tax Leiv Citv ortioinent Total Estimated Bass Creek Bank Stabilization I iComrnission Share) (Cities' Shure} Proiect Cost I - R evised Cost Sha re_llolic\' $17, $52L5OO 570,000 2 - Ad Va Ta Lexv 5,70.000 570.000 CitYAPnorti 5-70,000 70 ,000 I Cr >st .Shure Pr•rr`rrunt To increase flexibility and nimbleness in conimittintr to cost sharjntr in capital ininrovernent nroiects with member cities. the Commnissions will administer ail annual Cost Share Program (CSP) to Stit_)plenicilt its Caintal linnroveineill PI Tile Commissions will anntially reyleLl' the CiP as part of the annual budget process and nmv consider nroiects fqr cost sharing at times other than the annual_ bud nrOCeSS wVhen opportunities arise. The Commissions \gill revise the CIP to add projects through a Major Plan Amendment as necessarv, but no more freauently than every two vears. Between Major Plan Amendments. the Commissions will cost share in nroiects thr0ut1}l the Cost Share Program. ProicetS prupoSCd fi>r a(Inlinistration through the Cost Share Pro� must elect all the requirements of capital nroiects set IOrth in the. Commissions' Joint Powers A ureenlents and By-Laws. State Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -13 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Major Plan Amendment No. 3-4 / September- 2-QNFebruary 2010