Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017 04-27 PCPX(AR n of II'N I ER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APRIL 27, 2017 1. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM 2. ROLL CALL 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA • Motion to Approve Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for April 27, 2017 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • Motion to Approve the March 30, 2017 meeting minutes 6. CHAIRPERSON'S EXPLANATION The Planning Commission is 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. 7. PLANNING ITEM: 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) City Council Strategic Goals 2017-2020 for Focused Redevelopment 1. Jerry's Food Site 2. 571h & Logan Site 3. Opportunity Site b) Updates on current development activities & pending planning applications: 1. 6,720 sf. commercial building under construction at Boulevard Market Center 2. HOM Furniture - Shingle Creek Crossing PUD # 8 3. Sanctuary at Brooklyn Center Senior Housing 4. Inquiry to add 6,080 sf. addition at 6601 Parkway Circle (industrial expansion) 5. Regal Theater Site & Terry Moses Lot (PUD amendment & site plan for a commercial recreational use with restaurant & lounge. c) Updating Comprehensive Plan 1. Review of the 2030 Land Use Element XBROOKLYN TER PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER APRIL 27, 2017 9. OTHER BUSINESS: a) May 181h Neighborhood Area Meeting — Kylawn Park b) update on the review of the City Liquor Ordinance 10. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Christensen at 7:04 p.m. 1 •1-\911 Chair Randall Christensen, Commissioners Alexander Koenig, Jack MacMillan, Stephen Schonning, Rochelle Sweeney, and Abraham Rizvi (arrived at 7:25 p.m.) were present. Commissioner Susan Tade was absent and excused. Also present were Director of Business & Development Crary Eitel, Planning Assistant Angel Smith and Michaela Kujawa-Daniels, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. .�►�1 1 1.1 There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda as amended: Agenda Item 4 Change "Abraham Risvi" to Abraham Rizvi". The motion passed unanimously. 4. ADMINISTER OATH OF OFFICE This item was considered as Agenda Item 8a. There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2017 meeting as submitted. The motion passed unanimously. 6. CHAIR'S EXPLANATION Chair Christensen 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. PC Minutes 03-30-17 -1- DRAFT 7) APPLICATION N . 2017-003 NICHOLAS STAN AL PROPERTY A : 6145 CAMDEN AVE NORTH AND 6131 CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH Direct of Business and Development Gary Eitel introduced Application No. 2017-003. He reviewed the background and purpose of this application. Mr. Eitel asked the Commissioners if they had any questions for him on this Application. The Commissioners stated they didn't have any questions on this item. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2017-03 REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2017-003 SUBMITTED BY NICHOLAS STANDAL There was a motion by Commissioner Sweeney, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-03 as submitted. Voting in favor: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Koenig, MacMillan, Schonning and Sweeney. And the following voted against the same: None. The motion passed unanimously. ADMINISTEROF OFFICE Director of Business and Development Gary Eitel administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Abraham Rizvi. There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to approve the appointment of Commissioner Abraham Rizvi. The motion passed unanimously. b) SURVEY RESULTS PRESENTATION The Commission watched the presentation on the survey results provided by Morris Leatherman. Chairperson Christensen stated what he found unsettling were the results regarding the school systems in the City. He stated it was apparent there is no connection and the residents don't think the schools are as good as they should be. PC Minutes DRAFT 03-30-17 -2- Commissioner Schonning stated it was interesting that there was such a high demand for senior housing. He stated the City is moving in the right direction and providing what some expressed are a need. He noted it was valuable to hear Mr. Leatherman's comments giving a comparison on how the City is ranking comparing to others by stating they are "average, above average, etc.". 8cj 2020-2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS: - DISCUSSION/REVIEW OF THE 2010 PLANNING ISSUES MAP - DISCUSSION/IDENITIFYING FUTURE PLANNING ISSUES (2020 ISSUES MAP) - STRENGTHS, WEAKNESS, OPPORTUNITIES, THREATS (SWOT) Mr. Eitel introduced this item and stated if the Commissioners would like provide him with some ideas and sites they would like to see on the list and he would add them and noted when the 2018 items are presented they will be combined with this list and it would be presented to the Commission then. Mr. Eitel stated he would like to remind everyone about the Joint Commissioners Meeting on April 5, 2017. There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Sweeney to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Chair PC Minutes DRAFT 03-30-17 -3- =T CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER A GREAT PLACE TO START. A GREAT PLACE TO STAY MEMORANDUM TO: Chair Randy Christensen and City Planning Commissioners FROM: Gary Eitel, Director of Business and Development Angel Smith, Interim Planning Specialist DATE: April 21, 2017 RE: April 27, 2017 Planning Commission Agenda www 0yofbrooklyncenter.org Attached please find the Planning Commission meeting agenda for the April 27, 2017 regular meeting, along with the March 30, 2017 regular meeting minutes. While we do not have any land use applications to review at this next meeting, there are a number of informational items for the Commission to consider and updates of pending applications and planning initiatives. Should Commissioners have any questions prior to next Thursday night's meeting, please call Gary at (763) 569-3305 or Angel at (763) 569- 3319. Email geitelgci brooklyn-center.mn.us or asmith(n ci brooklyn-center.mn.us Reminder: please let us know if you are unable to attend the meeting. Thank you! 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS a) City Council Strategic Goals 2017-2020 for Focused Redevelopment 1. Jerry's Food Site - redevelopment of this 4.9 acre site conforming with the City's vision 2. 571h& Logan Site - redevelopment of this 8 acre site with 20,000 + sf. retail & 50+ residential units 3. opportunity Site - redevelopment of this 32 acre site with a variety of housing types that conforms with the City's vision The City Council has identified these 3 Strategic Goals for Focused Redevelopment component of their Strategic Plan for 2017-2020. The next step in developing this Strategic Plan is for staff to identify Strategic Priorities and Initiatives which form an Action Plan for each goal. I would like the opportunity to review with the Commission these three sites and relative information of past planning initiatives and actions that may likely influence the shaping of a vision for each site and the components that will likely be in an Action Plan. The exhibits start with an aerial photo of this area as developed approximately 30 years ago and then followed by exhibits on each site: • Aerial photo the Jerry Food Site • Pre. Plat of the Northbrook 2nd Add., development concepts prepared as part of the Damon Farber - Opportunity Site, the 2006 approved RFP development concept by the Steiner Development Company, a modification to the Told Development Concept illustrating a 30,000 sf. grocery store. • Aerial photo of the Opportunity Site, the 2006 Damon Farber - Master Plan, the 2014 ESG Plan Update, previous development concepts by 3 interested developers, and conceptual layout by Loucks to assess basic infrastructure costs. b) Updates on current development activities & pending planning applications: 1. 6,720 sf. commercial building under construction at Boulevard Market Center 2. HOM Furniture - Shingle Creek Crossing PUD # 8 3. Sanctuary at Brooklyn Center Senior Housing 4. Inquiry to add 6,080 sf. addition at 6601 Parkway Circle (industrial expansion) S. Regal Theater Site & Terry Moses Lot (PUD amendment & site plan for a commercial recreational use with restaurant & lounge. A verbal update on the two projects under construction ( No.'s 1 & 5). A verbal update on the current status of HOM Furniture ( issues relating to stormwater management costs and additional parking requirement) A brief update on pending applications to amend existing PUD's (No.'s 4 & 5) that will likely be on the May 251h agenda or June 111h agenda. c) Updating Comprehensive Plan 1. Review of the 2030 Land Use Element I thought the reviewing of the Land Use Element of the last comp plan would be a good starting point to begin to outline the next steps. 9. OTHER BUSINESS: a) May 18th Neighborhood Area Meeting — Kylawn Park b) update on the review of the City Liquor Ordinance Attached is a response to two questions relating to the pending consideration of changes to our existing liquor ordinance. Since I referenced the Commission's previous consideration, I felt it appropriate to confirm that the response reflect the Commission's understanding of the issue. t log .0% is 01. 44 .4 4 #P ]p 4 P, Z. Z A SBWR > of,' Z - L I or 1, -% .4 — ID CO ,41f tun) P P44 'A ar 4..W" a -N -1L X, -w • Oliver A zt a�t iA) q. i inIN f x VKC ko ILO to 111V4 N f 4b A to I ix 46 j*!g-4N-0A JuaOUIM oil J 10 • N-aA. V *Fjj *.4A it' 0 a NNGA 114oqq .. Iff m f Former Jerry's New Market (5801 Xerxes Avenue) l_ Tf,•�. 77� • - .a� to '4 11P ; 41, O i dP . 14 f _ >•� • 10 r as � _ • �'My fib. c ,�Y CONTACT INFO. Darcy E. Winter N D.E. Winter&Associates, Inc. Site = 4.8 acres Commercial Real Estate Services Zoning: C-2 (w/ CCD Overlay) 3109 West 50th St., #206 Minneapolis, MN 55410 952-924-9482 darcywin6Daol com 0 40 80 160 240 32Feet PREL IMINA R Y PLAT.' ENTER 2ND NORTHBROOK C ADDITION PROPOSED DEDICATED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ' 144 PROPOSED DRAINAGE UTIUTY VACATION//el 7 376.07 + 8 5 PROPOSED DEDICATION OF LOGAN AVE 1/� AC I 804. 10 5895026E 258.87 PROPOSED DEDICATION OF 57TH AVE UY, ;77 — ®EXISTING ELECTRIC UTILITY EASEMENT 7 , n-Tamr, , A cc 1 III A BLOCK /1" A, LOT 1 319,210+/- 8 0.25 7.32+/- AC I n sag L gt j IN A 0 0 i -L 6_1 H C) z "Itia 4— -6 — L Kjo 21, U - 6 '56'17"• 25 _,_S,09'56'17" 6 G --S8 9 5�1z:' 2 87-' Fe - 1111111k, — — — — — — — — — --- — — — — — — kit �ec Dri v e M_. w G;;; G;;a..�- =��e ` _ \>\�f/��\�\\ %7 co (D r- f$/7E ECUU)> �£±£7E 5 CL 0cCD -- > Co E— $?77/ \0a -0) aS�=S=-0 010 ®_ >=co=w vU) CL>,CL j\\22\/ E � Zn a) 0 - in 0 - $n (n@C=oke>,-r cou "c §$$ CU 0 J am�\(2E2a=-mk ±2»0=G/\CL a) S§a0ƒ:\0cn3 u co= /( e I\�-ac)E 7Ce= 0Ro-°E�2e_2D\ E 2x /2'" 0 0 /mE kC)=c w0 e�§n27c m02 <3:2 E C13 M a) } &ƒ7\e±% U=@=tea RI=UE�) \00 CD t! =�§SEe2 $ 7t=CL= = Ec%� Ea&E= ® �\)§\ƒ/ \ > = CL 0 %.: 0 u a) Ec) a) > 0=%%00 c %=45/=\2 o =uc> C -c Q %E/@>,.2=e ■ m®nCL-%e® e%0cCL © Eat°° - o eowRcae3 0 /=e ; )\)�km= m02 <3:2 E U) - E d c � \-0 ca \ /kms/\/±\\ ==�ea0- \�//0:300 mao=utoma Ec%� Ea&E= - 0 CO% 2 2 CL 0-0_� a) =\E ƒC ƒEb`ƒ0acu « toM a a) (n 0 k> § Q Ecr=CM 0ch=e2-0§#n S CD =_ _ 0) (D �0G2)2%¥�® @ _ _ ® _ G 0 /E\f\/ka\& 0 onuany ue6o-1 - - - - •, 7 0 m h' C CN O C >' c p C m O C 7 c O L= N 00cu p) E .0 LC) � a) m U >.0 �•NL 0)NL a) M @ 7 0 "- O a) O V 7-0 N O C L c a) 'CA ca O jL EL �'_ >,a) O O CL =O O N 3 0 Z CL c L) a) o o' oY c N -0 O _ C L ID Y N> a) a) 0-L a) C N y= a Q> Q �a)m-0Em • c N -0L a)+-' m _ cu r 0" a3 -O (a N a) C �O a m V CO 3> w m O O 5-0 •N J > m E`o o.c v=)>, y aa)) a) mO V m a) N c c 3�� °a o c T3 m °oZ ° ) CDcu N vJ coo03°°°ca)c°t53 O .0 a 0)a) > O> C C O _ 0 NL -C NSQ UQ 0 0 N a) C E—) N f0 N 3a) 0 = - U O W-0 m C O °Ncm-a):— oa.jE in-ao-a 3 o in E N X N 7 J L O U L O a) E cm Y CM 0— O O D m 'c N c c a c •— E c o m- 0 m a co r.+ @ N .a) = Y a) . 7 Q c v Ecn o V > oin o o o U O U•� "O a)•N C — N E� a "� m> o vi S' x NO N Q 2 N O •V x j a)Fu d C > C O L E O 'O O O xcm 2 7 m a3 E L N 02"m C G O N �--• .i N N U CL M J C CN O C >' c p C m O C 7 c O L= N 00cu p) E .0 LC) � a) m U >.0 �•NL 0)NL a) M @ 7 0 "- O a) O V 7-0 N O C L c a) 'CA ca O jL EL �'_ >,a) O O CL =O O N 3 0 Z CL c L) a) o o' oY c N -0 O _ C L ID Y N> a) a) 0-L a) C N y= a Q> Q �a)m-0Em • c N -0L a)+-' m _ cu r 0" a3 -O (a N a) C �O a m V CO 3> w m O O 5-0 •N J > m E`o o.c v=)>, y aa)) a) mO V m a) N c c 3�� °a o c T3 m °oZ ° ) CDcu N vJ coo03°°°ca)c°t53 O .0 a 0)a) > O> C C O _ 0 NL -C NSQ UQ 0 0 O N O N D L f6 .•-I L 7 .O. a) C m C ~ c 7 L a) U .L.. L Om O Q O 0 L M a) 7 NE O "'' N N `� a3 L C '� O C LO L E U 0 a) N -0 O 0 U L 7 0 Q N O N •= a) N "R N O N N m .0 CD f�6 7 c ,0. N LO — to o C mo C@ •C > O v O ++ p 0 Co a) u Ca Q. d N C C O NL C (D () N U m" a) m O CL m ° c O _ a)�a ° mo a)= �fD- G� aE_c-=°momo�m c O`w U O U•� "O a)•N C — 0U x N `° E a) X_ C C @tin C �� c°).S EH -0 �Z 3 (1x) C CN O C >' c p C m O C 7 c O L= N 00cu p) E .0 LC) � a) m U >.0 �•NL 0)NL a) M @ 7 0 "- O a) O V 7-0 N O C L c a) 'CA ca O jL EL �'_ >,a) O O CL =O O N 3 0 Z CL c L) a) o o' oY c N -0 O _ C L ID Y N> a) a) 0-L a) C N y= a Q> Q �a)m-0Em • c N -0L a)+-' m _ cu r 0" a3 -O (a N a) C �O a m V CO 3> w m O O 5-0 •N J > m E`o o.c v=)>, y aa)) a) mO V m a) N c c 3�� °a o c T3 m °oZ ° ) CDcu N vJ coo03°°°ca)c°t53 O .0 a 0)a) > O> C C O _ 0 NL -C NSQ UQ 0 0 17 J11,11, F SUMMITASSimacm tins 'Fr: IS- AOKI; &V ON 'F L 5930 Shingle Creek Pk%W. if .w 11s, �-:A� Wwl:FORMER AUDIO KING v, 5939j,h, M,ftin Dr.. 59271 .hn MaIn, Dr. I 10 HEALTH PARTNERS DENTAL CLINIC r r. FORMER PERIUNS 59151 .hn m.,in D1. I I" 5901 Joh n M-1. D, -,x y Y.PAN SCHOOL.f BUSINESS FORMER K -MART 5910 Shingle C,rek Pk,, (Doll ,rTr,e/5Iumb,,I,rd/Bi9 L-) 5930E 6—n D, a Y vv, U), BASS LAKE RD L—L 00 r City of Brooklyn Center Opportunity Site +CD a) N C CL CL d c .a � O i C3 O = O E C. O a) 7 CD m 66 C ca CL CD ++ N R a O O U) cID p (n Ua o c� -r O C C O O E i c6 4 � O o co O � Y 'i -E �' a) >� -E C 2 (� �.i C a) (� 42 " as p n �. a,E a o E.u) L" t- ami c Q? E Y m a) 0 o E o a) (n L 0 0)L c a) c `o a) � a) °0 U) M� 0 CL N� c o ZL > o � : ro'� °Lo � Et �r �' o'er o o �o �0 o 'a) c aci ��Q Eca��i �Eoa�i occaa)< °'o�waioEE .� nC) n o 3 — a� L U Ei dlL0 Occa co ° oo� •— 'n _C"Q) U L C � '(Doo CO '>a) E . 0) U pi) -0 (D CL a) a) -p 'D '.. O C: 0) . CO -p C i d N CO0 c c OL'o �L � to (aO o-0 ao•0�c" �� '� E Oo CU Oc O 0 W > a) Qac cn > a) U). c cO OtUa) _ CL a) U) -0 U CU N>+'p Q O n C >c `> N O cd > POO a) OL >� U C ca O m I?E LG E S 2rn.Q0ai oc i=an yE -. En > a 3: c 0- O>o Imo— IL- aci Zy a H 0 H co aa)) FL- 0 0 a� U) Co M -4 UE v CA LL E C 0 of 0 u CD LO O N n O 0 NLD n M L Oco r e 1 N' N LL LL n I1 LL N N Ln N VI VI 0 0 N w VI U C7 (7 0 N O O O O 0 O O t0 V o�0 Ol N 0 dt O O �p d' Vl N N N `�� c -I N N aI N `u •a 7 'O D7 0 0 0 Q M tOo n O o 0 0 0 0 M N mO 00 N rM LO - 00 L cl N O Cog t Y y u CES _ _ _ U, Z• LLE LL� Ln lJ !/ Z C CC N L N 0 OC v C C O U 'm 3 3 mMW O C. o� cccc v v o �� �� R* Q � f0 I— o = a W d oc cu o r - Q �c m' .5 0 V OG i Q m Y u' O Zto Y u 3 O O o ~ O LL O Z C h _ m m m m m m noo V Q Bills mills ... _wo!" 0011 .� Aemjied PaID a16u!gS f IF 47 N S_ W o c ai � � � E � 1_CIJ Z �Y Nom. w vL-. '^-' vJ N m .N.. 1-- K O d m N Q m N L S =� -OO E S L •� N��� C (6 N w o o a W o N 'c. / z F- a U o E N Z' Z Z 2• Z o� _. W a .3 m a o aci o m L O O m E m >> a~¢ r3 E Uuci M Eo aci aci aci aci m E , C N O O N t^. U N N O ja 'C m �' N 'a_7 d d d d m Q O' • J - oO O �. N L ._ N- N 2, Z C O�� m F- ��.�—a»Q m l� u- P a Bills mills ... _wo!" 0011 .� Aemjied PaID a16u!gS f IF 47 N Em E v m J o « o T a N Y r i o r ..°i. J �O a E - a. o f yo.ti E - Yom„ m z 1 e$ .�°- a m = m .Vi W C o y �w, N o 3 Y a z ya^ o w w C t9 E E c c- o° v N v v c Q 2 _ _% "t c I� awl mo 0 0 E�.o Er 1— ® . U u4¢ ¢ fl-0�1O o H ti ��a ° m n R Z NUa °' U 3 N Z) LL w Z Ur C N N V O a) o ® W c V n n Q US ® v; u `T-.�3.4.`,� � • ^ - Wit',_ .'��. y /P �,' • :; . � � John Martin Dr. ,a. ;_;.•u•` •' •�lll Now ile N a CL bn E w U co q� E w E O Ln W F— un z 0 CL CL 0 LU 0 LO Qt G a w^ � Ln °'• r!> ~ o= L 0 00 L � 4— O N N _0 O 3 N L.L L.D N 6 u U cc U O 0 0 �O O L O N N CD a1 v� II E L- QE ° u 4 Q O 4- O — ,,, V,I� Q rn m = o O Z U N � II � + aJ O1 M in ro m aj II 'n w p m m m l—I (D u N L Q y� m Q ro 'n L a) [6 0 n Ul ra L Q o Q ca a) Q N oQ i L L i C i a) , 42 ya `,d O F U Q C C C d N � V (Z ° uo c v 0 ci 0 v 0 aj 0 N n. Q � Q O x x o 0 0 0 I- w w a a a a ■Y DRIVE �u,c,mo' QCwi�o OOe JOHN MARTIN DRI w w Y a o J o v~ ,may �z z i W < W}¢~Q ¢� -n CD � x O Z W OLU U) Cl Q N N U LL Z w a U) :5 :D LU NN _ WY�.O>- W C7 � � Z `' ! lcellmaumale w o 0f Y ,+` LSPq u Z0�wo O< o d Q e N Y ui ly ui Cu J � C/) 4� ! Yt"�F 1i1111111111'JIIur1 1lnlln Inn m CO E a wr CD z J eme�le�m s Ienmemm�l�mmm� , �o 5m��', zO O y w o N. F— Cl) w G 2Ej < CD .,r E rC s pQ�= p00 Lu Z �oa t U ® LU O �--�D= WmW Cna¢r co nai e :R U 0- L„I ~ r ccs. N o , '� QO _ N , - -� c >- i /et�u ueli}sapa40_ o�-, �i� �w Z dac U) ao Pm a�. dnllllp 00 ~ t49 a►: N z a 0 ' W o V� (Do� 6j 0U¢ ZorZ Ww Cf)W w _ O� o> a F U z c CD z a F- ;�,, M/M>NVd'i11JO3l10NIHS ..w.:.. o�z �wH ���� wZwui coo- oza ��: o - 0L zv�cn \ L) CO wao0 ����. O ce LU Comprehensive Plan 2030 LAND USE, REDEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW This 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 2-1 Appendix A. Responses received at the meeting involving the community's leadership were remarkably 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 ® 57th and Logan development — vision, redevelop ® Brookdale — vision, rejuvenate, daylight Shingle Creek, connect to neighborhoods ® Humboldt Square — improve and rejuvenate ® 571h — 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 by responses visualizing physical change, followed by intangible responses) ® Sense of Community — comfortable, family -friendly, strong sense of community, empowered, low crime, cohesive, engage diversity, safe (reduce speed iirrnt on 2-2 Brooklyn Boulevard) • 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) • 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 • 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 culler a good or excel'lerlt place to 'live. Three-lvliiiiis of respondents characterize the 2-3 sense of community in Brooklyn Center as fair or poor and over ninety percent rate the condition of the 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. Issues identified as part of the community meetings and dealt with in the community survey can be 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. 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. 1 2-4 5, A� LL, C*4 T —Zz I"�17 CL z LLI —0 fir`Tv z =f LU > LU o ui LZ kn LU k% P LU zu. L 0 ca LL, LU Lu t- — LU ui x -Lui 0 0 UJ MI m w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w UO O 7o 0 (L 0 w 2 ft 0 M Z 3: E W X 0.( 'co A� LL, C*4 T —Zz I"�17 CL z LLI —0 fir`Tv z =f LU > LU o ui LZ kn LU k% P LU zu. L 0 ca LL, LU Lu t- — LU ui x -Lui 0 0 UJ MI m w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w 21 'co 7o 0 (L 0 w 2 ft 0 M Z 3: E W X A� LL, C*4 T —Zz I"�17 CL z LLI —0 fir`Tv z =f LU > LU o ui LZ kn LU k% P LU zu. L 0 ca LL, LU Lu t- — LU ui x -Lui 0 0 UJ MI m w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w EROOKDALE 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 20'11 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 fmdings of the review of the Plan and Guidelines: ® 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. 57TH AVENUE AND LOGAN AVENUE SITE The ]Economic Development Authority's (EDA) first effort at developing this site for a mixed-use retail Wo residential development was unsuccessful due to a number of factors. Formerly occupied by the 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`h 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/I-94. Much of the roadway north of I -694/I-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/I- 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 I-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. 2-7 The recommendations of the Brooklyn Boulevard Redevelopment Study and the Brooklyn Boulevard 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 69th 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 53rd 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 69th 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/69th 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. 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 69th 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 69th 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. 57TH 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 57th Avenue North three lots north of 57th, 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/I-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. 57th AVENUE/LYNDALE AVENUE REDEVELOPMENT Lack of connectedness of Brookdale to adjacent neighborhoods, specifically the southeast neighborhood, 2-9 was identified in community meetings as an issue. Good access to Brookdale across Highway 100 from the southeast neighborhood is available on 57th Avenue North. Access, however, is not synonymous with connectedness. A strip of land three lots wide by about .8-1111ile long is located between the high voltage transmission line and 57th 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 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 57th Avenue corridor along the river. ® Promote sustainable housing that respects the natural environment. 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). 2-10 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 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 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. 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 "GG2 UlVakGr �reetSCCpeAmenities ucDiklyed -,61Stiy). 2-11 ® Replace inappropriate single-family housing with attractive non-residential development in a way that protects remaining housing. ® Assist with spot replacement of housing that becomes deteriorated beyond the point of economic rehabilitation. Ensure that replacement housing fits with its neighbors. ® Reduce the over -concentration of apartment buildings in certain neighborhoods by assisting in redeveloping it to housing that has a lower density, a higher rate of owner - occupancy and a more pedestrian -friendly relationship to the street. 4. 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. ® Delp 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. ® 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). 2-12 ® 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 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 69th 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 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 I -694/I-94, and along Brooklyn Boulevard. Most industrial development is located in the modern industrial park north across I -694/I-94 from City Center at the north end of Shingle Creek Parkway and in 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 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. As an example, a single-family home in need of 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. 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. 2-14 Table — �Existing I Table 2-1 — Existing Land Use (in acres) rCa Category Category e2ory A Acres Acres Total Acreage Within the Current Urban Service Area' Area' 5,375 5,375 Existing land uses within the urban service area Single-family residential (detached and mobile homes) 1,895 Two and three-family residential 22 Townhouse residential 110 M I a Multifamily f Multifamily residential residential ly e t 237 0 c e se Office/service Office/service ' ry ce 109 t1 e a Retail Retail Business u in s es s Business 330 Enueidni In Industrial st Industrial u al. 197 Public and semipublic semipublic 147 Schools 104 Parks, recreation and open space 592 Railway or Utility Utility 57 Roadways 1,263 Lakes and rivers 235 Existing use subtotal 5,298 Vacant land that is restricted from development Environmental protection: wetlands, floodplain 15 Development restrictions subtotal 15 Vacant developable land Single-family residential 20 Multifamily residential I Office Service 2 Retail Business 37 Industrial 2 Vacant developable subtotal Total Land Area of Community =1 593751 2-15 Q,� 4) LL a 0 co :Z 2 :1 (n W X: 2 C) Q: CL 0 m CL ze 00 O fD �co E Q,� 4) LL a 0 co :Z 2 :1 (n W X: 2 C) Q: CL 0 m CL ze 00 O fD E do 0 .2 'CO U) U) 'o 0 . . 0 u V c 3 m 1 0 LL C 1B 4) LL a 0 co ze 00 O fD 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 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. 2-17 Other Uses Lakes and Rivers — Permanent open water, rivers and streams, not including wetlands orperiodically flooded areas. Mixed Use (in the form XX -XX, for example OS/RB) — Two or more of the listed uses combined. Wetlands — Wetlands included in the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Vacant — Unused land. ME., Responses to your two questions related to liquor licenses: 1. ®o know of or believe we have lost business or impeded the location of a business(s) to BC due to liquor license regulations? It has been related to me that our licensing thresholds have caused smaller restaurants, like Wing Stop and Chipotles from expanding their business for more dine -in customers because they do not have craft beers or drinks (such as margaritas'). I also understand that a restaurant that offers craft beers may have a problem with a 50% ratio to food served; however, I do not have any specifics on a restaurant that has indicated that they decided not to come to Brooklyn Center because they couldn't qualify under the current liquor ordinance. I attached a memo prepared at the request of the Planning Commission which discussed the current ordinance. We did have a couple of the Commissioners believe that the fee structure $14,000 of the initial years was higher than our neighboring communities and according to one of the Commissioners, he understand from a restaurant/bar owner that was the reason we cannot sustain the current businesses or attract new restaurants/bar lounges. As indicated in my memo, I believe our focus should have been on the thresholds: the dining area for not less than 150 guests is a large restaurant. - I am not too sure about the 1,800 sf.; however, I found this web site that illustrated a 1500 sf. dining could accommodate 90 guests. - As implied above, the cost of today's craft beers or the variety of today's wines that are offered in a trendy sandwich shop, brew pubs, deli's, or smaller start up — intimate/unique restaurants could make it difficult to meet the food to liquor ratio for a social dine -in evening. 2. If we have impeded the location of a business to BC due to liquor license regulations what regulation do you believe was the impeding factor (i.e., qualification for liquor license or fee for liquor license, etc. ? I think we should review and reduce the size requirements to allow smaller restaurants that opportunity to start and hopefully grow in Brooklyn Center. I would also suggest that the ratio of food to liquor sales be reviewed and reduced to possible a 1 to3 (food to liquor ratio) I would suggest that we assess the hours of operation (I would project that most sales after 10:00 pm are liquor) should a restaurant with lounge that operates until 11:00 pm pay the same license fee as a Lounge that is open until 1:00 or 2:00 am? I would suggest we consider lowering our fee structure that is reflects what our neighboring communities have Crystal, New Hope, Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Park and Fridley. I believe these comments and reflect last year's conversations with the Planning Commission and my opinion on the matter. I wish I could say, with some confidence, that if these changes occurred we would have more restaurants considering moving to Brooklyn Center; but there is one major economic hurdle that is more difficult to overcome. The capital investment it takes to open a new restaurant and the risk to reward factor. (We need some business successes to kick start new business opportunities — serve as an economic catalyst to obtain mortgages) DINING VS PARKING, SPACE -- parking required by city governments across the URlted States »Ar,< :•Y A F I ... .. , >• parts lag h'n•�' � ilk i , .: • PARKINCa REQUIRED r fOR A 7NOO tT' va.EAT RCSTAU/LtNTY' I i 9 6 mrdt.rn repuirvmant" pvai.qu.n Ire dn.n f .era -'r BASIS FOR CALCULATION Vr MINIMUM PARK I N4 AY U1h11,.1N RESTAU RAN TSS V o=ar,* I. •uaz . rrc.r rnwA- .. n ak+ect an -.' . T. lkrtw' Sute.. iau •-.,a >:.w hAd e r — —t- d pnkiq [pace r4ys.M?7 bets ad. -Wt ►AK+•t a r+r.A+v d" hrfaatf<a the aP.4g I--.oFW i,—es aw.14 dw r44eVrt4 r a arty tl•N --IN br<vs .rr r a..m— .M yerer — VY6— print m.eGtn re.urrur a- rt d—k dvt pukm tpon dui —aria Y td rank 4n "I ao.th 4114 Loat d th`.IMei�("m -Ue-t Th44f [otn. a" -lh 04 V94 N 1114 nal WA;l C+n P36.1«e.,psa ar. yaaud akrq m .4 c.et— .rise{ rrpr64u d .fiaiFnr spry a --A n aryarri re#.da+. ca .cededer dd rant d—it i0 T4ad pYtM . n+.9 ince Slier ftl&dki at L - t� Y.irid�te tt•4 m .4 01 44Y.c. wl P%� p>•Sa( at.t.rN'Wp rnar.tawdvr ah,artary 0e.id4 d.1 ca4i d 4—A yu -I. ae t" —6 Adm 7y. p -6M rtvartra ae&;�a te�P'o- then.. by lrlAwh rA:r.ryj seat M cerrt,rrt,. — b meta. The r pft r Ll+er, er. rur—,mace kr -upr sxaa n d•.s laat.al Sunt lAtde aonx s� .aradt :rrt rtra-v-a m teraan L4Ai't o- blas ptarav kr ""W-9 ao a wt tT Lu 4414. Iht tart-vd rtgn.inwt :s*ar4 r.s+Ce'enr 0r rrd.ct—t - a-&— Ice rano iaaea wl— then m rhax , rrAS mr—rd :hr 6Th4.t Lti d,ard hU I:—' a LKalr- pa-kn{ ­W— p.4.1 m a1i v -s orc-o9rrs.•t ar p. 4.1 O+. LI.. Rle t bat perhtp4 4QH Y` AM +r.i .rp to ltrtla w4 -v eh4+en'a. Fr9i+'T! 'A -w 0ur, Mr[+( 0-1 �i�'A✓a9et [91YL7 prri.:t Ieµ cw� S+Yha4 rw am rrl d-- b WW 0-! aceareparrh. [.v. of 4r.: a..,�.r ua:r t�-..<e•.�.r"��: .Se�lYr;ay.+�ir.'andmc"egl"sft{Ytnde ;ta+ir:•I cry to ia.rt r. I'e�..DYhYar4aY w4/d➢+A.io.•.YaW1A [ ut M':n[.n bV4'crl Uw'n:r T.3rri M.^::p7 F='kava. M Y'�Cr,Yiry rw.lC �6tP+vdYaic: 4ti5.>Fab"t _„yi - r lith:.': f' fro �v 4 v aa..rs: irry twH ,<..� r r u' r.w• .t,•u,rt-r2.-e9 tr. A.r, � !� Ir ar 3-.-a r I / r� e l I I I 4 � I I I I a s i 20 PARKINIG�&S INCLUIVING AISLES 6500 FT' pvai.qu.n Ire dn.n f .era -'r BASIS FOR CALCULATION Vr MINIMUM PARK I N4 AY U1h11,.1N RESTAU RAN TSS V o=ar,* I. •uaz . rrc.r rnwA- .. n ak+ect an -.' . T. lkrtw' Sute.. iau •-.,a >:.w hAd e r — —t- d pnkiq [pace r4ys.M?7 bets ad. -Wt ►AK+•t a r+r.A+v d" hrfaatf<a the aP.4g I--.oFW i,—es aw.14 dw r44eVrt4 r a arty tl•N --IN br<vs .rr r a..m— .M yerer — VY6— print m.eGtn re.urrur a- rt d—k dvt pukm tpon dui —aria Y td rank 4n "I ao.th 4114 Loat d th`.IMei�("m -Ue-t Th44f [otn. a" -lh 04 V94 N 1114 nal WA;l C+n P36.1«e.,psa ar. yaaud akrq m .4 c.et— .rise{ rrpr64u d .fiaiFnr spry a --A n aryarri re#.da+. ca .cededer dd rant d—it i0 T4ad pYtM . n+.9 ince Slier ftl&dki at L - t� Y.irid�te tt•4 m .4 01 44Y.c. wl P%� p>•Sa( at.t.rN'Wp rnar.tawdvr ah,artary 0e.id4 d.1 ca4i d 4—A yu -I. ae t" —6 Adm 7y. p -6M rtvartra ae&;�a te�P'o- then.. by lrlAwh rA:r.ryj seat M cerrt,rrt,. — b meta. The r pft r Ll+er, er. rur—,mace kr -upr sxaa n d•.s laat.al Sunt lAtde aonx s� .aradt :rrt rtra-v-a m teraan L4Ai't o- blas ptarav kr ""W-9 ao a wt tT Lu 4414. Iht tart-vd rtgn.inwt :s*ar4 r.s+Ce'enr 0r rrd.ct—t - a-&— Ice rano iaaea wl— then m rhax , rrAS mr—rd :hr 6Th4.t Lti d,ard hU I:—' a LKalr- pa-kn{ ­W— p.4.1 m a1i v -s orc-o9rrs.•t ar p. 4.1 O+. LI.. Rle t bat perhtp4 4QH Y` AM +r.i .rp to ltrtla w4 -v eh4+en'a. Fr9i+'T! 'A -w 0ur, Mr[+( 0-1 �i�'A✓a9et [91YL7 prri.:t Ieµ cw� S+Yha4 rw am rrl d-- b WW 0-! aceareparrh. [.v. of 4r.: a..,�.r ua:r t�-..<e•.�.r"��: .Se�lYr;ay.+�ir.'andmc"egl"sft{Ytnde ;ta+ir:•I cry to ia.rt r. I'e�..DYhYar4aY w4/d➢+A.io.•.YaW1A [ ut M':n[.n bV4'crl Uw'n:r T.3rri M.^::p7 F='kava. M Y'�Cr,Yiry rw.lC �6tP+vdYaic: 4ti5.>Fab"t _„yi - r lith:.': f' fro �v 4 v aa..rs: irry twH ,<..� r r u' r.w• .t,•u,rt-r2.-e9 tr. A.r, � !� Ir ar 3-.-a r TO: Chair Christenson and City Planning Commissioners FROM: Crary Eitel, Director of Business and Development Tim Benetti, Planning & Zoning Specialist/Planning Commission Secretary TATE: May 26, 2016 Review of the City's Liquor License Ordinance and Discussion on Potential Development Issues that may be influencing decisions in locating new restaurants within Brooklyn Center. Attached for the Commission's review is a copy of the City's Liquor Ordinance and our Liquor License Fee Schedule. As a follow up to the Commission's discussion on possible factors which may affect a business from opening a restaurant in Brooklyn Center, I would suggest that we begin our discussion with an understanding of the minimum size requirements of a restaurant that chooses to apply for a liquor license: • Section 11-107 Types of Liquor Licenses and Permit 0 4. On -sale Intoxicating Liquor License , a restaurant must have a dining room that is open to the general public with a total minimum floor area of 1,800 sf. and seat not less than 150 guests at one time. 0 8/ On Sale Wine, a restaurant that has a dining area that is open to the general public and has seating for not less than 75 guests at one time. The seating capacity of a dining room is also a factor in a number of other building standards that have cost implications such as the regional sewer access charges (SAC), sizing of rest rooms, and ingress/egress openings. The ratio of food sales to liquor sales is also a standard that affects decisions whether a sports bar or a restaurant featuring craft beers would/could meet these ratios Class A (80% food sales) Class B (50%-79% food sales) Class C (40% - 49% for hotels or restaurants that derive revenue from other sources than sales of liquor or food. The license fees for these license types are: Class A Class B Class C Class D (80% food sales) (50%-79% food sales) $8,000 annual $11.000 annual (40% - 49% for hotels or restaurants that derive revenue from other sources than sales of liquor or food. $14.000 annual All new applications start with a probationary license until there is 12 months of documentation on the food and liquor sales to determine the appropriate license for following years. $14,000 annual It is my understanding that the current liquor ordinance and fee structure has been in place for 20+ years.