HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014 01-16 PCP CITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER
A GREAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY wwwcityofbrooklyncenter.org
Planning Commission
763-569-3335 -Direct
TO: Chair Burfeind and City Planning Commissioners
FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development
Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist/Planning Commission Secreta
DATE: January 10, 2014
RE: January 16, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda
HAPPY NEW YEAR COMMISSIONERS!!!
Attached please find the Planning Commission meeting agenda for the January 16, 2014 regular
meeting, along with the December 12, 2013 regular meeting minutes.
We do not have any land use applications to review at this next meeting, but do have an election
of the Chairperson for Year 2014; and a discussion item regarding the Opportunity Site.
As per city commission by-laws and"Rules Defining Duties and Responsibilities of the Planning
Commission," the commission must select its Chairperson at the first regular meeting of the new
year. At the December 12th meeting, Chair Burfeind expressed his gratitude for serving as the
2013 Chair and willingness to continue to serve for Year 2014. No other Commissioners voiced
a similar interest in serving.
Assuming all Commissioners are in agreement to have Mr. Burfeind serve as this year's
Chairperson, we can simply have a voice vote to reaffirm his selection. If however, the
Commission wishes to conduct the election by secret ballot, city staff will be prepared to offer
paper ballots as an alternative to the selection process.
Upon completion of the election, Planning Staff intends to provide an update of a new
conceptual redevelopment plan for the Brookdale Ford and Brookdale Square Mall (combined)
sites, located in our city center. An introductory memo and Draft Conceptual Plan is included
with this packet.
As always, if you have any questions prior to next Thursday night's meeting, please call Gary at
(763) 569-3305 or Tim at (763) 569-3319 — OR - email GEitelgci.brooklyn-center.mn.us or
TBenetti gci.brooklyn-center.mn.us).
Reminder: please let Tim or Rebecca know if you are unable to attend the meeting. Thank
you!
City Hall Community Center Police&Fire Departments
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy 6645 Humboldt Ave N
Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-1853
763-569-3300 Fax:763-569-3494 763-569-3400 Fax: 763-569-3434 763-569-3333 Fax: 763-561-0717
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 12,2013
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Burfeind at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Scott Burfeind, Commissioners Randall Christensen, Benjamin Freedman, Carlos Morgan,
and Stephen Schonning were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission
Tim Benetti, Director of Business & Development Gary Eitel, and Planning Commission
Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass. Commissioner Michael Parks was absent and unexcused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES—NOVEMBER 14, 2013
There was a motion by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Schonning to
approve the minutes of the November 14, 2013 meeting. Motion passed unanimously.
CHAIR'S EXPLANATION
Chair Burfeind explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the
Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings,
the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final
decisions in these matters.
DISCUSSION ITEM — REVIEW PROPOSED 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY MAP
Mr. Benetti reviewed the following projects from the 2014 Community Development Activities
and Projects:
• Maranatha— old nursing home is vacated and the residents have been moved to the new
facility. The old building will be demolished once environmental issues are resolved
with the removal of asbestos, etc.
• Residential lots near 69`x' and Brooklyn Boulevard — redevelopment opportunities are
being explored with the removal of several residential properties at the northwest corner.
• Luther Brookdale Volkswagen — old building has been removed in preparation for
construction of a new Volkswagen site. Luther has also purchased Atlantis Pool to create
a five acre site.
• Brooklyn Boulevard Market located at 69th and Brooklyn Boulevard — was previously
approved for a 6,700 sq. ft. commercial building but currently there is no activity on the
site.
• Luther Honda and Toyota Dealerships — consideration of EDA approved funds to make
improvements to fencing and screening.
• Embassy Phase II - site plan previously approved.
• Northport Elementary—completed third phase of five and are looking at improvements to
student drop off areas,playground and the parking lot.
PC Minutes 12-12-13
Page 1
• Howe Fertilizer—additional sampling taking place and the developer is working with the
Minnesota Department of Agriculture to clean up contamination on the site.
• Bridgeman's Brooklyn Boulevard Center — the City acquired the vacant lot at 63`d and
Brooklyn Boulevard and is planning for future development.
• Cars With Hearts Site — has been acquired by the city and will be combined with other
properties for future development.
• 6000 Brooklyn Boulevard — the City has acquired six lots and are working on the
remaining two for future development.
• 5700 Block of Brooklyn Boulevard — proposed redevelopment of upper half or entire
block which would require several acquisitions to create a desirable development.
• Opportunity Site — to assemble a desirable parcel, the city is acquiring the Brookdale
Square shopping center. The plan for a new development is similar to the Opportunity
Site approved in 2005 which includes a mixed use residential/commercial project.
OTHER BUSINESS—CHAIRPERSON ELECTION PROCESS
Mr. Benetti explained according to the Planning Commission By-Laws and a Resolution
Defining Duties and Responsibilities of the Planning Commission, an election must take place at
the first regular meeting of the new year, which is scheduled for January 16, 2014. He added the
Chairperson selects a commissioner to serve as the Vice-Chairperson as well. Mr. Benetti stated
the Commissioners may use this meeting to express their desire to serve as the Chair or Vice-
Chair for the 2013 Planning Commission.
Chair Burfeind stated it has been an honor to serve as the Chair and he is interested in continuing
as the Chair.
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Morgan, seconded by Commissioner Christensen, to
adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting
adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Rebecca Crass
PC Minutes 12-12-13
Page 2
MTCITY OF
BROOKLYN CENTER
A GREAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
Planning Commission
763-569-3335 -Direct
TO: Chair Burfeind and City Planning Commissioners
FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development
Tim Benetti, Planning& Zoning Specialist/Planning Commission Secretary
DATE: January 10, 2014
RE: Review and Discuss the Future Redevelopment within the Southern Portion of the
Opportunity Site (Brookdale Ford & Brookdale Square Mall Sites)
The Opportunity Site Study Area is an area of approximately 100 acres that lies north of Bass
Lake Road, east of Shingle Creek Parkway, south of Summit Drive and west of State Highway
100. In the early 2000's, the Metropolitan Council included this area in a Regional Study (the
"2002 Calthorpe Study") which facilitated a comprehensive approach to community planning
that focused on transforming underperforming retail areas into vibrant mixed-use neighborhood
destinations. In the winter of 2004, Team Brooklyn Center, led by Damon Farber Associates
was commissioned by the City of Brooklyn Center to lead an eight member community task
force to prepare a master plan, a set of design guidelines, zoning amendments, and a request for
proposal for a phase one developer.
In 2007, the City began its process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. The Land Use element
of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was amended to provide for a mixed land use of residential,
office, retail business, and public & semi-public uses. Appendix B of the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan (attached for review) provided and overall review of the Opportunity Site Master Plan and
Development Guidelines and acknowledged the fiscal challenges of land assemblage and
economic viability of implementing the plan given the current market conditions.
In 2008, the EDA acquired the former Brookdale Ford Site, the southern 8.4 acres of the
Opportunity Site fronting on Bass Lake Road. The buildings were demolished during the
summer of 2008 and numerous attempts to work with the adjacent property owner were made to
pursue redevelopment opportunities of the combined properties as a premier 32 acres site.
As part of the recent strategic planning efforts, the Opportunity Site has been identified as three
unique areas:
• The Northern Area: the 23.67 acres lying north of John Martin Drive and west of
Summit Drive, anchored by Target.
City Hall Community Center Police&Fire Departments
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy 6645 Humboldt Ave N
Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-1853
763-569-3300 Fax:763-569-3494 763-569-3400 Fax: 763-569-3434 763-569-3333 Fax: 763-561-0717
• The Eastern Area: the 12.78 acres lying east of John Martin Drive, south of Summit
Drive and adjacent to Highway 100, anchored by the former K-Mart Building.
• The Southern Area: the 47.36 acres lying north of Bass Lake Road and south of John
Martin Drive, anchored by the EDA properties (the former Brookdale Square and
Brookdale Ford sites)
In early 2013, the Business and Development Department contracted with Jim McCombs of the
McCombs Group, Ltd., to prepare a residential market demand study for the Opportunity Site.
The study was intended to examine and provide an outlook of the City's current housing stock;
identify the current apartment market and residential amenities included in today's market; and
provide findings and recommendations on a market receptiveness to the development of new
apartments with amenities which are currently not part of the City's housing stock. This study
was completed in June of 2013. The findings and recommendations of this study are included as
part of tis memo packet.
In December 2013, the EDA acquired the 23.2 acre Brookdale Square site. Prior to this
acquisition, city staff began working with Dennis Sutliff, Principal with ESG Architects as part
of a collaborative planning team made up of Mr. Sutliff and certain city staff members to
develop a "concept plan" of this area. Mr. Sutliff was part of the original planning design team
that prepared the 2006 Opportunity Site Master Plan, and was recommended by the McCombs
Group as an architectural firm that could provide a conceptual design concept for the
Opportunity Site that would reflect the current housing market and development potential
identified in the Housing Market Demand Report.
Attached to this memo is the concept plan for a new residential development for the Southern
Portion of the Opportunity Site. By the time you meet next Thursday night (January 16th), this
concept plan will have been presented to the City Council at the January 13th Work Session,
along with a brief PowerPoint presentation on the concept plan and examples of the variety of
housing units and design elements included in their conceptual layout.
At the meeting next Thursday night, planning staff would like to review with the Commission
any comments, suggestions, or findings brought-forth by the City Council; and provide an
opportunity for the Commission to make initial comments or suggestions on this proposed
southerly area concept plan. This planning item will likely be brought back to the Commission
for reconsideration due to the complexity and nature of this redevelopment plans.
City Hall Community Center Police&Fire Departments
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy 6645 Humboldt Ave N
Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-2199 Brooklyn Center,MN 55430-1853
763-569-3300 Fax:763-569-3494 763-569-3400 Fax: 763-569-3434 763-569-3333 Fax: 763-561-0717
i
Chapter VI
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Opportunity Area is located in the northwest metro area with convenient access to
employment centers in downtown Minneapolis, and the western and northern suburbs, making it
an ideal location for households that wish to reduce commuting costs.
Housing demand during the short-term period 2015 to 2025 is estimated at 2,076 to 2,737 units,
as shown in Table 6-1. Initial market demand is estimated at about 200 to 260 units annually.
Longer term demand(2026 to 2035)is estimated at 1,630 to 2,150 units.
Table 6-1
STABILIZED RESIDENTIAL UNIT DEMAND;2015 TO 2035
OPPORTUNITY AREA—LOW AND HKGI
Short-Term Long-Term
Units Units
Year Low High Year Low High
Short-Term Long-Term
2015 195 257 2026 165 218
2016 196 258 2027 167 220
2017 198 261 2028 168 222
2018 200 264 2029 170 224
2019 202 267 2030 171 226
2020 205 270 2031 156 205
2021 173 228 2032 157 207
2022 174 230 2033 158 208
2023 176 232 2034 159 210
2024 178 234 2035 160 212
2025 179 237 Total 1,631 2,151
Total 2,076 2,737
Source: McComb Croup,Ltd
The housing market is cyclical in terms of product types--single family, townhomes, and
traditional multi-family, as well as rental and for-sale products. Single family is predominately
for-sale products; however, many of the foreclosed homes have been purchased and are being
offered as rental homes. Single family for-sale housing demand is recovering and is likely to be
about 50 percent of annual housing production in the future.
Townhomes, twin homes, and the multiplex units have been offered as both rental and for-sale
products. Production of townhome and similar unit types has declined dramatically, only
building permits for 14 units were issued in 2012. One factor currently influencing the for-sale
townhome market is the narrow cost disparity with single family homes. Another factor is the
potential for homeowner association litigation over perceived construction defects, which has
caused some developers to avoid for-sale townhomes. Most townhomes and similar products in
the future are likely to be rental products.
6-1
The condominium market peaked in 2007 and has been replaced by an apartment boom.
Condominium values are recovering; one building is under construction in downtown
Minneapolis. Many developers are not interested in developing condominiums due to the
potential for homeowner association litigation discussed above.
These factors indicate that the likely housing products in the Opportunity Area will be rental
products until such time the above concerns are resolved.
Rental Market Segments
There are six general rental market segments ranging from entry level households to seniors, as
shown in Figure 6-1. All of these market segments are suitable for the Opportunity Area with
unit features and building amenities that appeal to the prospective tenants.
Figure 6-1
RENTAL RESIDENTIAL MARKET SEGMENT
Entry-Level Households
■ Frequently prefer to rent
■ Single, couple, or roommates,without children, in early 20s
■ Young professionals seek features and amenities they grew up with
Move-Up
■ Rent more upscale apartments
■ Married or cohabitating couples, mid-20s to 30s, most without children
■ Lost home to foreclosure in great recession
■ Lost interest in homeownership and prefer to rent
■ Can afford upscale apartments with features and amenities
■ Generally couples in 50s and 60s
■ Some seek lower maintenance housing products
■ Some will consider renting
6�ounger Independent Seniors
• Will consider renting
• Generally late 60s or 70s
• May have a second home
• Often seek lower maintenance housing types
• Generally single female (widows) in mid-70s or older
• May move from single family home due to physical/health issues
To enhance unit absorption over the long-term, Opportunity Area developments should appeal to
as many market segments as possible.
6-2
Short- and long-term housing demand is allocated in Table 6-2 between multi-family (90
percent) and townhomes (10 percent). Townhomes may or may not be included in the unit mix
depending on developer preferences. Allocations between market rate and income restricted
units is also suggested. Income restricted units are allocated at 30 percent of the total.
Table 6-2
OPPORTUNITY AREA SHORT-AND LANG-TERM HOUSING DEMAND;2015 TO 2035
MULTI-FAMILY AND TOWNHOMES
Multi-Family Townhomes
Income Income
Year Units Market Rate Restricted Market Rate Restricted
Short-Term
2015 195 -257 123 - 162 53 - 69 14 - 18 6 - 8
2016 196 -258 123 - 162 53 - 70 14 - 18 6 - 8
2017 198 -261 125 - 164 53 - 70 14 - 18 6 - 8
2018 200 -264 126 - 166 54 - 71 14 - 18 6 - 8
2019 202 -267 127 - 168 55 - 72 14 - 19 6 - 8
2020 205 -270 129 - 170 55 -73 14 - 19 6 - 8
2021 173 -228 109 - 144 47 -62 12 - 16 5 - 7
2022 174 -230 110 - 145 47 -62 12 - 16 5 - 7
2023 176 -232 111 - 146 48 -63 12 - 16 5 - 7
2024 178 -234 112 - 148 48 -63 12 - 16 5 - 7
2025 179 -237 113 - 149 48 -64 13 - 17 5 - 7
Subtotal 2,076 -2,737 1,308 - 1,724 560 - 739 145 - 192 62 - 82
Long-Term
2026 165 -218 104 - 137 45 -59 12 - 15 5 -7
2027 167 -220 105 - 139 45 -59 12 - 15 5 -7
2028 168 -222 106 - 140 45 -60 12 - 16 5 -7
2029 170 -224 107 - 141 46 -60 12 - 16 5 -7
2030 171 -226 108 - 142 46 -61 12 - 16 5 -7
2031 156 -205 98 - 129 42 -55 11 - 14 5 -6
2032 157 -207 99 - 130 42 -56 11 - 14 5 -6
2033 158 -208 100 - 131 43 -56 11 - 15 5 -6
2034 159 -210 100 - 132 43 -57 11 - 15 5 -6
2035 160 -212 101 - 133 43 -57 11 - 15 5 -6
Subtotal 1,631 -2,151 1,028 - 1,355 440 -581 114 - 151 49 -65
Total 3,707 -4,888 2,335 -3,080 1,001 - 1,320 259 -342 111 - 147
Source: McComb Group,Ltd
6-3
Figure 6-2
MULTI-FAMILY PRODUCT TYPES
General i Restricted)
■ Market Rate-Rental ■ Active Adults-Rental
■ Workforce-Rental ■ Congregate
■ Affordable-Rental ■ Assisted Living
■ Subsidized-Rental ■ Memory Care
■ Townhouse
The Opportunity Area is suitable for all of the general occupancy product types with for-sale
units dependent on future market conditions. Workforce and affordable units should be included
in the unit mix to increase absorption.
Area Median Income (AMI) limits for two and four person households in the Metropolitan Area
for 2013 are shown in Table 6-3. There are no income limits for market rate buildings.
Workforce housing, for this example, are households with incomes over$51,550 and$64,400 for
two and four person households, respectively. By way of comparison, Brooklyn Center's 2011
median income was estimated at$49,327 and the Metropolitan Area was $62,465. About half of
the Metropolitan Area households are eligible for income limited housing at the 80 percent AMI
limit or below. Since Brooklyn Center has a large supply of moderate income housing, it is
recommended that income restricted units be for households with incomes above 60 percent of
AMI.
Table 6-3
AREA MEDIAN INCOME(AMI)LIMITS;2013
Income Limit
Housing Type 2 Person 4 Person
Market Rate None None
Workforce(>80%) >$51,550 >$64,400
Low Income(80%) 51,550 64,400
Very Low Income(501/o) 32,950 41,150
Subsidized(301/6) 19,800 24,700
Source: HUD.
General Occupancy Apartments
Market demand for multi-family units ranges from about 195 to 260 units per year over the next
five years. Initial development may be less than estimated based on the developer's desires. The
potential unit mix could be similar to the unit mix contained in table 6-4. The unit mix is
primarily one and two bedroom units with a few studios and two bedroom/den units. Unit size
ranges are similar to apartment communities in St. Louis Park and Minneapolis. Suggested
rental rates in 2013 dollars are comparable to St. Louis Park. Brooklyn Center is an untested
market and it is suggested that introductory rents are slightly lower in the initial development
phase. Market rents can be increased in later phases.
6-4
Table 6-4
OPPORTUNITY AREA MARKET RATE APARTMENT UNIT MIX
Percent Unit Size Rent Range
of Units Type Baths Sq.Ft.Range Market Introductory
5% Studio 1 500 -600 $1,050 - $1,260 $965 -$1,160
25% One Bedroom 1 700 -800 $1,365 - $1,640 $1,225 -$1,510
20% One Bedroom 1.5 800 - 850 $1,520 - $1,575 $1,395 -$1,445
100/0 One Bedroom/Den 1.5 900 - 1,000 $1,620 -$1,850 $1,490 - $1,700
38% Two Bedroom 2 1,000 - 1,200 $1,860 - $2,232 $1,710 -$2,053
2% Two Bedroom/Den 2 1,190 - 1,300 $2,140 - $2,340 $1,970 -$2,153
Source: McComb Croup,Ltd.
Proposed rents for the Opportunity Area are compared to existing rental rates in Brooklyn Center
in Table 6-5. Existing rents range from 45 to 70 percent of AMI, reinforcing the point that
Brooklyn Center has a significant inventory of affordable housing. Proposed rents range from 75
to 150 percent of AMI.
Table 6-5
EXISTING RENTS AND PROPOSED RENTS
AS A PERCENT OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME;2013
Annual Required Percent
Rent/Mo Rent Income of AMI
Brooklyn Center
$750 $ 9,000 $ 30,000 45.4 %
$900 10,800 36,000 54.6
$1,150 13,800 46,000 69.7
Opportunity Area
$1,250 $ 15,000 $ 50,000 75.7 %
$1,500 18,000 60,000 90.9
$1,750 21,000 70,000 106.1
$2,000 24,000 80,000 121.2
$2,250 27,000 90,000 136.4
$2,500 30,000 100,000 151.5
Source: HUD and McComb Croup,Ltd
Recommended unit features, contained in Table 6-6, are similar to comparable buildings in St.
Louis Park and Minneapolis.
6-5
Table 6-6
SUGGESTED APARTMENT UNIT FEATURES
T ownhomes
M arket Income M arket Income
Feature Rate Restricted Rate Restricted
Kitchen
Dishwasher X X X X
M icrowave X X X X
Stainless Appliances X X
Granite Countertops X x
Upgrade Cabinets X X
Kitchen Island X X X X
Pantry O O
Master Bath
His/Her Sinks O O
Tile Shower X %
Walk-in Closet X X X X
Oversize Windows X X X X
High Ceilings X X X X
Patio/Balcony X X X X
Fireplace O %
Wood Floor X
Linen Closet X X X X
Washer/Dryer X X X X
Air Conditioning-Central X X X X
High Speed Internet X X X X
WI-FI X X X X
Cable X X X X
X: Recommended.
O: Optional.
Source: McComb Group,Ltd.
Recommended building amenities, contained in Table 6-7, include items that are comparable to
those being offered in Minneapolis and St. Louis Park. As with the unit features, building
amenities are designed to position the Opportunity Area as a strong competitor in future years.
6-6
Table 6-7
SUGGESTED APARTMENT BUILDING AMENITIES
M arket Income
Amenity Rate Restricted
iCommon
Party Room X X
Fireplace X X
Lounge O O
Coffee Bar O O
Theater O O
Business Center X X
Fitness Center X X
Pool X X
Sauna O O
Hot Tub O O
Guest Suite X X
Storage Lockers X X
Controlled Access X X
Parking
Under Building X X
On-Site Staff X X
Concierge O O
Common Area
Terrace/Courtyard X X
Grilling Station X X
Sports Area O O
Pet Friendly X X
Pet Area O O
Pet Services O O
LEED O O
X: Recommended.
O:Optional.
Source: McComb Group,Ltd.
Senior Housing Demand
Senior housing in Brooklyn Center is expected to be weak during the short-term period due to
demographic trends in the over 55 population. Senior housing is typically referred to as units
designed for persons age 55 and above. Experience has shown, however, that seniors typically
move to a "senior" housing development, on average, at about age 72 or 73. Senior housing
options include independent living, congregate care, assisted living, and memory care. Which
option senior households choose depends on the health and mobility of one or both household
members.
Population trends for senior households in Brooklyn Center, the Opportunity Area Draw Area,
and Tier One Communities are contained in Table 6-8. Two different population trends are
shown for all three areas. In the younger age cohorts (55 to 64 and 65 to 74), population
increased between 2000 and 2011 and is expected to increase during the next five-year period.
In the older age cohorts (75 to 84 and 85 plus), a different trend is evident—population is either
growing modestly or declining. In Brooklyn Center, population in the older age cohorts is
6-7
estimated to decrease between 2011 and 2016 suggesting a flat to declining demand for senior
housing. In the 75 to 84 age cohort, population is estimated at 1,045 in 2011 and is expected to
be 1,007 in 2016, a decline of 38. In the 85 plus age cohort,population is estimated to drop from
573 in 2011 to 540 in 2016, a decline of 33 adults. In the draw area and Tier One Cities,
population is increasing modestly in the 75 to 84 age cohort and declining in the 85 and older age
cohort.
Table 6-8
CHANGE IN SENIOR POPULATION AND HOUSING DEMAND
2011-16
Area/Age Cohort 2000 2011 2016 Change Households
Brooklyn Center
55-64 2,373 3,270 3,715 445 327
65-74 2,428 1,675 2,139 464 341
75-84 1,569 1,045 1,007 (38) (28)
85 plus 510 573 540 (33) (24)
Draw Area
55-64 18,405 24,932 29,634 4,702 3,457
65-74 14,258 12,734 16,767 4,033 2,965
75-84 9,302 7,792 8,027 235 173
85 plus 3,316 3,944 3,912 (32) (24)
Tier One Cities - -
55-64 16,679 27,795 32,729 4,934 3,628
65-74 11,239 14,929 19,736 4,807 3,535
75-84 7,207 9,434 9,454 20 15
85 plus 2,617 4,975 4,847 (128) (94)
Source: U.S.Census and Scan/US,Inc.
Household growth in the 55 to 64 and 65 to 74 age cohorts indicates there may be demand for
maintenance free living options that appeal to older adults. These households could be
accommodated in the Opportunity Area.
Brooklyn Center had 2,369 households over the age of 65 in 2011, as shown in Table 6-9: 1,693
owner-occupied and renter-occupied. At the present time, Brooklyn Center has 440 units of
senior rental housing indicating that about 65 percent of the renters are living in senior buildings.
In Brooklyn Center, renter-occupied households increase with age from 27.8 percent in the 65 to
74 age cohort to 50.9 percent of the 85 and over age cohort. The trend is the same in the draw
area and Tier One Cities. There are a wide variety of social services available to senior
households that enable them to remain in their homes. The expansion of these services has
reduced the demand for senior housing. As indicated earlier, there is an opportunity for senior
housing that provides maintenance free living to empty nesters that can be satisfied in the
Opportunity Area. The existing senior housing options in Brooklyn Center face the challenge of
adapting their buildings and services to a changing senior demographic with far different needs
and expectations.
6-8
Table 6-9
TENURE BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLDER;2011 ESTIMATED
BROOKLYN CENTER,OPPORTUNITYI AREA DRAW AREA,AND TIER ONE COMMUNITIES
(Number of Households)
65 to 74 75 to 84 85 and over
Own Rent Own Rent Own Rent
Brooklyn Center 770 297 677 124 246 255
Percent 72.2 % 27.8 % 84.5 % 15.5 % 49.1 % 50.9 %
Opportunity Area Draw Area 7,882 1,421 4,681 1,933 860 1,268
Percent 84.7 % 15.3 % 70.8 % 29.2 % 40.4 % 59.6 %
Tier One Cities 6,685 1,201 4,063 1,289 1,207 1,413
Percent 84.7 % 15.3 % 75.9 % 24.1 % 46.1 % 53.9 %
Source: U.S.Census.
Recommendations
The Opportunity Area consists of three areas: South, East, and North as described in Chapter I.
These areas contain 83.8 acres, not all of which are recommended for redevelopment. The areas
recommended for redevelopment are summarized in Table 6-10. Redevelopable area totals 63.1
acres. The South parcel is the largest (39.38 acres) including 8.6 acres owned by the City. The
proposed redevelopment area excludes the Minnesota School of Business building. The East
parcel, excluding Davanni's which can remain, totals 11.9 acres. The recommended
redevelopment area on the North parcel, excluding Target and Shingle Creek Center, is about
11.8 acres. These parcels can be developed in three phases.
Table 6-10
OPPORTUNITYAREA REDEVEL.OPABLEAREA
Square Assessed
Area Acres Feet Value
South 39.38 1,715,393 $ 14,244,800
East 11.89 517,928 2,400,000
North 11.84 515,750 4,900,000
Total 63.11 2,749,071.00 $ 21,544,800
Source: Brooklyn Center Assessor and McComb Caoup,Ltd.
These three parcels, developed at an average density of 50 dwelling units per acre, could
accommodate over 3,100 units. At 200 units per year, this represents a 15-year build out. The
South parcel, developed at a similar density,would accommodate almost 2,000 units.
The assessed value of the three parcels is about $21.5 million including the land owned by the
City. The fact that many of the buildings are vacant or have large vacancies indicates the
assessed value may be higher than the cost of a negotiated acquisition.
The redevelopment opportunity is to create a development large enough that it creates its own
environment. To initiate a development of this magnitude, a prospective developer would like to
6-9
have the assurance of being able to control the redevelopment area so that land prices do not
inhibit the overall development plan. Even taking into consideration the City's ownership of the
Brookdale Ford site valued at $4.1 million,the land acquisition is likely to require an investment
of between $15 and $18 million to acquire land control of the redevelopment area. This will
require a financially strong, well funded developer that has the capability to hold the land
through the development period.
Major developers operating in the Twin Cities that may have the financial capacity and an
interest in a development of this magnitude are listed below. Legacy Management &
Development Corporation partnered with McCormack Baron Salazar Inc., a national developer,
to develop Heritage Park in Minneapolis.
— M.A. Mortenson Co.
— Ryan Cos. US Inc.
— Hines
— Doran Cos.
— Kraus-Anderson Realty Co.
— United Properties
— Legacy Management&Development Corporation
There are additional national developers that may be interested in the Opportunity Area
redevelopment.
Implementing a redevelopment plan, with a financially capable developer is likely to require the
use of redevelopment tools including tax increment and land acquisition powers.
6-10
APPENDIX B
2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
(Calthorpe Study Results)
REVIEW OF BROOKLYN CENTER'S OPPORTUNITY SITE
MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 2
A. THE OPPORTUNITY SITE& CALTHORPE STUDY AREA & PURPOSES 2
B. THE CALTHORPE PLANNING PROCESS AND PLAN 3
C. OPPORTUNITY SITE CONCEPT AND MASTER PLANNING 4
D. RESTORING SITE'S VIABILITY IN MARKETPLACE 5
E. REDEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS 5
i. Estimating and Funding the Financial Gap 5
ii. Reducing the financial Gap 6
i
` Community Open Space 6
Highway 100 District Configuration 6
Structured Parking
:i
F. STRATEGIC ACQUISITION APPROACHES 7
G. OTIJER 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. OPPOR'T'UNITY PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS 9
1 January 2008
59-S--SOCIATES
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 Plan 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.
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.
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
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
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.
I?h
A.THE OPPORTUNITY SITE& CALTHORPE STUDY AREA&PURPOSES
i, The Opportunity Plan addresses redevelopment of a 100-acre area strategically located between
>l 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;
1. 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
`i 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.
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
ensure its long-term viability."Public transit and transit facilities are integral to Smart Growth
and in the Calthorpe Plans.
2
B. THE CALTHORPE PLANNING PROCESS AND PLAN
Three alternative sketch concept plans for the 500-acre study area were fomnrlated 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 Barle Brown Center,creating a true
Town Center.Housing units (1400 total)constructed over a 10-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.
• Concept C--Regional Center Concept(page 30):Adds regional retail center with
high concentration of jobs to the Town Center Concept including upgraded transit
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
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
i• 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.
3
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
building stock is aging and getting run-down and new retail development further out in the
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.
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
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 under performing 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
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.
• Highway 100 Office District(I5 acres)—High-density office to high-density
housing according to market demand
• Community open space,trails and ponds(20 acres).
4
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
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 restaus ant.The
Illustrative Plan in the Calthorpe report designated the apartment building site directly north
across County Road ]0 from Brookdale Mall for redevelopment with anchor retai I.The
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 (facades)to major
streets and serviced with structured parking to minimize large surface lots. Streets segment this
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
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
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
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. 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 economically and physically obsolete,not enough appear to be sub-standard
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-I4 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
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
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$8 to$•10(median$9)
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
($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 fill 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 up this gap.
To some large users,particularly corporate office campuses,this economic gap in construction of
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
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
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
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 100-acre Opportunity Site is significantly larger than any of the other redevelopment projects
studied as part of this review. Silver Sake Village and I-Ieart 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 Village----St. 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 Walgreens
drug store,totaling 238,000 square feet.Additional retail and office of 85,000 square feet bring
the total commei•cial 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 constnucted include 84 affordable and 63 market-rate rental
apartment units,and 209 condominium housing units.Retail of 38,500 square feet has been
constructed,and the project can accommodate significant additional retail. Structured parking has
been constructed in the project.
H. OPPORTUNITY PLAN REVIEW FINDINGS
• The flan and Guidelines are design oriented and have a weak foundation in the realities
of the marketplace and redevelopment financing.
• The Master Ilan 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.
9
Opportunity Site- Project Cost Capacity Estimate ATTCHMENT A
1. After-Development Value, Tax Capacitv and Annual Tax Jan.2008
Units(sq.ft.) Mkt Vai./Unit(sqft) Total Mkt Value Class Tax Capacity Value Tax Annual Tax Increment
Use-District Low Hiqh Low Hah Low high Rate Low High Rate Low High
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 Capacity and Annual Tax
39,000,000 39,000,000 0.02 780,000 780,000 1.20 936,000 936,000
Ill. Equals Captured Value, Tax Capacity and Annual Tax Increment
1,599,660 7,414,800
1,333,050 6J79,000 1.20 1,599,660 7,414,800
IV. PLOject 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+11=1.051 Equals Project Cost Capacity from TIF
(Capitalized interest) (17,220,861) (79,822,738)
Plus land sale proceeds: 72 acres x 43,560 sqft.facre x S61sqft. Divided by 1.05' Equals (17,068,407) (17,068,407)
Equals Total Project Cost Capacity (34,289,268) (96,891,145)
01212ortunily Site- Redevelopment Cost Estimate ATTACHMENT B
Jan-08
Structured Parkin-g 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 10,175 2,664 7,991 21,312,000 63,930,000
Property Acquistion and Relocation
value x 1.4
TIF#2 acres value acquisition cost
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,CGO 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 Proiec
ATTACHMENT C
Dec.2007
Proipact: Heart of the City-Burnsville Excelsior&Grand-SLP Village/Park-SLP Silver Lk.Vil-SL Anthony Proposed Opportunity Site
Public Features: Community Art ts 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:
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
Ranip yes 850 spaces yes
Underground 433 spaces
Total 1,283 spaces
Calthorpe Opportunity Site Plan
rF i--- ----- - lam,,-J'
{ ` A r
M
r
,�. LEGEND
... ... •-. .wrn...raw,..
i,y�+� I _.. Ielawl r+.•MI.I,N M,rwl
`
1 "`�+'€ .�'1.� Lrhrd twh.hlnGnw♦;
��FM
� umrTS=rm
mn»
F,&,,.l:is:FINAL C0-,C EPT PLAN�i r?!*raaAj Crnxr oacorm T:tJ une. T&�ma.f,"pt
ol..•..«:,.,«.y�
?:aa miriaa:a uz.mixti-xfe r,:x awferard a rnrtslrzl�aT�eT3u'f r.rsil ran. Ptdurrsx��*elT,a j rrnr. . Mlw t�
m-r.7 tA.-ara:ti ti,xfmi ana jT tviffG m ruiArgecr rafi:;if^!X aTa fl'.'.'49Ff f^f nua}alts.aTa a mew
rro-n't rewo,rOTA::f:fie arrvr 10 fie revfM. ® NNN�nIt Uwlbp
® lln,bf Mn.n�
pp�� Q Mw
IG c-
a IYr.r♦Olv,Ti.�
Damon Farber/ESG Opportunity Site Plan
s
y
s
'ice
.""etc ".• y,. ' , +•
44 y.
t,^ G O° if
VI
..;� ` �FtCat of Brooklyn Center EDA �
•
+ o.
,
Opportunity Sites- Southern ,r
�0 50 1000 zoo 300 o,
Feet
or
r
s' t.
r
r�
_ 1
y
r f r FRI
< O
lip
P
' Tw ijtr 's r
- Ai. RjPA t` �►
eA
n
r/
y ' T
'Y-11
•
,d,... '¢ °' A #�� I •. t-/ 3'! •t, C .,� F V,h r �t �i #fir• � .. `��.
h v � ' Yr } y. 1[Try '} � " ^ �� f'�.. .J 4��i L � •M•. C'J
1 - M
gay.
c�..:f: i .t tl�t f,. . .F:•f •� - -.:a, � ., _.. '. -� F UG.. . #t .•�+..... _ . � O
�I
AFIF I F
ON
Aw
t
,
"
s
h
c
d
.�
,
y t"
4 � =
Brookdale Square
site w y BOO
Ul -
n _
w
■ '
T —.
1
,
' 8TH
LU - " •
(7 ;l
O
Z - Brookdale Ford Site -<
NORTHWAY _ (EDA)
` x ,
:
f
r�
ra
_ t
Vf
57th&Logan Site � �•
r.
(EDA) `
a
,...COUNTY ROAD 10,
Y---..-.'ice l � .+
_ 57TH
.
,e
r
Brooklyn Center
� `""' f' Opportunity Site
p p Y
.n.
r CONCEPT PLAN
AN
�{ A New Residential Neighborhood
..
I
f
January 6, 2014
x Y
Minnesota �~ _ '�.t• _ i _J',..�%M1 �S; �
School _4
!r of Business I a ..`T_" . i t x I t ,
• f. 1
/Pat
fill
r SITE METRICS
C1 i Block A ffi 144,000 GSF
O ce
Retail 57,000 GSF
Block B Retail 26,000 GSF 277,000 Commercial
--` - � ' � Residential 170 DU 179,600 GSF
Block C Residential 232 DU 244,440 GSF
r
4 t '
Block D Residential 206 DU 216,840 GSF
-TO yo ""��""nR" Block E Mid-rise Flats 135 DU 141,900 GSF
R n i l� i — �--� r r►�h ' �, Townhomes 80 DU 84,280 GSF
M1 A
es I, % ,; Block F Mid-rise Flats 162 DU 171,300 GSF
_.
G -- M ,..T. r Townhomes 73 DU 77,000 GSF
a
J '
I a, Qj :Retail Townhomes 1,800 RSF Each 128 DU 230,400 RSF 1,345,760 Residential
Bass Lake Road
TOTAL Buildin g Area 1 622 760 GSF
r Di
TOTAL Land Area 47.36 Acres 2,063,002 SF
r ,
FLOOR AREA RATIO 1,622,760/2,063,002 .787
City u}'
BROOKLYN CENTER MINNESOTA #It BROOKLYN -
A GREAT PLACE TO START, A GREAT PLACE TO STAY CENTER
architects
— ------------------
i City of
` BROOKLYN
CENTER
N
I F
City of Brooklyn Center
1, •4. AvE (I °.` "" PALMER LAKE
❑ —
Land Use Plan
Legend - Land Use
I
SF-SINGLE FAMILY
TF-TWO or THREE FAMILY
r
-\ tD TH-TOWNHOME(MEDIUM DENSITY)
❑ MF-MULTI-FAMILY(HIGH DENSITY)
i
m - OS-OFFICE-SERVICE
RB-RETAIL BUSINESS
I-INDUSTRIAL
EM RU-RAILROAD or UTILITIES
f / PS-PUBLIC SPACE
MIXED-USE yy I' PRO-PARKS, RECREATION or OPEN SPACE
'i REDEVELOPME % £ j.
MIXED-OS/RB
€ 48 JI a
I•: � � U L�� MIXED- OS/I
✓-- �, 1 MIXED MIXED-SF/TF/THIMF
THIMF/OS/RB/P
�° aoo - ❑ y MIXED-I/PRO
Y PRIMARY \
MIXED-PRO/RU
EDEV LOPMEN _
f� MF-MIXED ENHANCED
j + 1 'V AREA ❑ ❑
EM MIXED-TH/MF/OS/RB/PS
I �A�
� SCHOOLS
m
❑PPER � - AIRPORT
i rnlN � � � � a
1 LAKE
-----=-- —=------ ---- -- ROADWAYS
/ MIXED
THIMFrosIRBlps ® Central Commerce Overlay District
iNote: Planned land uses for 2030 are the same as existing land uses(circa 2010).
o o.izs o.zs 0.5 0.75 1
md-
r-, Approved Land Use Changes(since 2010):
N
— 1) France Avenue Business Park IV(former Lifetime site-4001 Lakebreeze Avenue N.)-from OS-Office/Service Business to
new MIXED USE OS/I(Office/Service Business and Industrial) W�E
MIDDLE Res.No.2012-31,adopted February 13,2012.
TWIN y, 4 S
2) Maranatha Care Campus Center(5401&5415-69th Avenue N.)-from PS Public and Semi-Public and MF-Multi-Family to J
MF-MIXED ENHANCED(Multi-Family Mixed High Density Residential with Enhanced Setbacks).
lII � r Created&Updated by the
Res.No.2012-72,adopted May 29,2012.
J City of Brooklyn Center's Business and Development Department
t (December 2013)
3) Luther Auto Properties(3955,4001,and 4007-69th Avenue N.)-from SF-Single Family to RB-Retail Business.
s RYAN Res.No.2013-74,adopted July 8,2013
—_ .-.1 LAKE oa.:::en wn.w.�ee.o.Hxe.ra eu.« u o