HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969 01-14 Ay&k
January 14, 1969
• MEMORANDUM
TO- City of Brooklyn Center
FROM- Howard Dahlgren, Midwest Planning and Research, Inc.
SUBJECT. Development alternatives for existing commercial park
operation in extreme southwest corner of the city.
The purpose of this memo is to assist the City of Brooklyn Center in evaluating the
appropriate use of a parcel of land in the far southwest corner of the city. This
parcel contains 8.5 acres and is currently zoned "0-2" . The property in question
has been previously used as a commercially operated beach and park facility utili-
zing its frontage on the lake to the west.
We understand that the city has recently been approached with a proposition to
develop the property for multiple dwelling purposes. The question is whether or
not this use or some other use would be most appropriate in terms of the overall
interests of the city and the specific neighborhood in the area.
Review of the Comprehensive Plan as proposed in a report dated July 1, 1965, in-
dicates the property in question appears as a proposed public open space. The Plan
does not specify the intended use of the park or the specific activities to be included.
In discussion of the southwest neighborhood, we found that the report notes:
1. It is small - 25 acres now zoned residential.
2. It is isolated from the neighborhood's main living areas by railroad and industry.
3. It is also isolated from both Northport and Lakeview Elementary Schools there-
by requiring bussing.
4. It is situated next to an extensive heavy industry - the pole treatment plant.
The area's location next to Twin Lake is an advantage but this is small in relation to
the other disadvantages. It seems likely that these disadvantages will eventually
cause the area's untimely deterioration - especially if further industrial development
occurs between the existing housing and France Avenue. If this further industrial
development happens, the only approach to the residential area will be through an
industrial district - an extremely undesirable situation.
•
However, we feel that with the construction of the interchange at France Avenue
and with the existing and future industrial development outlined in this report that
this area would constitute an excellent location for good quality multiple dwellings.
We were given to understand that it is the policy of Brooklyn Center to acquire as
much waterfront property in the city as possible. We certainly commend the city
on this policy in view of the limited waterfront potential available. We further
understand that the property in question has been examined by the city with the
decision that it is not appropriate for the permanent maintenance of a public facility.
We are assuming then that the use of the property for public bathing facilities is
not to be considered. Based on the examination of the site, its general development
pattern, its existing and future vehicular access, and the waterfront situation existing
and proposed, we suggest the following solution.
1 . It is important to consider during the next 50 year period, the ultimate de-
velopment of a parkway along the east side of Twin Lakes, a portion which
exists in the form of Twin Lake Avenue. It is our recommendation that Twin
Lake Avenue be extended southerly through the property in question, and
that a service road be ultimately developed along the southern side of the
property extending to the proposed interchange of France Avenue and Highway
100. It would seem appropriate in considering the future development of the
site, the possibility of "planned unit development" for this property and that
• the lakeshore in question be dedicated to the city with the developer including
this area in computing the density of the development. Likewise, it would
be reasonable in our opinion, to expect the developer to extend the public street,
(Twin Lake Avenue) south through the property as part of the development plan.
The development of such a road will allow the primary access to the multiple
dwelling area via the circumferential road around the southeast side of the site.
This will reduce the impact of traffic created by the multiple development
upon single family neighborhoods during the interim development stage. Future
planning of the area should reduce traffic on Lake Breeze Avenue which runs through
the middle of the residential area. Traffic should be encouraged to proceed
around the total area via the parkway ultimately extending northerly around
the east side of Twin Lake. It is our anticipation that over an extended period
of time such a parkway might find a terminus to the northeast across the tracks,
or perhaps to the northwest crossing the channel and extending into the City
of Crystal. Whether this occurs in the relatively near future is not important,
and obviously such a parkway would enhance the aesthetic and functional
value of the lakeside open space to the citizens of Brooklyn Center and the
immediate region.
You will note that there appears to be extensive right -of -way north of the
travelled portions of Highway 100 south of the property in question which
might be available for extending the roadway from Tvr�.) Lake Avenue
easterly to the interchange at France and Highway 100.
-2-
We have examined the proposed interchange design furnished to us by the city, dated
s March, 1965. The proposal is for a folded diamond which will require that the right -
of -way be extended to the west into existing neighborhoods. This would obviously
interfere with the extension of the parkway along the south and southeasterly side of
the area in question. We feel that one should consider the possibility of moving the
grade separation further southwest, thus enabling the development of a diamond inter-
change which would substantially reduce the intrusion into the area. This revision
would allow an interchange similar to the one shown on the comprehensive plan.
With the moving of the interchange to the southwest and use of the diamond, this will
substantially improve the alignment of France Avenue to the north and allow the
extension of the proposed parkway in better relationship to the interchange. It would
seem to us that the interchange should emphasize the continuing nature of France Avenue
rather than the direction of traffic onto Lake Breeze Avenue.
The impact of France Avenue with traffic being directed onto Lake Breeze Avenue,
is misleading to the public and will be a very deleterious influence to the existing
single family residential and multiple dwelling use of the area. Should the city
desire further investigation as to the location and design of the interchange, we would
be happy to work with you further.
We reviewed the possibility of using property in question for park and open space
purposes without the operation of a prominent beach facility. We feel, however, that
the property located as it is with relationship to the City of Brooklyn Center, does not
represent an investment which would serve the city as a whole and would be of little
value to the overall park system. It would seem to us that as an investment to serve
only the immediate area it is out of scale with the demand of the small isolated area
contiguous to the north. It would seem to us that the only reasonable possibility for
the continued use of the land as a public open space would be action on a larger
agency encompassing an interest well beyond the scope of the interests of Brooklyn
Center such as the county or a metropolitan agency.
It is important for the city to also recognize that the tax potential from apartment
development in many cases exceeds that of industrial development on an acreage basis.
The trend toward per capita tax return increases the significance of higher density
multiple development vs. industrial development. It is recognized that the area in-
cluding the property in question could be developed for industrial purposes over a period
of time. It is most important, however, to recognize that industrial development has
practically no relationship to the lake frontage and its future parkway potential. In
our opinion the development of the lakeside park strip and parkway w i l l have a tremen-
dous impact on the quality and livability of the multiple units built in the area.
In summary, we feel that the compatibility and mutual benefit inherent in the parkway
lake frontage development and apartment uses are most important considerations upon
• -3-
1
which to base the land use decision. Combined with other factors we feel strongly
that this is the right decision.
Extreme care should be taken in the evaluation of the property development plan. Our
examination of the very sketchy plan submitted to the city would indicate that a far
more imaginative approach can be prepared consistent with the recommendation made in
this memo.
Should you desire, we would be happy to review any planned unit development proposals
that may be submitted in the future, with the intention of assisting the developer and
the city to arrive at a development plan that would maximize the protection to the existing
developments in the area and development of the parks and parkway system proposed.
Another possibility that the city might well be interested in would be the development
of a "high- rise" development which in this case could have the following benefits:
1 . Maximize the retention of open space beneficial to the contiguous development
to the north and the park concept proposed in this memo.
2. Function as a major structure in the southwesterly gateway to the City of
Brooklyn Center.
• It is our opinion that sites such as the property in question contiguous to the major
open space, in this case provided principally by the lake and highway right -of -way
represent an obvious potential for the aesthetic and functional qualities of high -rise
structures.
-4-
E
d'
i
•' Tw" c�
ir
S
Si
f \
a
Property in question
ggested arkway
T
BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA.