HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019 11-25 CCPCouncil Study Session
City Hall Council Chambers
November 25, 2019 AGE NDA
The City C ounc il requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy
of the full C ity Council pac ket is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the
entrance of the council chambers.
1.City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions - 6 p.m.
2.M iscellaneous
a.I nclusion and Diversity
- It is recommended that the City Council participate in an 1:1 interview as
part of the City's Inclusion and Diversity efforts? It is also recommended
that the City Council provide direction regarding the most effective
approach and schedule for completing the interviews?
3.Discussion of Work S ession Agenda Item as T ime P ermits
4.Adjourn
C ouncil Study Session
DAT E:11/25/2019
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager
S U B J E C T:I nclus ion and D iversity
B ackground:
Currently, the City of Br ookly n C enter is in the process of taking the steps neces s ary to further the C ity's
efforts in crea3ng a culture of I nclus ion and D iversity. This ini3a3ve w ill addres s both the w orkplace,
including our employ ees , as w ell as our local community and how the C ity prov ides s er vices to the w ide
range of diverse needs by our res idents and various other external stakeholders.
A s par t of this process, the C ity C ouncil members are as ked to par 3cipate. Recently the C ity engaged Mr.
Bill Wells , management cons ultant, to guide and direct the City through this pr oces s . We are now at a point
w here Bill will be conduc3ng 1:1 interviews with various groups, including s taff, C ouncil members and
Commission leaders , regarding this w ork. T he inter view s will take approximately 2 0 -3 0 minutes and focus
on your under s tanding of how this w ork w ill be an integr al part of our or ganiz a3 on's overall
bus iness/opera3onal strategy.
The interv iews w ill prov ide par3 cipants w ith an opportunity to s har e their per s pec3 ves on this w ork as w ell
as as k ques 3ons . A r rangements for thes e interviews are curr ently underway, and we ar e hopeful of having
these completed by mid-D ecember.
B udget I ssues:
I s there a consens us of the C ity C ouncil to par3cipate in the I nclusion and D ivers ity interviews? I f
s o, what approach and s chedule w ould most effec3vely for comple3ng the interview s ?
S trategic Priories and Values:
Customer I n3macy , O pera3onal Excellence
C IT Y C O UNC IL
M E E T I NG
City Hall Council C hambers
November 25, 2019
AGE NDA
1.Informal Open F orum with City Council - 6:45 p.m.
Provides an opportunity for the public to address the Counc il on items which are not on the
agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to
make personal attac ks, to air personality grievanc es, to make politic al endorsements, or for
political c ampaign purposes. C ounc il Members will not enter into a dialogue with presenter.
Questions from the Council will be for clarific ation only. Open Forum will not be used as a time
for problem solving or reacting to the c omments made but, rather, for hearing the presenter for
informational purposes only.
2.Invocation - 7 p.m.
3.C all to Order Regular Business M eeting
The C ity Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A
copy of the full C ity Counc il packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located
at the entrance of the c ouncil chambers.
4.Roll Call
5.P ledge of Allegiance
6.Approval of Agenda and C onsent Agenda
The following items are c onsidered to be routine by the C ity Council and will be enac ted by one
motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a C ounc ilmember so
requests, in whic h event the item will be removed from the c onsent agenda and c onsidered at
the end of C ounc il Consideration I tems.
a.A pproval of Minutes
- Motion to approve the foll owi ng minutes:
November 12, 2019 Study Session
November 12, 2019 Regular Session
b.A pproval of L icenses
- Motion to approve the li censes as presented
c.Resolution Approving Hennepin County Healthy Tree C anopy Grant
A greement, A greement No. P R00001505
- Motion to approve a resolution approving Hennepin County Heal thy Tree
Canopy Agreement, Agreement No. PR00001505.
d.Resolution Approving Hennepin County Waste Delivery Agreement,
A greement No. A 199898
- Moti on to approve a resolution approvi ng Hennepin County Waste
Deli very Agreement, Agreement No. A199898.
e.Resolution Accepting Work P erf ormed and Authorizing F inal Payment,
I mprovement P roject Nos. 2018-14, 2018 Bridge Rehabilitation
- Motion to approve the resolution accepti ng work performed and
authorizing final payment, Improvement Project Nos. 2018-14, 2018 Bridge
Rehabilitation.
7.P resentations/P roclamations/Recognitions/D onations
a.McCarthy T H 252 P resentation
- Consider a presentation by Tara and Brendan McCarthy regarding T H
252.
8.P ublic Hearings
a.P roposed Utility Rates for 2020
- Motion to:
Open the public hearing
Take public input
Close the public heari ng
Moti on to approve the uti li ty resolutions individuall y
9.P lanning C ommission Items
a.Resolution Regarding R ecommended D isposition of P lanning Commission
A pplication No. 2019-016 for Preliminary and Final P lat and D edication of
Certain Right-of -Way (L ocated in Vicinity of 55th Avenue North and B rooklyn
B oulevard)
- Motion to adopt a resoluti on approving Planning Commission Application
No. 2019-016 for preli mi nary and final pl at approval of the Brooklyn Center
EDA First Addition and dedication of certain Right-of-Way (Located in the
vici ni ty of 55th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boul evard) based on the
fi ndings of fact and submi tted plans, as amended by the conditions of
approval in the resolution.
b.Resolution Regarding D isposition of Planning Commission Application No.
2019-017 f or P reliminary and F inal P lat (located at 5801 Xerxes Avenue
North and C ommonly K nown as the F ormer J erry's F oods S ite)
- Motion to adopt a resoluti on approving Planning Commission Application
No. 2019-017 for preliminary and final plat approval of Northway Crossing
(L ocated at 5801 X erxes Avenue North and F ormerly K nown as the J erry’s
F oods Site) based on the fi ndings of fact and submitted plans, as amended
by the conditions of approval in the resolution.
10.C ouncil Consideration Items
a.A n Ordinance Amending Chapter 23 and 35 of the C ity C ode of Ordinances
Regarding E ntertainment L icensing and Uses - 1st R eading
- Consider an Ordinance Amending Chapters 23 and 35 of the City Code of
Ordi nances Regarding Entertainment Licensing and Uses first reading and
set the public hearing and second reading
11.C ouncil Report
12.Adjournment
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:1 1 /25/2 0 1 9
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edw ards , D eputy C ity M anager
BY:Barb S uciu, City Clerk
S U B J E C T:A pprov al of M inutes
B ackground:
S trate gic Priories and Values:
O pera/onal E xcellence
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip/on Upload D ate Ty pe
11-12-19 S tudy S es s ion 11/20/2019 Backup M aterial
11-12-19 Regular S es s ion 11/21/2019 Backup M aterial
11/12/19 -1- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
NOVEMBER 12, 2019
CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at
6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager
Reggie Edwards, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe, City
Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS
City Manager Curt Boganey stated City Staff requests that the entirety of the Work Session be
delayed until after the Regular Session meeting. He added all meeting participants would be
available at that time.
Councilmember Ryan requested the following corrections/additions to the October 28, 2019,
Work Session Meeting minutes:
-Page 3 – 1st paragraph, 2 nd sentence, replace “Councilmember Ryan” with “Mayor
Elliott.”
-page 3, 1 st paragraph, after the last sentence, add “Councilmember Ryan stated City
could and should enforce its Ordinances related to cases of bad conduct, and without
discrimination.”
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Boganey stated Director of Community Activities, Recreation, and Services Jim Glasoe will
provide additional information regarding the Economic Development Authority (EDA) Meeting
Consent Agenda Item 3b related to Flik International.
Director of Community Activities, Recreation, and Services Jim Glasoe stated the City of
Brooklyn Center first entered an agreement with Flik International to provide food service and
catering to Earle Brown Heritage Center in 1999. He added the agreement had been extended
three times – 2005, 2010 and 2015. He noted City Staff decided to make a Request for Proposals
(RFP) in 2019, as it had been several years since an RFP was submitted.
11/12/19 -2- DRAFT
Mr. Glasoe stated Rippe Associates was enlisted to do the RFP, which was sent to 6 companies,
including Flik International, and four known leaders in the industry, and all of which have
subsidiaries that provide food services. A local firm, Taher Inc., was included in the RFP
submission, and information was also posted on the League of Minnesota Cities website.
Mr. Glasoe stated, based upon the recommendation of Rippe Associates as well as an internal
evaluation, the determination was made to continue with Flik International. An agreement was
crafted with the assistance of City Attorney Troy Gilchrist.
Mr. Glasoe reviewed highlights of the proposed contract with Flik International: a three-year
agreement with an additional 3-year renewal based upon performance, contract amount
beginning at $100,000, and elimination of a current incentive bonus. He added Flik would make
a payment of $250,000 throughout the contract, and two Flik Sales Staff will be moved over to
City Staff.
Mayor Elliott stated whether there is any risk involved in having the City take on management
responsibility for former Flik employees, specifically in terms of foodservice liability.
Mr. Boganey stated the staff that will transfer from Flik are Sales Staff. He added they would
become City employees, and there will be no more or less liability than that which exists for any
other City employee. He added the sales employees would be interviewed and selected by City
Staff.
Mr. Glasoe confirmed this, adding the existing Flik employees will be able to apply for the open
positions and go through the application process.
Mr. Gilchrist stated an indemnification clause prevents the City from incurring liability; in the
same way, it would for any other employee. He added the sales jobs are not high-risk positions.
Mr. Boganey stated a significant change in the contract is a revision that allows the City to host
its City events without being required to have Flik provide food and services. He added different
vendors and foods could be brought in for these events.
Mayor Elliott stated that it is a welcome change.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked whether there has been any discussion on the
proposed pumpkin patch at EBHC. Mr. Glasoe stated City Staff are reviewing all the
suggestions that were discussed at the Joint Budget meeting in October 2019.
Mayor Elliott requested clarification regarding Item #9, Personnel, First Aid Procedures. He
asked whether that would relate to an emergency in the kitchens.
11/12/19 -3- DRAFT
City Attorney Troy Gilchrist stated this agreement was carried forward from previous versions of
the same agreement, and he believes that is a legacy provision. He added the provision pertains
to hot foodservice and related emergency procedures and would be focused on employees and
not customers.
Mayor Elliott asked whether Flik provides their accounting services, although they are operating
out of the EBHC facilities. Mr. Glasoe stated a management fee is paid to Flik to provide those
types of services, which are part of a larger business model.
Councilmember Ryan expressed appreciation to City Staff and the City Attorney for all their
hard work on this agreement. He added this would save money and improve operations by
allowing greater flexibility. He noted the City would have the option to provide their food at
future City events to be hosted at EBHC, which is a great improvement.
Mayor Elliott asked whether there is an incentive in the agreement for Flik to reduce their food
costs. Mr. Glasoe stated City Staff wants to ensure that Flik does not cut food costs, which could
have a negative impact on food quality. He added there are significant savings built into the new
contract.
Mayor Elliott asked about the variety of food that Flik can provide. Mr. Glasoe stated this issue
was included in the RFP, as additional capacity was required. He added Flik International
responded in the RFP that they would provide the option of specialty or cultural cuisine, bringing
in an outside firm if necessary.
Mr. Glasoe stated the current Executive Chef has significant capabilities about providing a
variety of different types of cuisines. He added if there is q request for a type of cuisine with
which he is not familiar, he can engage the services of the outside firm.
ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Elliott adjourned the Study Session at 6:45 p.m.
11/12/19 -1- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
NOVEMBER 12, 2019
CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Mike
Elliott at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan . Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager
Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Clerk Barb Suciu, City
Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for the purpose of the Informal Open Forum.
Diane Sannes, 7006 Willow Lane, expressed concerns about blight and darkness at Shingle
Creek Crossing. She added multiple streetlights do not have bulbs or are not working. She
noted she does not shop at Shingle Creek Crossing because it is too dark. She asked who she can
work with on City Staff to address this issue and ensure that the streetlights are corrected.
Ms. Sannes stated this is an important issue related to neighborhood engagement, which is a goal
of the City Council. She invited the City Council to join her and other residents every last
Saturday of the month, clearing trash and debris at the Metro Transit Center.
Mayor Elliott stated the City should take action on blight and lack of lighting at Shingle Creek
Crossing. He added it is a highly visible area of Brooklyn Center. He expressed the importance
of improving the look and the safety of Shingle Creek Crossing.
City Manager Curt Boganey agreed to look into these issues and report back to the City Council.
He added these issues fall under the Planned Unit Development requirements and approval.
Young Cheng Yang and Khe Mee Yang stated they came to the City Council last year and asked
the City to enact Tobacco 21 legislation. They thanked the City Council for supporting that
initiative and creating a healthier community.
11/12/19 -2- DRAFT
Ms. Young Cheng Yang stated they visited the State Capitol to speak with representatives, as
well as Hennepin County Commissioners, to ask for support for Tobacco 21. She added they are
requesting that Brooklyn Center stop the sale of tobacco at their two municipal liquor stores by
January 2020. She noted this would send a strong message that the revenue from tobacco sales is
less important than the long-term cost of tobacco use.
Ms. Khe Mee Yang stated studies show that smoking costs Minnesotans $593 annually per
person. She urged the City Council to consider banning the sale of tobacco products at the City’s
two liquor stores. She added it makes no sense to profit from a product that will cost more
money in the long run and is harmful to residents.
Mayor Elliott thanked the two women for their presentation. He added their dedication to this
issue is apparent in the time and effort they have spent talking to elected officials. He noted he
learned from their presentation, which clearly articulated the current and future impacts of
smoking on the community.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she was on the City Council in 2014 when the
tobacco ordinance was completely re-written to restrict youth tobacco use, which was the
strictest tobacco ordinance in the State of Minnesota. She added she supports the two women
and their efforts. She noted the City Council could consider how to pursue the next step.
Mayor Elliott agreed, adding he supports moving away from selling tobacco in the liquor stores.
Mr. Boganey stated City Staff could put together a report outlining advantages and disadvantages
related to tobacco sales at the liquor stores. He added the City Council could decide whether to
had additional discussion at a Work Session.
Mayor Elliott requested that the Yangs be kept aware of the City’s progress on this issue. He
thanked them again for the great work they are doing.
Leng Xiong, 5025 65th Avenue, stated he would like to discuss small businesses in Brooklyn
Center. He played an audio clip from a conversation he had with a small business owner. He
added he goes to the Transit Station and has many audio files from talking to small business
owners. He noted the business owner said he is required to sell tobacco products in packs
instead of singles, which is an unfair regulation that hurts small businesses. He urged the City
Council to help the small business community.
Mayor Elliott asked City Staff to follow up on Mr. Xiong’s comments. He stated the City
Council often discusses the importance of small businesses and providing infrastructure for small
businesses to be successful. He thanked Mr. Xiong for his comments and his passion on this
issue.
11/12/19 -3- DRAFT
Mr. Boganey stated Mr. Xiong would be contacted by a member of City Staff to obtain
additional comments and ideas and to share what the City is doing to promote and stimulate
small business growth.
Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open
Forum at 7:05 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
2. INVOCATION
Councilmember Graves gave an Invocation in honor of Veterans Day, which was celebrated on
November 11, 2019. She stressed the importance of addressing the complexity of war and peace,
and to honor those that sign up to serve our country and potentially offer the ultimate sacrifice.
She offered two quotes for reflection:
"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no
matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the
Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation."
-President George Washington
“It’s about how we treat our veterans every single day of the year. It’s about
making sure they have the care they need and the benefits that they deserve. It’s
about serving all of you as well as you’ve served the United States of America.”
-President Barack Obama
3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott
at 7:07 p.m.
4. ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-
Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager
Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Clerk Barb Suciu, City
Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
11/12/19 -4- DRAFT
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve the
Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with amendments to the Work Session minutes of
October 28, 2019, and the following consent items were approved:
6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. September 16, 2019 – City Council/Financial Commission
2. October 28, 2019 – Study Session
3. October 28, 2019 – Regular Session
4. October 28, 2019 – Work Session
6b. LICENSES
MECHANICAL
Walter Mechanical, Inc. 517 W. Travelers Trail
Burnsville MN 55337
Midland Heating & Air Conditioning 4804 Park Glen
St Louis Park MN 55416
True North HVAC 20142 Twin Parkway NW
Nowthen MN 55330
Sunburst Heating & Air Conditioning 1556 Oakways
Wayzata MN 55357
SIGN HANGER LICENSE
A-Sign and Screen Printing 708 Lowry Avenue N
Minneapolis MN 55411
RENTAL
INITIAL (TYPE IV – one-year license)
5347-5349 Penn Avenue N Yassin Noor
RENEWAL (TYPE IV – one-year license)
2006 55th Avenue N Mathias Bingaman
(Missing Mitigation Plan)
5321 Colfax Avenue N Teodoro Llerena-Cooke
RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license)
5408 Girard Avenue N Michaele Gardiner
6749 Humboldt Avenue N Patrick Nguyen
RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license)
1510 69th Avenue N Marsha Ann Darnell (Met Plan)
RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license)
1312 72nd Avenue N Curtis Cady
11/12/19 -5- DRAFT
6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-151 ACCEPTING PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
FOR CONTINUAL MAINTENANCE FOR CAMDEN AVENUE NORTH
6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-152 ESTABLISHING INTEREST RATE FOR
2020 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-153 DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED
AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2020-01 AND 02,
GRANDVIEW NORTH AREA STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENTS
6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-154 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT/
RENEWAL TO A SITE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH VERIZON
WIRELESS (VAW) LLC
6g. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-155 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND
AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS.
2018-01, 02, 03 AND 04, FIREHOUSE PARK AREA STREET, STORM
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
6h. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-156 ESTABLISHING 2020 STREET AND
STORM DRAINAGE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT RATES
6i. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-157 DECLARING A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND
ORDERING THE REMOVAL OF DEAD TREES AT CERTAIN
PROPERTY AT 4000 AND 4001 72ND AVENUE N, BROOKLYN CENTER,
MINNESOTA
Motion passed unanimously.
7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS
7a. PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION PRIMARY
City Clerk Barb Suciu reviewed the 2020 election schedule, which includes Presidential
Nomination Primary (PNP), to be held on March 3, 2020. She added two City Council seats
would be open, for which the filing period is May 19-June 2, 2020. She noted the primary
election would be held August 11, 2020 and Presidential General Election on November 3, 2020,
with absentee voting from September 18 – November 2, 2020.
Ms. Suciu stated the last PNP election was held on April 7, 1992, with 2,301 voters participating
in Brooklyn Center. She added voters would be asked to vote for a presidential candidate that
they wish to nominate as their party’s candidate in the November 2020 State general election.
11/12/19 -6- DRAFT
She noted there would be a large impact on the City’s budget as many departments help with the
election.
Ms. Suciu stated an emergency weather plan would need to be in place in case there is snow.
She added City Staff are working with School District officials to ensure that polling location
parking lots and entrances are plowed out first.
Ms. Suciu stated voters would be required to declare a political party when they vote in the PNP,
which is private data. She added voters would be given a ballot based on the party they choose.
She noted this is a new process, and City Staff is working on increasing voter education and
awareness through social media, community engagement, the City website, and a CCX cable tv
clip.
Ms. Suciu stated early voting would be available by mail or in person at City Hall, and health
care facilities will have direct balloting seven days before Election Day. She added there are two
new precincts for 2020, and both will be voting in Constitution Hall in the Community Center.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked what the budget impact will be. Ms. Suciu stated an
election could cost between $40,000-60,000.
Mayor Elliott asked how voters in the two new precincts will be notified about their polling
place. Ms. Suciu stated a postcard would be sent out by Hennepin County, and signs will be
placed at the old polling place, redirecting voters to the Community Center.
Mayor Elliott stated additional signage at other building entrances would be helpful. He added
some voters have indicated they went to a polling location and thought it was closed, but they
went to the wrong door. He noted some residents might be new to the community or new voters.
Ms. Suciu agreed that additional sandwich board signage could be placed at building entrances,
that will direct voters to the correct location.
Councilmember Graves requested clarification regarding the PNP election process, and why it is
being used again.
Ms. Suciu stated the 2016 caucuses were not manageable in terms of voter turnout, so State
legislation was enacted to put the PNP election in place for 2020.
Councilmember Ryan requested that Ms. Suciu forward the PowerPoint presentation to the
Councilmembers, as there it contains valuable dates and information. Ms. Suciu agreed.
Councilmember Graves stated she is concerned about how voters will have to declare their party
and receive a ballot based on their declaration. She added she is not familiar with this process,
and the types of outcomes that could result from it.
11/12/19 -7- DRAFT
Ms. Suciu stated the Minnesota Caucus had been the process up until now, and the Caucus did
not register at the national level. She added the PNP would allow Minnesotans to have more of a
voice about picking a candidate for the national ballot in November 2020. She noted election
judges would receive special training, and the voter data will remain private.
Councilmember Graves asked whether information about who will be on the ballot will be
available before the PNP election so voters can educate themselves. Ms. Suciu stated the State’s
four political parties' deadline for declaring the candidates that will be on their ballot by
December 24, 2019. She added City Staff could do a weekly update once the sample ballots are
received. She noted all four parties might not participate.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated it is helpful to have the ballots on display at the
polling places so voters can view them before they go in to vote.
Mayor Elliott asked how voter intimidation at the polls is handled. Ms. Suciu stated election
judges are trained with regards to polling place regulations. She added there were no issues in
2018.
Mayor Elliott asked whether there is a dedicated phone line that voters can contact if they have
difficulty voting. Ms. Suciu stated City Staff could take complaints by phone at City Hall.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8a. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-158 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE AND
DELIVERY OF ITS CONDUIT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS
RELATING TO THE REE XERXES AVENUE WORKFORCE HOUSING
PROJECT; ADOPTING AN AMENDED HOUSING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO
MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C; APPROVING THE FORMS OF
AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THE BONDS
AND RELATED DOCUMENTS; PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY, RIGHTS
AND REMEDIES WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS; AND GRANTING
APPROVAL FOR CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO
Community Development Director Meg Beekman reviewed a resolution related Conduit Multi-
Family Housing Revenue Bonds for the workforce and senior housing development project at
5801 Xerxes Avenue North. The workforce housing project will move forward as planned, with
senior housing components to be reviewed for approval at a later date. The project is being
financed through the City’s conduit debt funds, which requires a public hearing. The request
includes a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the City of Rochester for up to $7.8 million of
recycled bonding authority. The conduit debt does not constitute a lien or encumbrance against
the City or any impact on the City’s credit rating.
Ms. Beekman stated City Staff recommends City Council approval of the resolution.
11/12/19 -8- DRAFT
Mayor Elliott asked about rental rates for the development. Ian Schwickert, Development
Associate representing Real Estate Equities (REE), reviewed rents: $1,047/month for 1-bedroom
apartments; $1,150 for 2-bedroom apartments; and $1,450 for 3-bedroom apartments. He stated
these rents apply for both the workforce and senior housing components of the development. He
added REE plans to close on the senior component in February or March 2020. He noted the
rent rates can be adjusted, but only decreased as rents are capped.
Mr. Schwickert stated REE would build the development to market rate standards. He added all
the units would be available at affordable rental rates, which is the reason for the requested
conduit financing.
Mayor Elliott asked why REE would pursue this type of development instead of focusing on
market-rate apartments. Mr. Schwickert stated this type of housing is a safer and better
investment for the City and the developer in the long run, as there is an ongoing and increasing
need for affordable housing everywhere. He added the workforce portion of the development on
December 17, 2019. He noted the construction 15-month timeline would begin in December
2019 with an anticipated end of construction in February or March of 2021.
Councilmember Ryan asked how the affordable rents compare with average rents across the
metro area. Mr. Schwickert stated the rents are considerably lower than market rate standards.
He added a market study conducted by REE shows 22-25% savings over area market-rate
apartments. He noted the transit center is a major component of the location of this
development.
Mr. Schwickert stated rents have increased by 5-7% annually in Hennepin County over the past
five years. He added that it is a big monthly financial burden for renters. He noted the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) takes its calculations from area median
incomes.
Mr. Schwickert stated leases would be set in 2021 when the development is projected to be
complete. He added numbers would be based upon 2018 rents. He noted this type of
development is a good investment, as projected rents and incomes will go up based on inflation.
Mr. Schwickert stated rents would be calculated at 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI), but
compliance factors are also taken into consideration. He added rental applications are reviewed
thoroughly through a lengthy process including credit and background checks. He noted this
would be a beautifully designed project, and work has begun on a public art component by Jack
Becker, the City’s public art consultant.
Mayor Elliott asked whether there are concerns regarding run-off. Ms. Beekman stated the
developer had received a stormwater grant from the Metropolitan Council that will include
infiltration.
11/12/19 -9- DRAFT
Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Leng Xiong,5025 65th Avenue, stated he canvassed residents at the transit station, with a median
age of 32.7 years, asking people if they knew about this development. He added he talked to 30
people, and no one knew about it. He asked whether the City is using social media for outreach.
He noted it is important to reach out to millennials and communicate openly with them.
Mr. Xiong asked whether residents would have to pay triple rent if they do not qualify for
affordable housing. Mr. Schwickert stated residents must meet the 60% AMI requirement, or
they will not be able to rent an apartment at this development.
Mr. Xiong stated Brooklyn Center should focus on homes and not apartments. He added many
people who work in Brooklyn Center do not live here. He noted people need to be educated to
start spending money in Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Ryan moved, and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to close the
Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Ryan moved, and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 2019-158 Authorizing the Issuance, Sale and Delivery of its Conduit Multi-
Family Housing Revenue Bonds Relating to the REE Xerxes Avenue Workforce Housing
Project; Adopting an Amended Housing Program Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462c;
Approving the Forms of and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of the Bonds and Related
Documents; Providing for the Security, Rights and Remedies with Respect to the Bonds; and
Granting Approval for Certain Other Actions with Respect Thereto.
Motion passed unanimously.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
-None.
10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
10A. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-13 AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE OF
ORDINANCES REGARDING LIQUOR AND LIQUOR LICENSING - 1ST
READING
City Clerk Barb Suciu reviewed the first reading of an Ordinance amending Chapter 11 of the
City Code related to 2:00 a.m. optional liquor license, and to set the second reading and public
hearing for December 9, 2019.
11/12/19 -10- DRAFT
Ms. Suciu Stated the City Council reviewed an amendment to reinstate 2:00 a.m. liquor license
on August 26, 2019. She added the City Council requested additional information including the
optional license process in neighboring cities, input from the Police Chief, and how to address
any issues that would arise from this amendment. She noted it was the majority consensus of the
City Council to move forward with the proposed amendment.
Ms. Suciu stated the City Council took action on October 14, 2019, to amend language related to
removal of display of liquor. She added tonight’s proposed ordinance amendments had been
reviewed by current license holders, and the comments were positive. She noted City Staff
recommends City Council approval of the 1st reading regarding liquor and liquor licensing and
setting the public hearing for December 19, 2019.
Councilmember Ryan stated he was skeptical about the 2:00 a.m. optional liquor license, but he
is ready to support it on the recommendation of the Police Chief, and with the assurance that it is
not expected to have a negative impact on public safety.
Councilmember Ryan moved, and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve
First Reading of ORDINANCE NO. 2019-13 Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code of
Ordinances Regarding Liquor and Liquor Licensing.
Motion passed unanimously.
11. COUNCIL REPORT
The City Council agreed to forego Council Reports in the interest of time.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved, and Councilmember Graves seconded adjournment
of the City Council meeting at 8:14 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:1 1 /25/2 0 1 9
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edw ards , D eputy C ity M anager
BY:A lix Bentrud, D eputy C ity C lerk
S U B J E C T:A pprov al of L icenses
B ackground:
T he following bus ines s es /pers ons have applied for C ity licens es as noted. Each bus ines s /person has
fulfilled the requir ements of the City O rdinance gov er ning respec5ve licens es , s ubmi6ed appropriate
applica5ons, and paid pr oper fees .
A pplicants for r ental dw elling licenses are in compliance with C hapter 12 of the C ity C ode of O rdinances ,
unless comments are noted below the property addr es s on the a6ached rental r epor t.
T he liquor licens e r enew als are based on pas t prac5ces of dis tance requir ements and may require an
amendment in the futur e.
F I R E W O R K S L I C E N S E S
A merican P romo5 onal Events
dba T N T F irew ork s
dbs C ub Foods Wes t #31314
3245 C o R d No 10
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 3 0
F I R E WO R K S - O U T DO O R D I S P L AY
P yrotecnico F irew ork s I nc
N ew C astle PA 1 6 1 0 3
Topgolf
6420 C amden Av e N
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 3 0
G A S O L I N E S E RV I C E S TAT I O N L I C E N S E S
Boulevard Enterpr is es I nc.
C hristy's A uto S erv ice
5300 D upont Ave N
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 3 0
Brooklyn C enter M unicipal G arage 6844 S hingle C r eek P kwy
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 3 0
H oliday S ta5on S tor es L L C 420 66 th Av e N
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 3 0
Kabalan Co.
dba P ump N' M unch
1505 6 9 th Av e N
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 3 0
N orthern Tier Retail L L C
dba S peedw ay #4 0 5 8
1901 5 7 th Av e N
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 3 0
N orthern Tier Retail L L C
dba S peedw ay #3 1 9 2
6950 Br ookly n Blv d
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 2 9
N orthern Tier Retail L L C
dba S peedw ay #4 1 6 0
6545 Wes t Riv er Road
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 3 0
Y D H oldings L L C
dba H oliday S ta5 ons tore #3803
5710 Xer xes Ave N
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 0 3
L I Q U O R - O F F -S A L E 3.2 P E R C E N T M A LT L I Q U O R
D iamond L ake 1 9 9 4 L L C
dba Cub Foods
3245 C ounty Rd N o 1 0
Brooklyn C enter 5 5 4 2 9
Kabalan Co.
dba P ump N' M unch
1505 69th Av e N
Brooklyn C enter 5 5 4 3 0
N orthern Tier Retail L L C
dba S peedw ay #4 0 5 8
1901 57th Av e N
Brooklyn C enter 5 5 4 3 0
N orthern Tier Retail L L C
dba S peedw ay #3 1 9 2
6950 Brookly n Blv d
Brooklyn C enter 5 5 4 2 9
N orthern Tier Retail L L C
dba S peedw ay #3 1 9 2
6545 Wes t Riv er Road
Brooklyn C enter 5 5 4 3 0
L I Q U O R - O N -SA L E 3.2 P E R C E N T M A LT L I QU O R
Bryant W ings L L C
dba W ingstop
1180 S hingle C reek Cr os s ing
Brooklyn C enter 55430
C ity of Brookly n C enter
C entennial Par k
6301 S hingle C reek P k w y
Brooklyn C enter 55430
C ity of Brookly n C enter
Evergreen Par k
7112 Bryant Ave N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
L I Q U O R - O N -SA L E I N TOX I C AT I N G & O N -SA L E S U N DAY
A pple Minnes ota L L C
dba A pplebee's Neighbor hood G rill
& Bar
1400 S hingle C reek P kw y
Brooklyn C enter 55430
Brooklyn H otel Par tner s L L C
dba Embas s y S uites
6300 Ear le B rown D r
Brooklyn C enter 55430
C ity of Brookly n C enter
C enterbrook G olf C ours e
5500 L ilac D r
Brooklyn C enter 55430
F lik I nterna5 onal C opora5on
dba Earle Brow n H er itage C enter
6155 Ear le B rown D r
Brooklyn C enter 55430
J ambo A frica L L C
dba Jambo A frica Res taurant & Bar
1601 F r eew ay Blv d
Brooklyn C enter 55430
J ammin' W ings I nc.
dba Jammin' W ings
2590 F r eew ay Blv d
Brooklyn C enter 55430
Top G olf U S A Br ookly n Center L L C
dba Topgolf
5420 C amden Ave
Brooklyn C enter 55430
L I Q U O R - O N -S A L E W I N E & O N -S A L E 3.2 M A LT L I Q U O R
Brooklyn C enter Res taurant I nc.
dba 50's G rill
5524 Br ookly n Blv d.
Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 2 9
D av anni's I nc.5937 S ummit D r
dba D avanni's P iz z a & H ot H oagies Brookly n C enter 5 5 4 3 0
M EC H A N I C A L C O N T R A C TO R S
D eZ iel H ea5ng & A /C 1612 3r d Av e N E
Buffalo 5 5 3 1 3
True North H VA C L L C 20142 Tw in P k w y N W
Nowthen 55330
J J J C L L C 7964 B rook lyn Blvd #1 62
Brook lyn Park 5 5 4 4 5
S upreme H ea5 ng & A ir C ondi5oning 13624 C rooked L ake Blvd N W
A ndov er 5 5 3 0 4
S I G N H A N G E R L I C E N S E S
S igns by RS G 37464 J asper S t N W
D albo 5501 7
TO B A C C O
Bleu O cean I nc
dba Cloud 9 S mokes hop
615 66th Ave N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
Brooklyn C enter M unicipal #1 5625 Xerxes Av e N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
Brooklyn C enter M unicipal #2 6930 Brook lyn B lvd
Brooklyn C enter 55429
Burr S t Market I nc
dba Q uick S hop
5808 Xerxes Av e N
Brooklyn C enter 55429
D iamond L ake 1 9 9 4 L L C
dba Cub Foods
3245 Co Rd N o 1 0
Brooklyn C enter 55430
Family D ollar #2 5 1 1 0 2105 57th Ave N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
H oliday S ta5ons tor es L L C 420 66th Ave N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
H oliday S ta5ons tor es L L C 6890 S hingle C reek P kw y
Brooklyn C enter M N 55430
J ammin W ings L L C 2590 F reew ay Blv d
Brooklyn C enter M N 55430
Kabalan Co.
dba P ump N' M unch
1505 69th Ave N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
L eng Ku
dba S un Foods
6350 Brook lyn B lvd
Brooklyn C enter 55429
N orthern Tier E ner gy /Retail
dbs S peedway #3192
6950 Brook lyn B lvd
Brooklyn C enter 55429
N orthern Tier E ner gy /Retail
dba S peedw ay #4 0 5 8
1901 57th Ave N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
N orthern Tier E ner gy /Retail
dbs S peedway #4160
6545 Wes t R iver R d
Brooklyn C enter 55430
6930 Brook lyn B lvd
P remier Tobacco Brooklyn C enter 55429
Royal Tobacco 5625 Xerxes Av e N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
Tw o Rivers I nves tment 6840 H umboldt Ave N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
Walgreens C ompany 6390 Brook lyn B lvd
Brooklyn C enter 55429
Walmart I nc
dba Walmart #5625
1200 S hingle C reek Cros s ing
Brooklyn C enter 55430
Y D H oldings L L C
dba H oliday S ta5 ons tore #3808
5710 Xerxes Av e N
Brooklyn C enter 55430
S trate gic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, O pera5onal E xcellence
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip5on Upload D ate Ty pe
Rental C riter ia 11/13/2019 Backup M aterial
11-12-19 Rentals 11/20/2019 Backup M aterial
Page 2 of 2
b.Police Service Calls.
Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per
year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include
disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events
categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including
homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson.
Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the
victim and suspect are “Family or household members” as defined in the Domestic
Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a
report of “Domestic Abuse” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes,
Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a).
License
Category
Number of
Units
Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct
Service & Part I Crimes
(Calls Per Unit/Year)
No
Category
Impact
1-2 0-1
3-4 units 0-0.25
5 or more units 0-0.35
Decrease 1
Category
1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3
3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1
5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50
Decrease 2
Categories
1-2 Greater than 3
3-4 units Greater than 1
5 or more units Greater than 0.50
Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria
License Category
(Based on Property
Code Only)
Number of Units Property Code Violations per
Inspected Unit
Type I – 3 Year 1-2 units 0-2
3+ units 0-0.75
Type II – 2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 2 but not more than 5
3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5
Type III – 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 5 but not more than 9
3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3
Type IV – 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 9
3+ units Greater than 3
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ad
d
r
e
s
s
Dw
e
l
l
i
n
g
Ty
p
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
or
In
i
t
i
a
l
Ow
n
e
r
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Co
d
e
Vi
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Li
c
e
n
s
e
Ty
p
e
Po
l
i
c
e
C
F
S
*Final License Type **Previous License Type ***
58
4
3
Fr
e
m
o
n
t
Av
e
N
Mu
l
t
i
1 Bl
d
g
7 Un
i
t
s
In
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
e
p
h
a
n
i
e
& Ma
r
k
St
e
i
n
e
r
1
0
IV
N/A IV
54
4
7
4t
h
St
Si
n
g
l
e
In
i
t
i
a
l
I
n
f
i
n
i
t
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
LL
C
Xi
a
n
Li
n
0
I
N/A I
56
1
4
Br
y
a
n
t
Av
e
N
Si
n
g
l
e
In
i
t
i
a
l
L
i
n
Sh
u
a
n
g
LL
C
/ Xi
a
n
Li
n
1
I
N/A I
71
3
6
Ha
l
i
f
a
x
Av
e
N
Si
n
g
l
e
In
i
t
i
a
l
C
y
n
t
h
i
a
& Da
v
i
d
Le
h
n
e
r
‐Sm
i
t
h
2
I
N/A I
55
0
6
Ju
d
y
La
N
Si
n
g
l
e
In
i
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
s
p
e
r
o
u
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
1
I
N/A I
29
1
8
Mu
m
f
o
r
d
Av
e
N
Si
n
g
l
e
In
i
t
i
a
l
X
u
e
Ya
n
g
3
II
II
13
0
4
68
t
h
Ln
N
Si
n
g
l
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
Cr
y
s
t
a
l
An
n
Do
p
p
2I
I
I
I
60
0
1
Ad
m
i
r
a
l
Pl
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
I
H
3
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
8
I
I
I
1 valid
12
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
Au
t
o
theftIII II
61
2
5
Du
p
o
n
t
Av
e
N
Si
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Pr
o
s
p
e
r
o
u
s
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
1I
I
I
52
2
8
Ew
i
n
g
Av
e
N
Si
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
IH
3
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
LP
15
I
V
I
V
I
I
15
1
3
Hu
m
b
o
l
d
t
Pl
Si
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Sh
o
e
M
i
l
l
e
r
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
LL
C
4I
I
I
I
I
I
55
2
4
Kn
o
x
Av
e
N
Si
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Mi
c
h
a
e
l
Ud
e
4I
I
I
I
I
I
71
3
1
Ky
l
e
Av
e
N
Si
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Ph
i
l
i
p
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
‐
Mi
s
s
i
n
g
CP
T
E
D
,
8 hr
Cr
i
m
e
Fr
e
e
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Cl
a
s
s
3I
I
I
V
I
V
42
0
1
La
k
e
s
i
d
e
Av
e
#2
1
4
Si
n
g
l
e
Re
n
e
w
a
l
Ch
e
s
t
e
r
Dr
y
k
e
0I
I
I
I
59
1
3
Wa
s
h
b
u
r
n
Av
e
N
S
i
n
g
l
e
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Ro
b
e
r
t
Li
n
d
a
h
l
5I
I
I
I
I
I
* CF
S
= Ca
l
l
s
Fo
r
Se
r
v
i
c
e
fo
r
Re
n
e
w
a
l
Li
c
e
n
s
e
s
On
l
y
(I
n
i
t
i
a
l
Li
c
e
n
s
e
s
ar
e
no
t
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
to
ca
l
l
s
fo
r
se
r
v
i
c
e
an
d
wi
l
l
be
li
s
t
e
d
N/
A
.
)
**
Li
c
e
n
s
e
Ty
p
e
Be
i
n
g
Is
s
u
e
d
Al
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
ar
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
on
Ci
t
y
ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
an
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
ta
x
e
s
Re
n
t
a
l
Li
c
e
n
s
e
s
fo
r
Co
u
n
c
i
l
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
on
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
25
,
20
1
9
**
*
In
i
t
i
a
l
li
c
e
n
s
e
s
wi
l
l
no
t
sh
o
w
a pr
e
v
i
o
u
s
li
c
e
n
s
e
ty
p
e
Ty
p
e
1 = 3 Ye
a
r
Ty
p
e
II
= 2 Ye
a
r
Ty
p
e
II
I
= 1 Ye
a
r
Ty
p
e
IV
= 6 mo
n
t
h
s
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:1 1 /25/2 0 1 9
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D or an C ote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works
S U B J E C T:Res olu.on A pprov ing H ennepin C ounty H ealthy Tree C anopy G rant A greement,
A gr eement No. P R00001505
B ackground:
I n July, 2 0 1 9 , H ennepin C ounty s olicited grant applica.ons for their H ealthy Tree C anopy program. S taff
ini.ally submi6ed a gr ant applica.on for funding to as s is t w ith refores ta.on needed as a res ult of the
arriv al of the E merald A s h Borer. We w ere advis ed by H ennepin County staff that we were not eligible for a
refores ta.on grant s ince we did not have an electronic (G I S ) as h tree inventory that could be uploaded into
a county-wide inv entor y. T hey fur ther advis ed that the city could apply for a gr ant to dev elop an electronic
inventory and s ubs equently apply for the refores ta.on grant.
O n N ovember 8 , 2 0 1 9 , s taff w as adv is ed that the city was aw arded a $5 ,000 grant to as s is t with the
dev elopment of an ash tree inventory in city parks and public right of way. The grant w ill be used to hire a
cons ultant to inventory ash trees . The grant does r equir e a 2 5% local match.
B udget I ssues:
T he total es .mated inventory pr oject cos t is $6 ,250. T he inventory pr oject w ill be funding with the $5 ,000
H ealthy Tree C anopy G r ant and $1,250 from the Fores try opera.ng budget (4 5 2 0 4 ).
S trate gic Priories and Values:
Enhanced Community I mage
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip.on Upload D ate Ty pe
Res olu.on 11/18/2019 Cov er Memo
H ealthy Tree C anopy G rant Contract 11/18/2019 Cov er Memo
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION APPROVING HENNEPIN COUNTY HEALTHY TREE
CANOPY GRANT AGREEMENT, AGREEMENT NO. PR00001505
WHEREAS, Hennepin County’s Healthy Tree Canopy Grant program offers
financial assistance to cities in Hennepin County to improve urban forestry; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County’s grant program requires a 25% local match.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, approves a Hennepin County Healthy Tree Canopy Agreement,
Agreement No. PR00001505.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are to execute
the agreement on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center.
November 25, 2019
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 1
Contract No: PR00001505
HEALTHY TREE CANOPY GRANT AGREEMENT
This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, A-2300
Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 (the “COUNTY”), on behalf of the
Hennepin County Environment and Energy Department, 701 South Fourth Avenue, Suite 700,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 (“DEPARTMENT”), and City of Brooklyn Center, 6844 Shingle
Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430(“GRANTEE”).
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board has established a Healthy Tree Canopy Grant
Program to provide awards, which may be in the form of reimbursements (“Tree Grant Funds”)
to selected eligible community tree projects; and
WHEREAS, the GRANTEE has made an application for an award of Healthy Tree
Canopy Grant Program and has been selected for funding of said described project in accordance
with the terms of this Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM AND COST OF THE AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall commence upon October 22, 2019 and January 1, 2021, unless
terminated earlier in accordance with the Default and Cancellation provisions of this
Agreement.
The total value of Tree Grant Funds awarded under this Agreement, including all
reimbursable expenses, shall not exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5000.00).
2. GRANT REQUIREMENTS
a. The GRANTEE shall operate its tree canopy enhancement project (“Project”),
including the proposed Project budget, as described in the application submitted by
the GRANTEE and kept on file with the COUNTY. See attachment A for details
regarding the project scope.
b. The GRANTEE shall provide 25 percentage matching funds as described in the
project budget and project requirements, as well as provide proof of matching funds
before reimbursement.
c. In addition to the obligation to operate the project as described, the GRANTEE shall:
1. Submit to the DEPARTMENT in a format acceptable to the COUNTY a final
report by June 1, 2021. The report should include at a minimum:
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 2
Project summary with photos of work completed;
Results achieved;
Obstacles/challenges encountered;
Maintenance strategy; and
Actual budget expenditures.
The COUNTY shall have full ownership and control of all reports, which
includes the right of the COUNTY to use any data and information contained
in such project report in any manner the COUNTY determines, including but
not limited to case studies or public presentations.
2. Establish a separate accounting mechanism, such as a Project number, activity
number, cost center, or fund that will separate Tree Grant Fund expenditures
from all other GRANTEE activities.
3. To ensure compliance with the purpose of this grant, comply with COUNTY’s
request for an audit of Tree Grant Fund Project activities, revenues, or
expenditures.
3. AWARD OF GRANT
The COUNTY shall pay all Tree Grant Funds once work is completed to the GRANTEE
valued not-to-exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5000.00). Receipts may be submitted
throughout the project timeline on a monthly basis for reimbursement. Incidental
expenses such as shipping costs shall be deducted from the final Tree Grant Fund
payment. Subject to verification of adequacy of submitted receipts, the COUNTY will
disburse the requested amount to the GRANTEE within six (6) weeks after the
submission of the receipts. The final request for disbursement must be submitted within
three (3) months of the expiration date of this Agreement.
The COUNTY, in its sole discretion, through the DEPARTMENT Director, may adjust
the allocation of Tree Grant Funds if actual costs differ in amount from budgeted costs
listed in the application. Any such adjustment shall be in writing, shall be signed by the
DEPARTMENT Director and the GRANTEE and shall be attached hereto as a
supplement. No other terms, conditions or provisions of this Agreement may be changed
except in accordance with regular COUNTY contracting procedures as set forth in
Section 14 of this Agreement.
4. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
GRANTEE shall select the means, method, and manner of performing the services.
Nothing is intended or should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of
a partnership or a joint venture between the parties or as constituting GRANTEE as the
agent, representative, or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose. GRANTEE is and
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 3
shall remain an independent contractor for all services performed under this Agreement.
GRANTEE shall secure at its own expense all personnel required in performing services
under this Agreement. Any personnel of GRANTEE or other persons while engaged in
the performance of any work or services required by GRANTEE will have no contractual
relationship with the COUNTY and will not be considered employees of the COUNTY.
The COUNTY shall not be responsible for any claims related to or on behalf of any of
GRANTEE’s personnel, including without limitation, claims that arise out of
employment or alleged employment under the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law
(Minnesota Statutes Chapter 268) or the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act
(Minnesota Statutes Chapter 176) or claims of discrimination arising out of state, local or
federal law, against GRANTEE, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees. Such
personnel or other persons shall neither require nor be entitled to any compensation,
rights, or benefits of any kind from the COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure
rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, workers’ compensation,
unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits.
5. NON-DISCRIMINATION
In accordance with the COUNTY’s policies against discrimination, GRANTEE
shall not exclude any person from full employment rights nor prohibit participation in or
the benefits of, any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed,
religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or
national origin. No person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws against
discrimination shall be subjected to discrimination.
6. INDEMNIFICATION
GRANTEE shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the COUNTY, its officials,
officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action,
judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees,
resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of GRANTEE, a subcontractor,
anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or
omissions they may be liable in the performance of the services required by this
Agreement, and against all loss by reason of the failure of GRANTEE to perform any
obligation under this Agreement. For clarification and not limitation, this obligation to
defend, indemnify and hold harmless includes but is not limited to any liability, claims or
actions resulting directly or indirectly from alleged infringement of any copyright or any
property right of another, the employment or alleged employment of GRANTEE
personnel, the unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data, or other noncompliance
with the requirements of the provisions set forth herein.
7. INSURANCE
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 4
GRANTEE shall purchase insurance or utilize a self-insurance program sufficient to
cover the maximum level of Minnesota tort liability limits under Minnesota Statute,
Chapter 466.
8. DUTY TO NOTIFY
GRANTEE shall promptly notify the COUNTY of any claim, action, cause of action or
litigation brought against GRANTEE, its employees, officers, agents or subcontractors,
which arises out of the provisions contained in this Agreement.
9. DATA
GRANTEE, its officers, agents, owners, partners, employees, volunteers and
subcontractors shall, to the extent applicable, abide by the provisions of the Minnesota
Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13 (MGDPA) and all other
applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data or the
privacy or, confidentiality or security of data, which may include the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations (HIPAA).
For clarification and not limitation, COUNTY hereby notifies GRANTEE that the
requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 13.05, subd. 11, apply to this Agreement.
GRANTEE shall promptly notify COUNTY if GRANTEE becomes aware of any
potential claims, or facts giving rise to such claims, under the MGDPA or other data or
privacy laws, data security, privacy or confidentiality laws, and shall also comply with
the other requirements of this Section. If GRANTEE has access to or possession/control
of Data (as defined in the DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION
provisions below), GRANTEE shall safeguard and protect the Data in accordance with
generally accepted industry standards, all laws, and all applicable COUNTY policies,
rules and direction. To the extent of any inconsistency between accepted industry
standards and COUNTY policies, rules and directions, GRANTEE shall notify COUNTY
of the inconsistency and follow COUNTY direction. GRANTEE shall immediately notify
COUNTY of any actual or suspected security breach or unauthorized access to Data, then
comply with all responsive directions provided by COUNTY. The foregoing shall not be
construed as eliminating, limiting or otherwise modifying GRANTEE’s indemnification
obligations herein.
Classification of data, including trade secret data, will be determined pursuant to
applicable law and, accordingly, merely labeling data as “trade secret” by GRANTEE
does not necessarily make the data protected as such under any applicable law.
10. RECORDS – AVAILABILITY/ACCESS
Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section 16C.05, Subd. 5, COUNTY,
the State Auditor, or any of their authorized representatives, at any time during normal
business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 5
and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers,
records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of
GRANTEE and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. GRANTEE shall
maintain these materials and allow access during the period of this Agreement and for six
(6) years after its termination or cancellation.
11. SUCCESSORS, SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS
A. GRANTEE binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives
to the COUNTY for all covenants, agreements and obligations contained in the
contract documents.
B. GRANTEE shall not assign, transfer or pledge this Agreement and/or the services
to be performed, whether in whole or in part, nor assign any monies due or to
become due to it without the prior written consent of the COUNTY. A consent to
assign shall be subject to such conditions and provisions as the COUNTY may
deem necessary, accomplished by execution of a form prepared by the COUNTY
and signed by GRANTEE, the assignee and the COUNTY. Permission to assign,
however, shall under no circumstances relieve GRANTEE of its liabilities and
obligations under the Agreement.
C. GRANTEE shall not subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be
performed, whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of
COUNTY. Permission to subcontract, however, shall under no circumstances
relieve GRANTEE of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement. Further,
GRANTEE shall be fully responsible for the acts, omissions, and failure of its
subcontractors in the performance of the specified contractual services, and of
person(s) directly or indirectly employed by subcontractors. Contracts between
GRANTEE and each subcontractor shall require that the subcontractor’s services
be performed in accordance with this Agreement. GRANTEE shall make
contracts between GRANTEE and subcontractors available upon request. For
clarification and not limitation of the provisions herein, none of the following
constitutes assent by COUNTY to a contract between GRANTEE and a
subcontractor, or a waiver or release by COUNTY of GRANTEE’s full
compliance with the requirements of this Section: (1) COUNTY’s request or lack
of request for contracts between GRANTEE and subcontractors; (2) COUNTY’s
review, extent of review or lack of review of any such contracts; or (3)
COUNTY’s statements or actions or omissions regarding such contracts.
D. GRANTEE shall notify the COUNTY in writing if another person/entity acquires,
directly or indirectly, more than 50 percent of the voting power of the shares
entitled to vote for directors of GRANTEE. Notice shall be given within ten (10)
days of such acquisition and shall specify the name and business address of the
acquiring person/entity. The COUNTY reserves the right to require the acquiring
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 6
person/entity to promptly become a signatory to this Agreement by amendment or
other document so as to help assure the full performance of this Agreement.
12. MERGER AND MODIFICATION
A. The entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and supersedes all
oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject
matter. All items that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and
made a part of this Agreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this
Agreement and referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall
prevail.
GRANTEE and/or COUNTY are each bound by its own electronic signature(s)
on this Agreement, and each agrees and accepts the electronic signature of the
other party.
B. Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this
Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties. Except as expressly
provided, the substantive legal terms contained in this Agreement including but
not limited to Indemnification, Insurance, Merger and Modification, Default and
Cancellation/Termination or Minnesota Law Governs may not be altered, varied,
modified or waived by any change order, implementation plan, scope of work,
development specification or other development process or document.
13. DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION
A. If GRANTEE fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement or so fails
to administer the work as to endanger the performance of the Agreement, it shall
be in default. Unless GRANTEE’s default is excused by the COUNTY, the
COUNTY may upon written notice immediately cancel this Agreement in its
entirety. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall be
just cause for the COUNTY to delay payment until GRANTEE’s compliance. In
the event of a decision to withhold payment, the COUNTY shall furnish prior
written notice to GRANTEE.
B. Upon cancellation or termination of this Agreement, the GRANTEE shall itemize
any and all Tree Grant Fund expenditures up to the date of cancellation or
termination and return any Tree Grant Funds not yet expended.
C. For purposes of this subsection, “Data” means any data or information, and any
copies thereof, created by GRANTEE or acquired by GRANTEE from or through
COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to handwriting,
typewriting, printing, photocopying, photographing, facsimile transmitting, and
every other means of recording any form of communication or representation,
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 7
including electronic media, email, letters, works, pictures, drawings, sounds,
videos, or symbols, or combinations thereof.
Upon expiration, cancellation or termination of this Agreement:
1. At the discretion of COUNTY and as specified in writing by the
Contract Administrator, GRANTEE shall deliver to the Contract
Administrator all Data so specified by COUNTY.
2. COUNTY shall have full ownership and control of all such Data.
If COUNTY permits GRANTEE to retain copies of the Data,
GRANTEE shall not, without the prior written consent of
COUNTY or unless required by law, use any of the Data for any
purpose or in any manner whatsoever; shall not assign, license,
loan, sell, copyright, patent and/or transfer any or all of such Data;
and shall not do anything which in the opinion of COUNTY would
affect COUNTY’s ownership and/or control of such Data.
3. Except to the extent required by law or as agreed to by COUNTY,
GRANTEE shall not retain any Data that are confidential,
protected, privileged, not public, nonpublic, or private, as those
classifications are determined pursuant to applicable law. In
addition, GRANTEE shall, upon COUNTY’s request, certify
destruction of any Data so specified by COUNTY.
D Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, GRANTEE
shall remain liable to COUNTY for damages sustained by COUNTY by virtue of
any breach of this Agreement by GRANTEE. Upon notice to GRANTEE of the
claimed breach and the amount of the claimed damage, COUNTY may withhold
any payments to GRANTEE for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact
amount of damages due COUNTY from GRANTEE is determined. Following
notice from COUNTY of the claimed breach and damage, GRANTEE and
COUNTY shall attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith.
E. The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to
the COUNTY under this Agreement, law, statute, rule, and/or equity.
F. The COUNTY’s failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to
exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or
waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not
constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the
Agreement.
G. This Agreement may be canceled with or without cause by either party upon
thirty (30) day written notice.
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 8
14. SURVIVAL OF PROVISIONS
Provisions that by their nature are intended to survive the term, cancellation or
termination of this Agreement include but are not limited to:
GRANT REQUIREMENTS; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; INDEMNIFICATION;
INSURANCE; DUTY TO NOTIFY; DATA; RECORDS-AVAILABILITY/ACCESS;
DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION; MEDIA OUTREACH; and MINNESOTA LAW
GOVERNS.
15. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
In order to coordinate the services of GRANTEE with the activities of the Hennepin
County Environment and Energy so as to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement,
Jennifer Kullgren, Environmentalist, who can be contacted at (612) 596-1175 at
Jen.Kullgren@Hennepin.us or successor (Contract Administrator), shall manage this
Agreement on behalf of the COUNTY and serve as liaison between the COUNTY and
GRANTEE.
Steve Lawrence, who can be contacted at (763) 585-7101 and SLawrence@Ci.Brooklyn-
Center.Mn.Us, shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the GRANTEE. GRANTEE
may replace such person but shall immediately give written notice to the COUNTY of the
name, phone number and email address of such substitute person and of any other
subsequent substitute person.
16. COMPLIANCE AND NON-DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION
A. GRANTEE shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes,
regulations, rules and ordinances currently in force or later enacted.
B. GRANTEE shall comply with all applicable conditions of the specific referenced
grant.
C. GRANTEE certifies that it is not prohibited nor has it hired any business which is
prohibited from doing business with either the federal government or the State of
Minnesota as a result of debarment or suspension proceedings.
17. RECYCLING
GRANTEE must have or establish a recycling program for at least three recyclable
materials, such as, but not limited to, paper, glass, plastic, and metal.
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 9
18. NOTICES
Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this Agreement or
any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail.
Notices to the COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the
originating Department at the address given in the opening paragraph of the Agreement.
Notice to GRANTEE shall be sent to the address stated in the opening paragraph of the
Agreement.
19. MEDIA OUTREACH
GRANTEE shall not use the term “Hennepin County”, or any derivative thereof in
GRANTEE’s advertising, external facing communication and/or marketing, including but
not limited to advertisements of any type or form, promotional ads/literature, client lists
and/or any other form of outreach, without the written approval of the Hennepin County
Environment and Energy Communications Unit, or their designees.
20. MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN
The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations
concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations
between the parties and their performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for
any litigation will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the
appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this
Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be
affected.
THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 10
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR APPROVAL
Reviewed for COUNTY by
the County Attorney's Office:
{{Sig_es_:signer3:signature}}
{{userstamp3_es_:signer3:stamp}}
Reviewed for COUNTY by:
{{Sig_es_:signer4:signature}}
{{userstamp4_es_:signer4:stamp}}
Document Assembled by:
{{Sig_es_:signer1:signature}}
{{userstamp1_es_:signer1:stamp}}
{{Exh_es_:signer1:attachment:label("Attachments")}}
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
{{Sig_es_:signer5:signature}}
{{userstamp5_es_:signer5:stamp}}
{{ ttl_es_:signer5:title}}
{{ Cmpy_es_:signer5:company}}
(Healthy Tree Canopy Grant 2019) 11
GRANTEE
GRANTEE warrants that the person who executed this Agreement is authorized to do so on
behalf of GRANTEE as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances.*
By:
{{Sig_es_:signer2:signature}}
{{userstamp2_es_:signer2:stamp}}
{{ ttl_es_:signer2:title}}
* GRANTEE represents and warrants that it has submitted to the COUNTY all applicable
documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances) that confirms the signatory's
delegation of authority. Documentation is not required for a sole proprietorship.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:1 1 /25/2 0 1 9
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D or an C ote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works
S U B J E C T:Res olu.on A pprov ing H ennepin C ounty Waste D elivery A greement, A greement No.
A 1 9 9 8 9 8
B ackground:
I n the spring of 2 0 1 9 , the city took deliv ery of the new mini packer garbage tr uck. T he tr uck w as purchas ed
to collect trash in city parks . I n M arch, 2019, the city and the truck became licens ed haulers in H ennepin
County which provided the ability to .p municipal solid w aste at the H ennepin C ounty Recy cling and
Transfer S ta.on on Jefferson H ighway in Brooklyn Par k. A s of O ctober 17, 2019, the city has .pped 2 8 .33
tons of s olid w as te at the Trans fer Center.
O n O ctober 3 0 , 2019, s taff w as advised that the city w ould need to enter into a Was te D elivery A greement
w ith H ennepin C ounty in order to con.nue to .p our s olid w aste at H ennepin C ounty facili.es .
B udget I ssues:
T he new contract rate for .pping municipal s olid was te at H ennepin C ounty facili.es w ill increas e fr om $58
per ton to $6 3 per ton effec.ve January 1 , 2 0 2 0 . Refuse dis pos al is funded in the Park Facili.es oper a.ng
budget (45201).
S trate gic Priories and Values:
Enhanced Community I mage
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip.on Upload D ate Ty pe
Res olu.on 11/18/2019 Cov er Memo
Waste D eliver y A greement 11/18/2019 Cov er Memo
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION APPROVING HENNEPIN COUNTY WASTE DELIVERY
AGREEMENT, AGREEMENT NO. A199898
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center is a licensed municipal solid waste hauler in
Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County is requiring the City to enter into a Waste
Delivery Agreement in order to continue tipping at Hennepin County facilities.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, approves a Hennepin County Waste Delivery Agreement,
Agreement No. A199898.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager are to execute
the agreement on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center.
November 25, 2019
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:1 1 /25/2 0 1 9
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D or an M . C ote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works
S U B J E C T:Res olu.on A ccep.ng Wor k Perfor med and A uthoriz ing F inal Payment, I mprov ement
P r oject Nos. 2 018-14, 201 8 Br idge Rehabilita.on
B ackground:
O n M ar ch 25, 2019, the City C ouncil aw ar ded I mprov ement P roject No. 2018-14 to L S B lack Constructor s ,
I nc., of S t. Paul, M innes ota for cons tr uc.on of the 2 0 1 8 B ridge Rehabilita.on. L S Black C ons tructors , I nc.
has succes s fully completed the cons truc.on w or k and is reques.ng final payment for the project.
B udget I ssues:
T he original contract amount w ith L S Black C ons tructors , I nc. for the project improv ements w as
$164,411.19. The total value of w or k cer .fied for final payment is $180,6 0 3 .19. The total project cos t
including con.ngencies /adminis tra.on/engineering /legal is $229,73 9 .47 and w as completed 2 .0 per cent
under budget in the amount of $4,671.72. The aBached resolu.on provides a s ummary of the final
amended cos ts and funding sources for the proj ect.
S trate gic Priories and Values:
Key Transporta.on I nves tments
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip.on Upload D ate Ty pe
Res olu.on 11/20/2019 Resolu.on L eBer
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING
FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2018-14, 2018 BRIDGE
REHABILITATION
WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, LS Black Constructors, Inc. of St. Paul Minnesota has completed the following
improvements in accordance with said contract:
Improvement Project No. 2018-14, 2018 Bridge Rehabilitation
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that
1. Final payment shall be made on Improvement Project No. 2018-14, 2018
Bridge Rehabilitation, taking the contractor’s receipt in full. The total amount to be
paid for said improvements under said contract shall be $180,603.19.
2. The estimated project costs and revenues are hereby amended as follows:
COSTS As Original Award As Final
Contract $ 164,411.19 $ 180,603.19
Engineering and Administrative $ 50,000.00 $ 49,136.28
Contingency $ 20,000.00 $ 0.00
Subtotal Construction Cost $ 234,411.19 $ 229,739.47
November 25, 2019
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:1 1 /25/2 0 1 9
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D or an M Cote, P ublic Work s D ir ector
S U B J E C T:M cC ar thy T H 252 P resenta-on
B ackground:
Tara and Brendan M c Carthy hav e reques ted the oppor tunity to present to the C ity Council regarding T H
2 52.
B udget I ssues:
T here are no budgetary is s ues as s ociated w ith this item.
S trate gic Priories and Values:
Key Transporta-on I nves tments
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:1 1 /25/2 0 1 9
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:A ndrew S plinter, I nterim F inance D ir ector
S U B J E C T:P r opos ed U .lity Rates for 2020
B ackground:
At the O ctober 21, 2019 joint w ork s es s ion of the C ity C ouncil and F inancial C ommis s ion, staff pres ented
the expected expenditures for opera.on of the C ity ’s u.lity services for 2 0 2 0 . The expenditur es include
total dir ect and indir ect cos ts including deprecia.on of capital as s ets and administra.v e cos ts . A long w ith
thos e cos ts are pr ojec.ons of the revenues needed for 2 0 2 0 and for the next fi:een y ears to keep
opera.ons r unning smoothly and fund the infrastructur e improvements needed in each of the u.lity
s ystems. The cas h flow analy s is for each of the five u.li.es indicate an.cipated rate changes necessary to
maintain sufficient cas h balances during the cons truc.on of the u.lity impr ovements associated with the
City ’s 15-year C apital I mprovement P lan (C I P ).
For 2 0 20, rate increases are propos ed Water, S anitar y S ew er and S tor m S ew er in order to maintain cas h
res erves , fund normal opera.ons , pay for debt serv ice and finance infras tructure impr ovements . R ates for
the v arious u.li.es for 2020 are s how n in compar is on to 2 0 19 below:
F und D escripon 2 0 1 9 R ate 2020 R ate C hange
Wat e r B as e C harge - Res iden.al
(quarterly )$1 5 .52 $1 6 .61 $1 .09 / quar ter
C ons ump.on C harge -
Res iden.al M eters
T ier I (0 - 30 gallons)
Tier I I (31 - 60 gallons )
Tier I I I (61 and gr eater )
$2.5 9
3 .22
4 .81
$2.77
3 .45
5 .15
$0.1 8 / 1,000 gallons
$0.2 3 / 1,000 gallons
$0.3 4 / 1,000 gallons
C ons ump.on Charge -
Non-r esiden.al (Per 1 ,000 gallons)$3.4 2 $3.66 $0.2 4 / 1,000 gallons
S anit ary S ewer Bas e C harge (quarterly )$8 4 .89 $8 9 .14 $4 .24 / quar ter
Consump.on C harge -
N on-res iden.al (Per 1,000 gallons )$3.5 8 $3.76 $0.1 8 / 1,000 gallons
S torm S ewer Bas e C harge (quarterly )$1 5 .07 $1 5 .52 $0 .45 /quar ter
S tre e t L ight Bas e C harge (quarterly )$6.5 5 $6.55 No change
Recycling Bas e C harge (quarterly )$1 1 .98 $1 1 .98 No change
T he quarterly u.lity bill for a household us ing 1 8 ,000 gallons of water (cons idered the ty pical residen.al
us er) is s how n in compar is on to 2019 rates as follows :
F und 2019 B ill 2020 B ill $ C hange/quart e r
Wat e r $62.14 $66.47 $4 .33
S anit ary S ewer 84.89 89.1 4 4.2 4
S torm S ewer 15.07 15.5 2 0.4 5
S tre e t L ight 6.55 6.55 -
Recycling 11.98 11.9 8 -
Total $180.63 $189.6 6 $9 .02
City Code s ec.ons 11.0 2 and 11.0 6 require a no.ce and hear ing pr ior to the City Council seHng new u.lity
rates. The P ublic H earing No.ce was publis hed in the Brooklyn C enter Pos t on Nov ember 9, 2019.
B udget I ssues:
T he propos ed rates would become effec.ve on J anuary 1 , 2020.
S trate gic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip.on Upload D ate Ty pe
Res olu.on adop.ng 2020 Recycling Rate 10/28/2019 Resolu.on L eJer
Res olu.on adop.ng 2020 S anitary S ew er R ate 10/28/2019 Resolu.on L eJer
Res olu.on adop.ng 2020 S torm S ew er Rate 10/28/2019 Resolu.on L eJer
Res olu.on adop.ng 2020 S treet L ight Rate 10/28/2019 Resolu.on L eJer
Res olu.on adop.ng 2020 Water U .lity Rate 10/28/2019 Resolu.on L eJer
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2020 RECYCLING RATES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is a member of the Hennepin Recycling
Group (HRG), which is a joint powers group organized pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section
471.59 (1987); and
WHEREAS, the purpose of the joint powers agreement is to create an
organization by which member cities may jointly and cooperatively provide for the efficient and
economical collection, recycling and disposal of solid waste within and without their respective
corporate boundaries in compliance with the Minnesota Waste Management Act, Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 115A (1987); and
WHEREAS, the HRG has established a curbside recycling program for its
member cities to meet the requirements of Hennepin County Ordinance No. 13, Solid Waste
Source Separation for Hennepin County; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center must establish rates to fund the City’s
curbside recycling program and the cost for projected reimbursement of recycling charges from
the HRG along with other program operating charges; and
WHEREAS, the recycling program includes a bi-annual curbside cleanup; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed data provided on delinquent utility
charges; and
WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center Ordinance No. 89-11 authorizes the City to
establish rates for recycling services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the recycling charges shall be as follows for all billings issued on or after
January 1, 2020:
2020 RECYCLING UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Recycling Rates and Charges
Minimum Charge per Household per quarter: $11.98 per quarter
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge
No Additional Charge
Certification for collection with property taxes
(Utility accounts with an outstanding balance
owed of $200.00 or greater)
$50.00
November 25, 2019
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member ___________________________________ introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2020 SEWER UTILITY RATES, FEES AND
CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities
be self-supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges;
and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the “Public Utility Rate
Schedule” and shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed data provided on delinquent utility
charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the following Sewer Utility rates, fees and charges are hereby adopted and
shall be effective for all billings issued on or after January 1, 2020.
2020 SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Sewer Rates, Fees and Charges
Base Rate Quarterly Residential
(Minimum quarterly charge)
Single Family Apartment Senior Citizen
Year 2020 $89.14 $62.39 $49.02
Non-Residential Rate
Year 2020 $3.76 per 1,000 Gallons
Fees
SAC Charge set by MCES Fee Established by MCES
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge
No Additional Charge
Certification for collection with property taxes
(Utility accounts with an outstanding balance
owed of $200.00 or greater)
$50.00
Line cleaning charge Labor, materials, equipment and overhead
Sanitary Sewer Connection Established annually by resolution
November 25, 2019
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member ________________________________ introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2020 STORM SEWER UTILITY RATES, FEES
AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities
be self-supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges;
and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the “Public Utility Rate
Schedule” and shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed data provided on delinquent utility
charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the following Storm Sewer Utility rates and charges are hereby continued
and shall be effective for all billings issued on or after January 1, 2020.
2020 STORM SEWER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Storm Sewer Rates and Charges
Quarterly Rates per Acre
20 20 Minimum Quarterly Charge
Base Rate $ 62.05
Cemeteries and Golf Courses $ 15.52
Parks $ 31.02
Single Family, Duplex, Townhouse $ 15. 52 /lot
School, Government Buildings $ 77.57
Multiple Family, Churches $ 1 86.13
Commercial, Industrial $ 3 10.24
Vacant Land As A ssigned
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge
No Additional Charge
Certification for collection with property taxes
(Utility accounts with an outstanding balance
owed of $200.00 or greater)
$50.00
Private facility cleaning charge Labor, materials, equipment and overhead
November 25, 2019
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member introduced the following
resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2020 STREET LIGHT RATES AND CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities
be self-supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges;
and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the “Public Utility Rate
Schedule” and shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed data provided on delinquent utility
charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the following Street Light Utility rates and charges are hereby adopted and
shall be effective for all billings issued on or after January 1, 2020.
2020 STREET LIGHT UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Street Light Rates and Charges
Quarterly Rates
Customer 20 20 Minimum Quarterly Charge
Per Dwelling Unit:
Single, Double and Multiple Family
Residential
$6.55
Per Acre:
Parks $10 .90
Schools, Government Buildings, Churches $21 .80
Retail and Service -Office $32.69
Commercial and Industrial $32.69
Vacant Land and Open Space As Assigned
Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge
No Additional Charge
Certification for collection with property taxes
(Utility accounts with an outstanding balance
owed of $ 200 .00 or greater)
$50.00
November 25, 2019
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Member _____________________________ introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ADOPTING 2020 WATER UTILITY RATES, FEES AND
CHARGES
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center Charter requires that municipal utilities
be self-supporting through revenue provided by a uniform schedule of rates, fees and charges;
and
WHEREAS, this uniform schedule shall be called the “Public Utility Rate
Schedule” and shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed data provided on delinquent utility
charges.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center that the following Water Utility rates, fees and charges are hereby adopted and
shall be effective for all billings issued on or after January 1, 2020.
2020 WATER UTILITY RATE SCHEDULE
Water Rates, Fees and Charges
Base Rate
Year 2020 $3.66 per 1,000 Gallons
Quarterly Minimum Rate
Meter Size 20 20 Quarterly Minimum Charge
1” $ 48.27
1 ½" $ 62.06
2” $ 120.67
3” $ 241.36
4” $ 406.86
6” $ 930.95
8” $ 1, 763.17
10” $ 2,350.90
Water Conservation Rate
Meter Size Base Charge (minimum charge per quarter)
5/8” and 3/4” $ 16.61
Thousands of Gallons Consum ption Charge (per 1,0 00 gallons used)
0 to 30 $ 2 .77
31 to 60 $ 3 .45
61 and greater $ 5.15
RESOLUTION NO. ______________
Fees
Water Meter Charge 5/8” or 3/4”
$149.00
Water Meter Charge Larger than 3/4”
Actual Cost + $2.00
Other Charges
Delinquent account, quarterly charge
No Additional Charge
Certification for collection with property taxes
(Utility accounts with an outstanding balance
owed of $200.00 or greater)
$50.00
Fire Service Line Charge $ 12.50 per quarter
November 25, 2019
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:1 1 /25/2 0 1 9
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :M eg B eekman, Community D ev elopment D irector
BY:G inny McI ntos h, C ity P lanner / Zoning A dminis trator
S U B J E C T:Res olu0 on Regarding Recommended D is pos i0on of P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica0on N o.
2 0 1 9 -0 1 6 for P reliminary and F inal P lat and D edica0 on of C er tain R ight-of-Way (L ocated
in V icinity of 55th Avenue Nor th and Brooklyn Boulevard)
B ackground:
T he C ity of Br ookly n C enter (“the A pplicant ”) is reques 0ng review and cons idera0on of preliminary and
final plat approv al for a re-plat of an as s emblage of lands (“the S ubject P roper0 es”) that comprise part of
A uditor ’s S ubdiv is ion N o. 2 1 6 , and a s liv er of land that is par t of Registered L and S urv ey N o. 0 0 4 0 ,
H ennepin C ounty, Minnes ota. Thes e pr oper 0es are commonly addr es s ed as : 5401, 5407, 5415, 5455, and
5 459 Brooklyn B oulev ar d. The tw o remaining proper0 es do not currently pos s es s addres s es.
A s a por 0on of the Brooklyn Boulevard F rontage Road w as recently re-aligned as part of the Brook lyn
Boulevard P hase I r econs tr uc0on and moderniza0on pr oject, new C ity Right-of-Way will als o need to be
dedicated as part of the plat approv al. T his re-alignment took place in or der to r educe confus ion,
conges 0on, and improv e v ehicle stacking for motoris ts eastbound on 55t h Avenue North. There are no
plans to vacate the right-of-way along the for mer alignment of the Brooklyn Boulevard F rontage Road, as
there is under gr ound City infras tructure in curr ently in place.
Reques ts for approval of the plat require that a public hearing be s cheduled in accordance w ith S ec0on 15-
1 04 (P reliminary P lan) of the P laFng O rdinance. A n A ffidav it of P ublica0 on confir med publica0on of the
public hearing no0 ce in the Brooklyn Center S un Post on O ctober 31, 20 1 9 . M ail no0 ces w ere also s ent to
neighboring pr oper ty owners.
O n N ovember 1 4 th, the P lanning C ommis s ion held a public hearing regarding the request for plat approv al
of the B R O O K LY N C E N T E R E D A F I RS T A D D I T I O N. O ne r es ident was in aJendance at the mee0ng but
clarified during the public hearing that he w as hoping to obtain more infor ma0on on the Brook lyn
Boulevard recons truc0 on and moderniz a0 on project and complimented the C ity on the new road alignment
near 55th Avenue Nor th and Brooklyn Boulev ar d, as he lives south of the inter s ec0 on area. C ommis s ioner
S chonning noted that, des pite w ork ing in the area, he oKen avoided this par0cular intersec0on due to the
is s ues with vehicle s tacking on 55th Av enue North, but was pleas antly surprised with the changes to the
road alignment.
Following clos e of the public hearing, the P lanning C ommis s ion elected to unanimously (5 -0 ) recommend
City C ouncil appr oval of the requested preliminary and final plats for the B R O O K LY N C E N T E R E DA F I RS T
A D D I T I O N and dedica0on of certain right-of-way (R O W ) for the S ubject P r oper 0es located in the vicinity
of 55th Avenue Nor th and Brooklyn Boulev ard, s ubject to the A pplicant complying with the condi0ons as
outlined in the P lanning Commission Repor t dated Nov ember 14, 2019, and as s ociated resolu0 on.
A copy of the P lanning Commis s ion Report for P lanning C ommission A pplica0on No. 2 0 1 9 -0 1 6 , dated
Nov ember 14, 2 0 1 9 , and the C ity C ouncil res olu0 on is included with this memor andum.
B udget I ssues:
None to cons ider at this 0me.
S trate gic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, Key Trans porta0on I nves tments
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip0on Upload D ate Ty pe
P C S taff Repor t and Exhibits - Brooklyn C enter E D A F irst
A ddi0 on 11/19/2019 Backup M aterial
Res olu0on-D is pos i0 on of P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica0on
N o. 2019-01 6 , S ubmiJed by the C ity of Br ookly n Center for
P reliminary and F inal P lat A pproval of the Br ookly n Center
E DA F irs t A ddi0 on and D edica0on of C ertain Right-of-Way
11/19/2019 Resolu0 on L eJer
________________
App. No. 2019-016
PC 11/14/2019
Page 1
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: November 14, 2019
Application No. 2019-016
Applicant: City of Brooklyn Center
Location: Vicinity of 55th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard
(Affected PIDs: 03-118-21-44-0011, 03-118-21-44-0010, 03-118-21-44-0009, 03-
118-21-44-0005, 03-118 21-44-0004, 03-118-21-44-0003, and 03-118-21-42-
0024)
Request: Preliminary/Final Plat of Brooklyn Center EDA First Addition
INTRODUCTION
The City of Brooklyn Center (“the Applicant”) is requesting review and consideration of preliminary and
final plat approval for a re-plat of an assemblage of lands (“the Subject Property”) that comprise part of
Auditor’s Subdivision No. 216, and a sliver of land that is part of Registered Land Survey No. 0040,
Hennepin County, Minnesota. These properties are commonly addressed as: 5401, 5407, 5415, 5455,
and 5459 Brooklyn Boulevard. The two remaining properties do not currently possess addresses.
This request is associated with the City’s Brooklyn Boulevard Phase I project, which resulted in the re-
alignment of the Brooklyn Boulevard frontage road in order to reduce confusion, congestion, and improve
vehicle stacking for motorists eastbound on 55th Avenue North. Previously, the alignment of the road only
allowed for the stacking of approximately two vehicles before blocking the Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage
Road from cross traffic. The new alignment, which was constructed this past year, is intended to allow for
additional stacking, which is important due to this area serving as the sole access point to Northport
Elementary as well as the main access to a number of residential, multi-residential, and office properties.
Map 1. Existing Parcels and Former Road Alignment with Overlay of New Road Alignment
• Application Filed: 10/15/2019
• Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 12/14/2019
• Extension Declared: N/A
• Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A
________________
App. No. 2019-016
PC 11/14/2019
Page 2
Public Works Director Doran Cote provided an overview of the Brooklyn Boulevard
Reconstruction/Modernization project in an email dated October 14, 2019 (Exhibit A). The land
contemplated as part of the request for a re-plat includes property previously acquired by the Economic
Development Authority of Brooklyn Center and City of Brooklyn Center for the anticipated alterations to
the Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road, as well as land owned by Robbinsdale School District No. 281.
The intent at this time would be to convey the north portion (0.49 acres) of the Brooklyn Center EDA
First Addition to the Robbinsdale School District. The south portion (1.13 acres) would be retained by
the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, with the intent to sell at a later date. The
identified 2040 future land use for this area is “Medium Density Residential (5.01-15 dwelling units per
acre).” The properties contemplated as part of the re-plat are currently zoned R1 (One Family
Residence), R2 (Two Family Residence), and C1 (Service/Office) District.
Requests for approval of the plat require that a public hearing be scheduled in accordance with Section
15-104 (Preliminary Plan) of the Platting Ordinance. An Affidavit of Publication confirmed publication of
the public hearing notice in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on October 31, 2019 (Exhibit B). Mail notices
were also sent to neighboring property owners.
REQUESTS
Preliminary/Final Plat Approval and Dedication of Certain Right-of-Way (ROW)
As part of the City Platting Ordinance requirements, preliminary and final plat approval is required to
formally re-plat the aforementioned properties located in the vicinity of 55th Avenue North and Brooklyn
Boulevard.
Per Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, in his memorandum dated October 31, 2019 (Exhibit C), the
Applicant will ultimately need to provide a working copy of the preliminary plat for the Brooklyn EDA
First Addition that identifies all vacated easements, proposed easements, and proposed utilities, as well
as submit documentation, including legal descriptions, for any easements. Any proposed easements
would need to be dedicated as part of the preliminary and final plat process.
As a portion of the Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road was re-aligned as part of the Brooklyn Boulevard
Phase I reconstruction and modernization project, new City Right-of-Way will need to be dedicated as
part of the plat approval. Regarding the former alignment of the Frontage Road, there are no plans to
vacate that portion of City Right-of-Way as there is underground City infrastructure in existence.
Image 1. New Alignment of 55th Avenue North (Left) and Former Alignment of 55th Avenue North (Right)
________________
App. No. 2019-016
PC 11/14/2019
Page 3
Image 2. New Alignment of Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road (North of 55th Avenue North)
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the
approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2019-016 for Brooklyn Center EDA Addition:
1. Approval of the preliminary and final plats are contingent upon the addressing of comments by
Assistant City Engineer Hogg in his memorandum dated October 31, 2019.
2. Final plat and mylar shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Code of
Ordinances (Platting).
3. Any comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County.
4. Any comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney’s office, and specifically regarding
an updated certified abstract of title.
5. The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above-noted findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends:
1. The Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the requested preliminary and final
plat for BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION, subject to the Applicant complying with the
comments outlined in the Assistant City Engineer’s memorandum October 31, 2019, Chapter 15
of the City Code of Ordinances (Platting), any comments provided by Hennepin County, and the
successful recording of said plat with Hennepin County.
Attachments
Exhibit A- Planning Commission Application No. 2019-016 submittal documents.
Exhibit B- Affidavit of Publication, published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on October 31, 2019.
Exhibit C-Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, dated October 31, 2019.
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
From:Doran Cote
To:Ginny McIntosh
Subject:EDA Addition Narrative
Date:Monday, October 14, 2019 4:36:50 PM
The Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction/modernization project will improve roadway safety, enhance
traffic operations, reduce access points to, and provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for
a 1.3-mile segment of the corridor in Brooklyn Center between 49th Avenue and 59th Avenue. More
specifically, the project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian travel by adding a trail, improving
sidewalks, adding streetscaping and landscaping, and improving the functionality of intersections
with modified turn lanes. Several free right turn lanes will be reconfigured to improve sight lines.
Brooklyn Boulevard is an “A” Minor Arterial roadway, which serves as a reliever route for TH 100 and
serves as an important freight route for the northbound TH 100 to westbound I-94/694 movements.
The proposed project also provides a direct connection to the former Brookdale Mall site and
surrounding parcels, which is an identified job concentration center, as well as a manufacturing and
distribution center. It is also within the one-mile threshold for an educational institution. Existing
safety and geometric issues include the 51st Avenue and 55th Avenue intersections and insufficient
turn lane configurations at multiple other intersections. The project is located within a Racially
Concentrated Area of Poverty and will provide improvements for a range of mode choices to enable
low-income populations and people of color to access jobs. The project will improve corridor access
to Brooklyn Center Transit Center, a few blocks away from Brooklyn Boulevard, which provides
connections to 15 bus routes. The Twin Lakes Regional Trail crosses Brooklyn Boulevard with a
substandard trail crossing where the trail becomes a narrow sidewalk with insufficient ramps; the
project will install a crosswalk and widen the sidewalk to a trail.
The project will capitalize on recent and anticipated future investments within and adjacent to the
project corridor, including:
• Bus Rapid Transit Transitway improvements (Chicago-Fremont and C Line Arterial BRT lines
would run on Brooklyn Boulevard and terminate at Brooklyn Center Transit Center) would benefit
from improved multimodal connections and streetscaping.
• Brooklyn Blvd/TH 100 bridge redecking (construction completed Fall 2014), which is located
within the project area.
• The City of Minneapolis completed resurfacing of Osseo Road (CSAH 152) from 44th Ave to
49th Ave (southern project limits), which added a bike lane.
• Major redevelopment efforts in and around the former Brookdale Mall site (now Shingle
Creek Crossing).
• The project will also improve bus stop amenities, relocate problematic (mid-block) bus
stops, add streetscaping, a landscaped median, and gateway signage.
Specifically at the 55th Avenue intersection, the project will utilize previously purchased
properties near the Northport Elementary School to relocate the frontage road further to the west
to reduce confusion, congestion and improve stacking distances for eastbound motorists.
Doran M. Cote, P.E. | Public Works Director | City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway | Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199
www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org | 763.569.3328 | dcote@ci.brooklyn-center.mn.us
BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION
8
5
5
8
5
5
855
855
855
8
5
5
8
5
5
860
8
6
0
8
6
0
8
6
0
8
6
0
8
6
0
8
6
0
860
8
6
0
860
860
8
6
0
8
6
0 860
860
860
8
6
0
MARKED LS 16679
1/2"X14" IRON MONUMENT
DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET
LOT 1
BLOCK 2
LOT 1
BLOCK 1
60030
SCALE IN FEET
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
301.86
2
5
7
.
5
9
37.43
39.21
N89°47'29"W
10.00
N00°09'52"E
1
5
1
.
2
1
S
8
9
°
4
7
'
2
9
"
E
N00°59'05"E
256.00
C
1
C
2
C3
C4
C5
S14°39'04"W
S19°12'35"WC1
S11°01'20"E
S32°17'16"E
S35°41'05"E
N77°19'16"E
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
CH. BEARINGCURVELENGTHRADIUSDELTACH. LENGTH
93.54
164.20
40.14
204.82
135.57
59.18
152.00
212.00
330.00
330.00
270.00
438.97
35°15'36"
44°22'38"
06°58'08"
35°33'44"
28°46'05"
07°43'27"
92.07
160.13
40.55
201.55
134.15
59.13
620.06
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
LOT 1
BLOCK 1
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
INSET "A"
NOT TO SCALE
SEE INSET "A"
1.11
33.82N07°32'16"W
C
6
RLS NO 619
AUDITORS
SUBDIVISION
NO. 216RLS NO.
40
RLS NO. 40
BEARING OF S89°47'29"E
RLS NO. 40 HAS AN ASSUMED
THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT F,
T
r
a
c
t
F 100.00
318.20
75.00 95.00 135.00
L
o
t
s
3
4
&
3
5
,
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
S
o
u
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
5
2
5
f
e
e
t
o
f
L
o
t
s
3
4
&
3
5
,
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
S
o
u
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
4
5
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
L
o
t
s
3
4
&
3
5
,
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
S
o
u
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
3
0
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
BROOKLYN
BOULEVARD
R
=
4
9
8
.
9
7
L
=
1
2
7
.
1
7
3
6
.
8
2
M e
a
.
3
5
.
6
8
D
e
s
c
.
2
5
6.
8
4
BALFANY'S NORTHPORT 1ST ADDN.
SE Corner of Lot 1, Block 3,
N
O
R
T
H
P
O
R
T
1
S
T
A
D
D
N.
Bl
o
c
k
3,
B
A
L
F
A
N
Y'
S
S
E'l
y
Li
n
e
of
L
ot
1,
N
E'l
y
E
xt
e
n
si
o
n
of t
h
e
R
=
4
3
8
.
9
7
L
=
1
9
6
.
6
4
L o t 3 5
L o t
3 4
Preliminary Plat
1
5
0
.
1
0
&
3
5
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
N
o
r
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
L
o
t
s
3
4
200.00
3
3
L
o
t
s
3
4
&
3
5
,
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
S
o
u
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
7
5
5
f
e
e
t
o
f
f
e
e
t
o
f
L
o
t
s
3
4
&
3
5
,
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
N
o
.
2
1
6
N
o
r
t
h
L
i
n
e
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
2
3
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
N
o
r
t
h
7
5
5
S
8
9
°
4
7
'
2
9
"
E
2
9
1
.
5
7
3
3
.
9
8
337.33N13°35'08"W
297.58N10°29'38"W
3
3
3
3
According to Aud. Sub. No. 216
Center Line of Brooklyn Boulevard
33.58
S89°47'29"E
10.18
N01°29'38"W
C
1
1
5
0
.
1
0
Utility Details.
See 2018 Brookly Blvd Construction Plans For
See Attached Draft Plat For Legal Description
Property Contains 134,925Sq. Ft. (3.10 Ac.)
R2-Two Family Residence
C1-Service/Office
R1-One Family Residence
Property Is Zoned:
New Hope, MN 55427
4148 Winnetka Avenue North
Robbinsdale School District No. 281
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
City of Brooklyn Center
Owners:
BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION
Sheet 1 of 2 Sheets
BROO
K
L
Y
N
C
E
N
T
E
R
E
D
A
F
I
R
S
T
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
M
A
R
K
E
D
L
S
1
6
6
7
9
1
/
2
"
X
1
4
"
I
R
O
N
M
O
N
U
M
E
N
T
D
E
N
O
T
E
S
I
R
O
N
M
O
N
U
M
E
N
T
S
E
T
L
O
T
1
B
L
O
C
K
2
LOT 1BLOCK 1
6
0
0
3
0
S
C
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
BROOKLYN BOUL
E
V
A
R
D
3
0
1
.
8
6
291.57
S89°47'29"E
3
7
.
4
3
39.21N89°47'29"W10.00N00°09'52"E 151.21S89°47'29"E
N
0
0
°
5
9
'
0
5
"
E
2
5
6
.
0
0
C1
C
2
C
3
C
4
C5
S14°39'04"W S19°12'35"WC1S11°01'20"ES32°17'16"ES35°41'05"EN77°19'16"E C2C3C4C5C6 CH. BEARINGCURVELENGTHRADIUSDELTACH. LENGTH93.54164.2040.14204.82135.5759.18 152.00212.00330.00330.00270.00438.97 35°15'36"44°22'38"06°58'08"35°33'44"28°46'05"07°43'27"92.07160.1340.55201.55134.1559.13
6
2
0
.
0
6
3
3
7
.
3
3
N
1
3
°
3
5
'
0
8
"
W
297.58N10°29'38
"
W
B
R
O
O
K
L
Y
N
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
L
O
T
1
B
L
O
C
K
1
B
R
O
O
K
L
Y
N
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
I
N
S
E
T
"
A
"
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
SEE INSET "A"
1
.
1
1
3
3
.
8
2
N
0
7
°
3
2
'
1
6
"
W
C6
RLS
N
O
6
1
9
A
U
D
I
T
O
R
S
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
N
O
.
2
1
6
R
L
S
N
O
.
4
0
RLS NO. 40
B
E
A
R
I
N
G
O
F
S
8
9
°
4
7
'
2
9
"
E
R
L
S
N
O
.
4
0
H
A
S
A
N
A
S
S
U
M
E
D
T
H
E
N
O
R
T
H
L
I
N
E
O
F
T
R
A
C
T
F
,
Tract F 100.00
3
1
8
.
2
0
7
5
.
0
0
9
5
.
0
0
1
3
5
.
0
0
Lots 34 & 35, Aud. Sub. No. 216
South Line of North 755 feet of
Lots 34 & 35, Aud. Sub. No. 216
South Line of North 525 feet of
Lots 34 & 35, Aud. Sub. No. 216
South Line of North 450 feet of
Lots 34 & 35, Aud. Sub. No. 216
South Line of North 300 feet of
B
R
O
O
K
L
Y
N
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
R=498.97
L=127.17
36.82 Mea.
35.68 Desc.
2
5
6
.
8
4
B
A
L
F
A
N
Y
'
S
N
O
R
T
H
P
O
R
T
1
S
T
A
D
D
N
.
S
E
C
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
L
o
t
1
,
B
l
o
c
k
3
,
N
O
R
T
H
P
O
R
T
1
S
T
A
D
D
N
.
B
l
o
c
k
3
,
B
A
L
F
A
N
Y
'
S
S
E
'
l
y
L
i
n
e
o
f
L
o
t
1
,
N
E
'
l
y
E
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
R=438.97L=196.64
L
o
t
3
5
L
o
t
3
4
S
h
e
e
t
2
o
f
2
S
h
e
e
t
s
& 35, Aud. Sub. No. 216North Line of Lots 34
2
0
0
.
0
0
feet of Lots 34 & 35, Aud. Sub. No. 216
North Line of South 230 feet of North 755
1
5
0
.
0
0
33
33
257.59
33.98
150.10 N 1 0 °2 9 '3 8 "W 33.58S89°47'29"E10.1 8
150.10
33
A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
A
u
d
.
S
u
b
.
D
i
v
.
2
1
6
C
e
n
t
e
r
L
i
n
e
o
f
B
r
o
o
k
l
y
n
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
C
1
Exhibit B
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 31, 2019
TO: Ginny Mc Intosh, City Planner and Zoning Administor
FROM: Andrew Hogg. Assistant City Engineering
SUBJECT: Public Works – Preliminary and Final Plat Review for EDA PLAT
Public Works Department staff reviewed the preliminary plat and final plat submittals dated
September 9, 2019, for the proposed EDA PLAT and provide the following recommendations:
Preliminary and Final Plats dated September 9, 2019
Subject to final staff final plat approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance
with the following comments/revisions.
Preliminary Plat/Final
1. Need working copy of the preliminary plat to show all vacated easements, proposed
easements, existing and proposed utilities and provide all easement documents for the
City for review.
2. Legal descriptions and easement vacation documents must be obtained for all existing
easements. Existing public easements as determined by the City must be vacated, and
proposed easements must be dedicated as part of the preliminary and final platting
process. The formal vacation document must contain an easement vacation description
and depiction exhibit signed by a professional surveyor.
3. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the
City Planner and City Attorney for review at the time of the preliminary plat application
(within 30 days of preliminary plat application). Additionally, this will need to stay
current and be updated through the approval process as required to maintain and be
current within 30 days of the release of final plat.
4.See attached plans with additional redlines
All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the
information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The preliminary plan (and final
plat must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans,
unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final
plat may require additional modifications based on the City Engineer and other public officials
having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans.
Exhibit C
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2019-016 SUBMITTED BY
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR THE BROOKLYN CENTER EDA
FIRST ADDITION AND DEDICATION OF CERTAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY
(LOCATED IN VICINITY OF 55TH AVENUE NORTH AND BROOKLYN
BOULEVARD FRONTAGE ROAD)
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2019-016 was submitted by
the City of Brooklyn Center, requesting preliminary and final plat approval to re-plat seven
properties with varying ownership by the City of Brooklyn Center, Economic Development
Authority of Brooklyn Center, and Robbinsdale School District No. 281, and the dedication of
certain right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the proposed re-plat would encompass approximately 134,925 square
feet or 3.1 acres of land that includes a portion of Registered Land Survey No. 0040, Hennepin
County, Minnesota; and lands contained within Auditor’s Subdivision No. 216, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, these requests arose from infrastructure improvements that took place
under the Phase I Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction and modernization project, which resulted in
the re-alignment of Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road in the vicinity of 55th Avenue North to
reduce confusion, congestion, and allow for improved stacking distances for motorists eastbound
on 55th Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, the re-aligned Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road will require
dedication of new City right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the existing City right-of-way for the former alignment of the
Brooklyn Boulevard Frontage Road will remain in place and not be vacated due to the existence of
City infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2019, the Planning Commission of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota held a duly called public hearing, whereby this item was given due
consideration, a staff report was presented, and a public hearing was opened to allow for public
testimony regarding the plat and right-of-way dedication requests for the BROOKLYN CENTER
EDA FIRST ADDITION, which were received and noted for the record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined during its review of the plat,
right-of-way dedication, and materials submitted with Planning Commission Application No.
2019-016, that said plat and right-of-way dedication are in general conformance with the City of
RESOLUTION NO.
Brooklyn Center’s City Code of Ordinances, and specifically Chapter 15 – Platting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota does hereby recommend that Planning Commission Application No.
2019-016, as submitted by the City of Brooklyn Center, and requesting preliminary and final plat
approval for the BROOKLYN CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION and dedication of certain right-
of-way, may be approved based upon the following conditions:
1. Address the comments by Assistant City Engineer Hogg in his memorandum dated
October 31, 2019;
2. Final plat and associated mylar shall be subject to and must comply with the provisions
of Chapter 15 of the City Code of Ordinances (Platting);
3. Address any comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County;
4. Address any comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney’s office, and
specifically regarding an updated certified abstract of title for the affected properties; and
5. The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County.
November 25, 2019
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:1 1 /25/2 0 1 9
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :M eg B eekman, Community D ev elopment D irector
BY:G inny McI ntos h, C ity P lanner / Zoning A dminis trator
S U B J E C T:Res olu0 on Regarding D is pos i0 on of P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica0on N o. 2019-017 for
P r eliminary and F inal P lat (located at 5801 Xerxes Avenue N orth and Commonly Know n as
the Former Jerry's Foods S ite)
B ackground:
A lex B is anz, on behalf of Real Estate Equi0es , L L C (“the A pplicant ”) is reques 0ng review and cons idera0on
of preliminary and final plat approval to s ubdiv ide the S ubject P roperty located at 5801 Xerxes Avenue
North into tw o parcels .
T his request is associated with the previous ly appr oved P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica0 on No. 2019 -0 0 6 ,
w hich approved a s ite and building plan for cons tr uc0on of a five-s tory, independent s enior liv ing
apartment building (1 4 3 units ) and a four-s tor y, w ork force apar tment building (127 units) on the S ubj ect
P roperty, along with s elect site improvements . T he applica0on also called for the es tablis hment of a
P lanned U nit D evelopment and r emoval of the S ubject P roperty fr om the C entral C ommerce O verlay
D istrict, as mul0-family residen0al us es are currently prohibited from es tablishment w ithin the D istrict. C ity
Council approved the aforemen0oned reques ts under Resolu0 on No. 2019-081 at their mee0 ng on M ay
2 8, 2019, w ith s ubs equent ordinance amendments occurring thereaIer.
A lthough P lanned Unit D evelopments (P U D ) allow for more than one principal building to be located on
each plaJed lot within a P U D per S ec0on 3 5 -3 5 5, S ubdivision 4.a (G ener al S tandar ds), the A pplicant has
noted that the financing for the aforemen0oned pr oject requires that each building be located on its ow n
parcel.
Reques ts for approval of the plat require that a public hearing be s cheduled in accordance w ith S ec0on 15-
1 04 (P reliminary P lan) of the P laKng O rdinance. A n A ffidav it of P ublica0 on confir med publica0on of the
public hearing no0 ce in the Brooklyn Center S un Post on O ctober 31, 20 1 9 . M ail no0 ces w ere also s ent to
neighboring pr oper ty owners.
O n N ovember 1 4 th, the P lanning C ommis s ion held a public hearing regarding the request for plat approv al
of N O R T H WAY C R O S S I N G . O ne comment w as received by phone prior to the mee0ng, but it pertained to
any restric0ons that would prevent children fr om s tay ing in the propos ed s enior living apartments and
concerns as to w hether s eniors might be evicted for allow ing children to s tay in the apartments .
City P lanner/Zoning A dminis trator G inny M cI ntos h noted to the caller that the s ite and building approv als
had already been appr oved by the C ity but noted that s he w ould bring this concer n up during the hearing.
Representa0v es of the A pplicant (Real E s tate Equi0 es , L L C ) w ere in aJendance and did address for the
record how the s enior building would be s tructured and the regula0ons surrounding the allow ance of
minors (i.e. children) in the senior liv ing building.
Following clos e of the public hearing, the P lanning C ommission review ed the applica0on and findings of
fact, and found the plat to be in compliance with all requirements of the C ity 's z oning and plaKng
s tandards. A Ier careful cons idera0on, the P lanning Commiss ion elected to unanimous ly (5-0) recommend
City C ouncil approv al of the requested pr eliminary and final plats for N O R T H WAY C R O S S I N G for the
S ubject P r oper ty located at 5 8 0 1 Xerxes Av enue N orth, s ubject to the A pplicant comply ing w ith the
condi0ons as outlined in the P lanning C ommis s ion Report dated N ovember 14, 2019, and as s ociated
res olu0on.
A copy of the P lanning Commis s ion Report for P lanning C ommission A pplica0on No. 2 0 1 9 -0 1 6 , dated
Nov ember 14, 2 0 1 9 , and the C ity C ouncil res olu0 on is included with this memor andum.
B udget I ssues:
None to cons ider at this 0me.
S trate gic Priories and Values:
Targeted Redevelopment
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip0on Upload D ate Ty pe
P C S taff Repor t and Exhibits - N orthway C r os s ing (Real Estate
Equi0es , L L C )11/19/2019 Backup M aterial
Res olu0on-D is pos i0 on of P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica0on
N o. 2019-01 7 , S ubmiJed by Real Es tate Equi0es , L L C for
P reliminary and F inal P lat A pproval of Northw ay C ros sing
11/19/2019 Resolu0 on L eJer
________________
App. No. 2019-017
PC 11/14/2019
Page 1
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: November 14, 2019
Application No. 2019-017
Applicant: Real Estate Equities, LLC
Location: 5801 Xerxes Avenue North (PID: 03-118-21-14-0024)
Request: Preliminary/Final Plat of Northway Crossing Addition
INTRODUCTION
Alex Bisanz, on behalf of Real Estate Equities, LLC (“the Applicant”) is requesting review and
consideration of preliminary and final plat approval to subdivide the Subject Property located at 5801
Xerxes Avenue North into two parcels (refer to Map 1 below).
This request is associated with the previously approved Planning Commission Application No. 2019-006,
which approved a site and building plan for construction of a five-story, independent senior living
apartment building (143 units) and a four-story, workforce apartment building (127 units) on the Subject
Property, along with select site improvements. The application also called for the establishment of a
Planned Unit Development and removal of the Subject Property from the Central Commerce Overlay
District, as multi-family residential uses are currently prohibited from establishment within the District.
City Council approved the aforementioned requests under Resolution No. 2019-081 at their meeting on
May 28, 2019, with subsequent ordinance amendments occurring thereafter.
Map 1. Subject Property Located at 5801 Xerxes Avenue North (2018 Imagery, Hennepin County).
REQUESTS
Preliminary/Final Plat Approval
As part of the City Platting Ordinance requirements, preliminary and final plat approval is required to
• Application Filed: 10/15/2019
• Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 12/14/2019
• Extension Declared: N/A
• Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A
________________
App. No. 2019-017
PC 11/14/2019
Page 2
formally subdivide the Subject Property, as outlined in the Applicant’s application submittal (Exhibit A).
Although Planned Unit Developments (PUD) allow for more than one principal building to be located on
each platted lot within a PUD per Section 35-355, Subdivision 4.a (General Standards), the Applicant has
noted that the financing for the aforementioned project requires that each building be located on its
own parcel.
Requests for approval of the plat require that a public hearing be scheduled in accordance with Section
15-104 (Preliminary Plan) of the Platting Ordinance. An Affidavit of Publication confirmed publication of
the public hearing notice in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on October 31, 2019 (Exhibit B). Mail notices
were also sent to neighboring property owners.
Staff reviewed the preliminary and final plat for consistency with the minimum building setback
requirements as outlined in the City’s Zoning Code and as approved under Planning Commission
Application No. 2019-006. Under the approved PUD, which resulted in a new zoning designation of
“Planned Unit Development-Transit Oriented Development (PUD-TOD),” a minimum 15 foot building
setback is required along all four sides of the property, but a minimum “rear” building setback was not
contemplated. As there are no anticipated changes to the orientation of the either building (refer to
Exhibit 1 below), City staff is comfortable proceeding with the request to subdivide the Subject Property
so long as minimum setbacks and all ingress/egress, and common parking easements are in place.
Exhibit 1. Subject Property with Proposed Lot Line (in Red).
________________
App. No. 2019-017
PC 11/14/2019
Page 3
Staff inquired with the City Attorney’s office as to whether a PUD Amendment would be necessary given
the request to subdivide the Subject Property. Following a review of the City’s PUD Ordinance, it was
determined that subdivision of the Subject Property would not constitute the need for a PUD
Amendment so long as there were no other alterations to plans other than the creation of a new
property line, and that said property line met the minimum building setback requirements.
Given the proposed new lot line, the Applicant provided an ingress/egress and parking easement exhibit
that outlines the common access points located on the east and west sides of the Subject Property and
common surface parking lot (Exhibit A). The Applicant also provided separate exhibits outlining the
proposed stormwater, sidewalk, and sanitary sewer easements.
Per Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, in his memorandum dated October 31, 2019 (Exhibit C), the
Applicant will ultimately need to provide a working copy of the preliminary plat for the Northway
Crossing Addition that identifies all vacated easements, proposed easements, and proposed utilities, as
well as submit documentation, including legal descriptions, for any easements.
Any proposed easements would need to be dedicated as part of the preliminary and final plat process.
Additionally, Assistant City Engineer Hogg requested that revisions be made to ensure the pedestrian
ramps are entirely located within the identified City Right-of-Way. Additionally, a 10-foot Drainage &
Utility Easement must be dedicated on the plat. A representative of Loucks, who prepared the attached
exhibits (Exhibit A), has been in contact with both Assistant City Engineer Hogg and Hennepin County to
address any required changes.
Depending on the timing of closing, and assuming approval of the preliminary and final plat request, the
Applicant may also need to address changes to the legal description information for the properties
contained in the PUD Agreement that must be recorded as a condition of approval for Planning
Commission Application No. 2019-006.
Finally, current property owner, ILEX Group, LLC, informed City staff that the approval to proceed with
any subdivision of the Subject Property is contingent upon the Applicant (Real Estate Equities, LLC)
successfully closing on the Subject Property located at 5801 Xerxes Avenue North.
APPROVAL CONDITIONS
Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the
approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2019-017 for Northway Crossing Addition:
1.Approval of the preliminary and final plats are contingent upon the addressing of comments by
Assistant City Engineer Hogg in his memorandum dated October 31, 2019.
2.Final plat and mylar shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Code of
Ordinances (Platting).
3.Any comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County.
4.Any comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney’s office, and specifically regarding
submittal of an updated certified abstract of title.
5.The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County.
a.Per Current Property Owner, ILEX Group, LLC. requested that the mylar is to be recorded
at time of or after scheduled closing of the Subject Property with Real Estate Equities,
LLC.
________________
App. No. 2019-017
PC 11/14/2019
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above-noted findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission recommends:
1. The Planning Commission recommends City Council approval of the requested preliminary and final
plat for NORTHWAY CROSSING ADDITION, subject to the Applicant complying with the comments
outlined in the Assistant City Engineer’s memorandum October 31, 2019, Chapter 15 of the City
Code of Ordinances (Platting), any comments provided by Hennepin County, and the successful
recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County.
Attachments
Exhibit A- Planning Commission Application No. 2019-017 submittal documents.
Exhibit B- Affidavit of Publication, published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on October 31, 2019.
Exhibit C-Memorandum, prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, dated October 31, 2019.
Exhibit A
PROPOSED
BUILDING
860.67 F.F.E.
850.00 G.F.E.
PROPOSED
BUILDING
860.67 F.F.E.
850.00 G.F.E.
8.7'18.0'
8.0'
9.0'
24.0'
24.0'24.0'
24.0'
39.0'
18.0'
18.0'
18.0'
18.0'
18.0'
18.0'
24.0'
GA
R
A
G
E
EN
T
R
Y
GA
R
A
G
E
EN
T
R
Y
FR
O
N
T
EN
T
R
Y
FR
O
N
T
EN
T
R
Y
TOT
LOT
DOG
RUN
CONCRETE
APRON
CONCRETE
APRON
H.C.
SIGNAGE
TYP.
5' WIDE
CONCRETE
WALK TYP.
PERGOLA
(SEE ARCH PLANS)
SEE ARCH PLANS
FOR STOOP INFO
TYP.
CURB &
GUTTER
TO MATCH
EXISTING
CURB & GUTTER
TO MATCH EXISTING
24.0'
CMU BLOCK
WALL W/
PROTECTIVE
FENCE
15.0'
15.0'
15.0'
27.6'
22.2'
27.1'
15.0'
PED RAMP (SEE DETAIL)
19
21
219
15
6
8
3 6
8
96
11
10'R
10'R
10'R
10'R
15'R
15'R
12'R
32'R
10'R
5'R
3'R
3'R 3'R
3'R3'R
3'R
3'R
3'R
3'R
3'R
3'R
3'R
3'R
3'R
3'R
3'R
3'R
7'R
7'R
7'R
7'R
7'R
10'R
10'R
15'R
15'R
PED.
RAMP
PED.
RAMP
PED.
RAMP
3' CURB TAPER
TO FLUSH
3' CURB TAPER
TO FLUSH
PED.
RAMP
3'R
3'R
3' CURB TAPER
TO FLUSH
PED.
RAMPS
(SEE DETAIL)
20.0'
AREA
WELL
ADA
CROSSING
TYP.
22.8'
29.6'
38.4'
CMU BLOCK WALL
W/ PROTECTIVE
RAILING
PED.
RAMP
7'R
FLAT CURB
(SEE DETAIL)
9' CURB TAPER
9' CURB
TAPER
PED RAMP
(SEE DETAIL)
SEE ARCH PLANS
FOR STOOP INFO
TYP.
FLAT CURB
H.C. SIGNAGE TYP.
PED RAMP (SEE DETAIL)
5' WIDE
WALK
AREA
WELL
2 - 6" HIGH
CONCRETE
RISERS
OUTDOOR
PATIO
42" HIGH
ORNIMENTAL
FENCE
PERGOLA
W/ HERB
GARDEN
3' CURB
TAPER
TO
FLUSH
3' CURB
TAPER TO
FLUSH
42" HIGH
ORNIMENTAL
FENCE W/ 2
GATES
REPLACE CONCRETE
SIDEWALK AND COLORED
CONCRETE MAINTENANCE STRIP
REPLANT TREE IN
EXISTING LOCATION AFTER
UTILITIES ARE INSTALLED
STOP
SIGN
STOP
SIGN
2 (6")CONCRETE RISERS
WITH 11" TREADS
LOUCKS
W:
\
2
0
1
8
\
1
8
6
5
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
C
I
V
I
L
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
C
2
-
1
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
1
0
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
4
:
5
1
P
M
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
QUALITY CONTROL
CADD QUALIFICATION
BROOKLYN
CENTER
APARTMENTS
REAL ESTATE EQUITIES
579 Shelby Ave, St. Paul, MN 55102
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
04/11/19 CHECK SET
04/16/19 CITY SUBMITTAL
09/06/19 CHECK SET
10/02/19 60% SET
C1-1 DEMOLITION PLAN
C2-1 SITE PLAN
C3-1 GRADING PLAN
C3-2 SWPPP
C3-3 SWPPP
C4-1 SANITARY & WATEMAIN
C4-2 STORM SEWER
C8-1 CIVIL DETAILS
L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
Review Date
SHEET INDEX
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
PJ Disch - PE
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.
49933
18650
PJD
DDL
PJD
09/06/19
-
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
SITE PLAN
C2-1
WARNING:
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL
EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN
MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT
LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES,
CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE
DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED
DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
TOLL FREE: 1-800-252-1166
TWIN CITY AREA: 651-454-0002
Gopher State One Call
CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!
BM#1
In Brooklyn Center, at northeast corner of northbound lane Bridge No. 27040 over Shingle
Creek, 1.35 miles southeast along Trunk Hwy 100 fromn the junction of Trunk Hwy100 &
I-94, at Trunk Hwy milepoint 14.55, 25.0 feet southeast of northbound Trunk Hwy 100.
ELEVATION = 846.58 FT (NAVD'88)
BM#2
Top nut of hydrant on Northway Drive approx. 250 feet east of Xerxes Avenue N., as shown
hereon.
ELEVATION = 857.74 FT (NAVD'88)
PROJECT BENCHMARK
PARKING STALL COUNT
ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL
2
LEGEND
CATCH BASIN
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
GATE VALVE
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
POWER POLE
WATER MANHOLE / WELL
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC
CONCRETE
TELEPHONE PEDESTAL
UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE
UNDERGROUND GAS
OVERHEAD UTILITY
CHAIN LINK FENCE
BUILDING
RETAINING WALL
NO PARKING
UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
WATER SERVICE
ELECTRIC METER
GAS METER
TREE LINE
EXISTING PROPOSED
972
DRAINTILE
FORCEMAIN
3
7
3
PARKING SETBACK LINE
BUILDING SETBACK LINE
2
FENCE
FLARED END SECTION
POST INDICATOR VALVE
BENCHMARK
SOIL BORING
3
DIRECTION OF FLOW 1.0%
972.5
1. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEET(S) AND STATE/LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS.
2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND LOCAL/STATE
REQUIREMENTS.
3. ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
4. ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
CURRENT ZONING: C2 (COMMERCE) DISTRICT
PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
PROPERTY AREA:208,896 SF (4.796 AC)
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 183,462 SF (4.212 AC) (87.8%)
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 135,156 SF (3.103 AC) (64.7%)
TOTAL ABOVE GROUND PARKING: 142 STALLS PROVIDED
TOTAL UNDERGROUND PARKING: SEE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS
1. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING,
EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND WORK.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS.
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO
ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT.
4. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS
BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE
NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS.
5. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND
COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL
WORKING HOURS.
6. ALL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, APPLICATIONS AND FEES ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.
7. ALL ENTRANCES AND CONNECTIONS TO CITY STREETS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE AND
LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS AND NOTIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED.
8. ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SHALL
BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL OF
UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE ALL SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS
AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES.
DENOTES CONCRETE PAVEMENT
DENOTES HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
DENOTES LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SITE NOTES
SITE DATA
GENERAL NOTES
PAVEMENT LEGEND
DENOTES CONCRETE PAVEMENT
C ADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
1
0
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
8
:
5
0
A
M
W:
\
2
0
1
8
\
1
8
6
5
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
1
8
6
5
0
P
r
e
P
l
a
t
OUCKSL
CADD QUALIFICATION
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
NORTHWAY
CROSSING
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
REAL ESTATE
EQUITIES
579 SELBY AVENUE
SAINT PAUL, MN
N
SCALE IN FEET
0 30 60
PRELIMINARY
PLAT
1 of 1
Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1262, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
GENERAL NOTES
SURVEYOR:
Loucks
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55330
763-424-5505
1. Prepared October 10, 2019.
2. The address, if disclosed in documents provided to or obtained by the surveyor,
or observed while conducting the fieldwork is 5801 Xerxes Avenue North,
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430.
3. The bearings for this survey are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate
System NAD 83 (1986 Adjust).
4. Benchmark: In Brooklyn Center, at northeast corner of northbound lane Bridge
No. 27040 over Shingle Creek, 1.35 miles southeast along Trunk Hwy 100 fromn
the junction of Trunk Hwy100 & I-94, at Trunk Hwy milepoint 14.55, 25.0 feet
southeast of northbound Trunk Hwy 100.
ELEVATION = 846.58 FT (NAVD'88)
Site Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant on Northway Drive approx. 250 feet east of
Xerxes Avenue N., as shown hereon.
ELEVATION = 857.74 FT (NAVD'88)
5. This property is contained in Zone X (area of minimal flooding) per Flood
Insurance Rate Map No. 27053C0212F, Community Panel No. 270151-012-F,
effective date of November 4, 2016.
6. The field work was completed on December 19, 2018.
OWNER/DEVELOPER:
Real Estate Equities
579 Selby Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55102
651-389-3866
Current Zoning: C2 (Commerce District) and (Central Commerce Overlay District)
Any current zoning classification, setback requirements, height and floor space area
restrictions, and parking requirements, shown hereon, are per a report or letter
provided to the surveyor by City of Brooklyn Center dated January 4, 2019, for the
subject property are as follows:
Current Setbacks:
Front 35 feet
Corner 20
Interior 10 feet
Rear 40 feet
No height restrictions
Proposed Zoning: PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Setbacks:
Front 15 feet
Side 15 feet
Rear 15 feet
No height restrictions
ZONING INFORMATION
Areas
Proposed Lot 1 = 86,332 +/- square feet or 1.98 +/- acres
Proposed Lot 2 = 122,358 +/- square feet or 2.81 +/- acres
Right of Way = 47,380 +/- square feet or 1.09 +/- acres
Total Plat = 256,070 +/- square feet or 5.88 +/- acres
SITE DATA
SURVEY LEGEND
SPOT ELEVATION
SIGN
LIGHT POLE
WATER MANHOLE / WELL
CATCH BASIN
CONTOUR
CONCRETE CURB
STORM SEWER
SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
CONCRETE
ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER
ELECTRIC MANHOLE
TELEPHONE MANHOLE
HAND HOLE UG TELEPHONE (MARKED)
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE
WATER SERVICE
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
CLEANOUT
CURB STOP
TOP OF CURB
RESTRICTED ACCESS
VAULT
PAVERS
IRON FENCE
STORM MANHOLE
SANITARY MANHOLE
HYDRANT
BITUMINOUS2 X 2 CONCRETE BASE
UG FIBER OPTIC (MAPPED)
UG GAS (MAPPED)
UG ELECTRIC (MAPPED)
UG TELEPHONE (MAPPED)
BUILDING SET-BACK LINE
10/15/19 SURVEY ISSUED
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Henry D. Nelson - PLS
17255
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.18-650
HDN
SFM
HDN
TRAVIS
10/15/19
SITE
Preliminary Plat Of: NORTHWAY CROSSING
1
2
B l o
c
k
1
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
10
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
8
:
4
6
A
M
W:
\
2
0
1
8
\
1
8
6
5
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
1
8
6
5
0
-
E
X
H
-
S
P
L
I
T
OUCKSL
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
CADD QUALIFICATION
BROOKLYN
CENTER
APARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
REAL ESTATE
EQUITIES
579 SIBLEY AVENUE
ST. PAUL, MN 55102
LOT SPLIT
EXHIBIT
1 of 2
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Henry D. Nelson - PLS
17255
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.18-650
HDN
SFM
HDN
10/15/19
10/15/19 SURVEY ISSUED
Legal Description of NORTHEASTERLY PARCEL
(October 15, 2019)
That part of Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1262, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying northeasterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Tract B; thence on an assumed bearing of South 23 degrees 26
minutes 10 seconds West along the southeasterly line of said Tract B, a distance of 236.38 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence North 66 degrees 37 minutes 58 seconds West 167.23 feet; thence
thence North 62 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds West 249.29 feet; thence North 66 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds
West 176.55 feet to the northwesterly line of said Tract B and said line there terminating.
Legal Description of SOUTHWESTERLY PARCEL
(October 15, 2019)
That part of Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1262, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying southwesterly of the following described line:
Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Tract B; thence on an assumed bearing of South 23 degrees 26
minutes 10 seconds West along the southeasterly line of said Tract B, a distance of 236.38 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence North 66 degrees 37 minutes 58 seconds West 167.23 feet; thence
thence North 62 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds West 249.29 feet; thence North 66 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds
West 176.55 feet to the northwesterly line of said Tract B and said line there terminating.
R. L. S.
NO. 1 2 6 2
Northeasterly Parcel
Southwesterly Parcel
T r a c t
B
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
10
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
8
:
4
6
A
M
W:
\
2
0
1
8
\
1
8
6
5
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
1
8
6
5
0
-
E
X
H
-
S
P
L
I
T
OUCKSL
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
CADD QUALIFICATION
BROOKLYN
CENTER
APARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
REAL ESTATE
EQUITIES
579 SIBLEY AVENUE
ST. PAUL, MN 55102
SCALE IN FEET
0 60
N
LOT SPLIT
EXHIBIT
2 of 2
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Henry D. Nelson - PLS
17255
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.18-650
HDN
SFM
HDN
10/15/19
10/15/19 SURVEY ISSUED
AREAS:
NE'LY PARCEL = 115,954± S.F.
SW'LY PARCEL = 140,116± S.F.
LOUCKS
SHEET 2 OF 2 SHEETS
BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY
LINE OF TRACT B, R.L.S. NO. 1262 HAVING A
BEARING OF SOUTH 23°26'10" WEST.
DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT,
CAPPED "LS 43504", UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED
DENOTES 1/2 INCH X 14 INCH IRON
MONUMENT SET, MARKED "LS 17255"
SCALE IN FEET
0 40
N
DENOTES FOUND "PK NAIL"
DENOTES "PK NAIL" SET
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That ILEX Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, owner of the following described
property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit:
Tract B, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 1262, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as NORTHWAY CROSSING, and does hereby dedicate to the public for public
use the public way(s), and does also dedicate the drainage and utility easements as created by this plat.
In witness whereof said ILEX Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this
_______ day of _________________________, 20______.
ILEX GROUP, INC.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature Printed Name, Title
STATE OF ______________________
COUNTY OF ____________________
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of _________________________, 20______, by
______________________________, _____________________________ of ILEX Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, on behalf of the
corporation.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature Printed Name, Notary
Notary Public, _______________________ County, ______________________
My Commission Expires _________________________
SURVEYORS CERTIFICATION
I Henry D. Nelson do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed
Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data
and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within
one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this
certificate are shown and labeled on this Plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat.
Dated this ________ day of _________________________, 20______.
______________________________________________
Henry D. Nelson, Licensed Land Surveyor,
Minnesota License No. 17255
R.T. DOC. NO. _____________________
LOUCKS
SHEET 1 OF 2 SHEETS
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ________ day of _________________________, 20______, by Henry D.
Nelson.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Signature Printed Name, Notary
Notary Public, Hennepin County, Minnesota
My Commission Expires January 31, 2025
BROOKLN CENTER, MINNESOTA
This plat of NORTHWAY CROSSING was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, at
a regular meeting thereof held this ________ day of _________________________, 20______, and said plat is in compliance with the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2.
City Council, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota
By: ________________________________________, Mayor By: _________________________________________, Clerk
RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20______ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this ________
day of _________________________, 20______.
Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor By: ________________________________________, Deputy
SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this ________ day of
_________________________, 20______.
Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By: ________________________________________, Deputy
REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that the within plat of NORTHWAY CROSSING was filed in this office this ________ day of
_________________________, 20______, at ______ o'clock _____.M.
Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles By: ________________________________________, Deputy
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
1
0
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
8
:
3
6
A
M
W:
\
2
0
1
8
\
1
8
6
5
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
1
8
6
5
0
-
E
X
H
-
A
C
C
E
S
S
OUCKSL
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
CADD QUALIFICATION
BROOKLYN
CENTER
APARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
REAL ESTATE
EQUITIES
579 SIBLEY AVENUE
ST. PAUL, MN 55102
INGRESS/EGRESS
& PARKING
EASEMENT
EXHIBIT
1 of 2
Legal Description of a Shared Access Easement
Over Block 1, NORTHWAY CROSSING
(October 15, 2019)
A 26.00 foot strip of land over, under and across that part of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, NORTHWAY CROSSING, according to the recorded plat
thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, the center line described as follows:
Beginning at the most easterly corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of North 66 degrees 37 minutes 58 seconds West, along
the northeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 95.00 feet and said line there terminating.
Together with a 26.00 foot strip of land over, under and across that part of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, NORTHWAY CROSSING, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, the center line described as follows:
Beginning at the most northerly corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of South 66 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds East, along
the northeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 125.00 feet and said line there terminating.
Legal Description of a Shared Parking Easement
Over Block 1, NORTHWAY CROSSING
(October 15, 2019)
That part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, NORTHWAY CROSSING, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as
follows:
Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of North 66 degrees 37 minutes 58 seconds West,
along the northeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 90.87 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 27 degrees 26 minutes 46 seconds
West 132.98 feet; thence North 62 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds West 296.73 feet; thence North 23 degrees 26 minutes 13 seconds East
149.98 feet; thence South 66 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds East 14.02 feet; thence North 88 degrees 26 minutes 07 seconds East 152.91
feet; thence South 66 degrees 33 minutes 52 seconds East 152.58 feet; thence South 23 degrees 21 minutes 55 seconds West 102.65 feet
to the point of beginning, and there terminating.
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Henry D. Nelson - PLS
17255
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.18-650
HDN
SFM
HDN
10/15/19
10/15/19 SURVEY ISSUED
NORTH
W
A
Y
CROSSI
N
G
Lot 1
Lot 2
B l o
c
k
1 CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
1
0
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
8
:
3
6
A
M
W:
\
2
0
1
8
\
1
8
6
5
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
1
8
6
5
0
-
E
X
H
-
A
C
C
E
S
S
OUCKSL
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
CADD QUALIFICATION
BROOKLYN
CENTER
APARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
REAL ESTATE
EQUITIES
579 SIBLEY AVENUE
ST. PAUL, MN 55102
SCALE IN FEET
0 60
N
DENOTES PROPOSED
PARKING EASEMENT
INGRESS/EGRESS
& PARKING
EASEMENT
EXHIBIT
2 of 2
DENOTES PROPOSED
INGRESS & EGRESS
EASEMENT
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Henry D. Nelson - PLS
17255
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.18-650
HDN
SFM
HDN
10/15/19
10/15/19 SURVEY ISSUED
NORTH
W
A
Y
CROSSI
N
G
Lot 1
Lot 2
B l o c
k
1 CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
1
0
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
8
:
4
9
A
M
W:
\
2
0
1
8
\
1
8
6
5
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
1
8
6
5
0
-
E
X
H
-
S
A
N
I
T
A
R
Y
OUCKSL
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
CADD QUALIFICATION
BROOKLYN
CENTER
APARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
REAL ESTATE
EQUITIES
579 SIBLEY AVENUE
ST. PAUL, MN 55102
SCALE IN FEET
0 60
N
DENOTES PROPOSED
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT
SANITARY
SEWER
EASEMENT
EXHIBIT
1 of 1
Legal Description of Sanitary Sewer Easement
Over Lot 1, Block 1, NORTHWAY CROSSING
(October 15, 2019)
The northwesterly 15.00 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, NORTHWAY
CROSSING, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Henry D. Nelson - PLS
17255
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.18-650
HDN
SFM
HDN
10/15/19
10/15/19 SURVEY ISSUED
CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
1
0
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
8
:
3
9
A
M
W:
\
2
0
1
8
\
1
8
6
5
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
1
8
6
5
0
-
E
X
H
-
S
T
O
R
M
OUCKSL
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
CADD QUALIFICATION
BROOKLYN
CENTER
APARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
REAL ESTATE
EQUITIES
579 SIBLEY AVENUE
ST. PAUL, MN 55102
STORM SEWER
EASEMENT
EXHIBIT
1 of 2
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Henry D. Nelson - PLS
17255
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.18-650
HDN
SFM
HDN
10/15/19
10/15/19 SURVEY ISSUED
Legal Description of Storm Sewer Easement
Over Lot 2, Block 1, NORTHWAY CROSSING
(October 15, 2019
A 20.00 foot wide strip of land over, under and across that part of Lot 2, Block 1, NORTHWAY CROSSING,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, the northeasterly line of which is described
as commencing at the most northerly corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of South 66 degrees
33 minutes 50 seconds East, along the northeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 146.55 feet to the point of
beginning of line to be described; thence South 62 degrees 33 minutes 50 seconds East along said
northeasterly line, 35.00 feet to Point A, and said line there terminating.
Together with a 104.00 foot wide strip of land over, under and across that part of Lot 2, Block 1, NORTHWAY
CROSSING, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, the northeasterly line of which
is described as beginning at the aforementioned Point A; thence continue South 62 degrees 33 minutes 50
seconds East along said northeasterly line, 184.00 feet to Point B, and said line there terminating.
Together with a 20.00 foot wide strip of land over, under and across that part of Lot 2, Block 1, NORTHWAY
CROSSING, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, the northeasterly line of which
is described as beginning at the aforementioned Point B; thence continue South 62 degrees 33 minutes 50
seconds East along said northeasterly line, 32.29 feet; thence South 66 degrees 37 minutes 58 seconds East
along said northeasterly line, 32.00 feet, and said line there terminating.
Together with a 10.00 foot strip of land over, under and across that part of said Lot 2, the center line of which is
described as follows:
Commencing at the most easterly corner of said Lot 2; thence on an assumed bearing of South 23 degrees
26 minutes 10 seconds West, along the southeasterly the of said Lot 2, a distance of 67.00 feet to the point
of beginning of the center line to be described; thence North 18 degrees 43 minutes 22 seconds West 15.00
feet; thence North 68 degrees 41 minutes 16 seconds West a distance of 155.00 feet and said centerline
there terminating.
NORTH
W
A
Y
CROSSI
N
G
Lot 1
Lot 2
B l o c
k
1 CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
1
0
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
8
:
3
9
A
M
W:
\
2
0
1
8
\
1
8
6
5
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
1
8
6
5
0
-
E
X
H
-
S
T
O
R
M
OUCKSL
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
CADD QUALIFICATION
BROOKLYN
CENTER
APARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
REAL ESTATE
EQUITIES
579 SIBLEY AVENUE
ST. PAUL, MN 55102
SCALE IN FEET
0 60
N
DENOTES PROPOSED
STORMWATER EASEMENT
STORM SEWER
EASTMENT
EXHIBIT
2 of 2
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Henry D. Nelson - PLS
17255
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.18-650
HDN
SFM
HDN
10/15/19
10/15/19 SURVEY ISSUED
NORTH
W
A
Y
CROSSI
N
G
Lot 1
Lot 2
B l o c
k
1 CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are
instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely
with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used
on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion
of this project by others without written approval by the
Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be
permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for
information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional
revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be
made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions
or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the
Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities.
PLANNING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND SURVEYING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
ENVIRONMENTAL
7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300
Maple Grove, MN 55369
763.424.5505
www.loucksinc.com
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
:
1
0
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
8
:
5
3
A
M
W:
\
2
0
1
8
\
1
8
6
5
0
\
C
A
D
D
D
A
T
A
\
S
U
R
V
E
Y
\
_
d
w
g
S
h
e
e
t
F
i
l
e
s
\
1
8
6
5
0
-
E
X
H
-
W
A
L
K
OUCKSL
QUALITY CONTROL
PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE
SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS
CADD QUALIFICATION
BROOKLYN
CENTER
APARTMENTS
BROOKLYN CENTER, MN
REAL ESTATE
EQUITIES
579 SIBLEY AVENUE
ST. PAUL, MN 55102
SCALE IN FEET
0 60
N
DENOTES PROPOSED
SIDEWALK EASEMENT
SIDEWALK
EASEMENT
EXHIBIT
1 of 1
License No.
Date
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that
I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
VICINITY MAP
Field Crew
Henry D. Nelson - PLS
17255
Project Lead
Drawn By
Checked By
Loucks Project No.18-650
HDN
SFM
HDN
10/15/19
10/15/19 SURVEY ISSUED
Legal Description of Sidewalk Easement
Over Lot 2, Block 1, NORTHWAY CROSSING
(October 15, 2019)
The southwesterly 6.00 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, NORTHWAY
CROSSING, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota.
Exhibit B
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: October 31, 2019
TO: Ginny Mc Intosh, City Planner and Zoning Administor
FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineering
SUBJECT: Public Works – Preliminary and Final Plat Review for NORTHWAY CROSSING
ADDITION
Public Works Department staff reviewed the preliminary plat and final plat submittals dated
October 15, 2019, for the proposed NORTHWAY CROSSING ADDITION and provide the
following recommendations:
Preliminary and Final Plats dated October 15, 2019
Subject to final staff final plat approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance
with the following comments/revisions.
Preliminary Plat/Final
1. Need working copy of the preliminary plat to show all vacated easements, proposed
easements, existing and proposed utilities and provide all easement documents for the
City for review.
2. Legal descriptions and easement vacation documents must be obtained for all existing
easements. Existing public easements as determined by the City must be vacated, and
proposed easements must be dedicated as part of the preliminary and final platting
process. The formal vacation document must contain an easement vacation description
and depiction exhibit signed by a professional surveyor.
3. An updated certified abstract of title or registered property report must be provided to the
City Planner and City Attorney for review at the time of the preliminary plat application
(within 30 days of preliminary plat application). Additionally, this will need to stay
current and be updated through the approval process as required to maintain and be
current within 30 days of the release of final plat.
4.A 10-ft drainage and utility easement must be dedicated on the plat around the Lots 1 and
2 of Block 1.
5.Fillet corners at Northway Drive & Bass Lake Road and Northway Drive & Xerxes Ave
N.
6.See plans for additional redlines
Exhibit C
Preliminary Plat and Final Plat Review Memo – Page 2
October 31, 2019
All aforementioned items, comments and recommendations are provided based on the
information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. The preliminary plan (and final
plat must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the referenced plans,
unless modified by the staff recommended conditions above. Subsequent approval of the final
plat may require additional modifications based on the City Engineer and other public officials
having jurisdiction over approval of the final site plans.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION REGARDING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF
PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2019-017 SUBMITTED BY
REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, LLC, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT FOR NORTHWAY CROSSING
(LOCATED AT 5801 XERXES AVENUE NORTH AND FORMERLY KNOWN
AS JERRY’S FOODS SITE)
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2019-017 was submitted by
Real Estate Equities, LLC, requesting preliminary and final plat approval to subdivide the property
located at 5801 Xerxes Avenue North (“the Subject Property”) into two parcels to be known as
NORTHWAY CROSSING; and
WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision would result in a “northeasterly parcel” of
approximately 115,954-square feet (2.66 acres), and a “southwesterly parcel” of approximately
140,116-square feet (3.22 acres) of what is currently known as Tract B, Registered Land Survey
No. 1262, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2019-006, which contemplated
the construction of a five story, 143-unit independent affordable senior living building and four-
story, 127-unit workforce apartment building and re-zoning of the property from C2 (Commerce)
District to PUD-TOD (Planned Unit Development-Transit Oriented Development), was approved
by City Council on May 28, 2019 under City Council Resolution No. 2019-081 (Resolution
Regarding Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2019-006 for Approval of a
Planned Unit Development with Zoning Classification of PUD-TOD and Development Site Plan at
5801 Xerxes Avenue N); and
WHEREAS, the request for preliminary and final plat approval arose from a
requirement that the two multi-family buildings slated for construction on the Subject Property be
constructed on separate parcels due to the financing mechanisms being used; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted documentation as part of Planning
Commission Application No. 2019-017, outlining the proposed new interior lot line in relation to
the approved site plan for the approved five-story, independent senior living building on the
northwesterly parcel, and four-story, workforce apartment building on the southwesterly parcel,
along with supporting exhibits that outline the proposed easements for ingress/egress, common
parking, sidewalk, storm sewer, and sanitary sewer; and
WHEREAS, City staff reviewed the submitted documentation to ensure the
approved buildings would meet the minimum required 15-foot building setbacks on all four sides
of the existing parcel located at 5801 Xerxes Avenue North, which was outlined as a condition of
approval under City Council Resolution No. 2019-081; and that the building orientations and
RESOLUTION NO.
identified site improvements were still substantially the same; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney determined that, so long as there were no alterations
to the previously approved development plan, including the orientations of the buildings, a PUD
Amendment would not be required; and
WHEREAS, current property owner, ILEX Group, LLC, had expressed concerns
regarding the subdivision of the Subject Property prior to closing with Real Estate Equities, LLC,
and has requested that the recording of any approved subdivision of the Subject Property take place
at time of or after the scheduled closing on the Subject Property; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2019, the Planning Commission of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota held a duly called public hearing, whereby this item was given due
consideration, a staff report was presented, and a public hearing was opened to allow for public
testimony regarding the preliminary and final plats for NORTHWAY CROSSING, which were
received and noted for the record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined during its review of the plat,
and materials submitted with Planning Commission Application No. 2019-017, that said plat is
in general conformance with the City of Brooklyn Center’s City Code of Ordinances, and
specifically Chapter 15 – Platting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota does hereby recommend that Planning Commission Application No.
2019-017, as submitted by Real Estate Equities, LLC, and requesting preliminary and final plat
approval for NORTHWAY CROSSING, may be approved based upon the following conditions:
1. Conformance with all conditions of approval addressed under City Council Resolution
No. 2019-081 for the related PUD and development site plan approvals, as contemplated
under Planning Commission Application No. 2019-006;
2. Address the comments by Assistant City Engineer Hogg in his memorandum dated
October 31, 2019;
3. Final plat and associated mylar shall be subject to and must comply with the provisions
of Chapter 15 of the City Code of Ordinances (Platting);
4. The Subject Property remains subject to the agreements required by the City in its
previous approvals;
5. Address any comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County;
6. Address any comments and/or requirements from the City Attorney’s office, and
specifically regarding an updated certified abstract of title for the affected properties; and
7. The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County at the time of or
after closing on the Subject Property with current property owner, ILEX Group, LLC.
RESOLUTION NO.
November 25, 2019
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:1 1 /25/2 0 1 9
TO :C ity Council
F R O M:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager
T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edw ards , D eputy C ity M anager
BY:Barb S uciu, City Clerk
S U B J E C T:A n O rdinance A mending C hapter 23 and 3 5 of the C ity C ode of O rdinances Regarding
E nter tainment L icensing and U s es - 1 s t Reading
B ackground:
At the A ugust 2 6 , 2019, City Council Work s es s ion, the City Council was pr es ented a concept of amending
the P ublic D ance O rdinance and license into a E nter tainment L icense and O rdinance. T he public dance
ordinance is outdated and does n't address modern day entertainment. A ddi7 onally, the propos ed
Entertainment O rdinance could addres s an7s ocial behaviors that might be as s ociated w ith establis hments
that cater to nigh9me entertainment. The C ity C ouncil w as recep7ve to the pr opos ed concept.
O n O ctober 28, 2 0 1 9 , dur ing the City Council Wor k s es s ion, the City Council w as pr esented a dra;
Entertainment O rdinance. T he dra; ordinance was a informed by par7cipa7on of many s taff members of
different depar tments . The proposed ordinance amendment implements regulatory condi7ons for thes e
establis hments . F rom that dra; document, the C ity A=orney cra;ed the or dinance amendment that is
before you this evening.
At the w ork s es s ion ther e were concerns regar ding the police call condi7on. That language has been
remov ed and r eplaced with security condi7 ons . S tandar d language for renew al, license revoca7on
s us pension, or non-renewal, and penalty hav e been added as w ell.
For Chapter 35, Zoning Code C2 C ommerce D is tr ict, the Permi=ed Uses and S pecial Uses hav e been
amended as w ell to cor relate w ith the new Entertainment O rdinance.
S taff had met w ith bus iness owners and rev iew ed the pr ior Entertainment O r dinance. A that 7me, no
concerns w ere expr es s ed. C ity staff believes by focus ing on par7cular behavior s through the Entertainment
O rdinance, it may mi7 gate or prevent these behav iors and assist busines s es w ith s uccessful opera7ons .
B udget I ssues:
T here are no budget is s ues w ith this item.
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip7on Upload D ate Ty pe
O rdinance 11/20/2019 O rdinance
power point 11/21/2019 P resenta7 on
Excerpt from O ctober 2 8 S tudy S es s ion & Wor k S es s ion 11/21/2019 Backup M aterial
Excerpt from A ugus t 26 Work S ession 11/21/2019 Backup M aterial
1
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the ____ day of __________, 2019,
at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an ordinance related to entertainment licensing.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance.
Please notify the City Clerk at 763-569-3306 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 23 AND 35 OF THE CITY CODE
OF ORDINANCES REGARDING ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AND USES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
ARTICLE I . Payment of Property Taxes. Section 23-006.05 of the Brooklyn Center City Code
is hereby amended as follows:
Section 23-006.05. PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES REQUIRED. No license
shall be granted or renewed for tobacco related products; bowling alleys; public dancing
entertainment; filling stations; pawnbrokers; secondhand goods dealers; motor vehicle
dealerships; saunas and sauna baths; massage parlors; rap parlors, conversation parlors, adult
encounter groups, adult sensitivity groups, escort services, model services, dancing services, or
hostess services; hospitality accommodations; or amusement devices for operation on any
property on which taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the state, county, school
district, or city are due, delinquent, or unpaid. In the event a suit has been commenced under
Minnesota Statutes, Section 278.01 through 278.03, questioning the amount or validity of taxes,
the City Council may on application waive strict compliance with this provision; no waiver may
be granted, however, for taxes or any portion thereof which remain unpaid for a period
exceeding one ( 1) year after becoming due.
ARTICLE II. Entertainment Licensing. Sections 23-301 through 23-303 of the Brooklyn
Center City Code regarding public dancing are hereby deleted in their entirety and are replaced
with the following:
ENTERTAINMENT
Section 23-301. LICENSE REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS.
A. License Required. No business shall hold three or more entertainment events within a
calendar year within the City of Brooklyn Center without first obtaining an
entertainment license from the City.
2
B. Exceptions. The requirement to obtain an entertainment license shall not apply to any
of the following:
1. A business that conducts no more than two entertainment events in a calendar
year;
2. The use of a radio, streaming service, jukebox, or similar system to provide
background music in a business;
3. An entertainment event occurring at a private club where admission is not open
to the public;
4. A private event conducted on residential property;
5. An entertainment event occurring on public property; or
6. An entertainment event occurring within a school, religious facility, or public
facility.
Section 23-302. DEFINITIONS. Except as may otherwise be provided or implied by
context, all terms shall be given their commonly accepted definitions. For Sections 23-301 through
23-310, the following definitions shall apply unless the context indicates or requires a different
meaning:
A. Applicant , means the person seeking an entertainment license from the City on behalf
of the business proposing to conduct entertainment events within the City.
B. Background music , means soft music intended as an unobtrusive accompaniment to
some activity, such as dining in a restaurant.
C. Business , means any form of corporation, partnership, association, or other entity
conducting any type of business within the City of Brooklyn Center.
D. Entertainment , means every form of recorded music, band, dance, performance, show,
concert, live entertainment, or other deliberate act intended to amuse or entertain those
in attendance.
E. Entertainment event , means the providing of entertainment at an indoor event that is
open to the public. Each day on which entertainment is provided constitutes a separate
event. The term does not include the showing of movies or an event that does not
produce or utilize amplified music.
F. Jukebox , means a machine that automatically plays a selected musical recording upon
the payment of money.
G. Licensed premises , means the interior of a building, or portion thereof, identified in an
3
entertainment license as the area in which a business may conduct entertainment events.
H. Licensee , means the business issued an entertainment license by the City.
I. Open to the public , means that the general public may attend the event, even if
attendance requires the payment of a fee or entry is limited to persons of at least a
certain age.
J. Recorded music , means the play, use, or operation of any radio, tape, disc player,
streaming service, or other machine or device for the production or amplification of
music.
Section 23-303. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE. A business desiring a license to conduct
entertainment events shall submit an application to the City Clerk for an entertainment license.
The application form shall, at a minimum, require the applicant to provide the information required
in this Section.
A. The full name, date of birth, and current residential address of the applicant.
B. The full name, business type, principal office address, and mailing address of the
business proposing to conduct entertainment events.
C. The full names, dates of birth, residential addresses of all partners or persons interested
in the business, including the on-site manager. If the business is a corporation, the state
of incorporation, the names, and dates of birth of all officers, directors, and
stockholders controlling at least ten (10) percent of the outstanding shares issued.
D. The full name, date of birth, and address of the owner or proprietor of the building for
which a license is desired.
E. The applicants’ social security number, Federal ID Number, and Minnesota business
identification number, as required by Minnesota Statutes, Section 270C.72.
F. A scaled floor plan showing the interior layout, including any dance floors, and a site
plan showing the location of the building or buildings, parking layout, any outdoor
seating or patio, and the part or portion thereof intended to be used for the entertainment
events under the requested license.
G. If the applicant is a tenant of the building in which the entertainment events are to
occur, a written letter of approval from the property owner must accompany the
application or the renewal documents.
The application shall be signed by the applicant and, if the applicant is a corporation, by an officer
of the corporation who shall agree to comply with all provisions of the City Code relating to
conducting entertainment events. The applicant shall file the application, the related materials,
and the license fee with the City. The City will only process complete applications and any
application not made complete by the applicant shall be deemed denied.
4
Section 23-304. FEES. The City Council shall establish the fees for an entertainment
license in the City’s Fee Schedule.
Section 23-305. ACTION ON LICENSE APPLICATIONS. Complete applications for
an entertainment license shall be forwarded to the City Council for review and a determination of
whether to grant the requested license in accordance with this Section.
A. Approval. If the City Council approves the application, it may place such conditions
on the entertainment license as it determines are appropriate to address any specific
concerns it may identify associated with the licensed premises, the proposed
entertainment events, or as may otherwise be needed to protect public health, safety,
or welfare.
B. Denial. The City Council may deny the application for any of the following reasons:
1. The applicant failed to provide all required information;
2. The material provided by the applicant contains material omissions or false,
fraudulent, or deceptive statements;
3. The licensee had an entertainment license revoked by the City Council within
the previous 12 months; or
4. The proposed licensed premises or entertainment events do not comply with
any of the applicable requirements including, but not limited to, any uniform
codes, parking requirements, or City Code requirements.
Section 23-306. LICENSE CONDITIONS. In addition to the specific conditions the City
Council may place on a license, all entertainment licenses shall also be subject to compliance
with the conditions and requirements in this Section.
A. Code Compliance. The business and associated uses must comply with the Zoning
Code, uniform codes, and all other applicable provisions of the City Code.
B. Legal Compliance. The licensee shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances related to the business, the licensed
premises, and the conducting of the entertainment events.
C. Public Nuisance. The licensee shall maintain, manage, and operate the licensed
premises, and conduct the entertainment events, in such a way so that they do not
become or constitute a public nuisance under the City Code or state law.
D. Permitting Occupancy (overcrowding). The licensee shall employ such measures as
may be required to ensure an attendance at an entertainment event does not exceed
the maximum occupancy established for the licensed premises in which the
entertainment event is located. The licensee shall post and maintain a sign indicating
5
the maximum occupancy limit for the licensed premise.
E. Building Standards. The licensed premises must comply with the applicable building
standards, including ADA accessibility standards, for stages, dance floors, and
ingress/egress spaces.
F. Parking Limitations. The licensee must secure sufficient parking to accommodate the
number of people who attend the entertainment events it conducts. Such parking
shall, at a minimum, comply with the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code and
the uniform fire code. In no case shall parking be allowed to block fire hydrants or
emergency access lanes. If a licensee enters into a parking agreement with a
neighboring property to secure sufficient parking, such agreement must be in writing
and provided at the time of applying for the issuance or renewal of an entertainment
license. No parking areas located off of the property containing the licensed premises
shall constitute parking for an entertainment event unless such area is subject to an
established parking agreement in favor of the licensee, or is on an adjacent property
that is owned by the business issued the entertainment license.
G. Security. The licensee shall provide such private security as may be needed to ensure
the entertainment events it conducts do not produce disorderly conduct, constitute an
unreasonable risk to public safety, or place an undue burden on police resources.
H. Noise or Sound. The sounds generated by an entertainment event shall not be audible
from outside the licensed premises after 10 p.m. at a level that unreasonably annoys
or disrupts those in the area.
Section 23-307. NOTICES OF NONCOMPLIANCE.
A. First Notice. If the City determines a licensee has violated a condition of an
entertainment license, the City shall provide the licensee a written notice of violation.
The notice shall identify the specific nature of the violation, the date or dates on
which they occurred, and what must be done to correct the violation or avoid future
violations.
B. Second Notice. If a second violation occurs within six months from the first notice of
violation, the City shall send the licensee a second notice of violation. The second
notice shall identify the specific nature of the violation, the date or dates on which
they occurred, and require the licensee to attend a license review conference with the
City to review the violations and to develop a mitigation plan the licensee shall
implement to correct or avoid similar violations.
C. Referral for License Action. If another license violation occurs within six months
from the second notice of violation, or if the licensee fails to fully implement the
established mitigation plan, the City shall refer the matter to the City Council for
review and possible license action under Section 23-309. Notwithstanding the notice
of violation procedures set out in this Section, if the City determines a violation
6
created or poses a significant risk to the public health, safety, or welfare, the City
shall refer the license violation to the City Council for possible license action under
Section 23-309.
Section 23-308. RENEWAL. Every entertainment license expires on December 31 in the
year in which it was issued. Entertainment events shall not be conducted on the licensed premises
after expiration, unless the licensee renews the entertainment license prior to expiration. An
application to renew an entertainment license shall contain all of the information required for an
initial license. The licensee shall update the information on the renewal application as needed to
ensure it is current. Complete applications shall be forwarded to the City Council for review and
a determination of whether to grant the requested license renewal. The City Council may add to
or amend the conditions placed on an entertainment license upon renewal. The City Council may
deny the requested license renewal for any of the reasons identified for denying a license in Section
23-305, or for revoking, suspending, or non-renewing a license in Section 23-309.
Section 23-309. LICENSE REVOCATION, SUSPENSION, OR NON-RENEWAL. The
City Council may revoke, suspend, or non-renew any entertainment license presented to it by the
City for action for any of the reasons set out in this Section. The City shall provide the licensee
written notice and an opportunity to be heard at the meeting at which the City Council is to consider
the proposed license action.
A. Failure to comply with any of the specific conditions placed on the license or the
general conditions contained in Section 23-306.
B. Failure to fully implement the mitigation plan if one is established for the licensed
premises.
C. Making materially false, fraudulent, or deceptive statements to the City regarding the
licensed premises or the entertainment events.
D. Operating the licensed premises, or conducting the entertainment events, in such a
manner as to create or constitute a public nuisance under the City Code or Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 609.74 or 609.745.
E. Operating the licensed premise, or conducting the entertainment events, in such a
manner as to produce multiple or repeated incidences of disorderly conduct.
F. Failure to pay any civil penalties or fines imposed by the City related to the business,
the licensed premises, or the conducting of entertainment events.
Section 23-310. PENALTY. The City Council may impose a civil penalty not to exceed
one thousand dollars ($1,000) on any licensee for violating any specific or general condition placed
on the entertainment license. A separate penalty may be imposed for each license violation. The
City Council shall establish as part of the City’s fee schedule the presumptive civil penalties
applicable to violations, including multiple violations within a certain period of time. The City
shall provide the licensee notice and an opportunity to be heard by the City Council prior to
imposing a civil penalty. The civil penalties set out in the fee schedule are the presumed sanctions
7
for a violation, but the City Council may impose a different penalty as it determines is appropriate
under the facts of the particular situation.
ARTICLE III. C2 Commerce District Permitted Uses. Brooklyn Center City Code Section 35-
322(1)(b) is hereby amended as follows:
Section 35-322. C2 COMMERCE DISTRICT.
1. Permitted Uses
b. Eating establishments, provided they do not offer live entertainment and further
provided that the category does not permit drive-in eating places and convenience-
food restaurants.
ARTICLE IV. C2 Commerce District Special Uses. Brooklyn Center City Code Section 35-
322(3)(d) is hereby amended as follows:
3. Special Uses
a. Eating establishments offering live entertainment; rRecreation and amusement places
such as motion picture theaters and legitimate theater; sports arenas, bowling alleys,
skating rinks, and gymnasiums, all provided they do not abut an R1, R2, or R3
district, including abutment at a street line.
ARTICLE V. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon
thirty days following its legal publication.
Adopted this ___ day of __________, 2019.
____________________________
Mike Elliott, Mayor
ATTEST: _________________________
City Clerk
Date of Publication _________________________
Effective Date _____________________________
(Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double underline indicates new matter.)
11/21/2019
1
Amendment Public Dance Ordinance to Entertainment Ordinance
October 8, 2018
Review
City Council Meeting
11/25/19
Policy Background
•At the August 26, 2019, work session staff brought forward
the concept of amending the Public Dance Ordinance into a
more comprehensive and robust Entertainment Ordinance.
•Amending of the “public dance" ordinance would allow the
City to address particular behaviors that may be associated
with establishments that cater to nighttime entertainment in
an effective way.
•The City Council was supportive of this concept.
22
2
11/21/2019
2
Policy Background
•At the October 28, 2019, work session staff presented a draft
Entertainment Ordinance. This ordinance implements
regulatory conditions for establishment that would have an
entertainment license.
•The concerns from the Council was the language regarding
police calls. This has been removed and replaced with
security conditions. Additionally, standard language for
renewal, license revocation, suspension, or non‐renewal and
penalty have been added.
32
2
Policy Background
•Chapter 35 of the Zoning Code regarding C2 Commerce District has
amendments for Permitted Uses and Special Uses. The amendment
removes the provision of live entertainment as a permitted use and
eating establishments offering live entertainment from Special Uses.
42
2
11/21/2019
3
Policy Background
•Staff believes by focusing on behaviors, particularly antisocial
behaviors that may result in police calls and not a focus on the
type of establishments or its operations the City may mitigate
or prevent antisocial behaviors and assist businesses with
operating successfully.
52
2
Request of Action
Approve first reading of an Ordinance Amending
Chapters 23 and Chapter 35 of the City Code of
Ordinances Regarding Entertainment Licensing and
Uses and hold the second reading public hearing on
December 9, 2019.
62
2
11/21/2019
4
Questions?
72
2
EXCERPT FROM OCTOBER 28, 2019 STUDY SESSION AND WORK SESSION
STUDY SESSION
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PUBLIC DANCE ORDINANCE THE
ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE AND ZONING ORDINANCE
Ms. Suciu reviewed amendments to the existing public dance ordinance, which is proposed to be
changed to a comprehensive entertainment ordinance. She added the amendments would allow
the City to address anti-social behavior at establishments that cater to late-night entertainment
more effectively. C onditions proposed to be added to the licensing process, and restrictions to the
number of allowable police calls. Penalties for violations would be written into the fee schedule.
Ms. Suciu stated the amendments would allow City Staff and the Police Department to work
together to address behavior rather than focusing on the type of establishment.
Councilmember Graves requested clarification regarding the fee scale. Ms. Suciu stated the
tobacco license violations fee scale was used as a guide.
Mr. Boganey stated the proposed amendments had been presented to local businesses to give them
a chance to review and provide feedback on the changes. He added, to the best of his knowledge,
there has not been any negative feedback on the proposed changes.
Discussion of this item continued and concluded the October 28, 2019, Work Session.
WORK SESSION
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PUBLIC DANCE ORDINANCE THE
ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE AND ZONING ORDINANCE (cont’d)
Mayor/President Elliott asked whether any comments were received from local entertainment
businesses regarding this ordinance amendment. Ms. Suciu stated Earle Brown Heritage Center
(EBHC) was asked for feedback, as they often have live entertainment. She added other
establishments did not have any comments.
Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards stated entertainment businesses were present at the
meeting, including Jammin Wings, Jambo Africa, and EBHC, and they expressed their
appreciation of having the meeting and going through all the information.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he supports moving ahead with the updated
Ordinance. He added he appreciates that it will be called an entertainment ordinance, rather than
a dance ordinance. He noted there might be enforcement issues if the City moves forward with
2:00 a.m. liquor license.
Mayor/President Elliott expressed concern regarding police calls in the updated Ordinance, which
is not clear. He stated the number of police calls to an establishment should not be a reason to bar
them from having a license. He noted he feels adamant that caution should be used concerning
this requirement.
Mr. Boganey stated it is a good point, and the updated Ordinance is a little vague in that respect.
He added, however, the language is valid and valuable, as there is no indication that having a
disproportionate number of police calls would translate into action against an establishment’s
license. He added the only requirement is that a meeting will be scheduled to discuss strategies
for reducing police calls and increasing public safety. He noted the license would only be reviewed
if the strategies are not followed or are not successful.
Mayor/President Elliott stated, in terms of police calls, it makes sense to apply this amendment to
all businesses in Brooklyn Center, treating businesses of all sizes the same, and not discriminate
against small local businesses. He added the City could be open to criticism if businesses are
treated differently based on police calls.
Mr. Boganey stated the principle business that would apply for an entertainment license is a
restaurant, and the license is an ancillary activity to the principle business. He added there is
evidence to suggest that when you add an ancillary activity to the principle business, there can be
potentially negative results, which is the reason that additional conditions or requirements are
proposed.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated licensing standards would vary by functionality, and
local businesses should be reviewed with functionality in mind.
Mayor/President Elliott stated the amendment related to police calls could disproportionately
affect minority businesses.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated businesses would be allowed to meet with City Staff
and come up with a mitigation plan to resolve their issues, and it will come before the City
Council/EDA. She added she does not believe the amendment sets up small businesses of color
to fail, although there may be changes in the case of 2:00 a.m. liquor license. She noted City Staff
is doing what they can to provide a solution.
Mayor/President Elliott stated there could be unintended consequences, as there are more Police
calls to residences of people with color, and businesses would also be impacted. He added a
mitigation plan based on police calls is problematic, and he finds it difficult to support.
Mr. Gilchrist stated the types of circumstances that would constitute the basis for revocation would
need to be reviewed if this amendment moves forward. Mayor/President Elliott stated revocation
should not be predicated on the number of police calls.
Ms. Suciu stated the proposed language comes from the City of Minneapolis’ entertainment
ordinance. She added the impact would only be on the ancillary entertainment portion of the
business. She noted the initial purpose of the proposed amendment was to separate entertainment
from the liquor license so businesses can remain in operation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated the City is required to demonstrate a substantive due
process, which prohibits discrimination against one type of business or another. He added Police
Officers are responsible for due diligence in documenting police calls, and the amendment is
appropriate.
Mayor/President Elliott noted communities of color are disproportionately impacted by crime-free
Ordinances. He stated he has a hard time moving forward with the section about police calls, and
he would like to see his concerns addressed. He added he supports merging the two Ordinances.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated she believes there is enough discretion, and it is not
predicated. She added she supports moving forward with the proposed amendment. She noted
she is interested in more clarity as a whole throughout the Ordinance.
Mayor/President Elliott stated he would like more information regarding the effect this Ordinance
will have on certain communities, concerning police calls.
Mr. Boganey stated the system of licenses is based on the number of police calls.
Mayor/President Elliott stressed the importance of doing due diligence and considering the impact
moving forward. He requested that the City Staff provide additional information.
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated there is no quorum.
Mr. Boganey stated City Staff could provide additional analysis.
Mayor/President Elliott requested that the City Council/EDA should schedule a time for a
discussion on the housing portion of this issue.
EXCERPT FROM AUGUST 26, 2019
WORKSESSION MINUTES
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PUBLIC DANCE ORDINANCE TO THE
ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE
Dr. Edwards reviewed a proposed amendment to the Public Dance Ordinance, which is proposed
by a committee of City Staff that worked on this issue. He added the intent is to focus on anti-
social behaviors that result in police calls rather than the type of establishment or its operations.
He stressed the importance of regulatory policies for mitigating or preventing behaviors. He noted
it is assumed that regulating liquor from 1:00 a.m. – 2:00 a.m. would not be sufficient enforcement
given the diversity of police calls that are received.
Police Chief Tim Gannon stated there were less of the same types of calls from 2017-18. He added
those figures could be provided to the City Council/EDA.
Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated she is pleased with the recommendation, as it
complements the liquor ordinance amendment. She asked whether the new Ordinance will
incorporate both live music and public dance.
Mr. Boganey stated the City has a dance permit license process, and under the Zoning Ordinance,
anyone providing live entertainment needs a special use permit. He added the intent is to have one
process.
Councilmember/Commissioner Butler stated she supports moving forward with City Staff’s
suggestions. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan agreed. Councilmember/Commissioner
Lawrence-Anderson agreed.
Mayor/President Elliott stressed the importance of considering nearby residents and
neighborhoods due to noise.
Council/E D A Work
S ession
City Hall Council C hambers
November 25, 2019
AGE NDA
The C ity Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy
of the full City Council pac ket is available to the public. The pac ket ring binder is located at the
entrance of the c ounc il chambers.
AC T I V E D IS C US S I O N IT E M S
1.P ublic S af ety Response to Mental Health Calls
2.Council Meetings Discussions
3.Housing Policy Framework D iscussion
P E ND I NG L IS T F O R F UT URE WO RK S E S S IO NS
1.P ending I tems
Metro Transit Bus - (upcomi ng CC presentation)
L ivable Wages - 12/9
F reeway P ark /Mound C emetery MO U - 1/13
E nvironmental Sustainability R eport - 1/13
F ood Trucks - 1/27
Rental L icense Update - 1/27
Census Update - 1/27
Commemoration of 400 years of Slavery A ctivities - 2/10
Use of E D A Owned P roperty - 3/9
O ptions f or Use of Adjacent S pace to L iquor Store - 3/9
Discussion of Mayor/C ity C ouncil roles & responsibilities
(C ommonS ense I nc.)
M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION
DAT E:11/25/2019
TO :C ity C ounc il
F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager
T HR O UG H:N/A
B Y:Tim G anno n, C hief of P olic e
S UBJ E C T:P ublic S afety R es p o nse to Mental Health C alls
Recommendation:
B ackground:
T he C ity C ounc il rec eived a presentatio n on c o -res p o nder mo d els from the p o lic e d ep artment o n 6/24/19. At
the c o mp letio n o f that presentatio n the C ounc il expres sed wanting further info rmation regard ing polic e spec ific
res p o nse to mental health crisis calls. Attached are the s p ecific polic e polic ies regarding interacting with tho s e
in crisis.
T he following is an up d ated p res entation des c ribing what the polic e department is c urrently doing, what's b een
intro d uc ed sinc e the June presentatio n, as well exploring o ther respons e pro toc o ls no t currently utilized .
Policy Issues:
D oes the C ou n cil require additional informa tion reg a rd ing cu rrent menta l health crisis op tions or respon se
in B rooklyn C en ter?
D oes the C ou n cil b elieve th ere is a need to modify our cu rrent pla n s/p ractices in respon se to men tal health
crisis situations in B rooklyn C en ter?
D oes C ouncil wish to provide further direction to th e C ity M anager rega rd ing future men tal health crisis
respon se options?
S trategic Priorities and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S tab le C ommunity
AT TAC HME N T S :
Desc rip tion Up lo ad Date Typ e
P olic e polic y C ritical Incident 10/4/2019 C o ver Memo
P olic e polic y c ivil commitments 10/4/2019 C o ver Memo
P owerp o int 11/20/2019 P res entation
Policy
436
Brooklyn Center Police Department
Brooklyn Center PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2019/09/17, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Brooklyn Center Police
Department
Crisis Intervention Incidents - 1
Crisis Intervention Incidents
436.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidelines for interacting with those who may be experiencing a mental health
or emotional crisis. Interaction with such individuals has the potential for miscommunication and
violence. It often requires an officer to make difficult judgments about a person’s mental state and
intent in order to effectively and legally interact with the individual.
436.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include:
Person in crisis - A person whose level of distress or mental health symptoms have exceeded
the person’s internal ability to manage his/her behavior or emotions. A crisis can be precipitated by
any number of things, including an increase in the symptoms of mental illness despite treatment
compliance; non-compliance with treatment, including a failure to take prescribed medications
appropriately; or any other circumstance or event that causes the person to engage in erratic,
disruptive or dangerous behavior that may be accompanied by impaired judgment.
436.2 POLICY
The Brooklyn Center Police Department is committed to providing a consistently high level of
service to all members of the community and recognizes that persons in crisis may benefit from
intervention. The Department will collaborate, where feasible, with mental health professionals
436.3 SIGNS
Members should be alert to any of the following possible signs of mental health issues or crises:
(a)A known history of mental illness
(b)Threats of or attempted suicide
(c)Loss of memory
(d)Incoherence, disorientation or slow response
(e)Delusions, hallucinations, perceptions unrelated to reality or grandiose ideas
(f)Depression, pronounced feelings of hopelessness or uselessness, extreme sadness
or guilt
(g)Social withdrawal
(h)Manic or impulsive behavior, extreme agitation, lack of control
(i)Lack of fear
(j)Anxiety, aggression, rigidity, inflexibility or paranoia
Members should be aware that this list is not exhaustive. The presence or absence of any of these
should not be treated as proof of the presence or absence of a mental health issue or crisis.
Brooklyn Center Police Department
Brooklyn Center PD Policy Manual
Crisis Intervention Incidents
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2019/09/17, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Brooklyn Center Police
Department
Crisis Intervention Incidents - 2
436.4 FIRST RESPONDERS
Safety is a priority for first responders. It is important to recognize that individuals under the
influence of alcohol, drugs or both may exhibit symptoms that are similar to those of a person in a
mental health crisis. These individuals may still present a serious threat to officers; such a threat
should be addressed with reasonable tactics. Nothing in this policy shall be construed to limit an
officer’s authority to use reasonable force when interacting with a person in crisis.
Officers are reminded that mental health issues, mental health crises and unusual behavior alone
are not criminal offenses. Individuals may benefit from treatment as opposed to incarceration.
An officer responding to a call involving a person in crisis should:
(a)Promptly assess the situation independent of reported information and make a
preliminary determination regarding whether a mental health crisis may be a factor.
(b)Request available backup officers and specialized resources as deemed necessary
and, if it is reasonably believed that the person is in a crisis situation use conflict
resolution and de-escalation techniques to stabilize the incident as appropriate.
(c)If feasible, and without compromising safety, turn off flashing lights, bright lights or
sirens.
(d)Attempt to determine if weapons are present or available.
(e)Take into account the person’s mental and emotional state and potential inability to
understand commands or to appreciate the consequences of his/her action or inaction,
as perceived by the officer.
(f)Secure the scene and clear the immediate area as necessary.
(g)Employ tactics to preserve the safety of all participants.
(h)Determine the nature of any crime.
(i)Request a supervisor, if warranted.
(j)Evaluate any available information that might assist in determining cause or motivation
for the person’s actions or stated intentions.
436.5 DE-ESCALATION
Officers should consider that taking no action or passively monitoring the situation may be the
most reasonable response to a mental health crisis.
Once it is determined that a situation is a mental health crisis and immediate safety concerns
have been addressed responding members should be aware of the following considerations and
should generally:
•Evaluate safety conditions.
•Introduce themselves and attempt to obtain the person’s name.
•Be patient, polite, calm, courteous and avoid overreacting.
•Speak and move slowly and in a non-threatening manner.
Brooklyn Center Police Department
Brooklyn Center PD Policy Manual
Crisis Intervention Incidents
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2019/09/17, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Brooklyn Center Police
Department
Crisis Intervention Incidents - 3
•Moderate the level of direct eye contact.
•If possible remove distractions or disruptive people from the area.
•Demonstrate active listening skills (e.g., summarize the person’s verbal
communication).
436.6 INCIDENT ORIENTATION
When responding to an incident that may involve mental illness or a mental health crisis, the officer
should request that the dispatcher provide critical information as it becomes available. police
436.7 SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITIES
When requested responding supervisors should:
(a)Attempt to secure appropriate and sufficient resources.
(b)Closely monitor any use of force, including the use of restraints, and ensure that those
subjected to the use of force are provided with timely access to medical care (see the
Handcuffing and Restraints Policy).
(c)Ensure that all reports are completed and that incident documentation uses
appropriate terminology and language.
436.8 INCIDENT REPORTING
Members engaging in any oral or written communication associated with a mental health crisis
should be mindful of the sensitive nature of such communications and should exercise appropriate
discretion when referring to or describing persons and circumstances.
Members having contact with a person in crisis should keep related information confidential,
except to the extent that revealing information is necessary to conform to department reporting
procedures or other official mental health or medical proceedings.
436.8.1 DIVERSION
Individuals who are not being arrested should be processed in accordance with the Civil
Commitments Policy.
436.9 NON-SWORN INTERACTION WITH PEOPLE IN CRISIS
Non-sworn members may be required to interact with persons in crisis in an administrative
capacity, such records request, and animal control issues.
(a)Members should treat all individuals equally and with dignity and respect.
(b)If a member believes that he/she is interacting with a person in crisis, he/she should
proceed patiently and in a calm manner.
(c)Members should be aware and understand that the person may make unusual or
bizarre claims or requests.
If a person’s behavior makes the member feel unsafe, if the person is or becomes disruptive or
violent, or if the person acts in such a manner as to cause the member to believe that the person
Brooklyn Center Police Department
Brooklyn Center PD Policy Manual
Crisis Intervention Incidents
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2019/09/17, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Brooklyn Center Police
Department
Crisis Intervention Incidents - 4
may be harmful to him/herself or others, an officer should be promptly summoned to provide
assistance.
436.10 TRAINING
In coordination with the mental health community and appropriate stakeholders, the Department
will develop and provide comprehensive education and training to all department members to
enable them to effectively interact with persons in crisis.
Additionally, the Training Sergeant will provide officers with in-service training in crisis intervention
and mental illness crises as required by Minn. Stat. § 626.8469.
Policy
409
Brooklyn Center Police Department
Brooklyn Center PD Policy Manual
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2019/09/17, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Brooklyn Center Police
Department
Civil Commitments - 1
Civil Commitments
409.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This policy provides guidelines for when officers may place an individual in protective custody
and request a 72-hour hold under the Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act (Minn. Stat. §
253B.05).
409.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Brooklyn Center Police Department to protect the public and individuals
through legal and appropriate use of the 72-hour hold process.
409.3 AUTHORITY
An officer, having probable cause to believe that any individual because of mental illness, chemical
dependency, or public intoxication is in danger of injuring him/herself or others if not immediately
detained, may take, or cause to be taken, the individual to a treatment facility for a 72-hour
evaluation (Minn. Stat. § 253B.05, Subd. 2).
The officer shall make written application for admission of the individual to a treatment facility. The
application shall contain the officer’s reasons for and circumstances under which the individual was
taken into custody. If danger to specific individuals is a basis for the requested emergency hold,
the statement must include identifying information for those individuals to the extent reasonably
practicable. The officer shall also provide the department contact information for purposes of
receiving notice if the individual is released prior to the 72-hour admission or leaves the facility
without consent. The facility shall make a copy of the statement available to the individual taken
into custody (Minn. Stat. § 253B.05, Subd. 2).
409.3.1 VOLUNTARY EVALUATION
If officers encounter an individual who may qualify for a 72-hour hold, they may inquire as to
whether the person desires to voluntarily be evaluated at an appropriate facility. If the individual
so desires, the officers should:
(a)Request the appropriate ambulance service. Transport the individual to an appropriate
facility that is able to conduct the evaluation and admit the person pursuant to the
Minnesota Commitment and Treatment Act.
(b)If at any point the individual changes his/her mind regarding voluntary evaluation,
officers should proceed with the application for a 72-hour hold, if appropriate.
(c)Document the circumstances surrounding the individual's desire to pursue voluntary
evaluation and/or admission.
409.4 CONSIDERATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Any officer handling a call involving an individual who may qualify for a 72-hour hold should
consider, as time and circumstances reasonably permit:
Brooklyn Center Police Department
Brooklyn Center PD Policy Manual
Civil Commitments
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2019/09/17, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Brooklyn Center Police
Department
Civil Commitments - 2
(a)Available information that might assist in determining the cause and nature of the
individual's action or stated intentions.
(b)When appropriate forward a report to Hennepin County Adult/Child Protection (First
Response).
(c)Conflict resolution and de-escalation techniques.
(d)Community or other resources available to assist in dealing with mental health issues.
While these steps are encouraged, nothing in this section is intended to dissuade officers from
taking reasonable action to ensure the safety of the officers and others.
409.5 TRANSPORTATION
Absent exigent circumstances or Sergeant/DCO approval, all transports for mental health holds
shall be conducted by medical personnel.
Officers may transport intoxicated individuals to a hospital or detox facility unless the individual
is in need of immediate medical care.
409.5.1 TYPE OF TRANSPORTATION
When transporting any individual on a Minn. Stat. § 253B.05 admission, and if reasonably
practicable, officers should not be in uniform and should not use a vehicle visibly marked as a law
enforcement vehicle (Minn. Stat. § 253B.05, Subd. 2(b)).
409.6 TRANSFER TO APPROPRIATE FACILITY
Upon arrival at the facility, the officer will escort the individual into a treatment area designated
by a facility staff member. If the individual is not seeking treatment voluntarily, the officer should
provide the staff member with the written application for a 72-hour hold and remain present to
provide clarification of the grounds for detention, upon request.
Absent exigent circumstances, the transporting officer should not assist facility staff with the
admission process, including restraint of the individual. However, if the individual is transported
and delivered while restrained, the officer may assist with transferring the individual to facility
restraints and will be available to assist during the admission process, if requested. Under normal
circumstances, officers will not apply facility-ordered restraints.
409.7 DOCUMENTATION
The officer should complete an application for emergency admission, provide it to the facility staff
member assigned to that patient and retain a copy of the application for inclusion in the case report.
The officer should also provide a verbal summary to any evaluating staff member regarding the
circumstances leading to the involuntary detention.
Brooklyn Center Police Department
Brooklyn Center PD Policy Manual
Civil Commitments
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2019/09/17, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Brooklyn Center Police
Department
Civil Commitments - 3
409.8 CRIMINAL OFFENSES
Officers investigating an individual who is suspected of committing a minor criminal offense and
who is being taken into custody for purposes of a 72-hour hold should resolve the criminal matter
by issuing a warning or a citation, as appropriate.
When an individual who may qualify for a 72-hour hold has committed a serious criminal offense
that would normally result in an arrest and transfer to a jail facility, the officer should:
(a)Arrest the individual when there is probable cause to do so.
(b)Notify the appropriate supervisor of the facts supporting the arrest and the facts that
would support the 72-hour hold.
(c)Facilitate the individual’s transfer to jail.
(d)Thoroughly document in the related reports the circumstances that indicate the
individual may qualify for a 72-hour hold.
In the supervisor’s judgment, the individual may instead be arrested or booked and transported
to the appropriate mental health facility. The supervisor should consider the seriousness of the
offense, the treatment options available, the ability of this department to regain custody of the
individual, department resources (e.g., posting a guard) and other relevant factors in making this
decision.
409.9 FIREARMS AND OTHER WEAPONS
Whenever an individual is taken into custody for a 72-hour hold, the handling officers should seek
to determine if the individual owns or has access to any firearm or other deadly weapon. Officers
should consider whether it is appropriate and consistent with current search and seizure law under
the circumstances to seize any such firearms or other dangerous weapons (e.g., safekeeping,
evidence, consent).
Officers are cautioned that a search warrant may be needed before seizing weapons or entering
a residence or other place to search unless lawful warrantless entry has already been made (e.g.,
exigent circumstances, consent).
The handling officers should further advise the individual of the procedure for the return of any
firearm or other weapon that has been taken into custody.
409.10 TRAINING
This department will endeavor to provide department-approved training on interaction with
mentally disabled persons, 72-hour holds and crisis intervention.
11/20/2019
1
Mental health crisis call
response
City Council, November 25, 2019
Tim Gannon, Police Chief1
DEFINITIONS
•C.I.T – Crisis Intervention Team; C.I.T Officers respond to mental
health calls trained to uses de‐escalation techniques if necessary and
assess if referral to services or transport for mental health evaluation
is appropriate.
•C.O.P.E – Community Outreach Psychiatric Emergencies. This is a
Hennepin County program with Crisis responders.
2
11/20/2019
2
*suicidal call type
ended in October
2016. Now welfare or
mental etc…
3
4
11/20/2019
3
Mental Health Related Calls –N e a r b y Cities
Includes call types (mental problem, welfare check & drug overdose)
5
425
476 488
593
651
416
466
652
715 710
505
588
711
830 832
727
796
1020
1171
1321
946
1075
1245
1574
1737
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Golden Valley
Robbinsdale
Crystal
Maple Grove
Brooklyn Center
6
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Persons placed on Holds
Total
11/20/2019
4
Brooklyn Center Initiatives
•25 Sworn Officers have been trained in C.I.T, most in past two years and the department
has committed to train all patrol officers. Multiple BC officers have a passion and coach
other officers in C.I.T courses.
•The Crisis Negotiator Team consists of a patrol Sergeant, Detective & 4 patrol officers
trained in advanced negotiator techniques. The unit has been revamped and they now
train a minimum of 8 hours a month & attend regional hospital/law enforcement mental
health meetings.
•As of January 2019 the department began a monthly in‐depth online training consisting
of blocks on persuasion/de‐escalation, 3 blocks on mental health, autism, mental health
holds etc.
•May of 2019 the department began utilizing a more comprehensive hold form that will
help doctors better understand the suicidal individuals mental health issue.
•First line supervisors have been trained on latest court cases & best practices in dealing
with individuals in crisis.
7
Brooklyn Center Initiatives
updated
•We have a signed contract with Vitals Aware services to provide officers with a notification app.
•We have contacted COPE and gained clarity around what services they can provide within Hennepin
County. Currently they are involved in a pilot program with Minneapolis Police. That is a co‐responder
model with limited day time hours.
•A conversation with Hennepin Behavior Health involving social workers working alongside police
officers has been explored.
•The entire department completed a PATROL online lesson plan titled “Serving those with Autism
Spectrum Disorder”. That was a scheduled training for September. That is the fifth mental health
related course training the department has received this year.
•CIT training continues as priority Core training mandate.
•In December, I will be participating in a executive forum discussing Police response to suicide calls.
t 8
11/20/2019
5
Embedded Social worker Program
•Master social worker designated by Hennepin County Behavior Health.
•Currently: Brooklyn Park, Bloomington, Hopkins‐St. Louis park, and Plymouth‐Minnetonka are piloting
the program.
•Funding is 60% by City and 40% by County for social worker’s salary.
•The assigned SW is dedicated to the assigned city with no additional case load.
•The SW has increased flexibility to work with individuals that may not have received services
otherwise.
•Each city is implementing the program slightly differently because of needs and records systems.
•Programming does follow a case management model as opposed to co‐responder. Field visits are a
component of the program to provide after care.
•City’s are reporting success as measured by less return calls and more effective problem solving by SW
who can access resources and data bases police officers cannot.
t
9
Questions?
t 10
M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION
DAT E:11/25/2019
TO :C ity C ounc il
F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager
T HR O UG H:N/A
B Y:Mike Elliott, Mayor
S UBJ E C T:C o uncil Meetings Disc ussio ns
Recommendation:
C o uncil d irec tion is req uested regard ing the reques t o f the Mayo r to c o nsid er the fo llo wing:
1. C hange the pac ket delivery d ay p ro vide the C o uncil with ad d ition time to review the C o uncil P acket before
the meeting day.
2. Ad d one ad d itional meeting day per mo nth devo ted the review o f wo rk s es s ion items . T he intend ed purpos e
o f this change is to s ho rten the length of regular meeting time and to allo w s uffic ient time to d is cus and
d elib erate o n wo rk s es s io n items.
B ackground:
S everal mo nths ago Mayor Ellio tt sugges ted that ac tions need ed to be taken to reduce the length o f time
committed to C ity C o uncil/E DA Meetings . I n ad d ition, the Mayor express ed c o nc ern that there was no t
s uffic ient time b etween p acket d elivery on T hurs day evening and Mond ay when mos t meetings are held. He
expressed a d es ire to have at leas t five d ays to review the pac ket before the meeting fo r this review.
T he Mayor as ked that s taff review this issue to d etermine what the p ractical implic ations wo uld b e if we made
thes e c hanges .
I have had several meetings with s taff ab o ut thes e proposed changes and b elo w are my find ings :
Ad d itional R eview Time
Based o n my s taff review I b elieve that the leas t d ifficult and mo s t efficient way to p ro vide ad d itional days fo r
review wo uld be to change the C o uncil normal meeting day from Mond ay to s ome later d ay in the week
p erhaps Tues d ay o r Wed nesday. It is my und ers tand ing that several C ounc ils meet o n Tuesday and probab ly
fewer o n Wed nes day. Und er this s cenario the pac ket preparatio n p ro cess wo uld not c hange. P ac kets would be
electro nic ally delivered T hurs d ay and the C o unc il would have ad d itional time to review and prepare fo r the
meeting.
T he alternative to c hanging the meeting day would require modific ations to the preparatio n p ro cess. T he effec t
o n the proc es s would vary d ep ending o n the numb er of ad d itional days req uired b y the C ity C o uncil.
Impac ts we wo uld to cons id er depend ing on the number o f days added wo uld inc lude the following:
1. C hanges to the P lanning C ommission s c hed ule
2. T he 60 day rule for p lanning dec is io ns
3. Mand ated requirements related to public as s es s ments
4. C ity po lic ies regarding notices and pub lic hearings fo r ordinanc e app ro vals
5. S taffing s c hedules .
I d o no t p ro vid e this lis t o f c o nsideratio ns to s ugges t that the c urrent p ro ces s c anno t b e c hanged. I am
s uggesting the impac ts can no t b e easily determined until we have C o uncil direc tion regard ing the numb er o f
ad d itional days req uired.
Ad d itional Meeting Day for Work S essions
After reviewing this item with staff it is my view that ad d ing one additio nal day eac h mo nth d evoted to work
s es s io ns is likely to have minimal effect from a s taff p ers p ective. It this c hange res ulted in s horter duration time
fo r regular meetings s taff wo uld s ee this change as a likely benefit. It may als o p ro vide s o me logis tic al
ad vantages as well. I d o has ten to add that there are s ome work session items that will b e time-s ensitive s o
we s uggest that if this change is ad o p ted, a provis io n allo wing time-sens itive work s es sion items to proc eed o n
regular meeting d ates .
Policy Issues:
Do es the C ounc il require additio nal information in order to p ro vide d irection?
Do es the C ounc il require additio nal time to review C o uncil P ackets? If s o how much lead time d o es the
C o uncil req uire?
Is the C ounc il willing to cons id er c hanging C ounc il meeting dates to allow fo r more p acket review time in
ad vance o f meetings ?
Is the C ounc il willing to cons id er adding o ne additio nal mo nthly meeting ded ic ated to Wo rk S es s io n
d is cus s io n items ?
S trategic Priorities and Values:
O peratio nal Exc ellence
M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION
DAT E:11/25/2019
TO :C ity C ounc il
F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager
T HR O UG H:N/A
B Y:Meg Beekman, C o mmunity Development Directo r
S UBJ E C T:Ho us ing P o licy F ramework Dis c us s ion
Recommendation:
- C on sid er th e prop osed hou sin g policy fram ework, and p rovid e direction rela tin g to h ousing efforts.
B ackground:
T he C ity's 2040 C o mp rehens ive P lan id entifies s everal b ro ad ho using goals :
2040 Hous ing & Neighb o rhood G oals
P ro mote a d ivers e hous ing sto ck that p ro vides s afe, s table, and ac ces s ib le ho using o p tions to all of
Brooklyn C enter ’s res id ents .
R ecognize and identify ways to matc h Bro o klyn C enter ’s hous ing with the C ity’s changing
d emo grap hic s .
Explore opportunities to imp ro ve the C ity’s ho using p o licies and o rdinanc es to make them mo re
res p o ns ive to current and future residents .
Maintain the exis ting hous ing sto ck in p rimarily s ingle-family neighbo rhoods thro ugh p ro p er ordinanc es ,
inc entive programs and enfo rcement.
Explore opportunities to inc o rp o rate new affo rd ab le ho using into red evelopment areas that promote
s afe, s ec ure and econo mically divers e neighborho o d s .
In additio n to thes e goals, the 2040 C omprehens ive P lan id entifies implementation s trategies as well as
res o urc es and tools fo r ac hieving its ho using go als . T hes e are contained in C hapters 4 and 9, o f the Ho us ing
and Implementation c hapters respec tively (attac hed).
T he c urrent wo rk b eing undertaken to up d ate the C ity's Zoning C ode is an example o f an implementatio n
s trategy identified to s up p o rt the C ity's hous ing goals .
S taff has d evelo p ed a p ro p o s ed framewo rk for the purp o s e of mo ving fo rward the C ity's ho using goals and
ad d res s ing the implementatio n s trategies within the 2040 C o mp rehens ive P lan. T he framewo rk lays o ut a path
to review the C ity's exis ting ho using p o licies and the creatio n o f new p o licies with the p urpose o f address ing
the C ity's hous ing p rio rities.
T he first step in the framewo rk is to c o mp lete a hous ing study and gap s analys is of the c ity's exis ting hous ing
s toc k. S imilar to the b ackground rep o rt that was done ahead of the start of the wo rk o n the 2040
C o mp rehens ive P lan, the purp o s e of the hous ing s tudy is to create a b as eline and deep d ive o n the c o llection
o f data around ho us ing in the C ity. T his informatio n will help id entify p riorities and feed d ata to the rest of the
work done mo ving fo rward. T he s tud y would id entify gaps in the C ity's future ho us ing d emand, as well
as provide a context and evaluation of regional market trends affecting B rooklyn C enter's housing market.
Issue Identification
C hanging d emograp hic s and shifting market trend s have lead to an entirely d ifferent ho using market throughout
the regio n and within Brooklyn C enter than exis ted ten years ago . Brooklyn C enter, once hit hard es t b y the
great rec es s ion, now is experiencing a market c o rrectio n that is driven b y ris ing home p rices thro ughout the
region, and ho me values are no w inc reas ing at s o me of the highes t rates in Hennepin C ounty. A s hortage of
rental ho using througho ut the region, combined with record high cons truction c o s ts , both o f whic h are
p ro jected to c ontinue into the next p lanning c yc le, are d riving vac anc y rates to rec o rd lows and pus hing rents
up. T his is c aus ing all s o rts o f ripple effects that c ombined are making it hard er and hard er for lo w and
mo d erate inc ome families to find and keep , s afe, s tab le, and affo rd ab le rental ho us ing.
As engagement related to the c o mp rehens ive plan and vario us red evelopment s ites have o cc urred thro ugho ut
the c o mmunity o ver the past few years , a numb er of is s ues, c o nc erns, and p rio rity areas have bub b led up
related to hous ing. Many of thes e issues are identified in the 2040 C o mp rehens ive P lan.
In order to addres s is s ues related to hous ing, the framework plan whic h s taff is recommend ing is attempting to
take a comprehens ive review of the C ity's ho us ing p o licy approac h, with an emp has is in key foc us areas b as ed
o n p rio rities whic h merit s p ecial attentio n.
T he overall review wo uld inc lude id entifying thos e hous ing issues whic h are c urrently s urfac ing in the
community and prioritizing those which are mos t pres s ing. Is s ues which have broadly been identified that merit
s p ecial attention inc lud e:
Mitigating and p reventing d is p lacement of exis ting residents as the co mmunity redevelo p s
Tenant p ro tec tions
C reating and exp anding home o wners hip opportunities
F air hous ing polic y
Maintenanc e and p res ervatio n o f single family ho using s toc k
Housing Policy Framework
S taff is rec o mmend ing the fo llo wing framewo rk to review and address the highes t priority hous ing issues in the
C ity. As part o f this work, s taff would rec ommend the creatio n o f a Ho using Tas k F o rce to p ro vide guidanc e
and input to the work. T he Hous ing Tas k F orc e wo uld p ro vide recommendatio ns to the Hous ing
C o mmis s io n, whic h wo uld als o be p art o f this wo rk, as well as the C ity C o unc il. T he p urpose o f the Hous ing
Task F orc e is to no t o nly deepen the community engagement, b ut also p rovid e for the opportunity to invite
s ubjec t matter experts to the table in s p ecific areas of hous ing polic y to p rovid e added insight to the p ro ces s .
It may also be valuab le to c reate s ubjec t s pec ific Ho us ing Task F orc es , over time, as eac h hous ing area is
ad d res s ed . Not only would this allo w greater c ommunity engagement, but als o ens ure that as various areas of
fo cus are under review (i.e. tenant protections , s ingle family preservation, multi-family preservation) that the
right p eo p le are at the table to p ro vide input and exp ertise.
S taff has identified 4 key areas to address over the next 18 months. Other priority areas may arise through
continued engagement which would require an adjustment to this framework.
F air Hous ing P o lic y
Title VI I I o f the C ivil R ights Act estab lis hes federal p o licy for p ro viding fair hous ing througho ut the United
S tates . T he intent of Title VI I I is to assure eq ual hous ing opportunities for all c itizens . F urther, C ities as a
recipient o f fed eral c o mmunity develo p ment fund s under Title I o f the Hous ing and C ommunity Development
Act of 1974, is o b ligated to c ertify that it will affirmatively further fair ho using.
T he c ity of Blo o mington's F air Ho using P olic y is attac hed as an examp le. Many o ther c ities within Minnes ota
have F air Hous ing P olic ies that are written very s imilar to Bloomingto n's. At pres ent Brooklyn C enter d oes not
have a F air Ho us ing P o licy. It is staff's rec ommend ation that this b e addres s ed in the near term, and that the
Ho using C o mmis s ion be tasked with reviewing and rec o mmending a polic y to be ad o p ted b y the C ity.
Ho using S tudy and Imp act As s es s ment
As was mentioned above, staff is recommending moving forward with a housing study and gaps analysis in the
near-term. Because issues around the impact of significant development on the city's existing housing, particularly
around displacement and gentrification, has been raised in the community, staff is proposing to include within the
housing study an impact assessment to evaluate the potential impact of the O pportunity S ite in this way. T he study
would include a literature review of existing research on the topic of displacement and gentrification as it may
pertain to B rooklyn C enter, as well as case studies and best practices from other places that the community might
draw from. T he study, as the scope is currently written, would fall short of identifying recommended policy
outcomes; however, it would assist with providing an informed basis from which policy decisions can be made.
T he outcome of the study would allow us to identify priorities and set strategies that will inform the C ity’s housing
policy approach.
Measures to Mitigate and P revent Displac ement
As rents increase, low and moderate income renters find it harder and harder to maintain stable housing.
D isplacement, the involuntary loss of one's housing, is a problem that creates ripple effects throughout the
community. B rooklyn C enter is a community that has experienced under-investment for many years. As vacant
and underdeveloped lots see reinvestment, adjacent parcels, which have experienced artificial devaluation, will
inevitably experience a market correction, causing their values to increase. T he extent of this ripple effect is not
immediately known, and is dependent on a number of outside factors, unique to each situation. H owever, if the
C ity wants to maintain and preserve a supply of affordable housing and prevent displacement, this must be done
with intention.
O ut of the housing study will come data that will assist with putting together a housing policy plan around the
prevention and mitigation of displacement of in the community. Any approach will need to by a multi-faceted one
that addresses, among other areas, the preservation of existing rental housing, tenant protection, as well as the
creation of new legally-binding affordable housing.
W hile the O p p o rtunity S ite has caus ed this to p ic to ris e to the fo refro nt of dis c us s ion, the O p p o rtunity S ite is
not the caus e o f gentrificatio n in the c o mmunity. T he market is . T he C ity's loc ation in the region and market
trend s that reac h far b eyond the C ity's board ers will c o ntinue to affec t the inves tment interes t and p ro p erty
values in the c o mmunity. T hat is why any ap p ro ac h to mitigating and preventing d is p lacement needs to be c ity-
wide.
Tenant P rotection
Nearly o ne third o f the C ity's ho using units are in multi-family res id ential buildings . With vacancy rates
hovering near 3 p ercent, tenants are no t in a favorable p o s ition when it c o mes to nego tiating with land lo rds o n
leas e terms or other acc o mmo d ations . Nearly all of the C ity's multi-family res idential is c o nsidered naturally
o cc urring affordable hous ing (NO AH). T his is primarily due to its age and c ond ition. Brooklyn C enter has n't
had new multi-family hous ing c o nstruc ted s inc e 1971, and s o this p artic ular ho us ing typ e, like mo s t in the C ity,
is aging. Maintenance varies s ignificantly dep ending o n o wners hip, as d o es the quality of p ro p erty
management. T herefore, it is imp o rtant to co ntinue to monitor the C ity's NO AH properties through a ro bus t
rental lic ense program. Ho wever, when the rental licens e program was establis hed tenant p ro tec tions was not
the foc us o f the program. A review o f the C ity's o rd inances, polic ies , and proc ed ures thro ugh the lens of
tenant protections wo uld ensure that the p rogram is s erving res id ents as effec tively as possible.
C o mmunity engagement s trategies would be nec es s ary to identify problems and potential solutions . S ugges ted
engagement s trategies includ e:
Lis tening s es s io ns with tenants and landlords
Engage s takeho ld ers such as Ho meline, Ho us ing Justice C enter, AC ER , etc
T he C ity s taff have met with AC ER s taff, Ho meline, and the Ho using Justic e C enter and d is cus s ed some of
the issues affec ting Bro o klyn C enter residents already. In ad d ition, the C ity's ho us ing inspec tors s p end a
s ignificant amount of time interacting with tenants and land lo rd s and unders tand the complexities o f the is s ues .
T hes e resourc es c an b e drawn upon to further explore ways to make adjus tments to the C ity's ordinanc es ,
p o licies, and p ro c edures to ens ure existing res id ents are p ro vided s afe, s ec ure, s tab le ho using and tenants are
affo rd ed protec tions under the law.
S ingle F amily H ousing S tabilization:
Ap p ro ximately 86 p ercent o f Bro o klyn C enter's s ingle family ho using s toc k is mo re then 40 years o ld . T his is
a signific ant p o rtion of the C ity's hous ing, therefore it is important to track the c o nditio n o f these o ld er homes
as they are at-ris k o f deferred maintenance. At the s ame time, well maintained o ld er ho mes c an b e an impo rtant
s o urc e of entry-level hous ing.
W hen cons idering the type and age o f ho using in Bro o klyn C enter, the 2040 C o mp rehens ive p lan
recommend ed the following programs .
Ho using s tudy to assess the c o ndition of the C ity's hous ing sto ck
Ho me O wners hip P rogram As s is tance P rogram
Down P ayment Assistanc e
Home O wnership Educatio n
Ad d itio nal Lo w o r No C o s t Ho me imp ro vement fund ing
A review of the C ity's s ingle family hous ing p o lic y approac h will lo o k at the p ro grams and res o urc es available
to s ingle family home o wners , id entify if add itional or d ifferent programs or res ources would be ap p ro p riate,
explore ad d itio nal fund ing sources to s upport ad d itional programs , and s eek out ways to increase awarenes s o f
the availab ility o f res ources to home o wners .
R ecently the American P lanning Association published their H ousing P olicy G uide, which lays out the
organizations policy positions around housing and makes recommendations for specific policies at the federal,
state, and local level. T he guide specifically addresses topics related to all of the areas addressed in this framework
and is attached to this memo.
Tentative T ime L ine
1. Winter 2019 F air Ho using P o licy
2. Winter 2019 Hous ing S tudy and Impac t As s es s ment
3. S p ring 2020-S ummer 2020 Hous ing P o lic y P lan foc used o n meas ures to prevent and mitigate
d is p lac ement
4. S ummer 2020-Winter 2020 Tenant P rotec tio ns
5. Winter 2020-S p ring 2021 S ingle F amily Ho us ing S tabilizatio n
Next S teps
S taff recommends mo ving fo rward initially with the Ho using C o mmis s io n undertaking the review and d rafting
o f a F air Hous ing p o licy, whic h would then go to the C ity C o uncil fo r final c ons id eration. In additio n, staff
would rec o mmend proc eed ing with the hous ing s tud y and imp act assessment as the initial s tep. S taff also
recommend s fo rming a task forc e to review and make rec o mmendatio ns for the c reation of a ho using p olic y
p lan fo cus ed o n d is p lacement is s ues.
Policy Issues:
W hat ho us ing-related issues /to p ics do you s ee ris ing to the s urfac e in the c o mmunity?
Are there any majo r elements you see need ing to be ad d res s ed in the ho us ing s tud y in o rd er to c reate a
tho ro ugh bas eline assessment o f the C ity's hous ing sto ck?
S hould s taff b egin wo rking with the Ho us ing C o mmis s io n o n d evelo p ing a F air Hous ing P olic y?
Do you have any ques tions /c o nc erns with the framework for a Hous ing P o licy P lan as it has b een laid
o ut?
Is the C o unc il comfortab le with moving fo rward with the ho using s tudy and gap s analysis?
S trategic Priorities and Values:
R es id ent Ec ono mic S tability, S afe, S ecure, S tab le C ommunity
AT TAC HME N T S :
Desc rip tion Up lo ad Date Typ e
Hous ing F ac t S heet 11/19/2019 Bac kup Material
April 9, 2018 - C ity C ounc il Memo - Afford ab le Hous ing P olic y 11/19/2019 Bac kup Material
Hous ing S tud y S c ope o f Wo rk 11/19/2019 Bac kup Material
Examp le Hous ing G aps Analysis 11/19/2019 Bac kup Material
C hap ter 4 - Ho us ing 6/10/2019 Bac kup Material
C hap ter 9 - Implementatio n C hapter 10/22/2019 Bac kup Material
F air Ho using P olic y Example 8/16/2019 Bac kup Material
Distrib utio n of Naturally O c curring Affo rdable Ho us ing
Buildings in Hennepin C ounty 11/20/2019 Bac kup Material
Americ an P lanning As s oc iation - Ho using P olic y G uid e 11/20/2019 Bac kup Material
Brooklyn Center Housing Facts
11,764 total housing
units in Brooklyn
Center as of 2018
(Source: Metropolitan Council)
37% of all housing units are
rental units (single family and
multi-family residential)
(Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census;
SHC)
70% of housing units
are single-family
(Source: Metropolitan Council; US Census;
SHC)
86% of housing stock is
more than 40 years old
(over 10,000 units)
(Sources: US Census; SHC)
2019 Median Home Values:
$198,000 -Brooklyn Center
$298,400 -Hennepin County
(Source: Hennepin County Assessment Report)
35% of households are
housing cost burdened,
meaning they pay at least
30% of their incomes on
housing
(Source: Metropolitan Council)
Housing stock fairly
homogenous which
results in lack of choice
(e.g. most homes less
than 1,500 SF)
27.6% of housing units
are in multi-family
residential buildings
(Source: Metropolitan Council; US Census;
SHC)
All of the City's multi-
family residential was
constructed between
1960 and 1971
Since 2010, 21 single
family homes, 34 senior
units, and 158 assisted
senior units have been
constructed
93% of housing units are
considered "naturally
occurring affordable" with 5%
of housing considered "legally
binding" affordable (2017)
Median Gross Rent(2017):
Brooklyn Center -$962
Metro Area -$1,001
(Source: 2013-2017 American Community
Survey )
Metropolitan Council
projects a demand of
2,258 new housing units
in Brooklyn Center by
2040
One of the goals of the 2040
Comprehensive Plan is to
promote a diverse housing stock
that identifies ways to match the
City's housing stock with its
changing demographics
40% of households in
Brooklyn Center have
children (well above
County and Metro Area)
City of Brooklyn Center | Community Development Department | www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 | Phone: (763) 569-3300 | Fax: (763) 569-3494
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
DATE: April 9, 2018
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Jesse Anderson, Deputy Director of Community Development
THROUGH: Meg Beekman, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Policy
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding potential
affordable housing policies for the City.
Background:
In May of 2017, the City Council received copies of emails forwarded by Councilmember Butler
from African Career and Education Resource Inc. (ACER) requesting an opportunity to come
before the City Council to discuss concerns about the need for affordable housing in Brooklyn
Center. In addition Mayor Willson was in contact with a representative of Community Action
Partnership of Hennepin County (CAPHC) regarding the same topic.
On July 10, 2017, by consensus the City Council directed staff to invite representatives from
ACER and CAPHC to a future work session to present information and have a dialogue on the
issue of affordable housing.
On August 14, 2017, the City Council received a presentation from ACER and CAPHC
regarding the topic of affordable housing. At the presentation ACER and CAPHC advocated that
the City consider adopting policies that would address the region’s need for affordable housing,
protect tenants, and help preserve naturally occurring affordable housing. The Council directed
staff to bring the subject back to a future work session for discussion.
Regional Housing Trends:
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is currently experience record low vacancy rates. According
to Marquette Advisors’ midyear report in August 2017, the average vacancy rate across the Twin
Cities metro was 2.4 percent. Experts agree that a balanced rental market will typically see an
average vacancy rate of around 5 percent.
The impact of low vacancy rates over time has increased rents, a growing interest from outside
investors, and landlords in a position to be choosier about who they rent to. This has borne out
throughout the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as rents have gone up throughout the region. The
average rent at the end of July 2017 had increased 3.1-pecent year over year. In addition, the
Metropolitan Council is seeing a reduction in the number of landlords accepting Section 8
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
vouchers. According to the Metropolitan Council, landlords are citing the increased interest for
their units from non-voucher holders as the primary reason for the change.
Yet another impact of the increasing value of rental property is the growing number of investors
purchasing Class B or Class C rental properties, which are renting for naturally affordable rents,
making cosmetic improvements, and increasing rents so that the units are no longer affordable.
According to the Minnesota Housing Partnership, the sales of apartment buildings in the metro
area jumped 165 percent between 2010 and 2015. Often the change in ownership will also come
with a change in policy related to criminal history, acceptance of Section 8 vouchers, or
minimum income requirements, resulting in existing tenants being displaced from the property.
The region is also seeing a loss of smaller-sized rental properties (1-4-units). This is due, in part
to single family properties converting back into owner-occupied as the market recovers from the
recession, but also a growing number of local investors purchasing smaller properties and
flipping them. While some of the proposed policies would impact single family rentals, the
primary focus of affordable housing advocates and media attention has been on larger properties
(40-units or greater).
Affordable housing advocates have identified potential policies designed to address these issues.
The policies fall into one of three categories; 1) preservation policies designed to preserve
naturally occurring affordable housing and prevent it from being flipped; 2) tenant protection
policies designed to prevent or mitigate displacement; and 3) creation policies designed to create
new, legally-binding, affordable housing that will replace the naturally occurring affordable
housing that is being lost.
Brooklyn Center’s Current Rental Housing:
According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates what is considered
affordable rents in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area:
# of Bedrooms 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI
Efficiency $474 $791 $949 $1,265
1-Bedroom $508 $848 $1,017 $1,356
2-Bedroom $610 $1,017 $1,220 $1,627
3-Bedroom $705 $1,175 $1,410 $1,880
4-Bedroom $786 $1,311 $1,573 $2,097
*Rents include tenant-paid utilities
According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates average rents in Brooklyn
Center:
# of Bedrooms Survey 5-Year Avg
Efficiency $730 $744
1-Bedroom $869 $801
2-Bedroom $1,019 $925
3+ Bedroom $1,281 $1,147
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
Brooklyn Center currently has 834 rental license holders. 713 of those are for single family
homes. 71 of the licenses are for 2-4-unit properties. 24 are for properties with between 5 and 39
units. 27 licenses are for properties with greater than 40 units. There are approximately 4,300
rental units in the City. The average rents in Brooklyn Center are considered affordable for those
making around 50 percent of the Area Median Income. Of the 11,608 total housing units (both
rental and owner-occupied) in Brooklyn Center, 89.5 percent are naturally occurring affordable
housing. There are currently 402 Section 8 voucher holders in the City.
Brooklyn Center currently has five apartment building that are legally-binding affordable
housing, Ewing Square Townhomes (23-units), The Crest Apartments (69-units), Unity Place
(112-units), Emerson Chalet Apartments (18-units), and The Sanctuary (158-units). Also,
Lynwood Apartment (50-units) is currently applying for Certified Low Income Status, which
would make it a legally-binding affordable property. This equates to 3.7 percent of the City’s
housing stock is legally-binding affordable housing.
Anecdotally, a recent phone survey of 34 Brooklyn Center landlords found a current average
vacancy rate of 1.3 percent.
Rents in Brooklyn Center are currently very affordable compared to the region. Low rents may
be contributing to the low vacancy rates. If the vacancy rates are in fact below 2 percent, and
they remain that low over time, it would be reasonable to expect rents to increase. However,
given the current low rents, even an increase in rents of 20-30 percent would result in rents still
considered affordable for those making 60-80% AMI.
Affordable Policy Options:
Section 8 Ordinance (Tenant Protection) - Prohibiting discrimination against Section 8 voucher
holders and other recipients of government programs. The policy would prohibit landlords from
denying any tenants’ application based on the applicant receiving government assistance.
Staff surveyed 34 Brooklyn Center apartments and found that 50 percent indicated that
they do not accept section 8 vouchers.
Minneapolis recently adopted this ordinance, which allows applicants who feel they have
been discriminated against to seek damages through the city’s department of Civil Rights.
The City of Minneapolis has an active lawsuit filed against them by 55 apartment owners
over the legality of this ordinance. The lawsuit argues the mandate conflicts with state law
and unfairly forces them to comply with requirements of federal housing voucher programs
for low-income residents. It also says the law violates the Minnesota Constitution because it
reduces their property values, forces landlords to enter into contracts and represents an
unnecessary government intervention in their businesses. Landlords also claim that this could
cause landlords to increase rent and/or application criteria as to price out Section 8
vouchers.
Staff feels that if the ordinance is upheld by the courts, it could be a useful tool to ensure
residents are not discriminated against based on their source of income; however
additional review would be necessary related to the enforcement of the ordinance. Staff
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
recommends that the City monitor the Minneapolis lawsuit then review pending the
outcome.
Notice of Intent to Sell (Preservation) – Rental property owners must give advanced notice prior
to the sale of a rental property. This gives a preservation buyer an opportunity to match the
purchase price. It would also give service providers additional time to relocate residents who
would be displaced as a result of the sale.
Landlords would be concerned about delaying the closing of a property sale, which could
have a negative effect on price. Preservation companies such as Aeon have expressed
concerns that this could increase the competition for these properties, and thusly increase
sales prices.
Enforcement would be difficult because the penalty would come after the sale has
occurred. If the property has sold, the seller no longer has ties to the property so
enforcing a citation could be challenging and may not be a deterrent. In a workgroup in
St. Louis Park landlords stated that if there was a $1000.00 citation for selling without
notice, they would likely still sell the property and pay the citation.
It is unclear who the seller would need to notify of their intent to sell and what would be
done with that information once it was known. Who would decide what buyers could
have access to the information? Who would be responsible for disseminating the
information?
It is possible that this ordinance would dissuade investors, who may opt to purchase
property in cities that do not have the additional requirements.
St. Louis Park is looking at an alternative ordinance related to tenant transition/protection
would address the need for additional time to relocate tenants.
Staff recommends that the city consider other options such as the tenant transition
ordinance.
Tenant Transition/Protection Ordinance (Tenant Protection) – This would require a new owner
of a naturally occurring affordable housing property to pay relocation benefits to tenants if the
new owner increases rent, rescreens existing residents or implements non-renewals without cause
within 3 months after the purchase. The ordinance has the effect of freezing lease terms for 90
days after the sale of a property. The purpose is to allow tenants three (3) months to relocate if
necessary.
This ordinance wouldn’t interfere with the sale of naturally occurring affordable housing,
however; it would provide assistance to the tenants if necessary.
The ordinance would require new buyers to notify tenants within 30 days if substantive
changes to the lease are forthcoming, giving tenants time to relocate if necessary.
St. Louis Park adopted the Tenant Protection Ordinance in March of 2018.
The policy could dissuade potential apartment buyers from buying in Brooklyn Center,
who may opt to purchase a property in a city without this policy.
Staff recommends that the City review this policy further to determine the legality of it,
the enforcement mechanism, and what the specific impacts in Brooklyn Center might be.
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
Just-Cause Eviction (Tenant Protection) – Also known as Just-Cause Non-Renewal, this would
require a landlord to provide a reason if they were going to not renew a tenant ’s lease that was
expiring. Currently landlords must provide a just cause for eviction, which a tenant can appeal in
court. There is no appeal process available to tenants who lose their housing due to non-renewal
of lease.
Landlords see this as taking away a valuable management tool for dealing with problem
tenants and have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of evictions filed
and strengthening screening standards.
When St. Louis Park conducted their meetings with landlords and the Multi-family
Housing Association, this ordinance received the strongest opposition.
The enforcement of this policy would be through the court system and would require a
tenant to take legal action against their landlord via a lawsuit.
Of the 34 landlords surveyed by staff, the majority of evictions or non-renewals are the
result of non-payment of rent or criminal activity.
The intent of this ordinance would be to protect tenants from being non-renewed in the
event a new owner wants to empty a building in order to do a substantial renovation with
the goal of increasing rents.
Staff recommends that the City consider other options such as the tenant transition
ordinance to protect tenants.
Inclusionary Housing Policy (Creation) – These are a collection of policies that could be adopted
by the city which would either encourage or require new affordable units to be included as part
of new market-rate residential development projects which receive public subsidy or other
discretionary City approvals. Frequently it is in the form of a requirement that a percentage of
units be affordable in a new residential development in exchange for public subsidy of the
project.
New developments such as the Opportunity Site would be required to include a certain
number of affordable units.
Inclusionary Housing policies ensure that new affordable units are added as market -rate
units are built, thus ensuring mixed-income communities.
Cities such as St. Louis Park and Minneapolis have found that in higher rent
developments, a certain percentage of affordable units can be required without increasing
the need for additional public subsidy. This is due to the higher than average market
rents, which off-set the affordable units. In Brooklyn Center, as is true in communities
with lower average rents, it is likely that the cost of the affordable units would require
additional public subsidies in order for a project to be financially feasible.
If the Council would like to move forward with this police staff would recommend
reviewing the feasibility of future development if an affordable housing policy is
adopted.
4D Tax Breaks (Preservation) – Also known as the Low Income Rental Classification Program
(LIRC), Minnesota provides a property tax break, currently amounting to 40%, to subsidi zed
rental properties under LIRC, commonly referred to as the 4D program. There is the potential,
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
however, to extend 4D eligibility to certain currently unsubsidized affordable properties, without
changing current law. This is because the LIRC/4D statute defines eligible properties as those
which meet two conditions: the owner of the property agrees to rent and income restrictions
(serving households at 60% AMI or below) and receives “financial assistance” from federal,
state or local government. This presents the possibility of creating a “Local 4D” program in
which qualifying properties receive the 4D tax break in return for agreeing to conditions which
meet certain local government policy goals.
A government agency would need to provide a financial contribution to a rental
apartment with a low income agreement placed on the property. The property could then
be eligible to apply for 4D status. This would allow a landlord to make physical
improvements to the property in exchange for affordable rents.
The reduction in property taxes would not decrease the City’s revenue from property
taxes, as the funds would be distributed to all other properties; however, it would reduce
that property’s share of local property taxes.
The amount of the tax break is a limiting factor as it equates to around $80/unit per year;
however, the program may be an incentive for a property owner in a community where
the market rents are already considered affordable, since they would not need to depress
their rent rates.
Hennepin County is looking into a rehabilitation program for rental properties which
would function similarly to the CDBG housing rehabilitation program, but be County
funded.
The City could also look at funding a program for rental housing rehabilitation.
Staff recommends working with the County to determine the feasibility of a County-led
program. The City could also review EDA or TIF 3 Housing funds to determine the
availability of funds for a city program that would provide rental housing rehab
assistance in exchange for a 5-10 year affordability requirement. This could be set up as a
per unit matching forgivable loan.
Other Policies/Programs
Identify buildings that are at-risk of being flipped. Reach out to owners of at-risk
buildings and gauge their short and long-term plans. Help connect them with preservation
buyers on a case-by-case basis.
Comprehensive Plan – the City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. If
the preservation and/or creation of affordable housing are a priority for the City, it should
be reflected in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Education – Work with the Metropolitan Council to provide education on Section 8
voucher programs to dispel some of the negative perceptions of the program.
Policy Issues:
Does the Council believe that the information presented indicates a need for additional policy
actions to address the concerns raised regarding affordable housing and the protection of tenant
rights?
MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and
recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its
convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment
Does the Council require additional information regarding these issues before concluding if
further policy actions are necessary?
Which policies if any would the Council want brought back for further consideration?
Which policy does the council consider a higher priority?
Strategic Priorities:
Resident Economic Stability
Attachments:
US Census Bureau Data
Metropolitan Council Land use Chart
August 14, 2017 Council Work Session Memo
August 14, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes
Housing Strategies Table Presented at Previous Work-Session
Mixed-Income Housing Policies among Neighboring Cities Table
Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Apartments
Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Single Family Property Management Companies:
US Census Bureau Data:
Metropolitan Council Land Use Chart:
Housing Strategies Table Presented at Previous Work-Session
Mixed-Income Housing Policies among Neighboring Cities
City Policy/Program Type Affordability Requirements Affordability
Period Opt-out (alternative) options Enforcement Tool Other Notes
St. Louis Park
(2015)
City financial assistance for
new developments creating
at least 10 multi-family units
or renovation of an existing
multi-family development
with at least 10 units.
18% of total units in the
development required at 60%
AMI or 10% of units required
affordable at 50% AMI.
Families may remain in the
dwelling unit as long as the
income does not exceed 120%
AMI.
25 year
minimum
(considering
an increase).
Subject to City Council
approval:
o Dedication of existing units
o Offsite construction near
public transit
o Participation in construction
of affordable units by another
developer within the City
Affordable Housing
Performance Agreement
between City and
Developer prior to Zoning
Compliance Permit being
issued.
Implemented 2015 – 6/7 new
developments triggered policy with
1,073 units and 281 affordable units
produced.
No development has used an opt-out
option.
Units must be located within the
development and distributed
throughout the building unless
approved by City Council.
Edina (2015)
Re-zoning or Comprehensive
Plan Amendment for all new
multi-family development of
20 or more units.
10% of all rentable area at
50% AMI or 20% of all rentable
area at 60% AMI.
15 year
minimum.
Dedication of existing units
equal to 110%, must be
equivalent quality.
New construction at a different
site.
Participation in construction of
affordable units by another
developer within the City.
Land use restrictive
covenant.
PUD ordinance states
development must
consider affordability.
City will consider incentives for
developments with affordable
housing including: Density bonuses,
parking reductions, TIF, deferred low
interest loans from the Edina
Foundation, and Tax Abatement.
Golden Valley
(policy
approved in
2017;
ordinance in
coming
months)
Market rate residential
development with 10 or more
units and receive:
o Conditional Use Permit (ord.)
o Planned Unit Development
o Zoning Map Amendment
(ord.)
o Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
o Or Financial Assistance
15% of total project units at
60% AMI or 10% of project
units at 50% AMI.
Families may remain in the
dwelling unit as long as the
income does not exceed 120%
AMI.
20 year
minimum.
Equal or greater amount
dedication of existing units.
Affordable Housing
Performance Agreement.
Mix of policy and
ordinance.
City will consider incentives
including:
Minimum in 33% reduction in
required parking spaces
Minimum of 10% density bonus
Brooklyn Park
New market rate residential
development with 10 or more
units and receive:
o Planned Development
Overlay (ord. required)
o Zoning Map Amendment
(ord. required)
o Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Or Financial Assistance
15% of units at 60% AMI or
10% of units at 50%AMI or 5%
of units at 30%AMI
20 year
minimum.
Consider an alternative
proposed by developer.
Affordable Housing
Performance Agreement.
Mix of policy and
ordinance.
Units must be located within the
development and distributed
throughout the building unless
approved by City Council.
Minneapolis
(2002)
City-assisted housing
projects of 10 or more units.
City-assistance includes TIF,
condemnation, land buy
downs, issuance of bonds to
finance project, pass-through
funding, and other forms of
Varies based on funding
source but generally is either
20% of units at 60% AMI or
20% of units at 50% AMI
(AHTF)
15 year
minimum.
None. Only 1-2 projects have taken
advantage of the incentive program
since 2002.
Currently engaging a consultant to
develop an effective system.
direct subsidy.
Density bonus and parking
reduction incentive
Saint Paul
(2014)
City/HRA assisted rentals
and homeownership.
Rental development in
selected zones – density
bonus incentive
Rentals – 30% of units
affordable to households
earning 60% AMI, of which at
least one third will be
affordable to 50% AMI, and at
least one third will affordable to
30% AMI.
Rental - 10
year
minimum .
Development Agreement Voluntary/incentive density bonus is
not being used so policy is currently
being revised.
Minnetonka
(2004)
City Assistance
Voluntary/incentive based for
all developments.
Rentals – 10% of units at 50%
AMI for all developments, 20%
of units at 50% AMI if using
TIF funding.
30 year
minimum.
Considered on a case by case
basis.
Development Agreement. Produced over 500 affordable units
since 2004.
Eden Prairie
City Assistance
Using a voluntary/incentive
based approach for all
developments; exploring
adopting a policy.
City subsidy – 20% of units at
50% AMI.
Voluntary/incentive – starts at
10% of units at 50% AMI.
Woodbury
(2012)
Voluntary/incentive based –
density bonus policy
20% of units at 80% AMI or
negotiated.
15 year
minimum.
Chaska All developments that need
City approval
30% of units at 80% AMI.
Forest Lake
(2014)
Voluntary/incentive based –
density bonus policy
Negotiable 15% density bonus, flexible parking
requirements.
Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Apartments:
Apartment Name number of
Units
number of
vacant units
Rent for a
studio
Rent for a 1
bedroom
Rent for a 2
bedroom
Rent for a 3 bedroom Rent for a 4
bedroom
Do you accept
section 8
Has rent
increased
over the
past
2years?
How much
has rent
increased?
Most common reason for Eviction or
non-renewal
4819 Azealia 12 0 750 800 no new yes $15-50 non-renewal
5207 Xerxes 12 0 0 Ave: $750 Ave $850 Yes yes 8% Disturbance
5240 Drew 10 0 845-950 yes no police calls for service
The Avenue 36 0 755 929 1075 no yes 5% each
month
non-payment
Beard Ave 24 0 $895 1 fl-$1025, 2-3 fl
$1075
Yes (Typically
don’t meet
criteria)
yes 100 - 2bd -
1bd 75
smoke in units, police calls (pattern)
Brookside Manor 90 0 garden - $750 2-
3 floor $800
yes yes $20 police calls, disturbance, non-payment
Carrington Dr 128 0 $735 $835-855 $945-975 no yes $50 disturbance, illegal activity,
cleanliness, non-payment
The Crest 122 3 for end of
march
$755 $935 yes yes 50 non-payment, crime free addendum
Crossings - 6201 Lilac -
55+
81 4 (0 in past
few years)
1181-1275
(1bd + den
1081 1190-1750 No (inherited) yes 2-5% rarely - non-payment
Crossings - 6125 Lilac -
55+
65 1150
Earle Brown Farm 120 1 845-920 1010-190 No new ones yes 3% increase disturbance, non-payment
Emerson Chalet 18 0 737 870 yes no non-payment, 3 strikes
Gateway 252 3 775 850-875-895 995-1045 no yes 50 late payment, police calls, unit
maintenance
Granite City 72 0 849 949 1139 yes yes 34-55 smoking
Granite Peaks 54 0 849 949 1139 no yes 34-55 non-payment
Humboldt Courts 36 1 750 900-995 no yes 75-95 non-payment
Lynwood - mark 50 0 895-925 1050-1190 yes Yes 2-4% non-payment of rent
Melrose Gates 217 0 919-949 1129-1159 1159-1189 2bd+1.5ba 1209-1249
2bd+2ba
no yes 100 non-payment
River Glen 128 0 900 975-1000 1250 yes yes 50-75 non-payment/late rent
Riverwood Estates 84 2 929 999-1050 no yes 40 lease violation
Ryan Lake 22 1 800 800-1000 yes yes 75 non-payment
Summerset 36 3 700 800-850 1150-1200 yes yes $50 non-payment, lease violations
Twin Lake North 276 3 950+ 1105-1225+ yes yes 5% non-payment, behavior
Unity Place 112 2 904-909 970 yes yes 30 non-payment
Victoria Townhomes 48 4 1340-1400 no yes 40-60 tenant not renew
Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Single Family Property Management Companies:
Management
Agency
number of
Units
number of
vacant units
Rent for a
studio
Rent for
a 1
bedroom
Rent for a
2 bedroom
Rent for a 3
bedroom
Rent for a 4 bedroom Rent for a 5
bedroom
Do you accept
section 8
Has rent
increased
over the
past
2years?
How much
has rent
increased?
Most common reason for Eviction or
non-renewal
Prosperous 40 0 1050 1250 1450 1550 yes yes 2-3% non-payment
Urban homes 2 1300 1400 1500 Yes NA
Juliana Koi 2 1 1350 no yes 50 NA
Kathleen Freitag 4 0 1235-1325 1410-1450 no no non-payment; destruction of property
Tyang 1 0 1150 no no NA
Michelle
Nyarecha
1 0 1170-1250 yes no non-payment; police violations
Nazeen 2 0 1000 1200 no yes 5% NA
Tracy
Hinkemyer
7 1350-2000 no no NA
Dan tan 4 0 850-950 yes no non-payment drugs, noise
Proposed Scope of Work for Housing Study and Gaps Analysis
Understand Existing Conditions and Trends. Use Hennepin County and the Broader Twin Cities
MSA as comparison points where that makes sense. Any overview of regional housing trends as well
as forecasted regional housing demand will provide context to both the issues faced in Brooklyn
Center as well as the market gaps that will surface. This includes attention to:
• Housing units by type, tenure, year built, senior/general occupancy, formal affordability status
(Costar)
• Rent levels and trends, for recently built apartment buildings, and pre-2000 apartment
buildings (Costar)
• Household housing costs and trends (these are measures of the affordability of Brooklyn
Center housing, regardless of affordability status of the development) (Census, ACS)
o Reported housing cost
o Reported cost as a percentage of household income
o Cost-burdened households
• Development trends (Costar, Brooklyn Park, Metropolitan Council)
Analysis of Likely Impact.
• Review of the literature on the impact of major area improvements on property values and
rents—including local case studies such as Bottineau Housing Gaps Analysis —and apply
the findings to Brooklyn Center’s context. The goal would be to estimate the impact on rents
due to the proposed development improvements, above what is happening due to general
city-wide market trends, and to estimate how distant from the development improvements the
impact extends.
• Conduct best practices research to include recent research and studies locally, including the
work done by CURA and LISC on the topics of gentrification and displacement. Be sure to
incorporate work that has local context.
Survey of residents. A survey should be conducted to augment data related to cost-burdened
households. Work with the City to conduct a survey of renters in the community. work with the city to
identify appropriate questions. Questions may include:
• Are you living in your desired area of Brooklyn Center? If not, what are your barriers to living
somewhere else?
• What drew you to live in this rental property?
• Do you share rent with a partner or roommate?
• What percentage of your gross annual salary (before taxes are taken out) do you pay for
rent?
• Do you anticipate your salary increasing steadily over the next 5 (or 10) years?
• Has your rent increased over the last 2 years? 5 years? By how much?
• Do you live in a studio, 1-br, 2-br, 3-br, or other?
• How would you rate you’re the level of service you experience from your landlord/property
manager? Has it increased or decreased in the last two years?
Best practices research. Look at actions cities have taken, locally and nationally, to mitigate the
impact on residential housing costs that stem from area improvements. Goal will be to identify
strategies and best practices that are available and could be employed in Brooklyn Center either by
the City, or by its development partners as identified in the City/developer development
agreements. (Such provisions can be, but need not be, referred to as a community benefits
agreement.)
BOTTINEAU COMMUNITY WORKS
STATION AREA HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS
June 2018
Prepared by
Blank Page
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Report Format 1
Data Resources 2
Characteristics of the Housing Stock 3
Total Housing Units 3
Housing Unit Density 4
Structure Type 4
Household Tenure by Structure Type 6
Vacancy Trends 12
Bedroom Analysis 14
Housing Costs 16
Pricing Trends: Market Rate Rental Housing 16
Pricing Trends: For-Sale Housing 18
Affordability 20
Cost Burden 22
Restricted Housing 23
Development Trends 26
Demographic Characteristics 28
Median Age 28
Household Tenure (owners and renters) 30
Household Size 32
Household Type 33
Length of Residence 35
Race and Ethnicity 36
Household Income 38
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works
Socio-Economic Forecasts 40
Population and Household Forecast 40
Employment forecast 41
Population Projections by Age Group 42
Impacts of New LRT Service 43
Real Estate Agent Interviews 49
Community Stakeholder Interviews and Presentation 53
Gaps Analysis 57
Corridor-Wide Housing Gaps 58
Station Area Housing Gaps 61
Oak Grove Parkway 63
93rd Avenue 65
85th Avenue 67
Brooklyn Boulevard 69
63rd Avenue 71
Bass Lake Road 73
Robbinsdale 75
Golden Valley Road 77
Plymouth Avenue 79
Penn Avenue 81
Van White Boulevard 83
Appendices 85
Community Stakeholder Interview Notes 85
Data Tables 1 1 1
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 1
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The Bottineau Community Works Housing Gaps Analysis evaluates the existing and near term
supply of housing along the Bottineau Corridor and compares it to important demographic
and economic trends to determine whether there are critical gaps in the supply of housing. The
METRO Blue Line Extension is a planned 13-mile light rail transit (LRT) line that will connect
downtown Minneapolis to the communities of northwestern Hennepin County, including the
neighborhoods of north Minneapolis, and the cities of Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, and
Brooklyn Park. The LRT will terminate near the Brooklyn Park campus of Target Corporation.
The METRO Blue Line Extension will
be transformative by vastly increasing
the mobility of people who live and
work along the Corridor today, but also
increasing the Corridor’s accessibility to
the entire region. As a result, demand for
housing along the Corridor will increase
substantially. Therefore, one of the main
purposes of this study is to determine not
only where existing housing gaps need
to be addressed but also understand how
future growth pressures may exacerbate
those gaps. This second point means using
this study to inform appropriate policy
responses at the city level (i.e., zoning) in
order to position each of the LRT station
areas along the Corridor to be able to
close any future housing gaps once the
transit line is operational.
Report Format
This report is broken into seven major
sections or chapters. The first two sections
address characteristics of Bottineau
Corridor’s housing stock and household
base. These sections mostly consist of data
Source: Metropolitan Council
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works2
from the US Census and other relevant secondary sources. It should provide the reader with
a solid foundation of objective data with which to assess each station area’s current housing
situation. The third section is a brief review of the socio-economic trends affecting the demand
for housing through 2040.
The fourth through sixth sections step beyond the quantitative analysis presented in the first
three sections by providing the reader with qualitative data about the housing stock. It includes
a summary of findings from a literature review of LRT impacts on housing costs, interviews
with residential real estate agents, and interviews with community stakeholders regarding
important housing issues and concerns.
The concluding section of the report builds upon the previous six sections. This is the gap
analysis, which is an assessment of the types of housing needed in each station area in order to
provide a full continuum of housing choice for its residents in a transit-supportive environment.
Data Resources
The majority of data presented in this report is secondary data from the US Census, including
the decennial censuses from 2000 and 2010, and the American Community Survey (ACS), which
is a rolling 1-, 3-, and 5-year survey of a statistically significant sample of the US population. For
this study, the 2011-2015 American Community Survey was used for many variables.
In addition to the US Census, other data sources included each city along the Corridor,
Hennepin County, Esri, CoStar, Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Twin Cities Senior
Housing Guide, Housing Link, and apartment websites. Although these sources generally
augmented the US Census data, in many cases they were valuable in either filling in holes not
covered by or to corroborate the Census data.
Although these sources are judged to be reliable, it is impossible to authenticate all data. The
analyst does not guarantee the data and assumes no liability for any errors in fact, analysis, or
judgment. The secondary data used in this study are the most recent available at the time of the
report preparation.
The objective of this report is to gather, analyze, and present as many housing components as
reasonably possible within the time constraints agreed upon. The conclusions contained in this
report are based on the best judgments of the analysts; Perkins+Will and its project partners
make no guarantees or assurances that the projections or conclusions will be realized as stated. It
is Perkins+Will’s function to provide our best effort in data aggregation, and to express opinions
based on our evaluation.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSING STOCK
Total Housing Units
The amount of housing varies significantly from station area to station area. As of data from
2016, the station with the least amount of housing within ½-mile of a station is 93rd Avenue
with 265 units and the most is Penn Avenue with nearly 2,300 units. This variation in the
number of units is due to a number of reasons. For example, the Oak Grove Parkway station
area is mostly vacant and undeveloped. Other station areas are dominated by non-residential
land uses; the Brooklyn Boulevard and Bass Lake Road station areas contain large shopping
centers; 93rd Avenue has significant industrial and office uses; and the Golden Valley Road and
Plymouth Avenue station areas are dominated by Theodore Wirth Park.
Generally, though, the number of housing units within a ½-mile radius of a given station tends
to decrease from south to north along the Corridor largely because older areas of the Corridor
(in the south) were originally developed at higher densities compared to newer areas of the
Corridor (in the north).
Figure 1: Total Housing Units by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius)1
Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate
1. The 42nd Ave Station Area noted on all figures has been renamed to “Robbinsdale Station Area” or “Robbinsdale”
station. The Station name change has been updated and noted within the text, tables and maps of this report.
42 265
1,263
728
2,058
951
1,879
1,152
1,352
2,290
1,857
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
Oak Grove
Pkwy
93rd Ave 85th Ave Brooklyn Blvd 63rd Ave Bass Lake Rd 42nd Ave Golden Valley
Rd
Plymouth Ave Penn Ave Van White
Blvd
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works4
Housing Unit Density
The density gradient is more obvious when non-residential land uses are subtracted out of the ½-mile
radius. Figure 2 shows how density of housing per acre starts high in the Van White Boulevard station
area and then decreases rapidly once the station areas are outside of the city of Minneapolis. Most
station areas have a residential density of between five and eight units per acre.
For comparison purposes, density along the Green Line in Saint Paul between Lexington Avenue and
Rice Street ranges between 10 and 14 units per residential acre. Many newer multifamily developments
located along either the Blue or Green Lines often have more than 60 units per acre.
Figure 2: Housing Units per Acre of Residential Land (1/2-Mile Radius)
1.4
4.5
5.9 5.3
7.7
5.8
7.9
6.1
8.3
10.0
16.2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Oak Grove
Pkwy
93rd Ave 85th Ave Brooklyn Blvd 63rd Ave Bass Lake Rd 42nd Ave Golden Valley
Rd
Plymouth Ave Penn Ave Van White
Blvd
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Source: Met Council; SHC; Perkins+Will
Structure Type
Housing is not monolithic. It often comes in a variety of shapes, sizes, and structure types. The number
of housing units in a given building is a basic way to differentiate housing types.
There is a great deal of variety among the station areas along the Bottineau Corridor. In several station
areas, larger multifamily buildings account for a significant proportion of units, especially in the 63rd
Avenue, Robbinsdale, and Van White Boulevard station areas.
The presence of large multifamily buildings is also correlated with a higher density of units. The Penn
Avenue station area, however, is able to achieve the highest overall density despite having more units in
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 5
smaller multifamily buildings compared to larger multifamily buildings. Other station areas, however,
can often have a dominant housing type, such as Golden Valley Road and Plymouth Avenue, where
nearly all of the units are detached, single-family homes.
Figure 3: Housing Units by Structure Size (1/2-Mile Radius)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
Oak Grove
Pkwy
93rd Ave 85th Ave Brooklyn Blvd 63rd Ave Bass Lake Rd 42nd Ave Golden Valley
Rd
Plymouth Ave Penn Ave Van White Blvd
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Other
20+ Unit Bldgs
5-19 Unit Bldgs
2-4 Unit Bldgs
Attached (THs)
SF Homes
Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate
Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate
Although the detached, single-family house is synonymous with the concept of the American dream,
there is no ideal structure type for housing. So many factors influence our housing needs that it is best
to assume that a range of housing choices will not only meet the broadest range of needs but also be
able to easily respond to changing market and demographic conditions.
Figure 4 compares the distribution of the housing types not only among the station areas but also to the
Corridor2, each city along the Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metropolitan statistical area3.
Although there is a lot of variety in the housing structure types from station area to station area, the
Corridor as a whole has a very similar distribution of housing structures compared to the Metro Area.
Although the Corridor-wide profile reflects the general historical pattern of building less dense homes
in more recently developed areas, it underscores the fact that policy changes will likely be needed to
promote/support transit supportive housing development in the station areas.
2. In most cases, and especially when comparing geographies, the Bottineau Corridor is defined as a 1-mile buffer surrounding the planned LRT route.
3. There are a variety of ways to define metropolitan areas. In the Twin Cities, there are two common definitions. The first is the seven core counties
that are under the purview of the Metropolitan Council. The second is defined by the US Census and is based on commuter travel sheds. For the
Minneapolis-St. Paul region, the Census currently defines the metropolitan area as a 16-county region that also includes portions of Western Wisconsin.
This is known as the MSA or Metropolitan Statistical Area. Due to various data sources, this report references both definitions. Because any “metro area”
statistics referred to in this report are primarily used as basis to compare a station area or the Bottineau Corridor to a much larger geographic area in
order to establish a “norm” or baseline, the authors of this report are comfortable using the two definitions as the availability of data dictates.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works6
Figure 4: Distribution of Housing by Units in Structure (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Other
20+ Unit Bldgs
5-19 Unit Bldgs
2-4 Unit Bldgs
Attached (THs)
SF Homes
Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate
Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate
Household Tenure by Structure Type
The type of housing structure is strongly correlated with whether an occupant owns or rents the unit
they are living in, also referred to as household tenure. Figure 5 is a series of charts that break down the
number of housing units by structure size and type of tenure (i.e., own vs. rent) for each city along the
Bottineau Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metro area.
It corroborates the fact that the vast majority of owned housing are single-family homes. However,
single-family homes represent a significant portion of rented housing as well. Small to medium size
structures are generally rented, though outside the Corridor it is more common to find owned units in
such structures. Attached or townhome-style housing is more commonly owned, but rented forms are
prominent as well.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 7
Figure 5: Rented vs Owned Housing by Units in Structure
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Single Family Homes
Townhomes
2 to 4 Unit Buildings
5 to 19 Unit Buildings
20 or More Unit Buildings
Other Structure Types
Households
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
CITY OF CRYSTAL
2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Single Family Homes
Townhomes
2 to 4 Unit Buildings
5 to 19 Unit Buildings
20 or More Unit Buildings
Other Structure Types
Households
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
CITY OF ROBBINSDALE
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Single Family Homes
Townhomes
2 to 4 Unit Buildings
5 to 19 Unit Buildings
20 or More Unit Buildings
Other Structure Types
Households
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
Sources: US Census; Tangible Consulting Services
Un
i
t
s
Un
i
t
s
Un
i
t
s
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works8
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Single Family Homes
Townhomes
2 to 4 Unit Buildings
5 to 19 Unit Buildings
20 or More Unit Buildings
Other Structure Types
Households
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
HENNEPIN COUNTY
100,000 50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
Single Family Homes
Townhomes
2 to 4 Unit Buildings
5 to 19 Unit Buildings
20 or More Unit Buildings
Other Structure Types
Households
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
TWIN CITIES MSA
100,000 50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000
Single Family Homes
Townhomes
2 to 4 Unit Buildings
5 to 19 Unit Buildings
20 or More Unit Buildings
Other Structure Types
Households
Renter Occupied Owner Occupied
Sources: US Census; Tangible Consulting Services
Un
i
t
s
Un
i
t
s
Un
i
t
s
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 9
Figures 6 and 7 present data on the number of rental units by structure size and the year built. Rented
housing tends to have shorter-term occupants compared to owner-occupied housing and, therefore,
is more susceptible to wear and tear. The age of the units can be an important indicator of the likely
condition of this portion of the housing stock.
In Figure 6, which includes data for the entire Bottineau Corridor, the majority of rental housing is
in larger multifamily buildings (10 or more units). Within this category, most buildings were built
between 1960 and 1979, which means they are now old enough to require major maintenance projects
to keep them habitable, such as new roofs, windows, and critical mechanical systems (i.e., furnace, hot
water heater, etc.).
Among the small structure types, the rental housing stock is even older. For example, among the single-
family and duplex/triplex categories, the overwhelming majority of the rental units are more than 50
years old.
Figure 6: Rental Housing by Units in Structure and Year Built (1-Mile Corridor)
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
Un
i
t
s
Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later
Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting ServicesSources: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works10
Figure 7 on the following two pages is a series of charts that highlights the age and size of rental
properties within one mile of each station area. The age and type of rental housing differs significantly
from station area to station area. In the Brooklyn Boulevard and 63rd Avenue station areas, there is very
little variety of rental housing types. Almost all of the rental housing is in large buildings built between
1960 and 1979. Single-family or attached housing dominates the rental housing stock in the 93rd
Avenue, 85th Avenue, Golden Valley Road, and Plymouth Avenue station areas.
It is important to note that there are very few rental units that have been built within the last 20 years
throughout the Corridor. Only in the Oak Grove Parkway (due to a new development) and the Van
White Boulevard station areas are there any significant amounts of newer rental housing.
Figure 7: Rental Housing by Units in Structure and Year Built (1-Mile Radius)
OAK GROVE PARKWAY
85TH AVENUE
93RD AVENUE
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
Sources: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
Un
i
t
s
Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later
Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 11
63RD AVENUE
ROBBINSDALE
PLYMOUTH AVENUE
VAN WHITE BOULEVARD
BASS LAKE ROAD
GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD
PENN AVENUE
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4 -9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Single Family Townhomes Duplex &
Triplex
Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
Sources: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
Un
i
t
s
Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later
Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
Un
i
t
s
Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later
Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
Un
i
t
s
Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later
Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
Un
i
t
s
Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later
Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment
(4-9 Units)
Apartment
(10+ Units)
Un
i
t
s
Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later
Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works12
Vacancy Trends
Figure 8 presents data on the general availability of market rate rental housing within the Bottineau
Corridor and the broader metro area. The rental market is extremely tight everywhere with very little
available units throughout the Corridor or the metro area.
The current vacancy rate is just above 2.5% in the Corridor. This is well below what is generally
accepted among housing experts as market equilibrium, the point at which supply is high enough
to accommodate most households in need of housing, but not so high that land lords are unable to
maintain their properties due to low revenues caused by excessive numbers of vacant units.
This is an extremely low rate of vacancy. Furthermore, the vacancy rate has been low for many years.
The impact of persistently low vacancy is that many households that want to relocate to the area are
unable to do so due to a lack of availability. It also means landlords are in a position to raise rents,
sometimes excessively. In many cases, this results in the need to combine households, either because of
inability to keep up with rising rents or a simple lack of housing options. In either case, it can often
result in rapid wear and tear on units not designed for such occupancy conditions.
Figure 8: Market Rate Apartments – Average Vacancy Rate
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
5.5%
6.0%
6.5%
7.0%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 YTD
Va
c
a
n
c
y
Ra
t
e
Corridor (1-mi buf.)Hennepin County 7-County Metro
Equilibrium
Sources: CoStar; Perkins+Will
Vacancy data for owner-occupied units is less reliably tracked compared to rental housing. Nevertheless,
Figure 9 displays data on the vacancy rate of owned housing from the US Census for each City along
the Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metro area. The figure compares the vacancy rate
of 2010 (the height of the for-sale housing bust) and 2016.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 13
Throughout the region, even owned housing has experienced a decline in vacant units since
the beginning of the decade. This is a testament of how the improved economy of the region
is creating demand for all types of housing. In Robbinsdale and Golden Valley the vacancy of
owned housing is extremely low. In Crystal the rate is on par with the County. The exception
is Brooklyn Park. One possible explanation for the shown increase is that Brooklyn Park is
the only city along the corridor with significant tracts of vacant land available for traditional
subdivision development. During the housing bust, new housing construction dramatically
declined, which meant homes newly constructed and not yet occupied were rare. Now with the
improved economy, Brooklyn Park has a number of active housing subdivisions.
Figure 9: Estimated Vacancy of Owned Housing (2010 and 2016)
3.7%
2.4%
2.8%
1.2%
3.1%
2.4%
4.7%
2.4%
1.1%1.2%
2.4%
1.6%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
5.0%
Brooklyn Park Crystal Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hennepin County Twin Cities MSA
Va
c
a
n
c
y
R
a
t
e
2010
2016
Source: US Census, ACS 2012-2016 Estimate
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works14
Bedroom Analysis
The size of individual housing units is important to understand because it is correlated with housing
cost and impacts the types of choices households have depending on where they are in their lifecycle.
Younger and older households, for example, tend to be smaller and have lower incomes. Therefore, they
tend to demand smaller unit types, such as studio, one-, or two-bedroom units. Families with several
children and multiple wage earners not only have more people per household but also have higher
incomes compared to older and younger households.
Figures 10 and 11 display the percentage of housing units in each station area according to the number
of bedrooms. Data for owned and rented housing is presented separately because so much of the owner-
occupied housing stock is dominated by detached, single-family homes. For comparison purposes, data
is also presented for each city along the Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metro area.
Owner-occupied housing, regardless of station area, does not have significant percentage of units with
two or fewer bedrooms. This is consistent with Hennepin County and the Metro Area. The lack of
smaller unit sizes among the owned housing stock is a reflection of lifecycle conditions as noted above.
However, it can be a barrier to those who want to access homeownership. The other important finding
from Table 10 is that the station areas with the newest housing tend to have a much larger proportion
of units with four or more bedrooms.
Figure 10: Bedrooms per Housing Unit - Owner-Occupied Housing (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
O
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
5+Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
3 Bedrooms
2 Bedrooms
1 Bedroom
No Bedrooms
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate;Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 15
In Figure 11 the percentage of units with more bedrooms is correlated with the presence of rented
single-family homes. For example, the Bass Lake Road and Golden Valley Road station areas have more
than 50% of their rental housing stock containing three or more bedrooms. These are station areas with
a lot of rented single-family homes.
Figure 11: Bedroom per Housing Unit – Renter-Occupied Housing (1/2-Mile Radius)
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate;Tangible Consulting Services
Data from Figures 10 and 11 were further analyzed to generate Table 12 that show the number of
persons per bedroom in each station area. The data include both owner- and renter-occupied data. High
rates of person per bedroom can signal not only a mismatch between housing need and supply, but also
the potential for excessive wear and tear on the housing stock.
Across the metro area, the average number of persons per bedroom is 0.92. In areas with an older
population, the number of persons per bedroom can be quite low due to empty-nest situations.
However, in areas well above the metro area rate is evidence of the lack of supply for larger unit sizes. In
particular, the 63rd Avenue, Bass Lake Road, Penn Avenue, and Van White Boulevard station areas have
rates well above the metro area rate.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
O
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
5+Bedrooms
4 Bedrooms
3 Bedrooms
2 Bedrooms
1 Bedroom
No Bedrooms
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works16
Figure 12: Persons per Bedroom (1/2-Mile Radius)
0.84 0.84
0.99
1.20 1.21
1.00
0.82
0.92
1.12 1.14
1.00
0.88 0.87
0.78
0.92 0.92
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate;Tangible Consulting Services
Housing Costs
The cost of housing has profound impact on the ability to afford and access adequate housing. This
section provides data from a number of sources and perspectives to better understand the current
situation with respect to housing costs in the Bottineau Corridor and within each station area.
Pricing Trends: Market Rate Rental Housing
As noted previously, the vacancy rate for market rate apartments has been persistently low for many
years. This has resulted in sharp increases in the average monthly asking rent. Figure 13 presents this
data for buildings more than 20 years old4. Although the average asking rent in the Bottineau Corridor
is about 7-8% lower when compared to the metro area average, it nevertheless has experienced an
increase of roughly $200 since 2009, which is a 25% increase.
4. Because there are so few newer rental units in the Bottineau Corridor, it is important to compare data for older properties instead
of all properties. Many of the newest rental properties being built today in the Twin Cities metro area are luxury product with pricing
significantly above the average. Therefore, to include these newer properties in the analysis would skew the results.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 17
For those with lower incomes who are unable to access income-restricted or rent-controlled housing this
is a significant increase that undoubtedly has squeezed a number of households out of the market and into
dire arrangements. Moreover, since 2012, the annual change has been increasing at a more rapid rate.
Figure 13: Average Monthly Asking Rent – Market Rate Apartments More than 20 Years Old
$750
$800
$850
$900
$950
$1,000
$1,050
$1,100
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 YTD
Av
e
r
a
g
e
M
o
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
n
t
Corridor (1-mi buf.)Hennepin County 7-County Metro
Sources: CoStar; Perkins+Will
Figure 14 presents apartment rent trends within ½-mile of each station area. According to the figure,
most station areas have an average asking rent well below the County and metro area average asking
rent. The Plymouth Avenue and Van White Boulevard station areas are the exceptions. This is due to
upscale properties at the periphery of these station areas (one overlooks Wirth Park and another is in
the rapidly growing North Loop area).
Despite overall lower average rents, several of the station areas have experienced rent increases since
2011 that have exceeded the County or metro area rate of rent growth. This indicates how overall
economic conditions can have an outsized impact on area with more affordably priced housing and
lower incomes.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works18
Figure 14: Average Monthly Asking Rent and Percentage Change – Market Rate Apartments More than 20
Years Old (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
$1,500
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
i
n
R
e
n
t
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
R
e
n
t
2017 Avg Rent % Change in Avg Rent '11-'17
N/A
Sources: CoStar; Perkins+Will
Pricing Trends: For-Sale Housing
Figure 15 presents a dense set of information characterizing the nature of the for-sale housing market
in each station area (1/2-mile radius). It shows the most recent median sales price, the rate of change
in the median sales since before the housing bust (2005), the volume of sales in 2017, and the median
age of homes sold. Most of the station areas when compared to the metro area have a lower median sales
price and have yet to return to their pre-bust pricing (as noted by the dashed line in the graph). The
lower median sales price is somewhat reflected in the age of the for-sale housing stock. Several of the
station areas have a median age well below that of the metro area.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 19
The Van White Boulevard and 93rd Avenue station areas have a higher median sales price than the metro
area, which can be explained somewhat by their newer housing stock. However, neither station area has
been able to attain their pre-bust pricing. The Penn Avenue station area is the only area whose median
sales price has substantially exceeded its pre-bust levels.
Home pricing can be influenced by the number of sales in a given area. The fewer the number of
sales, the more the median sales price can wildly fluctuate. The station areas with the most number of
recorded home sales in 2017 are Robbinsdale and 85th Avenue.
Figure 15: Home Sales Statistics by Station Area (1/2-mile radius), Corridor City, and Twin Cities Metro Area
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
Figure 16 presents data that focuses on the change in the Median Sales from 2005 (pre-bust) to
2017. Homes located closer to downtown Minneapolis have been able to rebound from the bust more
successfully than those located further out. The only exception is the Van White Boulevard station area.
However, data for this station area is heavily impacted by a large, upscale condominium building that
opened just prior to the housing bust that was saddled with many foreclosures. Therefore, statistically
speaking it has a much deeper hole to climb out of compared to other station areas.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works20
Figure 16: Median Home Sales Price (1/2-Mile Radius)
Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
Affordability
A survey of all rental housing properties with 10 or more units was conducted for an area within one mile of
the planned LRT line. Information on individual properties, such as age of building, asking rents, unit mix
(i.e., proportion of units that have one, two, or three bedrooms), unit square footages, and the presence of any
restrictions (e.g., income or age requirements), were collected and analyzed in support of the gaps analysis.
Figure 17 presents data on the number of existing rental units that are affordable5 to households at varying
income levels. The income levels are set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
and benchmarked against the Twin Cities’ area median income (AMI), which was $90,400 in 2017. The
income categories used to determine affordability levels area defined as follows: Extremely Low Income
(30% of AMI or less); Very Low Income (31% to 50% of AMI); and Low Income (51% to 80% of AMI).
Corresponding to these income levels are HUD rent tables that identify the amount of rent that would be
considered affordable at each income level according to unit size (i.e., number of bedrooms). These rent tables
were used to analyze the affordability of rental units captured in the housing survey.
Based on the above definitions, Figure 17 breaks out units that have some level of rent or income restriction
versus those that have no restrictions (i.e., market rate). In the case of market rate units that meet some level of
affordability, these are commonly referred to as naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH).
5. Affordability, as defined here, is based on the assumption that housing costs should not be more than 30% of gross income to allow for
other household needs, such as food, clothing, transportation, and healthcare. For example, if monthly housing costs (i.e., gross rent) are
$750 per month this would translate to an annual cost ($750 x 12 months) of $9,000. Therefore, if a household should be spending no
more than 30% of their income on housing, they would need an annual income of at least $30,000 to afford such a rent.
$2
7
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
5
,
0
0
0
$2
2
3
,
9
0
0
$1
8
8
,
2
0
0
$1
9
4
,
0
0
0
$1
9
7
,
5
0
0
$2
2
8
,
0
0
0
$1
6
9
,
9
0
0
$1
6
1
,
0
5
0
$3
0
3
,
1
0
0
$2
2
9
,
0
0
0
$1
9
7
,
5
0
0
$1
9
6
,
9
0
0
$2
6
0
,
5
0
0
$1
5
9
,
0
0
0
$2
2
8
,
9
0
0
$2
6
4
,
0
0
0
$1
8
3
,
0
0
0
$2
0
6
,
5
0
0
$1
7
8
,
8
0
0
$1
8
0
,
5
0
0
$2
0
1
,
0
0
0
$2
4
1
,
8
7
5
$1
7
3
,
0
0
0
$1
8
6
,
3
0
0
$2
6
0
,
0
0
0
$2
3
0
,
0
0
0
$2
0
0
,
4
5
0
$2
0
4
,
0
0
0
$3
1
0
,
0
0
0
$1
4
9
,
9
0
0
$2
4
6
,
0
0
0
$125,000
$150,000
$175,000
$200,000
$225,000
$250,000
$275,000
$300,000
Me
d
i
a
n
S
a
l
e
s
P
r
i
c
e
2005
2017
N/A
$4
7
8
,
0
0
0
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 21
All of the rental housing along the Bottineau Corridor meets some level of affordability with over 80%
of the units affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% of AMI. In Brooklyn Park and
Robbinsdale very few of the rental units have a restriction. Almost all of the rental housing are naturally
occurring affordable housing or NOAH. In Crystal and Minneapolis, the inverse is true in which all
or the vast majority of units are restricted with very little NOAH. Not surprisingly, the restricted units
tend to concentrate below 60% of AMI, meanwhile the NOAH units are mostly above 50% of AMI.
Figure 17: Affordability of Rental Units Based on Income Levels (in Buildings with 10+ Units)
MINNEAPOLIS (WITHIN 1 MILE OF CORRIDOR)ROBBINSDALE (WITHIN 1 MILE OF CORRIDOR)
CORRIDOR-WIDE (1-MILE BUFFER)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
60%
AMI
80%
AMI
100%
AMI
Not
Affordable*
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Rent Restricted Market Rate (NOAH)
Source:CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
60%
AMI
80%
AMI
100%
AMI
Not
Affordable*
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Rent Restricted Market Rate (NOAH)
Source:CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
60%
AMI
80%
AMI
100%
AMI
Not
Affordable*
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Rent Restricted Market Rate (NOAH)
Source:CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
BROOKLYN PARK (WITHIN 1-MILE OF CORRIDOR)CRYSTAL (WITHIN 1 MILE OF CORRIDOR)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
60%
AMI
80%
AMI
100%
AMI
Not
Affordable*
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Rent Restricted Market Rate (NOAH)
Source:CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
30%
AMI
50%
AMI
60%
AMI
80%
AMI
100%
AMI
Not
Affordable*
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Rent Restricted Market Rate (NOAH)
Source:CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services
Sources: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works22
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH)
A simple definition for NOAH is any housing unit that meets some definition of
affordability without any restriction on who can live there (other than what a landlord is
legally allowed to screen). In most areas, the vast majority of what would be considered
affordably priced housing does not have a restriction. Prices are generally set by the market
place and what a landlord can achieve in a competitive environment. However, due to the
condition of a property, the presence (or lack thereof) of essential unit features, its location,
or a glut of available units, many times housing can be priced to be affordable to many
households “naturally” or without public subsidy.
When markets function under ideal conditions for both renters and landlords, property
owners invest in their properties to keep them marketable yet sufficient competition means
they are unable to raise prices beyond what the market can comfortably bear. However,
NOAH is very susceptible to rapidly changing market conditions. If household growth
outpaces housing supply or wage increases are unfairly distributed, landlords of NOAH
properties may be able to raise rents to the point that segments of the market are often left
unable to afford rent increases.
Cost Burden
Although many households may be living in housing that meets some definition of affordability, this
does not mean that the cost of housing is not a burden (i.e., paying more than 30% of income toward
housing costs). Figure 18 presents data on the proportion of owner- and renter-occupied households
that are cost burdened for each station area, each city along the Corridor, Hennepin County, and the
Twin Cities metro area.
From the figure, many of the renters living along the Corridor are more cost burdened than compared
to other renters across in the County or across the metro area. This is despite the fact that housing
in the Corridor tends to be more “affordable.” Renters in the Brooklyn Boulevard station area are
especially burdened with nearly 70% meeting the definition.
The figure also shows the cost burden for owner-occupied households. Although the prevalence of
being cost burdened is not as high among homeowners, in some station areas nearly one-third of these
households would be considered cost burdened.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 23
Figure 18: Cost Burdened Households by Tenure (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
b
y
T
e
n
u
r
e
Cost -
Burdened
Owners
Cost -
Burdened
Renters
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
Restricted Housing
Figure 19 displays data on the number of rental units according to the type of restriction (i.e., income-
restricted or age-restricted) or lack of restriction (i.e., general-occupancy). Also indicated in the figure is
the whether the units have been built since 1983 or are older. Figure 20 is a companion chart showing
the same data for the Twin Cities metro area.
Nearly 50% of the rental units in the Corridor have some type of restriction. Of these, more than half
have been built since 1983. The vast majority of general-occupancy rental units without any restrictions
were built before 1983 and are more than 35 years old. This is in contrast to other parts of the metro
area in which a much higher proportion of general-occupancy rental units have been built since 1983.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works24
Figure 19: Restricted Rental Housing (1-Mile Corridor)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
Senior -Market
Rate
Senior -Income-
Restricted
General
Occupancy -
Market Rate
General
Occupancy -
Income-Restricted
General
Occupancy -
Mixed-Income
Un
i
t
s
1983-
Present
Pre-1983
Source: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
Figure 20: Restricted Rental Housing (Twin Cities MSA)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
Senior -Market
Rate
Senior -Income-
Restricted
General
Occupancy -
Market Rate
General
Occupancy -
Income-Restricted
General
Occupancy -
Mixed-Income
Un
i
t
s
1983-
Present
Pre-1983
Source: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 25
Many income-restricted properties are funded through multiple sources. Furthermore, many funding
sources have an expiration date in which the owners of the properties are no longer required to
restrict tenancy to their properties based on income. This is one of the most common ways in which
communities can lose housing that is affordable to lower-income households. Based on data from
HousingLink.Org and Hennepin County, Table 1 lists each of the income-restricted properties in the
Corridor with an expiration date associated with the restriction. In total, just over 2,000 units exist
within a mile of the LRT line. Roughly 200 of the units are set to expire within the next five years and
unless the property owner decides to reapply to a funding program that supports the restriction, these
units are at risk of being priced according to market forces and, thus, may lose their affordability.
Table 1: Income-Restricted Properties in which Restrictions are Set to Expire
Name Address City Station Area #Units Expiration
Year
Park Haven 6917 76th Ave N Brooklyn Park Brooklyn Blvd 176 2033
Autumn Ridge 8500 63rd Ave N Brooklyn Park 63rd Ave 366 2037
Kentucky Lane Apts 6910 54th Ave N Crystal Bass Lake Rd 67 2030
Cavanagh Senior Apts 5401 51st Ave N Crystal Bass Lake Rd 130 2044
Bass Lake Court Townhomes 7300 Bass Lake Rd New Hope Bass Lake Rd 60 2019
Bridgeway Apartments 3755 Hubbard Ave N Robbinsdale Robbinsdale 45 2047
Copperfield Hill - The Manor 4200 40th Ave N Robbinsdale Robbinsdale 150 2024
The Commons at Penn Ave 2211 Golden Valley Rd Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd 47 2046
St. Anne’s Senior Housing 2323 26th Ave N Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd 61 2037
Gateway Lofts 2623 W Broadway Ave Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd 46 2040
Broadway Flats 2505 Penn Ave N Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd 102 2047
Lindquist Apartments 1931 W Broadway Ave Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd/
Plymouth Rd 21 2034
West Broadway Crescent 2022-1926 W
Broadway Ave Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd/
Plymouth Rd 54 2045
Ripley Gardens 301 Penn Ave N Minneapolis Plymouth Rd/Penn Ave 52 2026
Homewoods 1239 Sheridan Ave N Minneapolis Penn Ave/Van White 35 2024
1618 Glenwood Ave N Minneapolis Penn Ave/Van White 12 2029
Park Plaza Apts 525 Humboldt Ave N Minneapolis Van White/Penn Ave 134 2021
610 Logan Ave N Minneapolis Van White/Penn Ave 12 2040
Heritage Park Apts 1000 Olson Memorial
Hwy Minneapolis Van White/Penn Ave 440 2033
Total Units 2,010
Units Set to Expire within 5 Years 194
Sources: HousingLink.Org; Hennepin County
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works26
Development Trends
Housing production is an important strategy for maintaining an adequate and healthy stock of housing.
New construction replaces obsolete or poorly maintained units. It adds to the supply and meets
demand driven by growth. It also introduces new types of housing that meets the needs of ever evolving
demographic and economic conditions.
Figure 21 displays the number of new housing units constructed in Golden Valley, Robbinsdale,
Crystal, and Brooklyn Park from 2004 to 2016. Figure 22 presents the breakdown of those units by
structure type. Data for Minneapolis is not included in Figures 21 and 22 for two reasons: 1) data
specific to the portion of Minneapolis within or near the Bottineau Corridor is not readily available;
and 2) Minneapolis is sufficiently large that including city-wide data would have skewed the numbers
and not provided meaningful conclusions.
From the Figures 21 and 22, it is evident how much the housing bust from the late 2000s slowed
new construction. At the bust’s nadir, less than 100 new units were constructed annually compared to
850 units during the peak in 2005. Although not quite to the pre-bust levels, housing construction is
adding significant numbers to the housing stock of Corridor communities.
Pre-bust, Brooklyn Park was capturing the majority of housing development. Post-bust, Golden Valley
has begun to add significant numbers of new units as well. Although much of this recent development
is in the form of larger multifamily buildings, very little of it has been occurring in or near the station
areas.
Figure 21: Total Housing Units Permitted for Construction in Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, and
Brooklyn Park from 2004 to 2016
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
Golden Valley
Robbinsdale
Crystal
Brooklyn Park
Source: Metropolitan Council
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 27
Figure 22: The Structure Type of Housing Units Permitted for Construction in Golden Valley, Robbinsdale,
Crystal, and Brooklyn Park from 2004 to 2016
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
MF (5+ unit
bldgs)
Townhomes
Single-Family
Source: Metropolitan Council
As previously noted, there has not been a significant amount of multifamily development within 1-mile
of the Bottineau Corridor for over 30 years. As the LRT project gets closer to fruition and the market
for new rental housing strengthens in suburban areas, there is evidence of new development occurring in
the Corridor. In Brooklyn Park, Doran Development opened the first new multifamily project in decades
in 2016 and is currently constructing a second phase. There are also two proposals for new multifamily
projects in Robbinsdale, which would be the first such development in several decades as well.
Although the LRT line is likely a number of years from being operational, it is valuable to compare
what level of activity is occurring in the other LRT corridors. Table 2 highlights the number of
units currently under construction or have reached some level of approvals to consider them likely
developments according to CoStar, a nationally-based provider of commercial real estate information.
The existing Green Line in St. Paul and the planned extension into the western suburbs both have well
over 2,000 units of housing under development. In contrast, the Blue Line extension has approximately
550 units in development.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works28
Table 2: Multifamily Units under Development along Metro Area LRT Corridors
LRT Line*Units Under
Construction Units Proposed**Total Units in
Development
Blue Line Ext 202 347 549
Blue Line 53 830 883
Green Line Ext 51 2,522 2,573
Green Line 841 1,403 2,244
* Excludes Downtown Minneapolis
** According to CoStar, these are the number proposed units in each corridor that have reached some level of approvals to consider them likely developments.
In most cases, this means the proposed project has received approvals from a city. However, it can also be influenced by the track record of the developer.
Source: CoStar
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Median Age
The age profile of the population has a direct impact on housing needs. Figure 23 depicts the current
median age of the population in each station area, in each community along the Corridor, Hennepin
County, and the Twin Cities metro area. Figure 24 depicts the recent and anticipated future trend with
respect to aging.
Overall, the Corridor is younger than the metro area or Hennepin County. The population in the Van
White Boulevard, Penn Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard, and 63rd Avenue station areas are especially
youthful with a median age well below the metro area median.
Balancing out some of the more youthful station areas are the Golden Valley Road, Robbinsdale, and
Bass Lake Road station areas which are older than the metro area median. The Robbinsdale and Bass
Lake Road station areas have multiple senior housing properties which explain the older median in
these areas. For the Golden Valley Road station area, the higher median age likely has to do with a more
expensive, owner-occupied housing stock relative to nearby neighborhoods, which is a barrier to entry
for younger households.
Although several station areas experienced a drop in the median age from 2000 to 2010, despite
continued aging of the County as a whole, all of the stations are expected to increase their median age
in the foreseeable future. An aging population within the station areas will increase demand for certain
types of housing and decrease demand for other types.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 29
Figure 23: Median Age of Station Areas (1/2-Mile Radius)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Me
d
i
a
n
A
g
e
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri;Tangible Consulting Services
Figure 24: Aging Trends of Station Areas 2000-2022 (1/2-Mile Radius)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Me
d
i
a
n
A
g
e
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works30
Household Tenure (owners and renters)
Housing tenure is important to track because it provides insight into the potential to respond to a
changing age profile or shocks to the economy, such as a recession. For example, many older households
often transition out of homeownership into rental housing as they require more assistance with
activities of daily living.
Figure 25 presents data on the breakdown between owners and renters while Figure 26 presents data
on recent and anticipated changes in the homeownership rate. There is wide variation in tenure from
station area to station area. Some station areas, such as those at the north end of the Corridor, mostly
consist of households that own their housing. Other station areas, such as 63rd Avenue and Van White
Boulevard, mostly consist of renters.
The recent and future trend, regardless of the station area, is toward lower levels of homeownership.
Evidence appears to be growing that younger age groups are not embracing homeownership the way
previous generations did. First, mortgage standards have returned to more stringent levels where the
barrier to entry is much higher due to substantially larger down payments that are required on the part
of mortgagors.
Second, with housing no longer seen as a “safe” investment due to the housing bust the nest egg that
so many previous generations created through homeownership is no longer seen as attainable. Third,
many younger households are now saddled with tremendous student debt and qualifying for, much less
affording, a mortgage is much more difficult than compared to previous generations. Finally, with an
increasingly digital-based economy, gone are the expectations that one works for a single employer for
most of their career. Therefore, homeownership can be viewed as reducing employment flexibility which
further depresses demand for for-sale housing. As a result, younger households are starting to choose
rental housing as a preferred arrangement rather than a temporary situation prior to homeownership.
If these trends persist or become deeply established, the demand for rental housing could remain high
for many years. These trends, however, are difficult to predict because of the large impact Federal
policies have on homeownership. For instance, if the Federal government revamps Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, the two big institutions that help support homeownership, in a way that help loosen
lending standards, homeownership may again regain its value to younger generations. Conversely, given
the recent changes to the mortgage interest deduction allowed through the Federal tax code, this may
have a profound impact on the rental market.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 31
Figure 25: Household Tenure by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Renter-
Occupied
Owner-
Occupied
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate
Figure 26: Homeownership Rate 2000-2022 (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ho
m
e
o
w
n
e
r
s
h
i
p
R
a
t
e
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works32
Household Size
Figures 27 and 28 present data on household size. Household size has a direct impact on the types of
housing needed. Furthermore, data on household size can reveal where the housing stock may be most
stressed in meeting the needs of a changing demographic. Within the Corridor, station areas with
larger multifamily properties tend to attract smaller households. Conversely, station areas with a higher
proportion of single-family homes tend to attract larger households.
Exceptions are station areas where the aging of the population has yet to result in a turnover to younger
households (e.g., Golden Valley Road) or areas with a high number of larger apartment units that can
support families (e.g., Van White Boulevard).
Figure 27: Average Household Size by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius)
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri;Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
Figure 28: Household Size Trends 2000-2022 (1/2-Mile Radius)
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
S
i
z
e
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+WillSources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 33
Household Type
Related to household size is household type. Changes in household type can place pressure on the types
of rental units needed in a community. For example, increasing numbers of renter households with
children will place greater demand for units with three or more bedrooms, not to mention amenities
such as play areas and accessibility to nearby schools.
Household structure throughout the Corridor is generally similar to the Metro Area and Hennepin County –
though the Corridor tends to have slightly more non-traditional families and persons living alone.
Within station areas, though, there is significant variation of household types. The Oak Grove
Parkway and 93rd Avenue station areas have a high percentage of married couples with families. The
Robbinsdale station area has a high percentage of persons living alone. The Van White Boulevard, Penn
Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard, and 63rd Avenue station areas have higher percentages of non-traditional
families with children.
Recent trends indicate that the proportion of households with children is increasing across the metro
area and within most of the station areas. Single-person households, which have different housing needs
than households with children, are starting to stabilize after a large increase between 2000 and 2010.
Figure 29: Household Type by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Living Alone
Non-family (2+
persons)
Other Family w/o
Children
Other Family w/
Children
Married-Couple w/o
Children
Married-Couple w/
Children
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri;Tangible Consulting Services
Household Size
Figures 27 and 28 present data on household size. Household size has a direct impact on the types of
housing needed. Furthermore, data on household size can reveal where the housing stock may be most
stressed in meeting the needs of a changing demographic. Within the Corridor, station areas with
larger multifamily properties tend to attract smaller households. Conversely, station areas with a higher
proportion of single-family homes tend to attract larger households.
Exceptions are station areas where the aging of the population has yet to result in a turnover to younger
households (e.g., Golden Valley Road) or areas with a high number of larger apartment units that can
support families (e.g., Van White Boulevard).
Figure 27: Average Household Size by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius)
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.8
Pe
r
s
o
n
s
p
e
r
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri;Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
Figure 28: Household Size Trends 2000-2022 (1/2-Mile Radius)
2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
3.40
3.60
3.80
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
S
i
z
e
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+WillSources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works34
Figure 30: Households with Children 2000-2015 (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Ho
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
w
i
t
h
C
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+WillSources: U.S. Census Bureau; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
Figure 31: Single-Person Households 2000-2015 (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
S
i
n
g
l
e
-Pe
r
s
o
n
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+WillSources: U.S. Census Bureau; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 35
Length of Residence
Length of residence indicates how much turnover there is in the housing stock. Frequent turnover
can result in greater wear and tear on the housing stock. It can also be an indicator of community
involvement and participation among residents since it is often difficult to get involved in community
issues and concerns when your residence is short term.
Longer-term residencies tend to be more associated with owner-occupied housing. This is generally
due to the fact that younger and older households, which have a propensity to rent, do so because
their expectation is for shorter-term residencies. Also, being more affordable, rental housing tends to
accommodate households with financial and/or employment situations that are tenuous, which may
precipitate a shorter-term residency.
Figure 32: Year Householder Moved into Dwelling Unit by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Moved in 2010 or later Moved in 2000 to 2009 Moved in 1990 to 1999
Moved in 1980 to 1989 Moved in 1979 and Earlier
Sources: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri
Figure 33 presents data for Hennepin County and the Twin Cities metro area showing the difference
in the percentage of households that moved into their housing unit within the past year between 2010
and 2015. Regardless of whether the unit is owner- or renter-occupied, the trend has been toward far
less movement among households in the last six years. This indicates how a tight housing market can
not only displace households due to rising rents or other landlord driven circumstances, but that it can
cause households to remain in the same home despite changing life circumstances and the inability to
find housing that better meets their needs.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works36
Figure 33: Households that Moved into Dwelling Unit within the Last Year
Sources: US Census; Perkins+Will
Race and Ethnicity
Figures 34 and 35 present data on the race/ethnicity and Hispanic origin of station area residents.
Racial and ethnic diversity is very high throughout the Corridor. The number of people of color
in the station areas is well above the Metro Area rate. African Americans are an important part of
the population base throughout the Corridor. Asian Americans are a significant component to the
population in the southern and northern station areas.
Figure 34: Race and Ethnicity by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
White African Amer.Amer. Indian Asian Pacific Islander Other Race Two or More Races
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 37
The Hispanic population, which can be of any race, are prominent throughout the Corridor as well. Concentrations
of Hispanic persons are in the Van White Boulevard, Bass Lake Road, and 63rd Avenue station areas.
Figure 35: Hispanic Origin by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
Critical housing gaps are often correlated with race or ethnicity. Figures 36 and 37 highlight the stark
differences in the rate of homeownership throughout the corridor between white households and households
of color. Only in station areas where there is an almost complete lack of rental housing (e.g., Oak Grove
Parkway, 93rd Avenue, and 85th Avenue) is the homeownership rate between whites and persons of color
relatively similar. Otherwise, white households have a rate of homeownership that is typically twice --
sometimes three times -- the rate of households of color. This underscores how housing gaps that fall along
race and ethnic lines may not be overcome by simply building more housing, but addressing other issues,
such as homeownership assistance, fair housing policies, and similar strategies aimed at equity and equal
access to resources.
Figure 36: Household Tenure by Station Area for White Households (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Renter-
Occupied
Owner-
Occupied
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2012-2016 Estimate
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works38
Figure 37: Household Tenure by Station Area for Households of Color (1/2-Mile Radius)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
Renter-
Occupied
Owner-
Occupied
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2012-2016 Estimate
Household Income
Household income is important to track because it is strongly correlated with age and also directly affects
the spending power of area residents and their ability to afford housing. Figures 36 and 37 display data
on median household incomes for each station area, the Corridor, each city along the Corridor, Hennepin
County, and the Twin Cities metro area.
Except for the Golden Valley Road station area, all of the station areas from Brooklyn Boulevard and
southward have median incomes well below the metro area median. Stations at the northern end of the
Corridor where the housing consists mostly of newer, larger, owned single-family homes have median
incomes above the metro area median.
In terms of income trends, there is a great deal of variation throughout the Corridor. By and large, it
appears that income trends tend to correlate with whether households are getting younger or much older
(i.e., entering retirement).
Because homeownership often has a significant financial barrier to entry, rental housing tends to have
a larger proportion of lower-income households, though many middle- and higher-income households
choose to rent as well. Furthermore, households at the two ends of the age spectrum, younger and older
households, often prefer renting because it provides greater flexibility and requires less maintenance.
Yet, these same households also have lower incomes because of limited earning potential (i.e., little work
experience or retirement).
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 39
Figure 38: Median Household Income by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius)
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
Me
d
i
a
n
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services
Figure 39: Median Household Income Trends 2000-2022 (1/2-Mile Radius)
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
Me
d
i
a
n
H
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
I
n
c
o
m
e
2000*2013*2015*2017**2022**
Sources: * US Census; ** Esri; Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works40
SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORECASTS
Previous sections addressed the current and recent demographic situation for each station area and communities along
the Bottineau Corridor. This section presents data of several types of forecasts that provide insight into the potential
increase in demand for housing due to population, household, and employment growth.
Population and Household Forecast
Table 3 presents data on the forecasted population and household growth of each community along the Bottineau
Corridor as well as Hennepin County and the Twin Cities Metro Area. With the exception of a small portion of
Brooklyn Park, the communities along the Bottineau Corridor are fully developed, which helps explain why their
forecasted growth rates do not equal that of the entire Metro Area. The Metro Area figures include both fully
developed communities as well as those communities with large tracts of vacant land that can accommodate large
scale residential construction. Communities with significant amounts of new residential construction are typically
the ones that experience the largest population increases.
Table 3: Population and Household Forecasts for Corridor Communities, Hennepin County, & Twin Cities Metro Area
Forecast Numeric Change Percentage Change
Community 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010s 2020s 2030s 2010s 2020s 2030s
POPULATION
Brooklyn Park 67,388 75,781 86,700 91,800 97,900 10,919 5,100 6,100 14.4%5.9%6.6%
Crystal 22,698 22,151 22,700 23,200 23,800 549 500 600 2.5%2.2%2.6%
Robbinsdale 14,123 13,953 14,750 15,100 15,300 797 350 200 5.7%2.4%1.3%
Golden Valley 20,281 20,371 21,300 22,000 22,900 929 700 900 4.6%3.3%4.1%
Corridor Communities 124,490 132,256 145,450 152,100 159,900 13,194 6,650 7,800 10.0%4.6%5.1%
Minneapolis 382,618 382,578 423,300 439,100 459,200 40,722 15,800 20,100 10.6%3.7%4.6%
Hennepin County 1,116,200 1,152,425 1,255,520 1,330,480 1,407,640 103,095 74,960 77,160 8.9%6.0%5.8%
7-County Metro
Area 2,642,056 2,849,567 3,160,000 3,459,000 3,738,000 310,433 299,000 279,000 10.9%9.5%8.1%
HOUSEHOLDS
Brooklyn Park 24,432 26,229 30,000 32,200 34,300 3,771 2,200 2,100 14.4%7.3%6.5%
Crystal 9,389 9,183 9,500 9,600 9,700 317 100 100 3.5%1.1%1.0%
Robbinsdale 6,097 6,032 6,300 6,600 6,800 268 300 200 4.4%4.8%3.0%
Golden Valley 8,449 8,816 9,300 9,600 9,800 484 300 200 5.5%3.2%2.1%
Corridor Communities 48,367 50,260 55,100 58,000 60,600 4,840 2,900 2,600 9.6%5.3%4.5%
Minneapolis 162,352 163,540 183,800 194,000 204,000 20,260 10,200 10,000 12.4%5.5%5.2%
Hennepin County 456,129 475,913 528,090 566,560 600,930 52,177 38,470 34,370 11.0%7.3%6.1%
7-County Metro Area 1,021,454 1,117,749 1,264,000 1,402,000 1,537,000 146,251 138,000 135,000 13.1%10.9%9.6%
Sources: US Census; Metropolitan Council; Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 41
Although the Bottineau Corridor is mostly developed, the Metropolitan Council expects an important
amount of household growth to occur over the next 20-25 years due to redevelopment opportunities
of older, underutilized parcels. According to the table, the communities along the Corridor, excluding
Minneapolis, can anticipate roughly 3,000 new households each decade.
In order to accommodate this new household growth, substantial amounts of new multifamily housing
will need to be built because the economic feasibility of replacing non-residential uses with single-
family housing is very challenging without substantial public support and subsidy.
Employment Forecast
Employment growth in and near the Bottineau Corridor will be a key driver of housing demand in the
coming decades. According to Table 4, the communities along the Bottineau Corridor are anticipated
to add nearly 6000 jobs in the 2020s and 2030s. Even if a small proportion of those new workers
want to live along the Corridor it will place a great deal of demand on the local housing supply. If a
range of new product types at varying price points is not added to the housing stock, this will result in
significant increases in housing costs.
Table 4: Employment Forecasts for Corridor Communities, Hennepin County, and Twin Cities Metro Area
Forecast Numeric Change Percentage Change
Community 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010s 2020s 2030s 2010s 2020s 2030s
EMPLOYMENT
Brooklyn Park 23,692 24,084 32,100 36,100 40,200 8,016 4,000 4,100 33.3%12.5%11.4%
Crystal 5,638 3,929 4,400 4,640 4,900 471 240 260 12.0%5.5%5.6%
Robbinsdale 7,109 6,858 7,000 7,100 7,200 142 100 100 2.1%1.4%1.4%
Golden Valley 30,142 33,194 36,000 37,500 38,900 2,806 1,500 1,400 8.5%4.2%3.7%
Corridor
Communities 66,581 68,065 79,500 85,340 91,200 11,435 5,840 5,860 16.8%7.3%6.9%
Minneapolis 308,127 281,732 315,300 332,400 350,000 33,568 17,100 17,600 11.9%5.4%5.3%
Hennepin County 877,346 805,089 924,710 981,800 1,038,140 119,621 57,090 56,340 14.9%6.2%5.7%
7-County Metro Area 1,606,263 1,543,872 1,828,000 1,910,000 2,039,000 284,128 82,000 129,000 18.4%4.5%6.8%
Sources: US Census; Metropolitan Council; Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works42
Population Projections by Age Group
As presented previously, it is important to understand the age breakdown of the population because
there is a strong correlation between one’s age and the type of housing desired. Although long range age
forecasts are not available at the municipal level, the Minnesota State Demographer recently released
projections for Hennepin County, which are presented in Table 5.
According to the table, the age groups under 25 and over 65 will grow substantially through 2030.
Therefore, macro demographic trends suggest numeric growth will increase demand for both larger unit
types that can accommodate families while at the same time smaller unit styles focused on aging adults
wanting to downsize.
Table 5: Hennepin County Population Forecast by Age Group
Population
Age 2010 2020 2030 2040 Numeric Change Percent Change
2010s 2020s 2030s 2010s 2020s 2030s
Under 18
Years 261,596 300,118 321,408 334,524 38,522 21,290 13,116 14.7%7.1%4.1%
18 to 24
years 113,300 112,122 137,640 149,718 -1,178 25,518 12,078 -1.0%22.8%8.8%
25 to 34
years 187,523 198,711 212,434 247,227 11,188 13,723 34,793 6.0%6.9%16.4%
35 to 44
years 154,304 169,184 155,538 163,307 14,880 -13,646 7,769 9.6%-8.1%5.0%
45 to 54
years 171,130 160,088 176,320 158,642 -11,042 16,232 -17,678 -6.5%10.1%-10.0%
55 to 64
years 133,758 165,602 161,777 175,103 31,844 -3,825 13,326 23.8%-2.3%8.2%
65 to 74
years 66,516 117,183 145,800 139,920 50,667 28,617 -5,880 76.2%24.4%-4.0%
75 to 84
years 42,476 42,104 68,109 82,280 -372 26,005 14,171 -0.9%61.8%20.8%
85 years and
over 21,822 29,259 28,306 47,670 7,437 -953 19,364 34.1%-3.3%68.4%
Total
Population 1,152,425 1,294,371 1,407,332 1,498,391 141,946 112,961 91,059 12.3%8.7%6.5%
Source: Minnesota State Demographer
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 43
IMPACTS OF NEW LRT SERVICE
The planned light rail transit (LRT) in the Bottineau Corridor will provide significantly enhanced
transit service for residents and workers near the stations. Access to faster, high-frequency transit will
reduce travel costs (in both time and money) and provide transportation flexibility. The result will be
greater demand to live and work near a station.
Research and experience show that there are a range of additional impacts that can result from new
transit service, such as:
• Property values tend to increase near transit stations, benefiting homeowners
and other property owners.
• Station areas may attract new housing and commercial development that
would otherwise not occur.
• Commercial businesses may benefit from increased visibility and sales.
• Investment in existing property tends to increase.
• In certain locations the impact on the area is multiplied by the emergence
of broader place-making changes, which transform the market context,
character and vibrancy of an area, inviting subsequent development and
area changes.
• Value increases in station areas, and the increased attractiveness of the location
for rental households, leads to rent increases in existing rental properties.
In order to better understand the potential impact of new LRT service on Blue Line communities, and
especially on those living near future station areas, we did additional research on the impacts of new
transit service—specifically its impact on property values, property investment, new development, and
rent levels.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works44
The Impact of New LRT Service on Property Values and Property Investment
A number of studies have explored the relationship between new LRT transit service, and increases in
surrounding property values. Such studies have been conducted in contexts across the country, looking
at the question from a range of perspectives.
Given that the existing Blue Line and Green Line transit lines offer the closest comparison to the future
Blue Line extension, the impacts of those lines are particularly relevant. Fortunately, there have been
prominent studies by the Center for Transit Studies (CTS) which have specifically looked at property
value impacts from the Hiawatha Light Rail Line (now the Blue Line). Key findings from those reports
are summarized below.
The Hiawatha Line: Impacts on Land Use and Residential Housing Value (CTS, 2010)
This study used property sale records for a period of time before the opening of the Hiawatha (Blue)
Line, and after the opening of the Hiawatha Line. It compared the change in sale prices for properties
within a half mile of the station to the change in sale prices for properties further distant from the
stations. Trends in sale prices were examined for both single family homes and multifamily residential
properties.
The researchers also looked at whether area investment increased due to the new transit service. They
did this by comparing property expenditures, as represented by 2000 to 2007 building permit records,
between the period before 2004 and the period after 2004.
Key findings of the study included the following:
• Before light rail service began in 2004, single family homes in the half mile
station area radius sold for an average of 16% lower than homes in the
broader area. After 2004, single family homes in the station area sold for an
average of 4% higher than homes in the broader area. The value premium
that station area homes achieved compared with more distant homes equates
to around $5,000 per home.
• The increases in home value were significantly diminished for homes on the
east side of Hiawatha Avenue. Those homes faced two barriers to accessing
the station area—the difficulty of crossing the arterial corridor, and the
visual barrier of a set of older industrial properties between the residential
neighborhoods and Hiawatha Avenue.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 45
• Property sale records showed that multifamily properties increased in value
as well, due to the new transit service. The gain in value, after the opening of
the transit service, was an estimated $15,755 per multifamily property.
• The new transit service prompted additional investment in new home
construction and home improvement.
• There was an increase of 187% in the number of new single family homes
constructed in the station areas.
»The aggregate home improvement permit value was 50% higher in the station
areas than it was for the comparison area for the 2000 – 2007 period.
Impacts of the Hiawatha Light Rail Line on Commercial and Industrial Property Values in Minneapolis (CTS, 2010)
This study utilized property sale records from before and after the opening of the Hiawatha (Blue) Line
to assess the impact of new LRT service on commercial property values. It found a clear positive impact
on property values, which extended out to almost a mile from the station locations.
The value appreciation that resulted from the new transit service varied according to the proximity to
the station. The closer the property was to the station, the greater the resulting appreciation in property
value. The study estimated that, for the average commercial property that is 400 meters (around 1,300
feet) from the station, its value would increase by $6,500 for each meter it was closer to the station.
The Impact of New LRT Service on Attracting New Development
There is a growing literature that looks at the development that occurs in areas near new transit
stations. Questions asked in these studies include:
• Why does development occur in some instances, and not in others?
• What steps can be taken to increase the likelihood that new development
will be attracted to a station area?
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works46
A 2011 study by the Center for Transit Oriented Development (Rails to Real Estate: Development
Patterns along Three New Transit Lines, CTOD, 2011) was influential in understanding these
dynamics. Moreover, one of the study’s three focus areas included the Hiawatha (Blue) Line, which has
particular relevance to this housing gaps analysis.
The study documented real estate development patterns in the areas around transit lines in
Minneapolis, Denver, and Charlotte. The researchers reviewed development records, and interviewed
city planners and developers in each area. The report makes qualitative findings concerning the
development that occurred, and why.
Key findings from the report are as follows:
• Development has occurred on all three lines that may otherwise not
have occurred.
• The character of development near the stations is shaped by its location,
tending to be higher density and more pedestrian oriented than
development in other locations.
• Developers (and their equity partners) are attracted to station area locations
because they are viewed as having the potential to achieve faster absorption
rates, higher occupancy rates, and higher sale prices or rents.
• Transit station areas in and close to existing employment centers and
downtowns are most attractive to developers.
• Locations where there are major opportunities for infill development on
vacant or lightly developed land are most attractive.
• Public actions to surmount barriers and improve the area context can be key
to attracting development.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 47
The Impact of New LRT Service on Rent Levels in Existing Rental Properties
New transit service makes an area more desirable, for both property owners and renters. Because of
that, rents can go up with the arrival of the service. That’s relevant in the Bottineau Corridor because
communities want to understand how the new transit service might impact renter households in the
station areas. There seems, however, to have been less research on the impact of transit service on rent
levels than there has been on the impact on property values. Researchers contacted at the University of
Minnesota’s Center for Transit Studies were not aware of either local or national research that explores
that relationship. And our own internet search didn’t turn up any useful research.
There is a local organization that has done some work in this area. Twin Cities LISC (Local Initiatives
Support Coalition) has been working with Minneapolis and St. Paul neighborhoods to set goals
and monitor change relative to development in the Green Line station areas. The initiative is called
“The Big Picture Project.” Their 2016 progress report included a light analysis of rent changes in the
corridor. It found a 44% rent increase in the Green Line corridor between 2011 and 2015 compared
with a 22% rent increase across Minneapolis and St. Paul. The analysis was based on advertised rent
listings, which limits the validity of the findings because new apartment developments are likely to be
overrepresented in advertised rent listings. For our purposes, the rent levels in new apartment buildings
are less interesting than how rents change for tenants of existing apartment buildings.
Given the limitations of existing research, we decided it would be beneficial to look at the question
ourselves. We were in a good position to assess the rent impacts of new transit service for two reasons:
1) the Green Line provides a great context for the analysis, since there is an abundance of rental
properties in the neighborhoods between the two downtowns; and 2) CoStar data offers a record of rents
in most of the large apartment buildings in those neighborhoods, going back to 2000. That allowed us to
build a record of rent changes over time, before and after the start of the Green Line service.
Using the CoStar platform, we selected all multifamily properties in the CoStar-defined multifamily
submarkets between Highway 280 and St. Paul’s Capitol Area. The selected geography excluded
multifamily properties in the two downtowns and the area around the University of Minnesota, which
are presumably subject to a more complex market context. From that list, we chose developments built
before 2000 that had not been the subject of a major renovation since 2000. We eliminated affordable
housing developments, which would be restricted in their ability to raise rents.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works48
The preceding steps yielded an inventory of 376 properties in housing submarkets along the transit
corridor. Those properties were divided into 114 properties (station area properties) that are located
within a half mile of a Green Line station, and 262 properties (control group) that are not. Figure 38
shows that average rents in the station area properties are lower than the average rents in the control
group; and they remain lower over the period of study.
Figure 40: Average Asking Rent Central Corridor (Green Line LRT) Submarkets
$550
$600
$650
$700
$750
$800
$850
$900
Mo
n
t
h
l
y
A
s
k
i
n
g
R
e
n
t
Outside of
Station Areas
In Station Areas
Green Line
Construction
Source: Tangible Consulting Services; CoStar
However, when one focuses not on the rent level, but on how rents changed over time, an interesting
pattern emerges. The rent changes were almost identical between the two groups until around 2012.
But starting in 2012, the average rent in the station area properties increased more than it did in for
control group properties. The simplest explanation is that starting in 2012 the new transit service was
cause for charging a rent premium in station area apartment buildings.
Figure 41: Rent Growth from 2000 Central Corridor (Green Line LRT) Submarkets
-4%
0%
4%
8%
12%
16%
20%
24%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
S
i
n
c
e
2
0
0
0
Outside of Station
Areas
In Station Areas
Green Line
Construction
Source: Tangible Consulting Services; CoStar
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 49
The analysis indicates that the rent premium associated with the new transit service is around $20 per
month for properties located within a half mile of a station compared to those located between a half
mile and one mile from a station. This suggests that rent increase due to proximity to LRT service are
likely to be higher for properties closer to the stations.
REAL ESTATE EXPERT INTERVIEWS
In addition to analyzing quantitative housing data, interviews with residential real estate agents and
multifamily developers were conducted to better understand the current and future housing needs along
the Bottineau Corridor and within each station area.
Residential Real Estate Agents
Although residential real estate agents typically focus on the buying and selling of detached, single-
family homes, which are not usually considered TOD, the prevalence of this housing type and the
frequency of sales means that many agents often have a very good understanding of the ever changing
housing needs of home buyers and homeowners in a given area. The following is a list real estate
agents that primarily work along the Bottineau Corridor and were willing to share their insights and
perspectives on the for-sale housing market:
• Tom Slupske, RE/MAX Results
• Emily Green, Sandy Green Realty
• Becky O’Brien, RE/MAX Results
• Joe Houghton, RE/MAX Results
• Kerby Skurat, RE/MAX Results
The overarching perspective of those interviewed was that the for-sale housing market in communities
along the Bottineau Corridor is robust. There is a low inventory of properties being sold. Moreover, the
housing in most of these communities is available at an affordable price by metropolitan standards.
The interviewees offered the following additional considerations:
• Sellers: In many cases older people are moving out of their homes.
Many would like to remain in the community. This is especially true in
Robbinsdale. People who delayed selling their homes due to the housing
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works50
crisis (2006-2010) are now finding it a good time to sell as well. Investors
who purchased properties when prices were low are now selling them.
• Buyers: Younger people began moving into Robbinsdale a few years ago.
Now this trend is happening in Crystal and Brooklyn Park. Affordable
homes make it easier for first time homebuyers to move into this area. Those
who suffered foreclosures are now back on track. Their credit is repaired, and
they are looking to buy. High rents are causing some renters to buy homes
instead. Many of the buyers today in this area are first-time homebuyers.
People who move into these communities tend to have connections to the
area. They are from here and/or they have friends and families here. There
are some buyers who are downsizing from other communities, looking for
living space all on one floor.
• Product Demand: There is demand for larger homes for families. Three-
bedroom, two-bath homes are in great demand. Buyers are looking to
put down roots here. “Move-in ready” homes are in demand. Two- and
three-bedroom townhomes also sell quickly. People will pay a premium for
new construction in this area. Many of the homes in these communities,
particularly in North Minneapolis and Brooklyn Park are older, not
updated, and in some cases, moldy/musty, and sloping. Some buyers are
drawn further out to Maple Grove and Rogers in search of larger homes.
Senior housing, particularly in Crystal, is lacking. The abundance of mid-
century ramblers presents an opportunity. They are one-level, and with some
redesign can be good places for seniors to live. More studio and other small
apartments are not needed in these communities. New higher end apartment
developments have not opened up single family housing for younger buyers
as some expected.
• Desired Amenities: These communities are desirable places to live. They
are near downtown Minneapolis and the amenities, such as parks and
the swimming pool in Crystal, draw families. Robbinsdale’s downtown
is walkable, has good restaurants, and is very attractive to people. Lower
housing prices are also a big draw. It’s an area where a buyer can find a
home for less than $200,000. More mid- and higher-end restaurants would
increase desirability.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 51
• Perceived LRT Impact: LRT may not change the housing market much,
and it will take time for impacts to be felt. LRT will have a positive impact
on the communities, as it will provide transportation options. It may
invite new housing product that includes larger single-family homes. New
construction, and housing product that is new and forward-thinking will
attract people. Homes close to LRT stations will likely gain desirability,
although those adjacent to stations may be less desirable, and will probably
be rented. Housing market conditions and availability of financing
will continue to be the big influencers. The number of people in these
communities that commute via LRT will grow.
Multifamily Housing Developers
Although the market for owner-occupied single-family housing is a major component of the overall
housing market, the Bottineau Corridor also consists of a significant amount of rental housing as well.
Moreover, multifamily housing, whether owner- or renter-occupied, tends to also occur at densities
much more supportive of TOD. Therefore, in order to gain greater insight into the current and future
multifamily housing market, interviews were conducted with a number of multifamily developers active
along the Bottineau Corridor.
The following is a list multifamily developers interviewed as part of this study. The developer
backgrounds include market rate housing, affordable housing, senior housing, and student housing.
• Beard Group – Bill Beard
• Inland Development Partners – Kent Carlson
• Common Bond – Diana Dyste, Kayla Schuchman
• Aeon – Blake Hopkins
• Doran Companies – Kelly Doran
• Ron Clark Construction & Design – Mike Waldo, Ron Clark
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works52
It should be noted that many of these developers also have experience developing commercial properties
integrated with housing (i.e., mixed-use development). A companion study that researched the
commercial market conditions and development potential in each station area also summarizes feedback
from these experts. The following are key findings from the interviews specific to housing:
• LRT will be a catalyst for housing development, though other factors, such
as the availability of neighborhood amenities (e.g., schools, parks, grocery
stores, trails, etc.) and the regional economy, will play an important role in
determining when and where development will most likely occur.
• Regardless of the LRT, there currently is and will be a high demand for
middle-market multifamily development (i.e., properties with fewer on-site
amenities and not as high of unit finishes as the luxury product being built
in the downtowns or more affluent suburban locations).
• Affordable housing is in high demand, and sites near stations can attract
favorable tax credits necessary to support development.
• Land values are already beginning to increase in expectation of future
development, which will increase the financial need to develop multi-story,
multifamily housing on the part of developers.
• Neighborhood amenities (e.g., schools, parks, grocery stores, trails, etc.) are
important and help attract and support new housing development.
• Regardless of the type of development, interviewees stressed the need to
design appropriate pedestrian and vehicular infrastructure that encourages
the use of the LRT (i.e., reimagining streets, improved sidewalks, and safer
street crossings).
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 53
COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS AND PRESENTATION
Overview
Quantitative data on the supply and demand of housing does not always provide a complete picture of
the real-world issues that often result from a housing gap or housing need. Therefore, qualitative research
was conducted with community members and housing advocates familiar with the Bottineau Corridor to
better understand the types of housing issues and needs not apparent from the quantitative research.
Outreach for the qualitative research consisted of engaging representatives of a number of community-
based organizations active along the Bottineau Corridor with an interest in housing issues. The
engagement was in two forms: 1) one-on-one interviews with organization leadership regarding housing
issues and concerns; and 2) a presentation to members of the Blue Line Coalition and the Health
Equity Engagement Cohort to solicit their input regarding preliminary findings from the quantitative
portion of the study.
The one-on-one interviews were conducted in November and December 2017. The purpose of these
meetings was to understand housing barriers, needs, and opportunities within the planned METRO
Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT) corridor. The persons interviewed and organizations they
represented are listed below.
• Nelima Sitati Munene, African, Career, Education and Resources Inc.,
November 27, 2017
• Sebastian Rivera, La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles, December 05, 2017
• Christine Hart, Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County,
December 05, 2017
• Staci Howritz, City of Lakes Community Land Trust, December 06, 2017
• Martine Smaller, Northside Residents Redevelopment Council,
December 07, 2017
• Pastor Kelly Chatman, Redeemer Lutheran Church/Redeemer
Center for Life, December 07, 2017
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works54
The presentation of preliminary findings occurred on December 13, 2017 at the Brookdale Library
in Brooklyn Center. Below are key themes from the one-on-one interviews and comments received in
response to the presentation of findings. Detailed notes from the interviews and specific comments
from the presentation attendees are in the appendices.
Key Themes
The following is a summary of the key discussion themes from the stakeholder interviews. The opinions
presented herein are of the persons interviewed and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the
report authors or report sponsor (Hennepin County). Detailed meeting notes from the stakeholder
interviews are included as an appendix.
Rental Housing
• Most stakeholders felt that there is an abundance of rental housing within
the study area, and that it tends to be in large- and mid-size apartment
complexes. However, some felt that there is not an adequate supply of
quality [i.e., safe and desirable condition] affordable housing.
• Most stakeholders agreed that much of the rental housing is considered
affordable. However, several interviewees felt strongly that much of this
housing is in older buildings that is often not adequately maintained,
which often leads to health concerns. Examples of property issues cited
by interviewees include poor heating and cooling, improperly functioning
appliances, and leaky ceilings.
• Many stakeholders noted that there are very few rental units in the market
with three or more bedrooms, which are needed for families. This is
especially the case in the Latino and Asian communities, who often have
larger households. Some stakeholders noted that it is not uncommon for a
family of six to live in a small two-bedroom apartment because of the lack of
larger unit types.
Owner-Occupied Housing
• Stakeholders reported an abundance of single family homes within the
study area, many of which are considered affordable. However, demand for
homeownership is high and inventory is low, which tends to put upward
pressure on price and can limit affordability.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 55
• It was noted that there are few townhomes or other multifamily ownership
options within the corridor, which tend to be more affordable because they
occupy less land.
• Stakeholders who focus on North Minneapolis noted that there is a lot of
quality housing (e.g., bricked homes with stucco) in North Minneapolis that
should be preserved. In contrast, they noted an increase in the use of poor
quality materials (e.g., low grade vinyl siding) among newly built housing.
• Most stakeholders expressed the need for more opportunities for
homeownership and homeownership assistance strategies. While some cities
have first time homeowner resources, there is still an unmet need.
• Some felt that there is a need for more transitional and smaller houses
(1-bedroom and smaller footprint) with less maintenance for seniors to
transition from their 3 to 4-bedroom homes.
Affordability
• Many stakeholders made the point that even with the prevalence of naturally
occurring affordable housing in the corridor, many people are still spending
over 50% of their income on rent alone and are therefore “housing cost
burdened.”
• Several stakeholders cited current market conditions as exacerbating
affordability issues. For example, it was noted that low vacancy is a barrier to
accessing quality affordable housing, and, for many households, this means
that if they are unable to renew their lease or are evicted without cause they
have no other housing option.
Concerns about Discriminatory Practices
• Several stakeholders reported that some landlords engage in discriminatory
practices, especially during the application/screening process. Examples cited
by those interviewed include refusing to accept Section 8 housing vouchers,
charging higher application fees and rents to those who lack identification, such
as social security cards or car insurance, and the use of credit checks, which
penalize people who lack good credit or those trying to establish credit.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works56
• Some stakeholders also cited the lack of [or perceived lack of] tenant
protection policies as contributing to an environment in which tenants are
fearful of reporting legitimate issues, such as plumbing or HVAC problems,
for fear that they may be evicted. Exacerbating the situation, according
to those interviewed, is when markets are extremely tight with few if any
available units at other properties. Under these conditions, tenants are even
more fearful of potential evictions because there are so few housing options.
Concerns about Gentrification/Displacement
• While the stakeholders interviewed were generally supportive of the
proposed LRT project, gentrification is a major concern. It is important for
the LRT to serve not only new residents, but also the people who currently
live in the affected areas. For example, rent control policies were suggested
as a possible strategy to limit displacement among existing residents who
would be unable to afford any significant rent increases due to the LRT.
Connectivity and Access to Goods and Services
• Many stakeholders expressed a desire for improved multimodal facilities,
such as sidewalks and bicycle facilities. They also mentioned access to
transit, such as buses, is limited, and access to goods and services (e.g.,
groceries) within walking distance is a challenge, particularly for older adults
and those who do not have access to a personal vehicle.
Other
• Some stakeholders noted the idea of “owning” and “investing” in something
can be a difficult conversation to have with some religious and cultural
communities. For example, Sharia finance rules won’t allow Muslim
communities to pay interest, such as the interest in a conventional mortgage
which is often needed to purchase a home.
• Historically, there is a lack of attractive retail sites and a disparity in
neighborhood investment, particularly in North Minneapolis. It would
be beneficial to have more user-friendly community retail that has a
stronger sense of community investment (i.e., Whole Foods, coffee shops,
cooperatives, replace the smoke shop with other retails, etc.).
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 57
GAPS ANALYSIS
Findings from the previous sections were synthesized into a Gaps Analysis focused on each station
area as well as corridor-wide concerns. Although the methodology of identifying and subsequently
determining the scale of a “housing gap” starts with the process of comparing supply against demand to
see where gaps may exist, it doesn’t stop there. Housing need, which the gaps analysis is fundamentally
trying to address, is more nuanced than that. Therefore, quantitative data was augmented with
qualitative data gleaned from interviews with housing advocates and experts familiar with the housing
supply and needs of the local population.
Another key purpose of the gaps analysis is not to simply address existing gaps, but to draw attention
to how each station area could accommodate future housing demand and thus prevent the creation of
new gaps or the exacerbation of existing gaps. Therefore, the gaps analysis also takes into consideration
forecasted household growth in each of the Corridor communities.
Because the METRO Blue Line Extension will have an obvious impact on mobility and accessibility, it
is likely to profoundly influence housing need, particularly through the pricing of housing. Therefore,
the gaps analysis also factors in potential impacts on housing costs as well.
A simplified methodological approach to the gaps analysis is as follows:
Figure 42: Methodological Steps of the Gaps Analysis
STEP 1
Evaluate station area
plans for housing
development potential
STEP 2
Quantify Supply
of Housing
STEP 3
Assess Socio-
Economic Factors
STEP 4
Augment with
Insight from Housing
Advocates/Experts
When thinking about a gaps analysis it is important to be reflective of two considerations which
sometimes support the same housing prescriptions but in some cases can be different or complementary.
1. Housing gaps. The lack of housing types in the existing housing stock, filling gaps in the array
of existing housing types.
1. Household gaps. The unmet housing needs of current residents, allowing them new options
that meet identified needs.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works58
Corridor-Wide Housing Gaps
Closing a housing gap observed within a station area may not always require a station-specific
prescription. For example, this can be seen in station areas where there is very little diversity in the
housing supply or very little housing altogether. However, due to the station area plan, which may be
more focused on non-residential uses, or a lack of developable sites, it may make more sense to consider
housing prescriptions that are distributed throughout the corridor instead within a given station area.
To address such considerations, the following are corridor-wide housing observations
and prescriptions:
• Housing age. Housing age analysis suggests the need to build new
multifamily housing in many portions of the corridor because the housing
stock is aging with little replacement. Generally, this is true at every station
area since there has been so little new multifamily housing constructed
over the last 30 years throughout the corridor. However, multifamily
development is particularly limited in the 93rd Avenue, 85th Avenue,
and the Golden Valley Road station areas. There are also parts of the
corridor where the initial era of housing development was many decades
ago, and, thus, there is a strong need for newer multifamily housing that
can complement an older apartment stock. This is particularly true of the
Brooklyn Boulevard and 63rd Avenue station areas in Brooklyn Park where
essentially all of the apartment stock was built before 1980 as well as the
Minneapolis station areas, which has an even older multifamily stock.
• Housing maintenance. Maintaining the quality, condition, and
marketability of the existing housing stock reduces the pressure to build new
housing needed to replace obsolete or uninhabitable housing. Moreover,
community input suggests that there are significant management and
maintenance issues with the existing rental housing. This is true of both
multifamily and single family rental housing, and it suggests:
»Continued attention to oversight through rental licensing and other
approaches
»Support for capital investment in the existing housing stock (e.g., new
roofs, windows, HVAC systems, etc.)
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 59
»Programs to help educate and support landlords in how to manage
properties with tenants of diverse needs, such as aging residents,
non-English speakers, families with young children, new arrivals
unaccustomed to a cold climate, etc.
»Programs to help educate and support landlords new to renting and
unfamiliar with the rights afforded to both owners and renters, especially
in terms of maintenance responsibilities
• Housing affordability. This is an area where gaps in the housing stock and
gaps in household needs suggest the need for different housing types—which
could be thought of as complementary as opposed to contradictory.
»New market rate or even upscale rental housing are in scarce supply
in many of the station areas. High quality market-rate apartments
and townhomes would fill gaps in the housing stock at every station.
But it may be particularly needed as an action step that can improve
market perceptions in the station areas that have the most dated existing
apartment stock (noted above).
»Affordable housing. The station areas are appropriate locations for
affordable housing because they provide access without the need of a
car to jobs in a large portion of the metro area. From a housing stock
perspective, new affordable housing would add diversity in the available
housing stock in the more affluent parts of the corridor such as at Oak
Grove and Golden Valley Road station areas. From the standpoint
of meeting the needs of existing households, new affordable housing
can reduce cost burdens or offer an improvement in quality and
property management for existing households. From this standpoint,
new affordable housing may be particularly needed in lower income
areas. The median household income is lowest (around $40,000 or
lower) in the 63rd Avenue, Penn Avenue, and Van White station areas,
followed by the Brooklyn Boulevard, Bass Lake Road, Robbinsdale, and
Plymouth Ave station areas (around $50,000). It’s $70,000 or more in
the other station areas.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works60
• Workforce housing. Used in a nontechnical sense, housing at all stations
along the corridor support workers who commute to downtown, the airport,
Target headquarters, and other employment destinations served by LRT.
There is a particular need for housing at the employment nodes of Oak
Grove Parkway, 93rd Avenue, and 85th Avenue, and at the retail hubs at
Bass Lake Road and Brooklyn Boulevard. Housing for workers in these
locations can be both market rate and income restricted.
• Household age. Demographic trends suggest that there will be an ongoing
need for a range of senior housing options throughout the corridor. The
one exception is the Robbinsdale station area, which accounts for roughly
one-third of all the age-restricted housing within a mile of the corridor. In
all the other station areas, senior housing would fill an existing gap and any
growing gaps due to an aging population. In particular, there is a strong
need for housing that provides assistance, such as assisted living and memory
care services. Currently, less than one-quarter of the age-restricted units in
the corridor have such types of assistance. For more independent seniors, the
best locations will offer other amenities, such as close proximity to walking
trails and shopping. Therefore, it may be particularly appropriate at 85th
Avenue, Bass Lake Road, Golden Valley Road, or Van White Boulevard
station areas (if developed as a mixed use node).
• Unit type. A bedroom analysis combined with comments from community
stakeholders revealed a gap between the number of rental units with three
or more bedrooms and the number of households with children. Most larger
rental properties are dominated by one- and two-bedroom units because
the traditional target market for these properties when built were young
singles living alone or with a roommate or older households that have
downsized from a single-family home. Households with children unable to
afford homeownership, therefore, have had very limited housing options.
Every station area has this housing gap because it is a need that is pervasive
throughout the corridor and the region.
• Medium density structures. Duplexes, triplexes, and many types of
townhome product are a good way to achieve TOD densities without
significantly changing the character of a station area. Furthermore, these
product types can often be delivered as a more affordable option to
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 61
traditional single-family product because they use less land yet retain some
of the attributes often desired in single-family homes, such as private-
entry, space for a patio or garden, and larger unit sizes (i.e., three or more
bedrooms). These types of units can also be a complement to larger mixed-
use developments where distances beyond ¼ or ½-mile from the station may
make them more feasible. This would be especially relevant in stations such
as Oak Grove Parkway and Bass Lake Road.
Station Area Housing Gaps
Although corridor-wide housing gaps are important to understand how wide spread gaps may be and
that responses to a gap may need to be thought of more holistically, one of the purposes of this study is
to provide insight at the station area level to help inform the creation of zoning codes that will support
TOD and remove barriers to closing any critical housing gaps.
For each station area a gaps analysis was prepared in order to identify short-term (pre-LRT) and long-
term (post-LRT) housing need. Each analysis includes the following components:
• Map of existing general-occupancy (i.e., non-senior or age-restricted) multifamily
properties with 10 or more units.
• Map of existing senior or age-restricted multifamily properties.
• Summary of demographic and housing statistics presented previously in the report.
For comparison purposes, Hennepin County statistics are also included as a
benchmark since it is a much larger unit of geography and would represent a regional
norm or average for these type of data.
• A basic description of the station area vision included as part of the station area plan.
• Estimate of housing demand through 2040. This estimate is based on household
growth forecasts prepared by the Metropolitan Council for each city along the
Corridor. Based on the station area plan, the amount of existing developable land,
opportunities for redevelopment (i.e., presence of underutilized, aging, or obsolete
properties), and market dynamics, a proportion the city’s forecasted household growth
was assigned to the station area and considered to be its future housing demand.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works62
For example, in the Oak Grove Parkway station area, there is a significant amount
of vacant land. Moreover, given the station area plan to create a new transit oriented
village, it was assumed the station area could capture 20-25% of the City of Brooklyn
Park’s forecasted household growth through 2040, which translates 1,500-2,000
housing units.
• List of most appropriate new housing types that would best address current
gaps and future demand.
• Narrative that describes the housing gap situation in each station area. The
narrative provides context and understanding of the factors contributing to
a housing gap (if any) and possible prescriptions for how to address current
and future needs taking into consideration the unique circumstances of each
station area.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 63
Oak Grove Parkway
2903+0 0
2904+0 0
2905+0 0
2906+00
2907+00
2908+00
2909+00
2910+00
2911+00
2912+0 0
2913+00
2914+00
2915+00
2916+00
2917+00
2918+00
2919+00
2920+00
2921+00
2922+00
2923+00
2924+00
2925+00
2926+00
2927+00
2928+00
2929+00
2930+00
2 9 3 1 +00
2932+00
2933+00
2934+00
2935+00
2936+00
2937+00
2938+00
2939+00
2940+00
2941+00
2942+00
2943+00
2944+00
2945+00
2946+00
2947+00
2948+00
2949+00
2950+00
2 9 5 1 +00
2952+00
2 9 5 3 +00
2954+00
2955+00
2956+00
2957+00
2958+00
2959+00
2960+00
2961+00
2962+00
2963+00
2964+00
2965+00
2966+00
2967+00
2968+00
2969+00
2970+002971+002972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+00
2978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+00
2988+00
99+06
1903+00
1904+00
1905+00
1906+0 0
1907+0 0
1908+0 0
1909+0 0
1910+0 0
1911+0 0
1912+00
1913+00
1914+00
1915+0 0
1916+0 0
1917+0 0
1918+00
1919+00
1920+0 0
1921+0 0
1922+0 0
1923+00
1924+00
1925+00
1926+00
1927+00
1928+00
1929+00
1930+00
1 9 3 1 +00
1932+00
1933+00
1934+00
1935+00
1936+00
1937+00
1938+00
1939+00
1940+00
1941+00
1942+00
1943+00
1944+00
1945+00
1946+00
1947+00
1948+00
1949+00
1950+00
1 9 5 1 +00
1952+00
1 9 5 3 +00
1954+00
1955+00
1956+00
1957+00
1958+00
1959+00
1960+00
1961+00
1962+00
1963+00
1964+00
1965+00
1966+00
1967+00
1968+00
1969+001970+001971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+00
1978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+00
1988+00
130+50
93RD AVENUE STATION
OAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION
!(
!(
93 r d 93rd
610610
Z a n e
W e s t B r o a d w a y
93rd
1 6 9
1
6
9
1 6 9
1
6
9
W e s t B r o a d w a y
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
T
a
r
g
e
t
Z a n e
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
D
o
u
g
l
a
sWinnetka
F
F
1-Mile
k
169
k
610
General
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO,
Hennepin County,
Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
2903+00
2904+00
2905+00
2906+00
2907+00
2908+00
2909+00
2910+00
2911+00
2912+00
2913+00
2914+00
2915+00
2916+00
2917+00
2918+00
2919+00
2920+00
2921+00
2922+00
2923+00
2924+00
2925+00
2926+00
2927+00
2928+00
2929+00
2930+00
2931+00
2932+00
2933+00
2934+00
2935+00
2936+00
2937+0 0
2938+00
2939+00
2940+00
2941+00
2942+00
2943+00
2944+00
2945+00
2946+00
2947+00
2948+00
2949+00
2950+00
2951+00
2952+00
2953+00
2954+00
2955+00
2956+00
2957+00
2958+00
2959+00
2960+00
2961+00
2962+00
2963+00
2964+00
2965+00
2966+00
2967+00
2968+00
2969+00
2970+002971+002972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+00
2978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+00
2988+0099+06
1903+00
1904+00
1905+00
1906+00
1907+00
1908+00
1909+00
1910+00
1911+00
1912+00
1913+00
1914+00
1915+00
1916+00
1917+00
1918+00
1919+00
1920+00
1921+00
1922+00
1923+00
1924+00
1925+00
1926+00
1927+00
1928+00
1929+00
1930+00
1931+00
1932+00
1933+00
1934+00
1935+00
1936+00
1937+0 0
1938+0 0
1939+00
1940+00
1941+00
1942+00
1943+00
1944+00
1945+00
1946+00
1947+00
1948+00
1949+00
1950+00
1951+00
1952+00
1953+00
1 9 5 4 +00
1955+00
1956+00
1957+00
1958+00
1959+00
1960+00
1961+00
1962+00
1963+00
1964+00
1965+00
1966+00
1967+00
1968+00
1969+001970+001971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+00
1978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+00
1988+00130+50
93RD AVENUE STATION
OAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION
!(
!(
9 3 r d 93rd
610610
Z a n e
W e s t B r o a d w a y
93rd
1 6 9
1
6
9
1 6 9
1
6
9
W e s t B r o a d w a y
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
T
a
r
g
e
t
Z a n e
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
D
o
u
g
l
a
sWinnetka
F
F
1-Mile
k
169
k
610
Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO,
Hennepin County,
Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
1/2-Mile
STATISTIC
OAK
GROVE
PKWY
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 291 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 88 490,196
Median Age1,2 37.5 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 23%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 13%12%
Average Household Size1,2 2.7 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 --0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $71,454 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 90.9%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 44.7%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 21.1%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 31.5%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 10.4%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 42 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 4.8%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 0.0%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 45.2%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 50.0%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 2016 1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 2004 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $477,874 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $1,491 $1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $2,012 $1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $2,288 $1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
Station Area Plan
• New village concept with areas for mixing of uses,
including residential, retail, and office. Major
growth district.
Housing Demand through 2040
• 1,500-2,000 units (20-25% of projected Brooklyn
Park household growth through 2040)
New Housing Types Needed
• Market rate rental apartments
• Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Senior housing (market rate and affordable)
• Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both
market rate and affordable units)
• Multi-story condominiums (multiple price points)
• Owner-occupied townhomes (multiple price points)
1/2-Mile
Map 1: Oak Grove Parkway - Multifamily Properties Map 2: Oak Grove Parkway – Senior Properties
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works64
Housing Gaps Analysis
Being mostly vacant, the Oak Grove Parkway station area currently does not have a housing gap in the
way other fully developed station areas have housing gaps. However, this is the one station area that will
be able to accommodate a significant amount of new housing along the Corridor. Therefore, a range of
housing product types and price points should be supported through zoning and other policies.
The timing of development will be highly dependent on the introduction of new infrastructure into
the station area. Given the rapid absorption of the 610 West apartments, which are located east of the
station area just beyond its ½-mile radius, the market for market rate, transit-oriented development is
strong and would support more near-term development. With that being said, the amount of vacant,
developable land is large enough that full build out the station area will take many years even when
factoring in the operation of the LRT.
In order to fully leverage the opportunity of building in essence a new neighborhood, densities should
be highest nearest the station. However, further from the station, densities can drop down to much
lower levels. A wide variety of housing types will allow for not only a range household types but also
a variety of price points, which will be extremely important. As a growing area with the potential to
attract residents drawn to nearby high paying jobs, some type of inclusionary policy guaranteeing a
portion of all housing development be of a certain type and affordability would likely be feasible in this
station area.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 65
93 rd Avenue
2864+00
2865+00
2866+00
2867+00
2868+00
2869+00
2870+00
2871+00
2872+00
2873+00
2874+00
2875+00
2876+00
2877+00
2878+00
2879+00
2880+00
2881+00
2882+00
2883+00
2884+00
2885+00
2886+00
2887+00
2888+00
2889+00
2890+00
2891+00
2892+00
2893+00
2894+00
2895+00
2896+00
2897+00
2898+00
2899+00
2900+00
2901+00
2902+00
2903+00
2904+00
2905+00
2906+00
2907+00
2908+00
2909+00
2910+00
2911+00
2912+00
2913+00
2914+00
2915+00
2916+00
2917+00
2918+00
2919+00
2920+00
2921+00
2922+00
2923+00
2924+00
2925+00
2926+00
2 9 2 7 +00
2 9 2 8 +00
2 9 2 9 +00
2 9 3 0 +00
2931+00
2932+00
2933+00
2934+00
2935+00
2936+00
2937+00
2938+00
2939+00
2940+00
2941+00
2942+00
2943+00
2944+00
2945+00
2946+00
2947+00
2948+00
2949+00
2950+00
2951+00
2 9 5 2 +00
2953+00
2954+00
2955+00
2956+00
2957+00
2958+00
2959+00
2960+00
2961+00
2962+00
2963+00
2964+00
2965+00
2966+00
2967+00
2968+00
2969+002970+002971+00
2972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+002978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+00
2988+00
99+06
1864+00
1865+00
1866+00
1867+00
1868+00
1869+00
1870+00
1871+00
1872+00
1873+00
1874+00
1875+00
1876+00
1877+00
1878+00
1879+00
1880+00
1881+00
1882+00
1883+00
1884+00
1885+00
1886+00
1887+00
1888+00
1889+00
1890+00
1891+00
1892+00
1893+00
1894+00
1895+00
1896+00
1897+00
1898+00
1899+00
1900+00
1901+00
1902+00
1903+00
1904+00
1905+00
1906+00
1907+00
1908+00
1909+00
1910+00
1911+00
1912+00
1913+00
1914+00
1915+00
1916+00
1917+00
1918+00
1919+00
1920+00
1921+00
1922+00
1923+00
1924+00
1925+00
1926+00
1 9 2 7 +00
1 9 2 8 +00
1 9 2 9 +00
1 9 3 0 +00
1931+00
1932+00
1933+00
1934+00
1935+00
1936+00
1937+00
1938+00
1939+00
1940+00
1941+00
1942+00
1943+00
1944+00
1945+00
1946+00
1947+00
1948+00
1949+00
1950+00
1951+00
1 9 5 2 +00
1953+00
1954+00
1955+00
1956+00
1957+00
1958+00
1959+00
1960+00
1961+00
1962+00
1963+00
1964+00
1965+00
1966+00
1967+00
1968+00
1969+001970+00
1971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+001978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+00
1 9 8 8 +00130+50
85TH AVENUE STATION
93RD AVENUE STATION
OAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION
!(
!(
!(
W e s t
B r o a d w a y
93 r d 93rd
85th
Z a n e
610610
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
93rd
1 6 9
1 6 9
1 6 9
1 6 9
W e s t B r o a d w a y
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Z a n e
Z
a
n
e
W e s t B r o a d w a y
T
a
r
g
e
t
W i n n e t k a
F
F
1-Mile
k
169
k
k
610
General
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
2864+00
2865+00
2866+00
2867+00
2868+00
2869+00
2870+00
2871+00
2872+00
2873+00
2874+00
2875+00
2876+00
2877+00
2878+00
2879+00
2880+00
2881+00
2882+00
2883+00
2884+00
2885+00
2886+00
2887+00
2888+00
2889+00
2890+00
2891+00
2892+00
2893+00
2894+00
2895+00
2896+00
2897+00
2898+00
2899+00
2900+00
2901+00
2902+00
2903+00
2904+00
2905+00
2906+00
2907+00
2908+00
2909+00
2910+00
2911+00
2912+00
2913+00
2914+00
2915+00
2916+00
2917+00
2918+00
2919+00
2920+00
2921+00
2922+00
2923+00
2924+00
2925+00
2926+00
2 9 2 7 +00
2 9 2 8 +00
2 9 2 9 +00
2 9 3 0 +00
2931+00
2932+00
2933+00
2934+00
2935+00
2936+00
2937+00
2938+00
2939+00
2940+00
2941+00
2942+00
2943+00
2944+00
2945+00
2946+00
2947+00
2948+00
2949+00
2950+00
2951+00
2 9 5 2 +00
2953+00
2954+00
2955+00
2956+00
2957+00
2958+00
2959+00
2960+00
2961+00
2962+00
2963+00
2964+00
2965+00
2966+00
2967+00
2968+00
2969+002970+002971+00
2972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+002978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+00
2988+00
99+06
1864+00
1865+00
1866+00
1867+00
1868+00
1869+00
1870+00
1871+00
1872+00
1873+00
1874+00
1875+00
1876+00
1877+00
1878+00
1879+00
1880+00
1881+00
1882+00
1883+00
1884+00
1885+00
1886+00
1887+00
1888+00
1889+00
1890+00
1891+00
1892+00
1893+00
1894+00
1895+00
1896+00
1897+00
1898+00
1899+00
1900+00
1901+00
1902+00
1903+00
1904+00
1905+00
1906+00
1907+00
1908+00
1909+00
1910+00
1911+00
1912+00
1913+00
1914+00
1915+00
1916+00
1917+00
1918+00
1919+00
1920+00
1921+00
1922+00
1923+00
1924+00
1925+00
1926+00
1 9 2 7 +00
1 9 2 8 +00
1 9 2 9 +00
1 9 3 0 +00
1931+00
1932+00
1933+00
1934+00
1935+00
1936+00
1937+00
1938+00
1939+00
1940+00
1941+00
1942+00
1943+00
1944+00
1945+00
1946+00
1947+00
1948+00
1949+00
1950+00
1951+00
1 9 5 2 +00
1953+00
1954+00
1955+00
1956+00
1957+00
1958+00
1959+00
1960+00
1961+00
1962+00
1963+00
1964+00
1965+00
1966+00
1967+00
1968+00
1969+001970+00
1971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+001978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+00
1 9 8 8 +00130+50
85TH AVENUE STATION
93RD AVENUE STATION
OAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION
!(
!(
!(
W e s t
B r o a d w a y
93 r d 93rd
85th
Z a n e
610610
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
93rd
1 6 9
1 6 9
1 6 9
1 6 9
W e s t B r o a d w a y
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Z a n e
Z
a
n
e
W e s t B r o a d w a y
T
a
r
g
e
t
W i n n e t k a
F
F
1-Mile
k
169
k
k
610
Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO,
Hennepin County,
Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
Station Area Plan
• Support current trend of new employment/business
growth with emphasis on stronger multimodal
connections throughout station area. Minimal
residential vision.
Housing Demand through 2040
• 100-200 units (1-2% of projected Brooklyn Park
household growth through 2040)
New Housing Types Needed
• Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Senior housing (market rate and affordable)
• Owner-occupied townhomes (middle market
price points)
1/2-Mile1/2-Mile
Map 4: 93rd Avenue – Multifamily Properties Map 3: 93rd Avenue – Senior Properties
STATISTIC 93rd AVE HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,000 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 274 490,196
Median Age1,2 33.9 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 30%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 9%12%
Average Household Size1,2 3.2 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 0.84 0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $88,134 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 91.6%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 54.9%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 14.1%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 53.8%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 27.5%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 265 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 2.3%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 1.1%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 13.6%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 82.6%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 --1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1991 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $264,000 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 --$1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 --$1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 --$1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works66
Housing Gaps Analysis
The existing housing stock within the 93rd Avenue station area is newer and mostly consists of detached,
single-family homes. The median home sales price is one of the highest along the Corridor, which
suggests that most of the stock is not at risk for deferred maintenance. Therefore, there are minimal
gaps that can be closed through modifying the existing housing supply.
Adding new housing is the most likely path to addressing any housing gaps in the station area.
However, near-term opportunities for new housing development are limited. The undeveloped portions
of the station area are guided for industry and are currently being rapidly developed. Nevertheless, some
non-residential properties that are relatively older will experience redevelopment pressure once the LRT
is established. At locations closest to existing housing or adjacent to uses complementary with housing,
there would be the opportunity to introduce new housing.
In the interest of broadening the limited housing choices that currently exist, any new development
should consider affordable rental housing in the form of apartments or townhomes, depending on the
site. Introducing more affordable housing product would provide additional choice because the cost
of the existing housing in the station area is at or above the regional median. Therefore, new housing
affordable to lower-income households will be especially attractive given the strong concentration of
employment in this station area.
Senior housing will also be a likely need in the future as there currently are few senior housing options
in the vicinity today6. As residents of the existing residential neighborhoods to the south and east
continue to age, there will likely be a need for senior housing at some point in the future.
6 At the time this report was being prepared, the local media reported that a senior housing project was proposed approximately 1 mile east of the station.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 67
85 th Avenue
2 8 0 4 +0 0
2 8 0 5 +0 0
2806+00
2807+00
2808+00
2809+0 0
2810+00
2811+00
2812+00
2813+00
2814+00
2815+00
2816+00
2817+00
2 8 1 8 +0 0
2 8 1 9 +0 0
2 8 2 0 +0 0
2 8 2 1 +0 0
2 8 2 2 +0 0
2823+00
2824+00
2825+00
2826+00
2827+00
2828+00
2829+00
2830+00
2831+00
2832+00
2833+00
2834+00
2835+00
2836+00
2837+00
2838+00
2839+00
2840+00
2 8 4 1 +0 0
2842+00
2843+00
2844+00
2845+00
2846+00
2847+00
2 8 4 8 +0 0
2 8 4 9 +0 0
2 8 5 0 +0 0
2 8 5 1 +0 0
2 8 5 2 +0 0
2 8 5 3 +0 0
2 8 5 4 +0 0
2 8 5 5 +0 0
2 8 5 6 +0 0
2 8 5 7 +0 0
2858+00
2859+00
2860+00
2861+00
2862+00
2863+00
2864+00
2865+00
2866+00
2867+00
2868+00
2869+00
2870+00
2 8 7 1 +00
2872+00
2873+00
2874+00
2875+00
2876+00
2877+00
2878+00
2879+00
2880+0 0
2881+0 0
2882+0 0
2883+0 0
2884+0 0
2885+0 0
2886+0 0
2887+0 0
2888+0 0
2889+00
2890+00
2891+00
2892+00
2893+00
2894+00
2895+00
2896+00
2897+00
2898+00
2899+00
2900+00
2901+00
2902+00
2903+00
2904+00
2905+00
2906+00
2907+00
2908+00
2909+00
2910+00
2911+00
2912+00
2913+00
2914+00
2915+00
2916+00
2917+00
2918+00
2919+00
2920+00
2921+00
2922+00
2923+00
2924+00
2925+00
2926+00
2927+00
2928+00
1804+00
1805+00
1806+00
1807+00
1808+00
1809+00
1810+00
1811+00
1812+00
1813+00
1814+00
1815+00
1816+00
1817+00
1818+00
1819+00
1820+00
1821+00
1822+00
1823+00
1824+00
1825+00
1826+00
1827+00
1828+00
1829+00
1830+00
1831+00
1832+00
1833+00
1834+00
1835+00
1836+00
1837+00
1838+00
1839+00
1840+00
1841+00
1842+00
1843+00
1844+00
1845+00
1846+00
1847+00
1848+00
1849+00
1850+00
1851+00
1852+00
1853+00
1854+00
1855+00
1856+00
1857+00
1858+00
1859+00
1860+00
1861+00
1862+00
1863+00
1864+00
1865+00
1866+00
1867+00
1868+00
1869+00
1870+00
1871+00
1872+00
1873+00
1874+00
1875+00
1876+00
1877+00
1878+00
1879+00
1880+00
1881+00
1882+00
1883+00
1884+00
1885+00
1886+00
1887+00
1888+00
1 8 8 9 +0 0
1 8 9 0 +0 0
1 8 9 1 +0 0
1 8 9 2 +0 0
1 8 9 3 +0 0
1894+0 0
1895+0 0
1896+0 0
1897+0 0
1898+00
1899+00
1900+00
1901+00
1902+00
1903+00
1904+00
1905+00
1906+00
1907+00
1908+00
1909+00
1910+00
1911+00
1912+00
1913+00
1914+00
1915+00
1916+00
1917+00
1918+00
1919+00
1920+00
1921+00
1922+00
1923+00
1924+00
1925+00
1926+00
1927+00
1928+00
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION
85TH AVENUE STATION
93RD AVENUE STATION
!(
!(
!(
93rd 9 3 r d
W e s t B r o a d w a y
85th
85th
Brooklyn Brooklyn
W e s t B r o a d w a y
8
18
1
93rd 93 r d
85th
85th
85th
85th
8
1
Z a n e
93rd 93rd
1 6 9
1
6
9
1 6 9
W e s t B r o a d w a y
Z a n e
Z a n e
F
F
1-Mile
k
169
k
k
General
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will,
Tangible Consulting
Services
2804+00
2805+00
2806+00
2807+00
2808+00
2809+00
2810+00
2811+00
2812+00
2813+00
2814+00
2815+00
2816+00
2817+00
2818+00
2819+00
2820+00
2821+00
2822+00
2823+00
2824+00
2825+00
2826+00
2827+00
2828+00
2829+00
2830+00
2831+00
2832+00
2833+00
2834+00
2835+00
2836+00
2837+00
2838+00
2839+00
2840+00
2841+00
2842+00
2843+00
2844+00
2845+00
2846+00
2847+00
2848+00
2849+00
2850+00
2851+00
2852+00
2853+00
2854+00
2855+00
2856+00
2857+00
2858+00
2859+00
2860+00
2861+00
2862+00
2863+00
2864+00
2865+00
2866+00
2867+00
2868+00
2869+00
2870+00
2871+00
2872+00
2873+00
2874+00
2875+00
2876+00
2877+00
2878+00
2879+00
2880+00
2881+00
2882+00
2883+00
2884+00
2885+00
2886+00
2887+00
2888+00
2889+00
2890+00
2891+00
2892+00
2893+00
2894+00
2895+00
2896+00
2897+00
2898+00
2899+00
2900+00
2901+00
2902+00
2903+00
2904+00
2905+00
2906+00
2907+00
2908+00
2909+00
2910+00
2911+00
2912+00
2913+00
2914+00
2915+00
2916+00
2917+00
2918+00
2919+00
2920+00
2921+00
2922+00
2923+00
2924+00
2925+00
2926+00
2927+00
2928+00
1804+00
1805+00
1806+00
1807+00
1808+00
1809+00
1810+00
1811+00
1812+00
1813+00
1814+00
1815+00
1816+00
1817+00
1818+00
1819+00
1820+00
1821+00
1822+00
1823+00
1824+00
1825+00
1826+00
1827+00
1828+00
1829+00
1830+00
1831+00
1832+00
1833+00
1834+00
1835+00
1836+00
1837+00
1838+00
1839+00
1840+00
1841+00
1842+00
1843+00
1844+00
1845+00
1846+00
1847+00
1848+00
1849+00
1850+00
1851+00
1852+00
1853+00
1854+00
1855+00
1856+00
1857+00
1858+00
1859+00
1860+00
1861+00
1862+00
1863+00
1864+00
1865+00
1866+00
1867+00
1868+00
1869+00
1870+00
1871+00
1872+00
1873+00
1874+00
1875+00
1876+00
1877+00
1878+00
1879+00
1880+00
1881+00
1882+00
1883+00
1884+00
1885+00
1886+00
1887+00
1888+00
1889+00
1890+00
1891+00
1892+00
1893+00
1894+00
1895+00
1896+00
1897+00
1898+00
1899+00
1900+00
1901+00
1902+00
1903+00
1904+00
1905+00
1906+00
1907+00
1908+00
1909+00
1910+00
1911+00
1912+00
1913+00
1914+00
1915+00
1916+00
1917+00
1918+00
1919+00
1920+00
1921+00
1922+00
1923+00
1924+00
1925+00
1926+00
1927+00
1928+00
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION
85TH AVENUE STATION
93RD AVENUE STATION
!(
!(
!(
93rd 9 3 r d
W e s t B r o a d w a y
85th85th
Brooklyn Brooklyn
W e s t B r o a d w a y
8
18
1
93rd 93rd
85th
85th
85th
85th
8
1
Z a n e
93rd 93rd
1 6 9
1
6
9
1 6 9
W e s t B r o a d w a y
Z a n e
Z a n e
F
F
Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
1-Mile
k
169
k
k Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
Station Area Plan
• Support growth and expansion of institutional uses.
Select sites identified as opportunities to introduce
new housing.
Housing Demand through 2040
• 300-600 units (3-6% of projected Brooklyn Park
household growth through 2040)
Housing Types
• Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both
market rate and affordable units)
• Senior housing (affordable)
1/2-Mile1/2-Mile
Map 6: 85th Avenue – Multifamily Properties Map 5: 85th Avenue – Senior Properties
STATISTIC 85th AVE HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 3,589 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,299 490,196
Median Age1,2 35.7 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 26%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 12%12%
Average Household Size1,2 2.7 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 0.84 0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $76,323 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 85.2%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 38.9%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 27.3%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 51.0%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 30.3%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,263 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 5.0%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 4.7%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 34.5%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 55.8%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1983 1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1978 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $183,000 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $871 $1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $994 $1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $1,361 $1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works68
Housing Gaps Analysis
Homeownership is currently very high in the 85th Avenue station area. The median home sales price is
below the County median, but this is likely due to a high percentage of owner-occupied townhomes,
which tend to be smaller than detached, single-family homes and thus less expensive.
There are two sites with strong development potential. One site is vacant and owned by North
Hennepin Community College, which has identified the site as housing in their most recent campus
plan. The other is an existing strip retail center that would front the station and is currently for –sale.
The status of these prime sites increases the possibility of near-term housing development.
With the North Hennepin Community College anchoring the station area, there is a clear need for
rental housing that would accommodate some of their student population. Currently, there is very
little rental housing in the station area. Any new rental housing targeted to students of the community
college does not need to be designed for the traditional college student because community college
students often work and have families. Therefore, the strongest need would be affordably-priced rental
housing that could accommodate a family. The advantage of promoting a more standard housing design
that does not specifically cater to a traditional student population is that it could meet the needs of
non-students as well.
Although townhomes are plentiful in the station area, rental townhomes are a good way to provide
larger unit types to households that are unable to access homeownership. If such a development is
professionally managed this would potentially mitigate some of the landlord issues that come with the
renting of individually owned rental units.
There is one senior housing development near the station area. Similar to the 93rd Avenue station, in
all likelihood as the existing household base continues to age, providing housing that older adults can
transition into can help them remain in the community and make housing available for new households
that want to live in the station area.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 69
Brooklyn Boulevard
2746+00
2747+00
2 7 4 8 +00
2749+00
2750+00
2751+00
2752+00
2753+00
2754+00
2755+00
2756+00
2757+00
2758+00
2759+00
2760+00
2 7 6 1 +00
2 7 6 2 +00
2763+00
2764+00
2765+00
2766+00
2767+00
2768+00
2769+00
2770+00
2771+00
2772+00
2773+00
2 7 7 4 +00
2 7 7 5 +00
2776+00
2777+00
2778+00
2779+00
2780+00
2781+00
2782+00
2783+00
2784+00
2785+00
2786+00
2787+00
2788+00
2789+00
2790+00
2791+00
2792+00
2793+00
2794+00
2795+00
2796+0 0
2797+00
2798+00
2799+00
2800+00
2801+00
2802+00
2803+00
2804+00
2805+00
2806+00
2807+00
2808+00
2809+00
2810+00
2811+00
2812+00
2813+00
2814+00
2815+00
2816+00
2817+00
2818+00
2819+00
2820+00
2821+00
2822+00
2823+00
2824+00
2825+00
2826+00
2827+00
2828+00
2829+00
2830+00
2831+00
2832+00
2833+00
2834+00
2835+00
2836+00
2837+00
2838+00
2839+00
2840+00
2841+00
2842+00
2843+00
2844+00
2845+00
2846+00
2847+00
2848+00
2849+00
2850+00
2851+00
2852+00
2853+00
2854+00
2855+00
2856+00
2857+00
2858+00
2859+00
2860+00
2861+00
2862+00
2863+00
2864+00
2865+00
2866+00
2867+00
2868+00
2869+00
2870+00
2871+00
2872+00
2873+00
2874+00
2875+00
2876+00
3 7 4 6 +00
3 7 4 7 +00
3748+00
3749+00
3750+00
3751+00
3752+00
3753+00
3754+00
3755+00
3756+00
3757+00
3758+00
3759+00
3 7 6 0 +00
3 7 6 1 +00
3762+00
3763+00
3764+00
3765+00
3766+00
3767+00
3768+00
3769+00
3770+00
3771+00
3772+00
3 7 7 3 +00
3 7 7 4 +00
3775+00
3776+00
3777+00
3778+00
3779+00
3780+00
3781+00
3782+00
3783+00
3784+00
3785+00
1746+00
1 7 4 7 +00
1 7 4 8 +00
1749+00
1750+00
1751+00
1752+00
1753+00
1754+00
1755+00
1756+00
1757+00
1758+00
1759+00
1760+00
1 7 6 1 +00
1 7 6 2 +00
1763+00
1764+00
1765+00
1766+00
1767+00
1768+00
1769+00
1770+00
1771+00
1772+00
1773+00
1 7 7 4 +00
1 7 7 5 +00
1776+00
1777+00
1778+00
1779+00
1780+00
1781+00
1782+00
1783+00
1784+00
1785+00
1786+00
1787+00
1788+00
1789+00
1790+00
1791+00
1792+00
1793+00
1794+00
1795+00
1796+0 0
1797+00
1798+00
1799+00
1800+00
1801+00
1802+00
1803+00
1804+00
1805+00
1806+00
1807+00
1808+00
1809+00
1810+00
1811+00
1812+00
1813+00
1814+00
1815+00
1816+00
1817+00
1818+00
1819+00
1820+00
1821+00
1822+00
1823+00
1824+00
1825+00
1826+00
1827+00
1828+00
1829+00
1830+00
1831+00
1832+00
1833+00
1834+00
1835+00
1836+00
1837+00
1838+00
1839+00
1840+00
1841+00
1842+00
1843+00
1844+00
1845+00
1846+00
1847+00
1848+00
1849+00
1850+00
1851+00
1852+00
1853+00
1854+00
1855+00
1856+00
1857+00
1858+00
1859+00
1860+00
1861+00
1862+00
1863+00
1864+00
1865+00
1866+00
1867+00
1868+00
1869+00
1870+00
1871+00
1872+00
1873+00
1874+00
1875+00
1876+00
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION
85TH AVENUE STATION
!(
!(
W e s t B r o a d w a y
85th
85th Z a n e
Brooklyn
Brooklyn
W e s t B r o a d w a y
8
1
8
1
1 6 9
L
a
k
e
l
a
n
d
694694
85th
85th
85th
85th
8
1
Z a n e
68th
8
1
69th
1 6 9
W e s t B r o a d w a y
Z a n e
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
F
F694
1-Mile
k
169
k
General
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
2746+00
2 7 4 7 +00
2 7 4 8 +00
2749+00
2750+00
2751+00
2752+00
2753+00
2754+00
2755+00
2756+00
2757+00
2758+00
2759+00
2760+00
2 7 6 1 +00
2 7 6 2 +00
2763+00
2764+00
2765+00
2766+00
2767+00
2768+00
2769+00
2770+00
2771+00
2772+00
2773+00
2 7 7 4 +00
2 7 7 5 +00
2776+00
2777+00
2778+00
2779+00
2780+00
2781+00
2782+00
2783+00
2784+00
2785+00
2786+00
2787+00
2788+00
2789+00
2790+00
2791+00
2792+00
2793+00
2794+00
2795+00
2796+0 0
2797+00
2798+00
2799+00
2800+00
2801+00
2802+00
2803+00
2804+00
2805+00
2806+00
2807+00
2808+00
2809+00
2810+00
2811+00
2812+00
2813+00
2814+00
2815+00
2816+00
2817+00
2818+00
2819+00
2820+00
2821+00
2822+00
2823+00
2824+00
2825+00
2826+00
2827+00
2828+00
2829+00
2830+00
2831+00
2832+00
2833+00
2834+00
2835+00
2836+00
2837+00
2838+00
2839+00
2840+00
2841+00
2842+00
2843+00
2844+00
2845+00
2846+00
2847+00
2848+00
2849+00
2850+00
2851+00
2852+00
2853+00
2854+00
2855+00
2856+00
2857+00
2858+00
2859+00
2860+00
2861+00
2862+00
2863+00
2864+00
2865+00
2866+00
2867+00
2868+00
2869+00
2870+00
2871+00
2872+00
2873+00
2874+00
2875+00
2876+00
3 7 4 6 +00
3 7 4 7 +00
3748+00
3749+00
3750+00
3751+00
3752+00
3753+00
3754+00
3755+00
3756+00
3757+00
3758+00
3759+00
3 7 6 0 +00
3 7 6 1 +00
3762+00
3763+00
3764+00
3765+00
3766+00
3767+00
3768+00
3769+00
3770+00
3771+00
3772+00
3 7 7 3 +00
3 7 7 4 +00
3775+00
3776+00
3777+00
3778+00
3779+00
3780+00
3781+00
3782+00
3783+00
3784+00
3785+00
1746+00
1 7 4 7 +00
1 7 4 8 +00
1749+00
1750+00
1751+00
1752+00
1753+00
1754+00
1755+00
1756+00
1757+00
1758+00
1759+00
1760+00
1 7 6 1 +00
1 7 6 2 +00
1763+00
1764+00
1765+00
1766+00
1767+00
1768+00
1769+00
1770+00
1771+00
1772+00
1773+00
1 7 7 4 +00
1 7 7 5 +00
1776+00
1777+00
1778+00
1779+00
1780+00
1781+00
1782+00
1783+00
1784+00
1785+00
1786+00
1787+00
1788+00
1789+00
1790+00
1791+00
1792+00
1793+00
1794+00
1795+00
1796+00
1797+00
1798+00
1799+00
1800+00
1801+00
1802+00
1803+00
1804+00
1805+00
1806+00
1807+00
1808+00
1809+00
1810+00
1811+00
1812+00
1813+00
1814+00
1815+00
1816+00
1817+00
1818+00
1819+00
1820+00
1821+00
1822+00
1823+00
1824+00
1825+00
1826+00
1827+00
1828+00
1829+00
1830+00
1831+00
1832+00
1833+00
1834+00
1835+00
1836+00
1837+00
1838+00
1839+00
1840+00
1841+00
1842+00
1843+00
1844+00
1845+00
1846+00
1847+00
1848+00
1849+00
1850+00
1851+00
1852+00
1853+00
1854+00
1855+00
1856+00
1857+00
1858+00
1859+00
1860+00
1861+00
1862+00
1863+00
1864+00
1865+00
1866+00
1867+00
1868+00
1869+00
1870+00
1871+00
1872+00
1873+00
1874+00
1875+00
1876+00
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION
85TH AVENUE STATION
!(
!(
W e s t B r o a d w a y
85th85th Z a n e
Brooklyn
Brooklyn
W e s t B r o a d w a y
8
1
8
1
1 6 9
L
a
k
e
l
a
n
d
694694
85th
85th
85th
85th
8
1
Z a n e
68th
8
1
69th
1 6 9
W e s t B r o a d w a y
Z a n e
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
F
F694
1-Mile
k
169
Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
k
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
Station Area Plan
• Maintain commercial character with emphasis
on stronger multimodal connections throughout
station area. Minimal residential vision.
Housing Demand through 2040
• 300-600 units (3-6% of projected Brooklyn Park
household growth through 2040)
New Housing Types Needed
• Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Senior housing (affordable)
• Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both
market rate and affordable units)
• Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Owner-occupied townhomes (middle market
price points)
1/2-Mile1/2-Mile
Map 7: Brooklyn Boulevard – Multifamily Properties Map 8: Brooklyn Boulevard – Senior Properties
STATISTIC BROOKLYN
BLVD
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 2,231 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 746 490,196
Median Age1,2 31.5 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 30%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 10%12%
Average Household Size1,2 2.9 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 0.99 0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $50,160 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 62.7%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 44.6%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 17.4%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 63.5%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 54.3%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 728 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 22.5%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 5.5%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 9.6%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 62.4%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1970 1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1970 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $206,500 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $833 $1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $1,050 $1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 --$1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works70
Housing Gaps Analysis
The Brooklyn Boulevard station area is dominated by auto-oriented, big-box retail. There has been substantial
reinvestment to many of the retail properties in recent years. Therefore, redevelopment opportunities will be
limited to a small number of older retail centers or freestanding retail buildings. Due to the lack of immediate
opportunities and the challenge of introducing new multi-modal infrastructure supportive of TOD, the
Brooklyn Boulevard station area is envisioned to remain a commercial district with its current character in the
near-term. However, with the advent of LRT, any future redevelopment of a major commercial parcel could easily
accommodate some type of multi-story housing. In such cases, a mixed-income rental project that would include
both market rate and income-restricted units would help close the gap on the need for affordably-priced housing.
Despite the lack of immediate development opportunities adjacent or near the station, there are potential sites
approximately a ½-mile north and south of the station that would have more immediate, near-term potential.
Given their distance from the station itself, these sites may likely be able to support lower-density development
that is still transit supportive, such as townhomes, both affordable rentals and middle market owner-occupied
product, because the land would less expensive than land adjacent or closer to the station.
Most of the existing rental product in the vicinity of the station area is beyond the ½-mile radius. Therefore,
it will not be as subject to rent inflation due to the LRT as other station areas. Nevertheless, renters in the
Brooklyn Boulevard station area are already extremely cost burdened. Therefore, any measures to reduce this
burden, such preserving affordability of units, would greatly assist the local population.
The Brooklyn Boulevard station area is also an area mentioned by representatives of several community-based
organizations and housing advocates as having a concentration of rental housing that is in poor condition or in
need of updating. Although such units may meet the City’s maintenance codes, the livability issues of certain
properties remains a concern. Therefore, additional policies that would address apartment conditions and their
enforcement should be evaluated.
Also, the construction of new high-quality affordable housing can not only increase the number of desirable housing
units but can also serve to raise the market standard for many NOAH properties, which often results in improved
maintenance and upkeep by landlords of existing properties.
The median age of single-family homes in the station area is nearing 50 years. This is the point in the age of house
in which routine maintenance of important systems (e.g., roof, HVAC, plumbing, windows, etc.) is critical or else a
house will fall into serious disrepair quickly. Well-maintained older homes are often an important source of affordable
housing and are an entry point into homeownership for many younger households. Therefore, home improvement
programs and homeownership assistance are strategies to help maintain the owner-occupied housing stock.
Although the population in the Brooklyn Boulevard station area tends to skew younger, the needs of the
existing senior population are not being met. Many of the existing rental apartments do not have design
features that assist with aging. For example, many buildings do not have elevators and units on upper floors
must be accessed by walking up and down stairs. New senior housing with universal design features would
address this gap.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 71
63rd Avenue
3554+00
3555+00
3556+00
3557+00
3558+00
3 5 5 9 +00
3 5 6 0 +00
3 5 6 1 +00
3 5 6 2 +00
3 5 6 3 +00
3564+00
3565+00
3566+00
3567+00
3568+00
3569+00
3570+00
3571+00
3572+00
3573+00
3574+00
3575+00
3576+00
3577+00
3578+00
3579+00
3580+00
3581+00
3582+00
3583+00
3584+00
3585+00
3586+00
3 5 8 7 +00
3 5 8 8 +00
3 5 8 9 +00
3 5 9 0 +00
3 5 9 1 +00
3592+00
3593+00
3594+00
3595+00
3596+00
3597+00
3598+00
3599+00
3600+00
3601+00
3602+00
3603+00
3700+00
1554+00
1555+00
1556+00
1557+00
1558+00
1559+00
1 5 6 0 +00
1 5 6 1 +00
1 5 6 2 +00
1 5 6 3 +00
1 5 6 4 +00
1565+00
1566+00
1567+00
1568+00
1569+00
1570+00
1571+00
1572+00
1573+00
1574+00
1575+00
1576+00
1577+00
1578+00
1579+00
1580+00
1581+00
1582+00
1583+00
1584+00
1585+00
1586+00
1587+00
1588+00
1 5 8 9 +00
1 5 9 0 +00
1 5 9 1 +00
1 5 9 2 +00
1593+00
1594+00
1595+00
1596+00
1597+00
1598+00
1599+00
1600+00
1601+00
1602+00
1603+00
1700+00
2554+00
2555+00
2556+00
2557+00
2558+00
2559+00
2560+00
2 5 6 1 +00
2 5 6 2 +00
2 5 6 3 +00
2 5 6 4 +00
2565+00
2566+00
2567+00
2568+00
2569+00
2570+00
2571+00
2572+00
2573+00
2574+00
2575+00
2576+00
2577+00
2578+00
2579+00
2580+00
2581+00
2582+00
2583+00
2584+00
2585+00
2586+00
2587+00
2588+00
2 5 8 9 +00
2 5 9 0 +00
2 5 9 1 +00
2 5 9 2 +00
2593+00
2594+00
2595+00
2596+00
2597+00
2598+00
2599+00
2600+00
2601+00
2602+00
2603+00
2700+002700+00
2701+00
2702+00
2703+00
2704+00
2705+00
2706+00
2707+00
2708+00
2709+00
2710+00
2711+00
2712+00
2713+00
2 7 1 4 +00
2 7 1 5 +00
2 7 1 6 +00
2 7 1 7 +00
2 7 1 8 +00
2719+00
2720+00
2721+00
2722+00
2723+00
2724+00
2725+00
2726+00
2727+00
2728+00
2729+00
2730+00
2731+00
2732+00
2733+00
2734+00
2735+00
2736+00
2737+00
2738+00
2739+00
2740+00
2741+00
2 7 4 2 +00
2 7 4 3 +00
2 7 4 4 +00
2 7 4 5 +00
2 7 4 6 +00
2747+00
2748+00
2749+00
2750+00
2751+00
2752+00
2753+00
2754+00
2755+00
2756+00
2757+00
2758+00
2759+00
2760+00
2761+00
2762+00
2763+00
2764+00
2765+00
2766+00
2767+00
2768+00
2769+00
2770+00
2 7 7 1 +00
2 7 7 2 +00
2 7 7 3 +00
2 7 7 4 +00
2775+00
2776+00
2777+00
2778+00
2779+00
2780+00
2781+00
2782+00
2783+00
2784+00
2785+00
2786+00
2787+00
3700+00
3701+00
3702+00
3703+00
3704+00
3705+00
3706+00
3707+00
3708+00
3709+00
3710+00
3711+00
3 7 1 2 +00
3 7 1 3 +00
3 7 1 4 +00
3 7 1 5 +00
3 7 1 6 +00
3717+00
3718+00
3719+00
3720+00
3721+00
3722+00
3723+00
3724+00
3725+00
3726+00
3727+00
3728+00
3729+00
3730+00
3731+00
3732+00
3733+00
3734+00
3735+00
3736+00
3737+00
3738+00
3739+00
3740+00
3 7 4 1 +00
3 7 4 2 +00
3 7 4 3 +00
3 7 4 4 +00
3745+00
3746+00
3747+00
3748+00
3749+00
3750+00
3751+00
3752+00
3753+00
3754+00
3755+00
3756+00
3757+00
3758+00
3759+00
3760+00
3761+00
3762+00
3763+00
3764+00
3765+00
3766+00
3767+00
3768+00
3 7 6 9 +00
3 7 7 0 +00
3 7 7 1 +00
3 7 7 2 +00
3 7 7 3 +00
3774+00
3775+00
3776+00
3777+00
3778+00
3779+00
3780+00
3781+00
3782+00
3783+00
3784+00
3785+00
1700+00
1701+00
1702+00
1703+00
1704+00
1705+00
1706+00
1707+00
1708+00
1709+00
1710+00
1711+00
1712+00
1713+00
1 7 1 4 +00
1 7 1 5 +00
1 7 1 6 +00
1 7 1 7 +00
1718+00
1719+00
1720+00
1721+00
1722+00
1723+00
1724+00
1725+00
1726+00
1727+00
1728+00
1729+00
1730+00
1731+00
1732+00
1733+00
1734+00
1735+00
1736+00
1737+00
1738+00
1739+00
1740+00
1741+00
1 7 4 2 +00
1 7 4 3 +00
1 7 4 4 +00
1 7 4 5 +00
1 7 4 6 +00
1747+00
1748+00
1749+00
1750+00
1751+00
1752+00
1753+00
1754+00
1755+00
1756+00
1757+00
1758+00
1759+00
1760+00
1761+00
1762+00
1763+00
1764+00
1765+00
1766+00
1767+00
1768+00
1769+00
1 7 7 0 +00
1 7 7 1 +00
1 7 7 2 +00
1 7 7 3 +00
1 7 7 4 +00
1775+00
1776+00
1777+00
1778+00
1779+00
1780+00
1781+00
1782+00
1783+00
1784+00
1785+00
1786+00
1787+00
B A SS LAKE ROAD STATION
63RD AVENUE STATION
!(
!(
56th
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
56th
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
a
k
e
l
a
n
d
8
1
Bass Lake
694
694
69th
8
1
56thBass Lake
BassLake
68th
Bass Lake
56th
BassLake
8
1
56th
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
94
94
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
F
F
694
1-Mile
k
k
General
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
3554+00
3555+00
3556+00
3557+00
3 5 5 8 +00
3 5 5 9 +00
3560+00
3561+00
3562+00
3563+00
3564+00
3565+00
3566+00
3567+00
3568+00
3569+00
3570+00
3571+00
3 5 7 2 +00
3 5 7 3 +00
3574+00
3575+00
3576+00
3577+00
3578+00
3579+00
3580+00
3581+00
3582+00
3583+00
3584+00
3585+00
3 5 8 6 +00
3 5 8 7 +00
3588+00
3589+00
3590+00
3591+00
3592+00
3593+00
3594+00
3595+00
3596+00
3597+00
3598+00
3 5 9 9 +00
3 6 0 0 +00
3 6 0 1 +00
3602+00
3603+00
3700+00
1554+00
1555+00
1556+00
1557+00
1558+00
1 5 5 9 +00
1 5 6 0 +00
1561+00
1562+00
1563+00
1564+00
1565+00
1566+00
1567+00
1568+00
1569+00
1570+00
1571+00
1572+00
1 5 7 3 +00
1 5 7 4 +00
1575+00
1576+00
1577+00
1578+00
1579+00
1580+00
1581+00
1582+00
1583+00
1584+00
1585+00
1586+00
1 5 8 7 +00
1 5 8 8 +00
1589+00
1590+00
1591+00
1592+00
1593+00
1594+00
1595+00
1596+00
1597+00
1598+00
1599+00
1600+00
1 6 0 1 +00
1 6 0 2 +00
1603+00
1700+00
2554+00
2555+00
2556+00
2557+00
2558+00
2559+00
2 5 6 0 +00
2 5 6 1 +00
2562+00
2563+00
2564+00
2565+00
2566+00
2567+00
2568+00
2569+00
2570+00
2571+00
2572+00
2573+00
2 5 7 4 +00
2 5 7 5 +00
2576+00
2577+00
2578+00
2579+00
2580+00
2581+00
2582+00
2583+00
2584+00
2585+00
2586+00
2 5 8 7 +00
2 5 8 8 +00
2589+00
2590+00
2591+00
2592+00
2593+00
2594+00
2595+00
2596+00
2597+00
2598+00
2599+00
2600+00
2 6 0 1 +00
2 6 0 2 +00
2603+00
2700+002700+00
2701+00
2702+00
2703+00
2704+00
2705+00
2706+00
2707+00
2708+00
2709+00
2710+00
2 7 1 1 +00
2 7 1 2 +00
2713+00
2714+00
2715+00
2716+00
2717+00
2718+00
2719+00
2720+00
2721+00
2722+00
2723+00
2724+00
2 7 2 5 +00
2 7 2 6 +00
2727+00
2728+00
2729+00
2730+00
2731+00
2732+00
2733+00
2734+00
2735+00
2736+00
2737+00
2 7 3 8 +00
2 7 3 9 +00
2740+00
2741+00
2742+00
2743+00
2744+00
2745+00
2746+00
2747+00
2748+00
2749+00
2750+00
2751+00
2 7 5 2 +00
2 7 5 3 +00
2754+00
2755+00
2756+00
2757+00
2758+00
2759+00
2760+00
2761+00
2762+00
2763+00
2764+00
2765+00
2 7 6 6 +00
2767+00
2768+00
2769+00
2770+00
2771+00
2772+00
2773+00
2774+00
2775+00
2776+00
2777+00
2778+00
2 7 7 9 +00
2 7 8 0 +00
2781+00
2782+00
2783+00
2784+00
2785+00
2786+00
2787+00
3700+00
3701+00
3702+00
3703+00
3704+00
3705+00
3706+00
3707+00
3708+00
3709+00
3 7 1 0 +00
3 7 1 1 +00
3712+00
3713+00
3714+00
3715+00
3716+00
3717+00
3718+00
3719+00
3720+00
3721+00
3722+00
3 7 2 3 +00
3 7 2 4 +00
3725+00
3726+00
3727+00
3728+00
3729+00
3730+00
3731+00
3732+00
3733+00
3734+00
3735+00
3736+00
3 7 3 7 +00
3 7 3 8 +00
3739+00
3740+00
3741+00
3742+00
3743+00
3744+00
3745+00
3746+00
3747+00
3748+00
3749+00
3750+00
3 7 5 1 +00
3 7 5 2 +00
3753+00
3754+00
3755+00
3756+00
3757+00
3758+00
3759+00
3760+00
3761+00
3762+00
3763+00
3 7 6 4 +00
3 7 6 5 +00
3766+00
3767+00
3768+00
3769+00
3770+00
3771+00
3772+00
3773+00
3774+00
3775+00
3776+00
3777+00
3 7 7 8 +00
3 7 7 9 +00
3780+00
3781+00
3782+00
3783+00
3784+00
3785+00
1700+00
1701+00
1702+00
1703+00
1704+00
1705+00
1706+00
1707+00
1708+00
1709+00
1710+00
1 7 1 1 +00
1 7 1 2 +00
1713+00
1714+00
1715+00
1716+00
1717+00
1718+00
1719+00
1720+00
1721+00
1722+00
1723+00
1 7 2 4 +00
1 7 2 5 +00
1726+00
1727+00
1728+00
1729+00
1730+00
1731+00
1732+00
1733+00
1734+00
1735+00
1736+00
1737+00
1 7 3 8 +00
1 7 3 9 +00
1740+00
1741+00
1742+00
1743+00
1744+00
1745+00
1746+00
1747+00
1748+00
1749+00
1750+00
1751+00
1 7 5 2 +00
1753+00
1754+00
1755+00
1756+00
1757+00
1758+00
1759+00
1760+00
1761+00
1762+00
1763+00
1764+00
1 7 6 5 +00
1 7 6 6 +00
1767+00
1768+00
1769+00
1770+00
1771+00
1772+00
1773+00
1774+00
1775+00
1776+00
1777+00
1 7 7 8 +00
1 7 7 9 +00
1780+00
1781+00
1782+00
1783+00
1784+00
1785+00
1786+00
1787+00
B A SS LAKE
ROAD STATION
63RD AVENUE STATION
!(
!(
56th
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
56th
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
L
a
k
e
l
a
n
d
8
1
Bass Lake
694
694
69th
8
1
56thBass Lake
BassLake
68th
Bass Lake
56th
BassLake
8
1
56th
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
94
94
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
F
F
694
1-Mile
k
k
Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
Station Area Plan
• Allow residential uses to transition to TOD in
select areas.
Housing Demand through 2040
• 300-600 units (3-6% of projected Brooklyn Park
household growth through 2040)
New Housing Types Needed
• Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both
market rate and affordable units)
• Owner-occupied townhomes (middle market
price points)
• Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
1/2-Mile1/2-Mile
Map 9: 63rd Avenue – Multifamily Properties Map 10: 63rd Avenue – Senior Properties
STATISTIC 63rd AVE HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 4,649 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,848 490,196
Median Age1,2 32 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 28%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 13%12%
Average Household Size1,2 2.5 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 1.20 0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $41,101 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 32.1%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 40.0%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 27.2%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 59.3%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 52.4%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 2,058 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 63.9%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 1.0%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 4.4%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 30.8%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1971 1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1955 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $178,800 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $851 $1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $986 $1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $1,397 $1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works72
Housing Gaps Analysis
The 63rd Avenue station area mostly consists of residential uses with a mix of rental apartments, single-
family homes, and senior housing. With the exception of one identified site, most of the station area
is expected to take many years to transition from its current low-density character to a higher-density,
TOD character. Therefore, the opportunities to address any existing housing gaps have more to with
physical preservation and/or enhancement of existing properties than with new construction.
The 63rd Avenue station has one of the highest concentrations of rental housing along the Corridor.
Most of it was built between 40 and 60 years ago and, if not suffering from deferred maintenance, is at
risk to do so. The vast majority of the rental housing is market rate, but well below the County average
and thus would be considered naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). Given this condition,
the station area is at risk of losing substantial amounts of affordable housing due to: 1) future
redevelopment of properties in poor condition; or 2) rising rents caused by market demand or the
impact of the LRT. Therefore, physical preservation strategies should be considered to help maintain
the existing rental stock, and financial preservation programs should be considered to help maintain
affordability of the existing rental stock.
Where newer housing could be developed in coming years, higher-quality product that would be
available to households at a mix of income levels would help close the gap on the need for better
conditioned homes. Allowing increased density at sites closest to the station is one possible strategy that
could help with introducing more affordably-priced, higher quality units.
In areas further from the station, townhome product may be appropriate, both owned and rented.
Rental townhomes would help with the lack of rented three-bedroom units in the station area.
Townhomes would also help provide a transition between areas of single-family homes and higher-
density sites closer to the station. Although the 63rd Avenue station already has a fair amount of senior
housing, single-level townhomes would meet the needs of many seniors who are still independent, but
want to remain in the community.
One possible housing strategy that would be appropriate in this station area would be to allow in-fill
development on larger lots with existing homes. This would increase density of the station area without
significantly changing the character of the area as well. In-fill development could happen on a fine
grain level. Therefore, market forces could dictate a large portion of this type of development. However,
because of the small-scale of such developments, they could also be attractive to wide range of programs
that fund affordable housing development.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 73
Bass Lake Road
1421+00
1422+00
1423+00
1424+00
1425+00
1426+00
1427+00
1428+00
1429+00
1430+00
1431+00
1432+00
1433+00
1434+00
1435+00
1500+00
2421+00
2422+00
2423+00
2424+00
2425+00
2426+00
2427+00
2428+00
2429+00
2430+00
2431+00
2432+00
2433+00
2434+00
2435+00
2500+00
3421+00
3422+00
3423+00
3424+00
3425+00
3426+00
3427+00
3428+00
3429+00
3430+00
3431+00
3432+00
3433+00
3434+00
3435+00
3436+003500+003500+00
3501+00
3502+00
3503+00
3504+00
3505+00
3506+00
3507+00
3508+00
3509+00
3510+00
3511+00
3512+00
3513+00
3514+00
3515+00
3516+00
3517+00
3518+00
3519+00
3520+00
3521+00
3522+00
3523+00
3524+00
3525+00
3526+00
3527+00
3528+00
3529+00
3530+00
3531+00
3532+00
3533+00
3534+00
3535+00
3536+00
3537+00
3538+00
3539+00
3540+00
3541+00
3542+00
3543+00
3544+00
3545+00
3546+00
3547+00
3548+00
3549+00
3550+00
3551+00
3552+00
3553+00
3554+00
3555+00
3556+00
3557+00
3558+00
3559+00
3560+00
3561+00
3562+00
3563+00
3564+00
3565+00
3566+00
3567+00
3568+00
3569+00
3570+00
3571+00
3572+00
3573+00
3574+00
3575+00
3576+00
3577+00
3578+00
3579+00
3580+00
3581+00
3582+00
3583+00
3584+00
3585+00
3586+00
3587+00
3588+00
3589+00
3590+00
3591+00
3592+00
3593+00
3594+00
3595+00
3596+00
3597+00
3598+00
3599+00
3600+00
3601+00
3602+00
3603+00
3700+00
1500+00
1501+00
1502+00
1503+00
1504+00
1505+00
1506+00
1507+00
1508+00
1509+00
1510+00
1511+00
1512+00
1513+00
1514+00
1515+00
1516+00
1517+00
1518+00
1519+00
1520+00
1521+00
1522+00
1523+00
1524+00
1525+00
1526+00
1527+00
1528+00
1529+00
1530+00
1531+00
1532+00
1533+00
1534+00
1535+00
1536+00
1537+00
1538+00
1539+00
1540+00
1541+00
1542+00
1543+00
1544+00
1545+00
1546+00
1547+00
1548+00
1549+00
1550+00
1551+00
1552+00
1553+00
1554+00
1555+00
1556+00
1557+00
1558+00
1559+00
1560+00
1561+00
1562+00
1563+00
1564+00
1565+00
1566+00
1567+00
1568+00
1569+00
1570+00
1571+00
1572+00
1573+00
1574+00
1575+00
1576+00
1577+00
1578+00
1579+00
1580+00
1581+00
1582+00
1583+00
1584+00
1585+00
1586+00
1587+00
1588+00
1589+00
1590+00
1591+00
1592+00
1593+00
1594+00
1595+00
1596+00
1597+00
1598+00
1599+00
1600+00
1601+00
1602+00
1603+00
1700+00
2500+00
2501+00
2502+00
2503+00
2504+00
2505+00
2506+00
2507+00
2508+00
2509+00
2510+00
2511+00
2512+00
2513+00
2514+00
2515+00
2516+00
2517+00
2518+00
2519+00
2520+00
2521+00
2522+00
2523+00
2524+00
2525+00
2526+00
2527+00
2528+00
2529+00
2530+00
2531+00
2532+00
2533+00
2534+00
2535+00
2536+00
2537+00
2538+00
2539+00
2540+00
2541+00
2542+00
2543+00
2544+00
2545+00
2546+00
2547+00
2548+00
2549+00
2550+00
2551+00
2552+00
2553+00
2554+00
2555+00
2556+00
2557+00
2558+00
2559+00
2560+00
2561+00
2562+00
2563+00
2564+00
2565+00
2566+00
2567+00
2568+00
2569+00
2570+00
2571+00
2572+00
2573+00
2574+00
2575+00
2576+00
2577+00
2578+00
2579+00
2580+00
2581+00
2582+00
2583+00
2584+00
2585+00
2586+00
2587+00
2588+00
2589+00
2590+00
2591+00
2592+00
2593+00
2594+00
2595+00
2596+00
2597+00
2598+00
2599+00
2600+00
2601+00
2602+00
2603+00
2700+002700+00
2701+00
2702+00
2703+00
2704+00
2705+00
2706+00
2707+00
2708+00
2709+00
2710+00
2711+00
2712+00
2713+00
2714+00
2715+00
2716+00
2717+00
2718+00
2719+00
2720+00
3700+00
3701+00
3702+00
3703+00
3704+00
3705+00
3706+00
3707+00
3708+00
3709+00
3710+00
3711+00
3712+00
3713+00
3714+00
3715+00
3716+00
3717+00
3718+00
3719+00
3720+00
1700+00
1701+00
1702+00
1703+00
1704+00
1705+00
1706+00
1707+00
1708+00
1709+00
1710+00
1711+00
1712+00
1713+00
1714+00
1715+00
1716+00
1717+00
1718+00
1719+00
1720+00
BASS LAKE ROAD STATION
63RD AVENUE STATION
!(
!(
8
1
56th
8
1
W i n n e t k a
W
e
st
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
56th
W
e
st
B
ro
a
d
w
a
y
Bass Lake
Bass Lake
BassLake 56th
Bass Lake
56th56th
1 0 0
58th
O r c h a r d
1 0 0
D o u g l a s
F
F
1-Mile
k
100
General
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
1421+00
1422+00
1423+00
1424+00
1425+00
1426+00
1427+00
1428+00
1429+00
1430+00
1431+00
1432+00
1433+00
1434+00
1435+00
1500+00
2421+00
2422+00
2423+00
2424+00
2425+00
2426+00
2427+00
2428+00
2429+00
2430+00
2431+00
2432+00
2433+00
2434+00
2435+00
2500+00
3421+00
3422+00
3423+00
3424+00
3425+00
3426+00
3427+00
3428+00
3429+00
3430+00
3431+00
3432+00
3433+00
3434+00
3435+00
3436+003500+003500+00
3501+00
3502+00
3503+00
3504+00
3505+00
3506+00
3507+00
3508+00
3509+00
3510+00
3511+00
3512+00
3513+00
3514+00
3515+00
3516+00
3517+00
3518+00
3519+00
3520+00
3521+00
3522+00
3523+00
3524+00
3525+00
3526+00
3527+00
3528+00
3529+00
3530+00
3531+00
3532+00
3533+00
3534+00
3535+00
3536+00
3537+00
3538+00
3539+00
3540+00
3541+00
3542+00
3543+00
3544+00
3545+00
3546+00
3547+00
3548+00
3549+00
3550+00
3551+00
3552+00
3553+00
3554+00
3555+00
3556+00
3557+00
3558+00
3559+00
3560+00
3561+00
3562+00
3563+00
3564+00
3565+00
3566+00
3567+00
3568+00
3569+00
3570+00
3571+00
3572+00
3573+00
3574+00
3575+00
3576+00
3577+00
3578+00
3579+00
3580+00
3581+00
3582+00
3583+00
3584+00
3585+00
3586+00
3587+00
3588+00
3589+00
3590+00
3591+00
3592+00
3593+00
3594+00
3595+00
3596+00
3597+00
3598+00
3599+00
3600+00
3601+00
3602+00
3603+00
3700+00
1500+00
1501+00
1502+00
1503+00
1504+00
1505+00
1506+00
1507+00
1508+00
1509+00
1510+00
1511+00
1512+00
1513+00
1514+00
1515+00
1516+00
1517+00
1518+00
1519+00
1520+00
1521+00
1522+00
1523+00
1524+00
1525+00
1526+00
1527+00
1528+00
1529+00
1530+00
1531+00
1532+00
1533+00
1534+00
1535+00
1536+00
1537+00
1538+00
1539+00
1540+00
1541+00
1542+00
1543+00
1544+00
1545+00
1546+00
1547+00
1548+00
1549+00
1550+00
1551+00
1552+00
1553+00
1554+00
1555+00
1556+00
1557+00
1558+00
1559+00
1560+00
1561+00
1562+00
1563+00
1564+00
1565+00
1566+00
1567+00
1568+00
1569+00
1570+00
1571+00
1572+00
1573+00
1574+00
1575+00
1576+00
1577+00
1578+00
1579+00
1580+00
1581+00
1582+00
1583+00
1584+00
1585+00
1586+00
1587+00
1588+00
1589+00
1590+00
1591+00
1592+00
1593+00
1594+00
1595+00
1596+00
1597+00
1598+00
1599+00
1600+00
1601+00
1602+00
1603+00
1700+00
2500+00
2501+00
2502+00
2503+00
2504+00
2505+00
2506+00
2507+00
2508+00
2509+00
2510+00
2511+00
2512+00
2513+00
2514+00
2515+00
2516+00
2517+00
2518+00
2519+00
2520+00
2521+00
2522+00
2523+00
2524+00
2525+00
2526+00
2527+00
2528+00
2529+00
2530+00
2531+00
2532+00
2533+00
2534+00
2535+00
2536+00
2537+00
2538+00
2539+00
2540+00
2541+00
2542+00
2543+00
2544+00
2545+00
2546+00
2547+00
2548+00
2549+00
2550+00
2551+00
2552+00
2553+00
2554+00
2555+00
2556+00
2557+00
2558+00
2559+00
2560+00
2561+00
2562+00
2563+00
2564+00
2565+00
2566+00
2567+00
2568+00
2569+00
2570+00
2571+00
2572+00
2573+00
2574+00
2575+00
2576+00
2577+00
2578+00
2579+00
2580+00
2581+00
2582+00
2583+00
2584+00
2585+00
2586+00
2587+00
2588+00
2589+00
2590+00
2591+00
2592+00
2593+00
2594+00
2595+00
2596+00
2597+00
2598+00
2599+00
2600+00
2601+00
2602+00
2603+00
2700+002700+00
2701+00
2702+00
2703+00
2704+00
2705+00
2706+00
2707+00
2708+00
2709+00
2710+00
2711+00
2712+00
2713+00
2714+00
2715+00
2716+00
2717+00
2718+00
2719+00
2720+00
3700+00
3701+00
3702+00
3703+00
3704+00
3705+00
3706+00
3707+00
3708+00
3709+00
3710+00
3711+00
3712+00
3713+00
3714+00
3715+00
3716+00
3717+00
3718+00
3719+00
3720+00
1700+00
1701+00
1702+00
1703+00
1704+00
1705+00
1706+00
1707+00
1708+00
1709+00
1710+00
1711+00
1712+00
1713+00
1714+00
1715+00
1716+00
1717+00
1718+00
1719+00
1720+00
BASS LAKE ROAD STATION
63RD AVENUE STATION
!(
!(
8
1
56th
8
1
W i n n e t k a
W
e
st
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
56th
W
est
B
ro
a
d
w
a
y
Bass Lake
Bass Lake
BassLake 56th
Bass Lake
56th56th
1 0 0
58th
O r c h a r d
1 0 0
D o u g l a s
F
F
1-Mile
k
100
Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
Station Area Plan
• Establish Becker Park as a town square surrounded
by TOD; strengthen connections between station
and Crystal Shopping Center
Housing Demand through 2040
• 400-600 units (80-100% of projected Crystal
household growth through 2040)
New Housing Types Needed
• Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both
market rate and affordable units)
• Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Senior housing (market rate and affordable)
• Multi-story condominiums and cooperatives
(multiple price points)
1/2-Mile1/2-Mile
Map 11: Bass Lake Road – Multifamily Properties Map 12: Bass Lake Road –Senior Properties
STATISTIC BASS
LAKE RD
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 2,364 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 948 490,196
Median Age1,2 38.2 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 22%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 13%12%
Average Household Size1,2 2.3 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 1.21 0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $51,914 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 57.2%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 28.6%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 38.8%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 39.1%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 49.3%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 951 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 39.9%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 4.2%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 0.7%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 55.1%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1983 1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1949 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $180,500 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $700 $1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $811 $1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 --$1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works74
Housing Gaps Analysis
A great deal of new investment beyond the LRT is planned for the Bass Lake Road station area; Becker
Park will be reconstructed and Bass Lake Road will receive a new streetscape. These investments have
the potential to significantly change the perception of the station area.
Currently, many of the households living in the station area pay an exorbitant share of their income for
housing. If these investments do change the perception of the station area, existing residents that are
cost burdened are at an even higher risk of being displaced because of potential rising housing costs.
Therefore, policies should be considered that would help existing residents remain in the community
once the LRT is operational. Such approaches can include preserving the condition and affordability
of properties that are older yet well-maintained, mixing market rate and income-restricted units in
any new development, and encouraging a wide range in product types. Also, the station area has a very
high rate of persons per bedroom, which suggest a housing market that is out of equilibrium, both in
terms of housing cost burden and availability of larger rental unit styles (e.g., 3+ bedroom units), and
therefore is not meeting the needs of the local population.
With several potential redevelopment areas within a few blocks of the station, the Bass Lake Road
station area could accommodate most of Crystal’s projected household growth through 2040. In
order to truly leverage all this investment and accommodate the Met Council’s forecasted household
growth, this would require primarily multifamily housing. This should include a range of product
type and styles. In addition to traditional market rate rental housing, the station area could help close
some of the housing gaps by also including senior housing and affordable rental and owner-occupied
multifamily housing.
One example of affordable owner-occupied multifamily housing that has been very successful in the
Twin Cities is the limited-equity cooperative. In the region, these types of properties are often age-
restricted and targeted to seniors because banks are otherwise reluctant to prepare mortgages for these
types of properties. The buildings look and operate very much a like a multifamily condominium
property. However, instead of owning title to an individual unit, the owner owns shares in the
cooperative that owns the building. An individual’s shares entitle them to live in a particular unit. In
a limited-equity model, the share prices increase on an annual set rate and not according to market
pricing. This “limits” the equity needed to buy into the cooperative making it more affordable. In
return, the residents do not expect as much return on the value of their shares when they go to sell.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 75
Robbinsdale
ROBBINSDALE STATION
1328+00
1329+00
1330+00
1331+00
1332+00
1333+00
1334+00
1335+00
1336+00
1337+00
1338+00
1339+00
1340+00
1341+00
1342+00
1343+00
1344+00
1345+00
1346+00
1347+00
1348+00
1349+00
1350+00
1351+00
1352+00
1353+00
1354+00
1355+00
1356+00
1357+00
1358+00
1359+00
1360+00
1361+00
1362+00
1363+00
1364+00
1365+00
1366+00
1367+00
1368+00
1369+00
1370+00
1371+00
1372+00
1373+00
1374+00
1375+00
1376+00
1377+00
1378+00
1379+00
1380+00
1381+00
1382+00
1383+00
1384+00
1385+00
1386+00
1387+00
1388+00
1389+00
1390+00
1391+00
1392+00
1393+00
1394+00
1395+00
1396+00
1397+00
1398+00
1399+00
1400+00
1401+00
1402+00
1403+00
1404+00
1405+00
1406+00
1407+00
1408+00
1409+00
1410+00
1411+00
1412+00
1413+00
1414+00
1415+00
1416+00
1417+00
1418+00
1419+00
1420+00
1421+00
1422+00
1423+00
1424+00
1425+00
1426+00
1427+00
1428+00
1429+00
1430+00
1431+00
1432+00
1433+00
1434+00
1435+00
1500+00
2328+00
2329+00
2330+00
2331+00
2332+00
2333+00
2334+00
2335+00
2336+00
2337+00
2338+00
2339+00
2340+00
2341+00
2342+00
2343+00
2344+00
2345+00
2346+00
2347+00
2348+00
2349+00
2350+00
2351+00
2352+00
2353+00
2354+00
2355+00
2356+00
2357+00
2358+00
2359+00
2360+00
2361+00
2362+00
2363+00
2364+00
2365+00
2366+00
2367+00
2368+00
2369+00
2370+00
2371+00
2372+00
2373+00
2374+00
2375+00
2376+00
2377+00
2378+00
2379+00
2380+00
2381+00
2382+00
2383+00
2384+00
2385+00
2386+00
2387+00
2388+00
2389+00
2390+00
2391+00
2392+00
2393+00
2394+00
2395+00
2396+00
2397+00
2398+00
2399+00
2400+00
2401+00
2402+00
2403+00
2404+00
2405+00
2406+00
2407+00
2408+00
2409+00
2410+00
2411+00
2412+00
2413+00
2414+00
2415+00
2416+00
2417+00
2418+00
2419+00
2420+00
2421+00
2422+00
2423+00
2424+00
2425+00
2426+00
2427+00
2428+00
2429+00
2430+00
2431+00
2432+00
2433+00
2434+00
2435+00
2500+00
3328+00
3329+00
3330+00
3331+00
3332+00
3333+00
3334+00
3335+00
3336+00
3337+00
3338+00
3339+00
3340+00
3341+00
3342+00
3343+00
3344+00
3345+00
3346+00
3347+00
3348+00
3349+00
3350+00
3351+00
3352+00
3353+00
3354+00
3355+00
3356+00
3357+00
3358+00
3359+00
3360+00
3361+00
3362+00
3363+00
3364+00
3365+00
3366+00
3367+00
3368+00
3369+00
3370+00
3371+00
3372+00
3373+00
3374+00
3375+00
3376+00
3377+00
3378+00
3379+00
3380+00
3381+00
3382+00
3383+00
3384+00
3385+00
3386+00
3387+00
3388+00
3389+00
3390+00
3391+00
3392+00
3393+00
3394+00
3395+00
3396+00
3397+00
3398+00
3399+00
3400+00
3401+00
3402+00
3403+00
3404+00
3405+00
3406+00
3407+00
3408+00
3409+00
3410+00
3411+00
3412+00
3413+00
3414+00
3415+00
3416+00
3417+00
3418+00
3419+00
3420+00
3421+00
3422+00
3423+00
3424+00
3425+00
3426+00
3427+00
3428+00
3429+00
3430+00
3431+00
3432+00
3433+00
3434+00
3435+00
3436+003500+003500+00
3501+00
3502+00
3503+00
3504+00
3505+00
3506+00
3507+00
3508+00
3509+00
3510+00
3511+00
3512+00
3513+00
3514+00
3515+00
3516+00
3517+00
3518+00
3519+00
3520+00
3521+00
3522+00
3523+00
3524+00
3525+00
3526+00
3527+00
3528+00
3529+00
3530+00
3531+00
1500+00
1501+00
1502+00
1503+00
1504+00
1505+00
1506+00
1507+00
1508+00
1509+00
1510+00
1511+00
1512+00
1513+00
1514+00
1515+00
1516+00
1517+00
1518+00
1519+00
1520+00
1521+00
1522+00
1523+00
1524+00
1525+00
1526+00
1527+00
1528+00
1529+00
1530+00
1531+00
2500+00
2501+00
2502+00
2503+00
2504+00
2505+00
2506+00
2507+00
2508+00
2509+00
2510+00
2511+00
2512+00
2513+00
2514+00
2515+00
2516+00
2517+00
2518+00
2519+00
2520+00
2521+00
2522+00
2523+00
2524+00
2525+00
2526+00
2527+00
2528+00
2529+00
2530+00
2531+00
!(
42nd
O
s
s
e
o
42nd
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
L a k e
1 0 0
1 0 0
B
r
o
o
k
l
y
n
45th
8
1
8
1
4 6 t h
D o u g l a s
F
F
1-Mile
k
100
100General
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
ROBBINSDALE STATION
1327+00
1328+00
1329+00
1330+00
1331+00
1332+00
1333+00
1334+00
1335+00
1336+00
1337+00
1338+00
1339+00
1340+00
1341+00
1342+00
1343+00
1344+00
1345+00
1346+00
1347+00
1348+00
1349+00
1350+00
1351+00
1352+00
1353+00
1354+00
1355+00
1356+00
1357+00
1358+00
1359+00
1360+00
1361+00
1362+00
1363+00
1364+00
1365+00
1366+00
1367+00
1368+00
1369+00
1370+00
1371+00
1372+00
1373+00
1374+00
1375+00
1376+00
1377+00
1378+00
1379+00
1380+00
1381+00
1382+00
1383+00
1384+00
1385+00
1386+00
1387+00
1388+00
1389+00
1390+00
1391+00
1392+00
1393+00
1394+00
1395+00
1396+00
1397+00
1398+00
1399+00
1400+00
1401+00
1402+00
1403+00
1404+00
1405+00
1406+00
1407+00
1408+00
1409+00
1410+00
1411+00
1412+00
1413+00
1414+00
1415+00
1416+00
1417+00
1418+00
1419+00
1420+00
1421+00
1422+00
1423+00
1424+00
1425+00
1426+00
1427+00
1428+00
1429+00
1430+00
1431+00
1432+00
1433+00
1434+00
1435+00
1500+00
2327+00
2328+00
2329+00
2330+00
2331+00
2332+00
2333+00
2334+00
2335+00
2336+00
2337+00
2338+00
2339+00
2340+00
2341+00
2342+00
2343+00
2344+00
2345+00
2346+00
2347+00
2348+00
2349+00
2350+00
2351+00
2352+00
2353+00
2354+00
2355+00
2356+00
2357+00
2358+00
2359+00
2360+00
2361+00
2362+00
2363+00
2364+00
2365+00
2366+00
2367+00
2368+00
2369+00
2370+00
2371+00
2372+00
2373+00
2374+00
2375+00
2376+00
2377+00
2378+00
2379+00
2380+00
2381+00
2382+00
2383+00
2384+00
2385+00
2386+00
2387+00
2388+00
2389+00
2390+00
2391+00
2392+00
2393+00
2394+00
2395+00
2396+00
2397+00
2398+00
2399+00
2400+00
2401+00
2402+00
2403+00
2404+00
2405+00
2406+00
2407+00
2408+00
2409+00
2410+00
2411+00
2412+00
2413+00
2414+00
2415+00
2416+00
2417+00
2418+00
2419+00
2420+00
2421+00
2422+00
2423+00
2424+00
2425+00
2426+00
2427+00
2428+00
2429+00
2430+00
2431+00
2432+00
2433+00
2434+00
2435+00
2500+00
3327+00
3328+00
3329+00
3330+00
3331+00
3332+00
3333+00
3334+00
3335+00
3336+00
3337+00
3338+00
3339+00
3340+00
3341+00
3342+00
3343+00
3344+00
3345+00
3346+00
3347+00
3348+00
3349+00
3350+00
3351+00
3352+00
3353+00
3354+00
3355+00
3356+00
3357+00
3358+00
3359+00
3360+00
3361+00
3362+00
3363+00
3364+00
3365+00
3366+00
3367+00
3368+00
3369+00
3370+00
3371+00
3372+00
3373+00
3374+00
3375+00
3376+00
3377+00
3378+00
3379+00
3380+00
3381+00
3382+00
3383+00
3384+00
3385+00
3386+00
3387+00
3388+00
3389+00
3390+00
3391+00
3392+00
3393+00
3394+00
3395+00
3396+00
3397+00
3398+00
3399+00
3400+00
3401+00
3402+00
3403+00
3404+00
3405+00
3406+00
3407+00
3408+00
3409+00
3410+00
3411+00
3412+00
3413+00
3414+00
3415+00
3416+00
3417+00
3418+00
3419+00
3420+00
3421+00
3422+00
3423+00
3424+00
3425+00
3426+00
3427+00
3428+00
3429+00
3430+00
3431+00
3432+00
3433+00
3434+00
3435+00
3436+003500+003500+00
3501+00
3502+00
3503+00
3504+00
3505+00
3506+00
3507+00
3508+00
3509+00
3510+00
3511+00
3512+00
3513+00
3514+00
3515+00
3516+00
3517+00
3518+00
3519+00
3520+00
3521+00
3522+00
3523+00
3524+00
3525+00
3526+00
3527+00
3528+00
3529+00
3530+00
1500+00
1501+00
1502+00
1503+00
1504+00
1505+00
1506+00
1507+00
1508+00
1509+00
1510+00
1511+00
1512+00
1513+00
1514+00
1515+00
1516+00
1517+00
1518+00
1519+00
1520+00
1521+00
1522+00
1523+00
1524+00
1525+00
1526+00
1527+00
1528+00
1529+00
1530+00
1531+00
2500+00
2501+00
2502+00
2503+00
2504+00
2505+00
2506+00
2507+00
2508+00
2509+00
2510+00
2511+00
2512+00
2513+00
2514+00
2515+00
2516+00
2517+00
2518+00
2519+00
2520+00
2521+00
2522+00
2523+00
2524+00
2525+00
2526+00
2527+00
2528+00
2529+00
2530+00
2531+00
!(
42nd
42nd
O
s
s
e
o
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
L a k e
1 0 0
1 0 0
B
r
o
o
k
l
y
n
45th
8
1
8
1
4 6 t h
D o u g l a s
F
F
1-Mile
k
100
100Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
Station Area Plan
• Preserve/protect West Broadway as a main street;
promote TOD around the periphery of the
downtown.
Housing Demand through 2040
• 600-800 units (80-100% of projected
Robbinsdale household growth through 2040)
New Housing Types Needed
• Market rate rental apartments
• Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both
market rate and affordable units)
• Owner-occupied townhomes (multiple price points)
• Multi-story condominiums (multiple price points)
1/2-Mile 1/2-Mile
Map 14: Robbinsdale – Multifamily Properties Map 13: Robbinsdale –Senior Properties
STATISTIC 42nd AVE HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 4,181 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,953 490,196
Median Age1,2 38.9 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 21%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 16%12%
Average Household Size1,2 1.9 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 1.00 0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $48,121 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 54.3%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 19.0%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 44.3%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 30.5%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 32.3%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,879 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 41.3%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 2.4%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 11.3%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 44.8%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1980 1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1949 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $201,000 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $670 $1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $1,104 $1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $1,665 $1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works76
Housing Gaps Analysis
The Robbinsdale station area has the greatest mixing of uses of any station area along the Corridor. In
recent decades there has been substantial multifamily development both in the core and around the
periphery of what is considered downtown Robbinsdale. However, almost all of this development has
been senior housing. Therefore, like many other station areas along the Corridor, there is a distinct
absence of newer, market rate, general occupancy apartments.
This is likely to change in the near future, though. Unlike most of the other stations areas, there are
currently two proposals for large, market rate apartments just south of the station area that would be
at higher densities not typically found in Robbinsdale. This is a clear example of the current strength
of the broader housing market, but it also demonstrates that the mixed-use environment in the station
area is a factor in attracting residents to the area. Once the LRT is operational, any such momentum
will only increase.
Market rate rental apartments will satisfy most of the future housing gaps in the Robbinsdale station
area. Given the existing pedestrian scale of the station area, demand for this product will only
accelerate. Therefore, consideration should be given to promoting mixed-income developments. In
many cases, this product type is most successful in areas where growth will be strongest.
With the pressure to develop market rate apartments, an important gap that may need to be addressed
would be units for families or other larger household types. Therefore, consideration should be given
to where certain types of townhome product can complement traditional apartment development.
Townhomes use less land than typical detached, single-family homes. However, much of the single-
family housing stock in Robbinsdale, especially near the station, is older, smaller, and located on
very small lots. Thus, it is challenging to modify these existing homes to accommodate larger homes.
Townhome product located on strategic parcels can provide larger home sizes and help control for costs
by using less land.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 77
Golden Valley Road
3 0 0 0 +00
3 0 0 1 +00
3 0 0 2 +00
3003+00
3004+00
3005+00
3006+00
3007+00
3008+00
3009+00
3010+00
3011+00
3012+00
1053+001054+001055+00
1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00
1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00
1066+00
1067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00
1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00
1083+00
1084+001085+00
1086+00
1087+00
1088+001089+00
1090+00
1091+00
1092+001093+00
1094+0
0
1095+00
1 0 9 6 +00
1 0 9 7 +00
1 0 9 8 +00
1 0 9 9 +00
1100+00
1101+00
1102+00
1103+00
1104+00
1105+00
1106+00
1107+00
1108+00
1109+00
1131+83
2053+002054+002055+00
2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00
2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00
2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00
2083+00
2084+002085+00
2086+00
2087+00
2088+002089+00
2090+00
2091+00
2092+002093+00
2094+0
0
2095+00
2 0 9 6 +00
2 0 9 7 +00
2 0 9 8 +00
2 0 9 9 +00
2 1 0 0 +00
2101+00
2102+00
2103+00
2104+00
2105+00
2106+00
2107+00
2108+00
2109+00
1201+00
1202+00
1203+00
1204+00
1205+00
1206+00
1207+00
1208+00
1209+00
1210+00
1211+00
1212+00
1213+00
1214+00
1215+00
1216+00
1217+00
1218+00
1219+00
1220+00
1221+00
1222+00
1223+00
1224+00
1225+00
1226+00
1227+00
1228+00
1229+00
1230+00
1231+00
1232+00
1233+00
1234+00
1235+00
1237+00
1238+00
1 2 3 9 +00
1 2 4 0 +00
1 2 4 1 +00
1242+00
1243+00
1244+00
1245+00
1246+00
1247+00
1248+00
1249+00
1250+00
1251+00
1252+00
1253+00
1254+00
1255+00
1256+00
1257+00
1258+00
1 2 5 9 +00
1 2 6 0 +00
1 2 6 1 +00
1262+00
1263+00
1264+00
1265+00
1266+00
1267+00
1268+00
1269+00
1270+00
1271+00
1272+00
1273+00
1274+00
1 2 7 5 +00
3201+00
3202+00
3203+00
3204+00
3205+00
3206+00
3207+00
3208+00
3209+00
3210+00
3211+00
3212+00
3213+00
3214+00
3215+00
3216+00
3217+00
3218+00
3219+00
3220+00
3221+00
3222+00
3223+00
3224+00
3225+00
3226+00
3227+00
3228+00
3229+00
3230+00
3231+00
3232+00
3233+00
3234+00
3235+00
3236+00
3237+00
3 2 3 8 +00
3 2 3 9 +00
3 2 4 0 +00
3241+00
3242+00
3243+00
3244+00
3245+00
3246+00
3247+00
3248+00
3249+00
3250+00
3251+00
3252+00
3253+00
3254+00
3255+00
3256+00
3257+00
3258+00
3 2 5 9 +00
3 2 6 0 +00
3261+00
3262+00
3263+00
3264+00
3265+00
3266+00
3267+00
3268+00
3269+00
3270+00
3271+00
3272+00
3273+00
3274+00
3 2 7 5 +00
2200+00
2201+00
2202+00
2203+00
2204+00
2205+00
2206+00
2207+00
2208+00
2209+00
2210+00
2211+00
2212+00
2213+00
2214+00
2215+00
2216+00
2217+00
2218+00
2219+00
2220+00
2221+00
2222+00
2223+00
2224+00
2225+00
2226+00
2227+00
2228+00
2229+00
2230+00
2231+00
2232+00
2233+00
2234+00
2235+00
2236+00
2237+00
2238+00
2 2 3 9 +00
2 2 4 0 +00
2 2 4 1 +00
2 2 4 2 +00
2243+00
2244+00
2245+00
2246+00
2247+00
2248+00
2249+00
2250+00
2251+00
2252+00
2253+00
2254+00
2255+00
2256+00
2257+00
2258+00
2 2 5 9 +00
2 2 6 0 +00
2 2 6 1 +00
2262+00
2263+00
2264+00
2265+00
2266+00
2267+00
2268+00
2269+00
2270+00
2271+00
2272+00
2273+00
2274+00
2275+00
1 3 0 1 +00
1 3 0 2 +00
1 3 0 3 +00
1304+00
1305+00
1306+00
1307+00
1308+00
1309+00
1310+00
1311+00
1312+00
1313+00
1314+00
1315+00
1316+00
1317+00
1318+00
1319+00
1320+00
1321+00
1322+00
1323+00
1324+00
1325+00
1326+00
1327+00
1328+00
1329+00
1330+00
1331+00
1332+00
1333+00
1334+00
1335+00
1336+00
1337+00
1338+00
1339+00
1340+00
1341+00
1342+00
2 3 0 1 +00
2 3 0 2 +00
2 3 0 3 +00
2 3 0 4 +00
2305+00
2306+00
2307+00
2308+00
2309+00
2310+00
2311+00
2312+00
2313+00
2314+00
2315+00
2316+00
2317+00
2318+00
2319+00
2320+00
2321+00
2322+00
2323+00
2324+00
2325+00
2326+00
2327+00
2328+00
2329+00
2330+00
2331+00
2332+00
2333+00
2334+00
2335+00
2336+00
2337+00
2338+00
2339+00
2340+00
2341+00
2342+00
3 3 0 1 +00
3 3 0 2 +00
3 3 0 3 +00
3304+00
3305+00
3306+00
3307+00
3308+00
3309+00
3310+00
3311+00
3312+00
3313+00
3314+00
3315+00
3316+00
3317+00
3318+00
3319+00
3320+00
3321+00
3322+00
3323+00
3324+00
3325+00
3326+00
3327+00
3328+00
3329+00
3330+00
3331+00
3332+00
3333+00
3334+00
3335+00
3336+00
3337+00
3338+00
3339+00
3340+00
3341+00
3342+00
PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATION
GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION
!(
!(
!(
P e n n
Golden Valley
Olson M em ori a l
Olson Memorial
Lowry
W
e
st
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
T h e o d o r e W i r t h
Lowry
D ul u t h
Duluth Duluth
X e r x e s
T
h
e
o
d
o
r
e
W
i
r
t
h
W
e
s
t
Broadway
F
F
1-Mile
k
k
k55
General
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
3000+00
3 0 0 1 +00
3 0 0 2 +00
3003+00
3004+00
3005+00
3006+00
3007+00
3008+00
3009+00
3010+00
3011+00
3012+00
1053+001054+001055+00
1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00
1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00
1066+00
1067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00
1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00
1083+00
1084+001085+00
1086+00
1087+00
1088+001089+00
1090+00
1091+00
1092+001093+0
01094+00
1095+00
1096+00
1097+00
1 0 9 8 +00
1 0 9 9 +00
1100+00
1101+00
1102+00
1103+00
1104+00
1105+00
1106+00
1107+00
1108+00
1109+00
1131+83
2053+002054+002055+00
2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00
2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00
2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00
2083+00
2084+002085+00
2086+00
2087+00
2088+002089+00
2090+00
2091+00
2092+002093+0
02094+00
2095+00
2096+00
2097+00
2 0 9 8 +00
2 0 9 9 +00
2100+00
2101+00
2102+00
2103+00
2104+00
2105+00
2106+00
2107+00
2108+00
2109+00
1201+00
1 2 0 2 +00
1 2 0 3 +00
1204+00
1205+00
1206+00
1207+00
1208+00
1209+00
1210+00
1211+00
1212+00
1213+00
1214+00
1215+00
1216+00
1217+00
1218+00
1219+00
1220+00
1221+00
1222+00
1223+00
1224+00
1225+00
1226+00
1227+00
1228+00
1229+00
1230+00
1231+00
1232+00
1233+00
1234+00
1235+00
1237+00
1238+00
1 2 3 9 +00
1240+00
1241+00
1242+00
1243+00
1244+00
1245+00
1246+00
1247+00
1248+00
1 2 4 9 +00
1250+00
1251+00
1252+00
1253+00
1254+00
1255+00
1256+00
1257+00
1 2 5 8 +00
1259+00
1260+00
1261+00
1262+00
1263+00
1264+00
1265+00
1266+00
1 2 6 7 +00
1268+00
1269+00
1270+00
1271+00
1272+00
1273+00
1274+00
1 2 7 5 +00
3 2 0 1 +00
3 2 0 2 +00
3203+00
3204+00
3205+00
3206+00
3207+00
3208+00
3209+00
3210+00
3211+00
3212+00
3213+00
3214+00
3215+00
3216+00
3217+00
3218+00
3219+00
3220+00
3221+00
3222+00
3223+00
3224+00
3225+00
3226+00
3227+00
3228+00
3229+00
3230+00
3231+00
3232+00
3233+00
3234+00
3235+00
3236+00
3237+00
3 2 3 8 +00
3239+00
3240+00
3241+00
3242+00
3243+00
3244+00
3245+00
3246+00
3247+00
3 2 4 8 +00
3249+00
3250+00
3251+00
3252+00
3253+00
3254+00
3255+00
3256+00
3 2 5 7 +00
3 2 5 8 +00
3259+00
3260+00
3261+00
3262+00
3263+00
3264+00
3265+00
3 2 6 6 +00
3267+00
3268+00
3269+00
3270+00
3271+00
3272+00
3273+00
3274+00
3 2 7 5 +00
2200+00
2201+00
2 2 0 2 +00
2 2 0 3 +00
2204+00
2205+00
2206+00
2207+00
2208+00
2209+00
2210+00
2211+00
2212+00
2213+00
2214+00
2215+00
2216+00
2217+00
2218+00
2219+00
2220+00
2221+00
2222+00
2223+00
2224+00
2225+00
2226+00
2227+00
2228+00
2229+00
2230+00
2231+00
2232+00
2233+00
2234+00
2235+00
2236+00
2237+00
2238+00
2 2 3 9 +00
2240+00
2241+00
2242+00
2243+00
2244+00
2245+00
2246+00
2247+00
2248+00
2 2 4 9 +00
2 2 5 0 +00
2251+00
2252+00
2253+00
2254+00
2255+00
2256+00
2257+00
2 2 5 8 +00
2259+00
2260+00
2261+00
2262+00
2263+00
2264+00
2265+00
2266+00
2 2 6 7 +00
2268+00
2269+00
2270+00
2271+00
2272+00
2273+00
2274+00
2275+00
1 3 0 1 +00
1302+00
1303+00
1304+00
1305+00
1306+00
1307+00
1308+00
1309+00
1310+00
1311+00
1312+00
1313+00
1314+00
1315+00
1316+00
1317+00
1318+00
1 3 1 9 +00
1 3 2 0 +00
1 3 2 1 +00
1322+00
1323+00
1324+00
1325+00
1326+00
1327+00
1328+00
1329+00
1330+00
1331+00
1332+00
1333+00
1334+00
1335+00
1336+00
1337+00
1338+00
1339+00
1340+00
1341+00
1342+00
2 3 0 1 +00
2302+00
2303+00
2304+00
2305+00
2306+00
2307+00
2308+00
2309+00
2310+00
2311+00
2312+00
2313+00
2314+00
2315+00
2316+00
2317+00
2318+00
2319+00
2 3 2 0 +00
2 3 2 1 +00
2322+00
2323+00
2324+00
2325+00
2326+00
2327+00
2328+00
2329+00
2330+00
2331+00
2332+00
2333+00
2334+00
2335+00
2336+00
2337+00
2338+00
2339+00
2340+00
2341+00
2342+00
3301+00
3302+00
3303+00
3304+00
3305+00
3306+00
3307+00
3308+00
3309+00
3310+00
3311+00
3312+00
3313+00
3314+00
3315+00
3316+00
3317+00
3 3 1 8 +00
3 3 1 9 +00
3 3 2 0 +00
3321+00
3322+00
3323+00
3324+00
3325+00
3326+00
3327+00
3328+00
3329+00
3330+00
3331+00
3332+00
3333+00
3334+00
3335+00
3336+00
3337+00
3338+00
3339+00
3340+00
3341+00
3342+00
PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATION
GOLDEN VALLEY R OAD STATION
!(
!(
!(
P e n n
Golden Valley
Olson M em ori al
Olson Memorial
Lowry
W
e
st
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
W
e
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
T h e o d o r e W i r t h
Lowry
D ul u th
Duluth D uluth
X e r x e s
T
h
e
o
d
o
r
e
W
i
r
t
h
W
e
s
t
Broadway
F
F
1-Mile
k
k
k55
Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
Station Area Plan
• Maintain residential character and feel of station
area. Some potential long-term residential
opportunities on currently institutional lands.
Housing Demand through 2040
• 100-200 units (10-20% of projected Golden
Valley household growth through 2040)
New Housing Types Needed
• Senior housing (market rate and affordable)
• Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
1/2-Mile 1/2-Mile
Map 15: Golden Valley Road – Multifamily Properties Map 16: Golden Valley Road – Senior Properties
STATISTIC
GOLDEN
VALLEY
RD
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 2,778 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,090 490,196
Median Age1,2 39.7 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 23%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 14%12%
Average Household Size1,2 2.5 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 0.82 0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $75,360 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 80.6%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 28.2%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 26.4%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 46.9%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 39.4%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,152 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 6.8%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 2.4%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 2.2%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 88.5%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1940 1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1941 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $241,875 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $791 $1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $996 $1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $998 $1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works78
Housing Gaps Analysis
The Golden Valley Road station area consists mainly of park land (Theodore Wirth Park) or detached,
single-family homes. The only exceptions are a few institutional uses (e.g., church, fire station, and care
center) in scattered locations. Because single-family housing is such a dominant use in the station area,
multifamily housing should be added to diversify housing choice and provide more affordable options.
The challenge to increasing housing choice through development is that there are so few readily
available redevelopment opportunities in the station area. As determined through the station area
planning process, the Church of St. Margaret Mary controls a site that is large enough to accommodate
substantial new development either on land that is vacant or underutilized (i.e., surface parking) or
through redevelopment of existing structures. However, if the church does not see a need to sell their
land for development or redevelopment then the timing of any new housing of a significant scale in the
station area would be uncertain.
Due to station area population that is significantly older than the Corridor or County average, there
is an obvious gap and need for senior housing. A multifamily senior housing development on a
sufficiently large site would provide greater housing choices to local residents and potentially open
up some of the existing single-family housing stock to younger households. The persons per bedroom
in the station area is well below the Hennepin County rate, which indicates that there is a lot of
excess housing not being utilized in the form of empty bedrooms. This is likely the result of an aging
population staying in their homes as children grow up and leave the household.
In addition, the small amount of rental housing that does exist in the station area is very affordable
with average rents being well the County average. This is likely because the rental housing stock is
concentrated in the Minneapolis portion of the station area where the age of the stock is significantly
older and likely liking in amenities and other features. New rental apartments at a variety of price
points would introduce additional housing choice in the station area currently not available.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 79
Plymouth Avenue
3000+00
3001+00
3002+00
3003+00
3004+00
3 0 0 5 +00
3 0 0 6 +00
3007+00
3008+00
3009+00
3010+00
3011+00
3012+00
1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+00
1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00
1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00
1066+00
1067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00
1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00
1083+00
1084+001085+00
1086+00
1087+00
1088+001089+00
1090+00
1
0
9
1
+
0
0
1
0
9
2
+
0
0
1093+001094+00
1095+00
1096+00
1097+00
1098+00
1099+00
1100+00
1101+00
1102+00
1 1 0 3 +00
1 1 0 4 +00
1105+00
1106+00
1107+00
1108+00
1109+00
1131+83
2040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+00
2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00
2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00
2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00
2083+00
2084+002085+00
2086+00
2087+00
2088+002089+00
2090+00
2091+00
2
0
9
2
+
0
0
2093+002094+00
2095+00
2096+00
2097+00
2098+00
2099+00
2100+00
2101+00
2102+00
2 1 0 3 +00
2 1 0 4 +00
2105+00
2106+00
2107+00
2108+00
2109+00
1201+00
1202+00
1203+00
1204+00
1205+00
1206+00
1207+00
1208+00
1209+00
1210+00
1211+00
1212+00
1213+00
1214+00
1215+00
1216+00
1217+00
1218+00
1219+00
1220+00
1221+00
1222+00
1223+00
1224+00
1225+00
1226+00
1227+00
1228+00
1 2 2 9 +00
1 2 3 0 +00
1 2 3 1 +00
1232+00
1233+00
1234+00
1235+00
1237+00
1238+00
1239+00
1240+00
1241+00
1242+00
1 2 4 3 +00
1244+00
1245+00
1246+00
1247+00
1248+00
1249+00
1250+00
1251+00
1 2 5 2 +00
1253+00
1254+00
1255+00
1256+00
1257+00
1258+00
1259+00
1260+00
1 2 6 1 +00
1262+00
1263+00
1264+00
1265+00
1266+00
1267+00
1268+00
1269+00
1 2 7 0 +00
1271+00
1272+00
1273+00
1274+00
1275+00
3201+00
3202+00
3203+00
3204+00
3205+00
3206+00
3207+00
3208+00
3209+00
3210+00
3211+00
3212+00
3213+00
3214+00
3215+00
3216+00
3217+00
3218+00
3219+00
3220+00
3221+00
3222+00
3223+00
3224+00
3225+00
3 2 2 6 +00
3 2 2 7 +00
3 2 2 8 +00
3 2 2 9 +00
3 2 3 0 +00
3231+00
3232+00
3233+00
3234+00
3235+00
3236+00
3237+00
3238+00
3239+00
3240+00
3241+00
3 2 4 2 +00
3243+00
3244+00
3245+00
3246+00
3247+00
3248+00
3249+00
3250+00
3251+00
3 2 5 2 +00
3253+00
3254+00
3255+00
3256+00
3257+00
3258+00
3259+00
3260+00
3261+00
3262+00
3263+00
3264+00
3265+00
3266+00
3267+00
3268+00
3 2 6 9 +00
3270+00
3271+00
3272+00
3273+00
3274+00
3275+00
2200+00
2201+00
2202+00
2203+00
2204+00
2205+00
2206+00
2207+00
2208+00
2209+00
2210+00
2211+00
2212+00
2213+00
2214+00
2215+00
2216+00
2217+00
2218+00
2219+00
2220+00
2221+00
2222+00
2223+00
2224+00
2225+00
2226+00
2227+00
2228+00
2 2 2 9 +00
2 2 3 0 +00
2 2 3 1 +00
2 2 3 2 +00
2233+00
2234+00
2235+00
2236+00
2237+00
2238+00
2239+00
2240+00
2241+00
2242+00
2 2 4 3 +00
2244+00
2245+00
2246+00
2247+00
2248+00
2249+00
2250+00
2251+00
2252+00
2 2 5 3 +00
2254+00
2255+00
2256+00
2257+00
2258+00
2259+00
2260+00
2 2 6 1 +00
2262+00
2263+00
2264+00
2265+00
2266+00
2267+00
2268+00
2269+00
2 2 7 0 +00
2271+00
2272+00
2273+00
2274+00
2275+00
1301+00
1302+00
1303+00
1304+00
1305+00
1306+00
1 3 0 7 +00
1 3 0 8 +00
1309+00
1310+00
2301+00
2302+00
2303+00
2304+00
2305+00
2306+00
2 3 0 7 +00
2 3 0 8 +00
2 3 0 9 +00
2310+00
3301+00
3302+00
3303+00
3304+00
3305+00
3 3 0 6 +00
3 3 0 7 +00
3308+00
3309+00
3310+00
PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATION
G O LDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION
!(
!(
!(!(
Glenwood
Olso n Memorial
Ol so n M em orial
P e n n
W
est Broad
w
ay
G i r a r dGolden Valley
Glenwood
X e r x e s
T h e o d o r e
W i r t h
WestBroadway
F
F
55
1-Mile
k
k
kGeneral
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
3 0 0 0 +00
3 0 0 1 +00
3002+00
3003+00
3004+00
3005+00
3006+00
3007+00
3008+00
3009+00
3010+00
3011+00
3012+00
1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+00
1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00
1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00
1066+00
1067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00
1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00
1083+00
1084+001085+00
1086+00
1087+00
1088+001089+00
1090+00
1
0
9
1
+
0
0
1
0
9
2
+
0
0
1093+001094+00
1095+00
1096+00
1097+00
1 0 9 8 +00
1 0 9 9 +00
1100+00
1101+00
1102+00
1103+00
1104+00
1105+00
1106+00
1107+00
1108+00
1109+00
1131+83
2040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+00
2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00
2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00
2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00
2083+00
2084+002085+00
2086+00
2087+00
2088+002089+00
2090+00
2091+00
2
0
9
2
+
0
0
2093+002094+00
2095+00
2096+00
2097+00
2 0 9 8 +00
2 0 9 9 +00
2100+00
2101+00
2102+00
2103+00
2104+00
2105+00
2106+00
2107+00
2108+00
2109+00
1201+00
1 2 0 2 +00
1 2 0 3 +00
1204+00
1205+00
1206+00
1207+00
1208+00
1209+00
1210+00
1211+00
1212+00
1213+00
1214+00
1215+00
1216+00
1217+00
1218+00
1219+00
1220+00
1221+00
1222+00
1223+00
1224+00
1225+00
1226+00
1227+00
1228+00
1229+00
1230+00
1231+00
1232+00
1233+00
1234+00
1235+00
1237+00
1238+00
1 2 3 9 +00
1240+00
1241+00
1242+00
1243+00
1244+00
1245+00
1246+00
1247+00
1248+00
1 2 4 9 +00
1250+00
1251+00
1252+00
1253+00
1254+00
1255+00
1256+00
1257+00
1 2 5 8 +00
1259+00
1260+00
1261+00
1262+00
1263+00
1264+00
1265+00
1266+00
1 2 6 7 +00
1268+00
1269+00
1270+00
1271+00
1272+00
1273+00
1274+00
1 2 7 5 +00
3 2 0 1 +00
3202+00
3203+00
3204+00
3205+00
3206+00
3207+00
3208+00
3209+00
3210+00
3211+00
3212+00
3213+00
3214+00
3215+00
3216+00
3217+00
3218+00
3219+00
3220+00
3221+00
3222+00
3223+00
3224+00
3225+00
3226+00
3227+00
3228+00
3229+00
3230+00
3231+00
3232+00
3233+00
3234+00
3235+00
3236+00
3237+00
3 2 3 8 +00
3239+00
3240+00
3241+00
3242+00
3243+00
3244+00
3245+00
3246+00
3247+00
3 2 4 8 +00
3249+00
3250+00
3251+00
3252+00
3253+00
3254+00
3255+00
3256+00
3 2 5 7 +00
3258+00
3259+00
3260+00
3261+00
3262+00
3263+00
3264+00
3265+00
3 2 6 6 +00
3267+00
3268+00
3269+00
3270+00
3271+00
3272+00
3273+00
3 2 7 4 +00
3 2 7 5 +00
2200+00
2201+00
2 2 0 2 +00
2 2 0 3 +00
2204+00
2205+00
2206+00
2207+00
2208+00
2209+00
2210+00
2211+00
2212+00
2213+00
2214+00
2215+00
2216+00
2217+00
2218+00
2219+00
2220+00
2221+00
2222+00
2223+00
2224+00
2225+00
2226+00
2227+00
2228+00
2229+00
2230+00
2231+00
2232+00
2233+00
2234+00
2235+00
2236+00
2237+00
2238+00
2 2 3 9 +00
2240+00
2241+00
2242+00
2243+00
2244+00
2245+00
2246+00
2247+00
2248+00
2 2 4 9 +00
2 2 5 0 +00
2251+00
2252+00
2253+00
2254+00
2255+00
2256+00
2257+00
2 2 5 8 +00
2259+00
2260+00
2261+00
2262+00
2263+00
2264+00
2265+00
2266+00
2 2 6 7 +00
2268+00
2269+00
2270+00
2271+00
2272+00
2273+00
2274+00
2 2 7 5 +00
1301+00
1302+00
1303+00
1304+00
1305+00
1306+00
1307+00
1308+00
1309+00
1310+00
2 3 0 1 +00
2302+00
2303+00
2304+00
2305+00
2306+00
2307+00
2308+00
2309+00
2310+00
3301+00
3302+00
3303+00
3304+00
3305+00
3306+00
3307+00
3308+00
3309+00
3310+00
PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATION
GOLDEN VALLEY R OAD STATION
!(
!(
!(!(
Glenwood
Olson Memorial
Olson M em orial
P e n n
W
est Broad
w
ay
G i r a r dGolden Valley
Glenwood
X e r x e s
T h e o d o r e
W i r t h
WestBroadway
F
F
1-Mile
k
k
k55Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
Station Area Plan
• Maintain current residential character. Minimal
redevelopment opportunities. Potential to infill
on numerous vacant lots throughout station area.
Housing Demand through 2040
• <100 units
New Housing Types Needed
Small-scale infill development on
small urban lots, such as:
• Accessory dwelling units (ADUs)
• Townhomes
• Small multifamily properties (<5 units)
Map 17: Plymouth Avenue – Multifamily Properties Map 18: Plymouth Avenue – Senior Properties
STATISTIC PLYMOUTH
AVE
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 3,921 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,264 490,196
Median Age1,2 33.3 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 28%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 12%12%
Average Household Size1,2 2.9 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 0.92 0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $53,189 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 66.5%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 37.4%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 23.6%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 75.3%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 46.4%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,352 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 7.4%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 5.0%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 2.5%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 84.9%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1949 1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1938 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $173,000 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $658 $1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $777 $1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $998 $1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
1/2-Mile 1/2-Mile
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works80
Housing Gaps Analysis
Due its proximity to Theodore Wirth Park and its prevalence of detached, single-family homes, the
Plymouth Avenue station area is not envisioned to change significantly through redevelopment in the
coming years. Therefore, addressing its housing gaps will not be achieved through significant, large-
scale development. Instead, infill on small sites consisting mostly of vacant single-family lots will be the
primary method of addressing housing gaps.
In recent years, portions of the station area have seen a fair amount of infill development on vacant lots
due to a tornado that severely damaged many homes in this area. Based on interviews with community
stakeholders, one of the concerns that emerged out of this rush to rebuild was the quality of the newly
built housing stock. The stock of single-family homes in the station area is generally priced below the
County median. Therefore, to help prevent further erosion of market pricing in this area, it would be
important to have policies in place that ensure a higher standard in the quality of the construction.
Although new, large-scale development is not likely in this station area, one possibility that would
help create new housing is to promote accessory dwelling units, which are already allowed under
Minneapolis’s zoning code. Many of the blocks in the station area have alleys, which are ideal for
accommodating accessory dwelling units. These units could either support extended families living
together or be rented to boarders, which would help homeowners stay in their homes by providing a
source of income to help cover housing costs.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 81
Penn Avenue
3000+00
3001+00
3002+00
3003+00
3004+00
3005+00
3006+00
3 0 0 7 +00
3 0 0 8 +00
3009+00
3010+00
3011+00
3012+00
1012+001013+001014+001015+001016+001017+001018+001019+001020+001021+001022+001023+001024+001025+001026+001027+001028+001029+001030+001031+001032+001033+001034+001035+001036+001037+001038+001039+00
1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+00
1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+00
1062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+00
1077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00
1083+00
1084+001085+00
1086+00
1087+00
1088+001089+00
1090+00
1091+00
1092+001093+00
1094+00
1095+00
1096+00
1097+00
1098+00
1099+00
1100+00
1101+00
1102+00
1103+00
1 1 0 4 +00
1 1 0 5 +00
1106+00
1107+00
1108+00
1109+00
1131+83
2012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+002023+002024+002025+002026+002027+002028+002029+002030+00
2031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+00
2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+00
2062+002063+002064+002065+002066+00
2067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00
2083+00
2084+002085+00
2086+00
2087+00
2088+002089+00
2090+00
2091+00
2092+002093+00
2094+00
2095+00
2096+00
2097+00
2098+00
2099+00
2100+00
2101+00
2102+00
2103+00
2104+00
2 1 0 5 +00
2106+00
2107+00
2108+00
2109+00
1201+00
1202+00
1203+00
1204+00
1205+00
1206+00
1207+00
1208+00
1209+00
1210+00
1211+00
1212+00
1213+00
1214+00
1215+00
1216+00
1217+00
1218+00
1219+00
1220+00
1221+00
1222+00
1223+00
1224+00
1225+00
1226+00
1227+00
1228+00
1229+00
1230+00
1 2 3 1 +00
1 2 3 2 +00
1 2 3 3 +00
1234+00
1235+00
1237+00
1238+00
1239+00
1240+00
1241+00
1242+00
1243+00
1 2 4 4 +00
1245+00
1246+00
1247+00
1248+00
1249+00
1250+00
1251+00
1252+00
1 2 5 3 +00
1254+00
1255+00
1256+00
3201+00
3202+00
3203+00
3204+00
3205+00
3206+00
3207+00
3208+00
3209+00
3210+00
3211+00
3212+00
3213+00
3214+00
3215+00
3216+00
3217+00
3218+00
3219+00
3220+00
3221+00
3222+00
3223+00
3224+00
3225+00
3226+00
3227+00
3228+00
3229+00
3 2 3 0 +00
3 2 3 1 +00
3 2 3 2 +00
3233+00
3234+00
3235+00
3236+00
3237+00
3238+00
3239+00
3240+00
3241+00
3242+00
3 2 4 3 +00
3244+00
3245+00
3246+00
3247+00
3248+00
3249+00
3250+00
3251+00
3252+00
3 2 5 3 +00
3254+00
3255+00
3256+00
2200+00
2201+00
2202+00
2203+00
2204+00
2205+00
2206+00
2207+00
2208+00
2209+00
2210+00
2211+00
2212+00
2213+00
2214+00
2215+00
2216+00
2217+00
2218+00
2219+00
2220+00
2221+00
2222+00
2223+00
2224+00
2225+00
2226+00
2227+00
2228+00
2229+00
2230+00
2231+00
2 2 3 2 +00
2 2 3 3 +00
2234+00
2235+00
2236+00
2237+00
2238+00
2239+00
2240+00
2241+00
2242+00
2243+00
2 2 4 4 +00
2245+00
2246+00
2247+00
2248+00
2249+00
2250+00
2251+00
2252+0
0
2253+00
2 2 5 4 +00
2255+00
2256+00
PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATION
GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION
!(
!(
!(!(
Glenwood
3 9 4394
O ls o n MemorialOlson Memorial
P e n n
WestBroadway
P e n n
West Broadway
G i r a r dGolden Valley
E
a
s
t
L
y
n
d
a
l
e
Dunwoody
Dunwoody
L a k e s i d e
X e r x e s 9 4
9 4
9
4
E
a
s
t
L
y
n
d
a
l
e
F
F
1-Mile
k55
k
k
k
94
394
General
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
3000+00
3001+00
3002+00
3 0 0 3 +00
3 0 0 4 +00
3005+00
3006+00
3007+00
3008+00
3009+00
3010+00
3011+00
3012+00
1012+001013+001014+001015+001016+001017+001018+001019+001020+001021+001022+001023+001024+001025+001026+001027+001028+001029+001030+001031+001032+001033+001034+001035+001036+001037+001038+001039+00
1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+00
1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+00
1062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+00
1077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00
1083+00
1084+001085+00
1086+00
1087+00
1088+001089+00
1090+00
1091+00
1092+001093+00
1094+00
1095+00
1096+00
1097+00
1098+00
1099+00
1100+00
1 1 0 1 +00
1 1 0 2 +00
1103+00
1104+00
1105+00
1106+00
1107+00
1108+00
1109+00
1131+83
2012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+002023+002024+002025+002026+002027+002028+002029+002030+00
2031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+00
2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+00
2062+002063+002064+002065+002066+00
2067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00
2083+00
2084+002085+00
2086+00
2087+00
2088+002089+00
2090+00
2091+00
2092+002093+00
2094+00
2095+00
2096+00
2097+00
2098+00
2099+00
2100+00
2 1 0 1 +00
2 1 0 2 +00
2103+00
2104+00
2105+00
2106+00
2107+00
2108+00
2109+00
1201+00
1202+00
1203+00
1204+00
1205+00
1206+00
1 2 0 7 +00
1 2 0 8 +00
1 2 0 9 +00
1210+00
1211+00
1212+00
1213+00
1214+00
1215+00
1216+00
1217+00
1218+00
1219+00
1220+00
1221+00
1222+00
1223+00
1224+00
1225+00
1226+00
1227+00
1228+00
1229+00
1230+00
1231+00
1232+00
1233+00
1234+00
1235+00
1237+00
1238+00
1239+00
1240+00
1 2 4 1 +00
1 2 4 2 +00
1243+00
1244+00
1245+00
1246+00
1247+00
1248+00
1249+00
1250+00
1 2 5 1 +00
1252+00
1253+00
1254+00
1255+00
1256+00
3201+00
3202+00
3203+00
3204+00
3 2 0 5 +00
3 2 0 6 +00
3207+00
3208+00
3209+00
3210+00
3211+00
3212+00
3213+00
3214+00
3215+00
3216+00
3217+00
3218+00
3219+00
3220+00
3221+00
3222+00
3223+00
3224+00
3225+00
3226+00
3227+00
3228+00
3229+00
3230+00
3231+00
3232+00
3233+00
3234+00
3235+00
3236+00
3237+00
3238+00
3239+00
3 2 4 0 +00
3 2 4 1 +00
3242+00
3243+00
3244+00
3245+00
3246+00
3247+00
3248+00
3249+00
3 2 5 0 +00
3251+00
3252+00
3253+00
3254+00
3255+00
3256+00
2200+00
2201+00
2202+00
2203+00
2204+00
2205+00
2206+00
2207+00
2208+00
2209+00
2 2 1 0 +00
2 2 1 1 +00
2212+00
2213+00
2214+00
2215+00
2216+00
2217+00
2218+00
2 2 1 9 +00
2 2 2 0 +00
2221+00
2222+00
2223+00
2224+00
2225+00
2226+00
2227+00
2228+00
2229+00
2230+00
2231+00
2232+00
2233+00
2234+00
2235+00
2236+00
2237+00
2238+00
2239+00
2240+00
2 2 4 1 +00
2 2 4 2 +00
2243+00
2244+00
2245+00
2246+00
2247+00
2248+00
2249+00
2250+00
2251+00
2 2 5 2 +00
2253+00
2254+00
2255+00
2256+00
PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE W IRTH PARK STATION
G O LDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION
!(
!(
!(!(
Glenwood
3 9 4394
Olso n MemorialOlson Memorial
P e n n
WestBroadway
P e n n
West Broadway
G i r a r dGolden Valley
E
a
s
t
L
y
n
d
a
l
e
Dunwoody
Dunwoody
L a k e s i d e
X e r x e s 9 4
9 4
9
4
E
a
s
t
L
y
n
d
a
l
e
F
F
1-Mile
k55
k
k
k
94
394
Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
Station Area Plan
• Primarily maintain residential character of
existing neighborhoods. Intersection of Penn and
Highway 55 is envisioned to have higher density
(up to 5 stories) in order to anchor the station
and provide a mixture of commercial and higher
density residential.
Housing Demand through 2040
• 200-400 units
New Housing Types Needed
• Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both
market rate and affordable units)
• Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50%
AMI; 51%-80% AMI)
• Senior housing (market rate and affordable)
1/2-Mile 1/2-Mile
Map 19: Penn Avenue – Multifamily Properties Map 20: Penn Avenue – Senior Properties
STATISTIC PENN
AVE
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 6,246 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,986 490,196
Median Age1,2 29 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger 1,2 31%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 9%12%
Average Household Size1,2 2.7 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 1.12 0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $32,276 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 39.6%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 40.5%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 28.8%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 80.7%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 54.4%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 2,290 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 17.5%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 26.2%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 7.5%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 48.6%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1937 1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1933 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $186,300 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $807 $1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $946 $1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 --$1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works82
Housing Gaps Analysis
The Penn Avenue station area has the highest population and number of households of any station area
along the Bottineau Corridor. This is attributable to the overwhelmingly residential character of the
station area and its mix of all types of housing from single-family homes to small multifamily properties
to large multifamily properties.
Housing cost burden is significant in the station area despite lower overall costs for housing. Due
to the station area’s proximity to downtown and Theodore Wirth Park, the area is highly susceptible
displacement of existing households due to rapidly rising prices for housing. Based on interviews
with community stakeholders, there already is strong evidence of rising prices and concerns over
displacement. Therefore, any new housing development should be seen as an opportunity to help retain
existing residents. Mixed-income rental apartments is an obvious strategy. Per the station area plan,
these could be located closest to the station. Other strategies could include helping existing households
that rent their housing to access homeownership before pricing becomes too unobtainable.
Given the rich diversity of housing options already in place, promoting accessory dwelling units may be
a low impact path to maintaining affordability and helping existing residents remain in the community
(also see discussion under Plymouth Avenue station area). Other possibilities to be explored may be
co-housing arrangements. These are not common in the United States, but have been proven to help
housing affordability issues in areas of rapid price increases in Europe.
The Penn Avenue station area has a lot of older housing stock, which can often be difficult for older
residents to safely age-in-place. New senior housing options, or at least properties developed with
principles of Universal Design, which allow persons of varying physical abilities to live safely and
comfortably, should be considered for the station area.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 83
Van White Boulevard
3000+00
3 0 0 1 +00
3 0 0 2 +00
3003+00
3004+00
3005+00
1005+291006+00
1007+00
1008+00
1009+00
1010+001011+001012+001013+001014+001015+001016+001017+001018+001019+001020+001021+00
1022+001023+001024+001025+00
1026+001027+001028+001029+001030+001031+001032+001033+001034+001035+001036+001037+001038+001039+00
1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+00
1054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00
1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00
1066+001067+00
1068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00
1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00
1083+001084+00
1085+00
1086+00
1087+001088+00
1089+00
1090+00
1091+001092+00
1093+00
1094+00
1095+00
1096+00
1097+00
1098+00
1 0 9 9 +00
1 1 0 0 +00
1101+00
1102+00
1103+00
2000+0
0
2001+0
0
2002+002003+002004+00
2005+002006+002007+00
2008+00
2009+00
2010+002011+002012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+00
2023+002024+002025+00
2026+002027+002028+002029+00
2030+002031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+00
2055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00
2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00
2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00
2083+002084+00
2085+00
2086+00
2087+002088+00
2089+00
2090+00
2091+002092+00
2093+00
2094+00
2095+00
2096+00
2097+00
2098+00
2 0 9 9 +00
2 1 0 0 +00
2101+00
2102+00
2103+00
!(
!(!(
Glenwood
Glenwood
P e n n
9
4
7th
West Broadway
7th
3 9 4
3 9 4
R i v e r
Olson Memorial
Olson Mem orial
West Broadway
Glenwood
W
estBroadway
P e n n
G i r a r dGolden Valley
E
a
s
t
L
y
n
d
a
l
e
Dunwoody
Dunwoody
N i c o l l e t
L a k e s i d e
2 n d 2 n d
Broadway
W
a
shin
gto
n
9
4
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
E
a
s
t
L
y
n
d
a
l
e
F
F
1-Mile
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
94
394
55 k
General
Occupancy
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
k 3000+00
3001+00
3 0 0 2 +00
3003+00
3004+00
3005+00
1005+291006+00
1007+00
1008+00
1009+0
0
1010+001011+001012+001013+001014+001015+001016+001017+001018+001019+001020+001021+00
1022+001023+001024+001025+00
1026+001027+001028+001029+001030+001031+001032+001033+001034+001035+001036+001037+001038+001039+00
1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+00
1054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00
1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00
1066+001067+00
1068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00
1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00
1083+001084+00
1085+00
1086+00
1087+001088+00
1089+00
1090+00
1091+001092+00
1093+00
1094+00
1095+00
1096+00
1097+00
1098+00
1 0 9 9 +00
1 1 0 0 +00
1101+00
1102+00
1103+00
2000+00
2001+00
2002+0
0
2003+002004+00
2005+002006+002007+00
2008+00
2009+0
0
2010+002011+002012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+00
2023+002024+002025+00
2026+002027+002028+002029+00
2030+002031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+00
2055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00
2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00
2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00
2083+002084+00
2085+00
2086+00
2087+002088+00
2089+00
2090+00
2091+002092+00
2093+00
2094+0
0
2095+00
2096+00
2097+00
2098+00
2 0 9 9 +00
2 1 0 0 +00
2101+00
2102+00
2103+00
!(
!(!(
Glenwood
Glenwood
P e n n
9
4
7th
West Broadway
7th
3 9 4
3 9 4
R i v e r
Olson Memorial
Olson Memorial
West Broadway
Glenwood
W
estBroadway
P e n n
G i r a r dGolden Valley
E
a
s
t
L
y
n
d
a
l
e
Dunwoody
Dunwoody
N i c o l l e t
L a k e s i d e
2 n d 2 n d
Broadway
W
as
hin
gto
n
9
4
W
a
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
E
a
s
t
L
y
n
d
a
l
e
F
F
1-Mile
k
94
394
55
Source: MNGEO, Hennepin
County, Perkins+Will, Tangible
Consulting Services
k
Senior/
Disabled
Market
Affordable
Subsidized
<5050-100 101-200 200+
Number of Units
Station Area Plan
• Intensify land uses within 1-3 blocks of the
station. Strong vision for TOD in this area
with 5+ story buildings. Primary land uses
would be residential with some commercial
at the street level.
Housing Demand through 2040
• >500 units
Housing Types
• Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive
of both market rate and affordable units)
• Owner-occupied townhomes (multiple price
points)
• Multi-story condominiums (multiple price
points)
Map 21: Van White Boulevard – Multifamily Properties Map 22: Van White Boulevard Senior Properties
STATISTIC VAN WHITE
BLVD
HENNEPIN
COUNTY
Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 4,899 1,197,776
Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,828 490,196
Median Age1,2 26.7 36.1
Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 36%25%
Population Age 65 and Older1,2 8%12%
Average Household Size1,2 2.6 2.4
Persons per Bedroom1,2 1.14 0.92
Median Household Income1,2 $20,186 $65,834
Homeownership Rate1,2 18.2%49.0%
Households with Children1,2 47.4%28.0%
Single-Person Households1,2 34.5%33.0%
Persons of Color1,2 84.1%26.0%
Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 56.7%36.2%
Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,857 518,332
Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 63.5%29.9%
Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 11.3%5.8%
Townhome Units1,2 10.1%8.7%
Single-Family Units1,2 15.1%55.3%
Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1978 1973
Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1937 1958
Median Home Sales Price4 $260,000 $264,000
Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $794 $1,105
Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $977 $1,427
Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 --$1,819
1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate
2 Esri
3 CoStar
4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service
5 Hennepin County Assessor
6 Tangible Consulting Services
7 Perkins+Will
1/2-Mile 1/2-Mile
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works84
Housing Gaps Analysis
The Van White station area has the largest concentration of income-restricted housing along the
Corridor. Therefore, it is somewhat well positioned to preserve critical affordable housing when
inevitable price increases begin the happen. The station area is too close to downtown Minneapolis to
not be impacted by gentrification.
Although most of the income-restricted housing is preserved through the next 20 years, it will still be
important to maintain these funding sources or find other strategies for preserving affordable housing.
The station area plan envisions a significant amount of new, higher density housing. Making sure new
development has a mixture of income requirements will be an important strategy for ensuring the
station area will retain current residents.
Owner-occupied housing is limited in the station area. Therefore, by encouraging certain types of
owner-occupied product this will help diversify the housing stock and provide opportunities for
some households to access ownership who currently are not able to do so. Smaller unit types often
found in townhomes and multifamily condominiums can often be source of more affordably priced
owner-occupied housing. At the station area’s periphery there have been examples of new multifamily
condominium development in recent years. Thus, it is likely that when the LRT becomes operational
the demand for this type of housing may increase.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 85
APPENDICES
Community Stakeholder Interview Notes
African Career, Education and Resources Inc. (ACER)
Attending: Nelima Sitati Munene (ACER Inc.), Dan Edgerton (Zan), Faith Xiong (Zan)
1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor? Identifying specific
populations, geographies and station areas, if possible.
Organization and Background
»African Career, Education, and Resource Inc. (ACER) is a grassroots
organization. The mission of the organization is to create equitable
communities by addressing health, education, housing, and community
inequality.
»Geographies and Population
»ACER serves communities in the northwest suburbs (Brooklyn
Center, Brooklyn Park, New Hope, Robbinsdale, and Crystal), and the
communities ACER works with are primarily African-American and
immigrant communities.
»Immigrant communities includes both West African and East African
(i.e., Somali, Uganda, Kenya, etc.). ACER also partner and work with
other communities including the Latino community and Southeast Asian
communities.
Organization Projects/Programs
»Some of the projects ACER are working on focus around housing justice,
immigration, transportation equity, and health equity.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works86
2. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is
most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type”
of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes
vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes
affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older
adults or persons with disabilities; etc.
»There is a lot of apartment housing and single-family rental. Most of
the housing units tend to be old rentals and are “unhealthy housing.”
Statistically there are a lot of affordable housing units, but they are really
not affordable to the populations served by ACER. People are spending
over 50% of their income on rent alone for both apartment and single-
family housing and are therefore “housing cost burdened.”
»Rental units are often small, 1-2 bedroom units. Eden Park and Park
Haven are the two largest apartment rentals in the area. There are a few
3-bedroom apartments located at Park Haven. The rental units tend to be
small for the families ACER serves.
»It is not uncommon for a 1-bedroom unit to house a family of four
people, a 2-bedroom unit can house six people, and a 3-bedroom unit
can house larger families, however, there are very few 3-bedroom or larger
units (mostly at Park Haven).
»We need healthier housing, more affordable housing and more
opportunities for homeownership/homeownership strategies. For
example, the City of Brooklyn Park is among the cities with the highest
level of homeownership in the metro, but also has the second highest
racial disparity in homeownership.
»Healthier housing means better-maintained housing. For example, the
existing housing doesn’t have adequate lighting (indoor or outdoor),
often has roof leakage, and there is not enough security at Park Haven
and Eden Park Apartments. The doors to the apartment complexes
are not secure, and sometimes there are people who don’t live in the
apartments loitering inside the apartment complexes. There is also a lack
of management.
»Many apartments are old and dirty with bad refrigerators/other
appliances that can cause food poisoning. The playgrounds are not well
kept, which is an unhealthy environment for kids.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 87
3. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing?
For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers.
»Available and adequate housing in the community does not exist. There
are also discriminatory practices in housing, such as landlords refusing
to accept Section 8 housing vouchers. The application screening is also
discriminatory. People with immigrant status can’t get housing or will
have to pay more if they don’t have a social security card.
»Another barrier is having large families in small housing units, as the
kind of housing needed (i.e., 3+ bedroom units) in these neighborhoods
is not available.
4. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that
are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/
format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with
disabilities; other design issues.
»See answers to questions #1, #2 and # 3.
5. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there
neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit;
too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc.
»Park Haven Apartment is not a senior apartment, but there are a lot of
seniors/elderly African population that live there. Access to transit, such
as buses, is limited, and while it is within walking distance of a grocery
store (i.e., Cub is approximately one-half mile), it is difficult for seniors
carry more than two bags of grocery for that distance.
»Another barrier is the application process for affordable housing. There
are a lot of people that lack credit and some places require a credit check.
Currently there are no policy strategies to address issue of displacement
and gentrification.
»Data is outdated, and existing trend analysis alone is not enough to
address the issue of displacement and gentrification as well as racially
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works88
concentrated areas of poverty. We need analyses to forecast the supply of
housing (and affordable housing, considering the gentrification likely to
occur) into the future.
»At the policy level, no one is talking about gentrification and affordable
housing, and there is no action being taken to address the question:
“Why are they poor”. We need to get to the root cause of the issue. We
need to consider a private and public partnership strategy.
»City policies and practices are also a barrier. For example, there is a
monthly landlord crime and safety meeting. At these meetings they
will look at a 911 call catalog, and if there are a lot of calls at a given
complex, they assume it is a high crime area. But they never really look
at the root cause. At Park Haven, there are a lot of seniors, and the high
volume of 911 calls could be for medical purposes rather than a crime
prevention concern.
»There are intentional restrictions and discriminatory practices, such as
parking restrictions to restrict certain types of people from accessing
housing.
6. Other issues
»Displacement and gentrification are a concern. There are currently no
policies in place to prevent displacement. For example, ACER lost a
senior housing complex in New Hope and seniors are being displaced. In
Brooklyn Park, ACER almost lost a senior housing complex, but because
of community action Aeon got involved and purchased the complex.
Across the metro, we are losing 100 units every week, and this may not
include some of the smaller buildings which are often not counted.
»No analysis has been done to look at displacement and dealing with
affordable housing.
»The Hennepin County preliminary study (affordable housing study)
assumes that people are choosing to rent rather than buy houses. This is a
false assumption; people just can’t afford to buy houses.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 89
La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles
Attending: Sebastián Rivera (La Asamblea) Dan Edgerton (Zan), Faith Xiong (Zan)
1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor?
Identifying specific populations, geographies and station areas, if possible.
Organization and Background
»La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles is a faith-based organization that started
19 years ago with its core work focusing on social justice ministry and
immigration issues. The organization was first established in Minneapolis.
Today La Asamblea has several congregations located in Minneapolis,
Brooklyn Park and St. Cloud.
Geographies and Population
»La Asamblea primarily serves undocumented populations: Latino,
African, and Southeast Asian immigrants. Most of their work is focused
on immigrant families living in apartments and mobile homes.
Organization Projects/Programs
»La Asamblea projects and programs seek to identify social justice for
immigrant families.
»La Asamblea and ACER are partner organizations working on housing
and economic development efforts in both the Latino and East
African communities – emphasizing that both Latino and East African
communities are experiencing similar issues.
»In Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, La Asamblea’s core work focuses
on ensuring that immigrant communities thrive while still living in the
shadow. With this focus, the organization provides services in housing
and economic development, education on civil rights and immigrant
rights, and education on landlord-tenant rights.
»Some of the areas most impacted by inequality and injustice are
the Grove Apartments, Park Haven Apartments, and Autumn
Ridge Apartments.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works90
Grove Apartments have a large population of Latino, Liberian, Somali,
Vietnamese and Hmong population. This apartment complex has been
targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) many times,
and a lot of breadwinners have been taken.
Park Haven Apartments have a huge senior African community.
Autumn Ridge Apartments was the first building to be focused on when
the Blue Line LRT was being studied and planned. There are 970+ units,
and many of these units were infested with bedbugs, rats and mice. The
apartments primarily house African and African-American families who
are on Section 8 vouchers. La Asamblea’s role was to ensure the city
provided code enforcement, which the city is currently working on. La
Asamblea notices that as the Blue Line LRT is coming in, rent is also
going up.
»The organization also work towards minimizing the gap between the
community and the cities. To do this, the organization educates the
community about available resources and create various opportunities
for cities to connect with the community. One example of this work is
the creation of the Civil Rights Blue Print put together for the City of
Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park by La Asamblea and ACER. In the
process of designing the Civil Rights Blue Print, the organizations were
able to engage the community, and connect community members with
elected officials.
»The blue print was created to help cities create policies that reflect the
communities they serve. Under this blue print, La Asamblea and other
organizations are working to get buy-ins from the cities for the following
policies:
• Just Clause Eviction
• Section 8 Protection
• Inclusionary Housing
• Right of First Refusal Clause
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 91
2. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is
most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type”
of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes
vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes
affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older
adults or persons with disabilities; etc.
»South of Brooklyn Park, there are more single-family homes and some
duplexes. After the 2008 housing crash, bigger homes were transformed
into duplexes and multi-family housing.
»There is an abundance of older housing stock (mid-70s and mid-80s).
These homes are affordable, but are in bad conditions – emphasizing that
conditions are inhumane.
»South of Crystal and Brooklyn Park, there are a few 15-20-unit housing
renting out units at $1000-$1200/month. These are harder to find, but
are easier to get into because of the high turnover rate.
»Compared to Robbinsdale and Crystal, Brooklyn Park has larger
apartment complexes.
»La Asamblea emphasizes the need for more multi-family housing
with more than 2-bedrooms. A 2-bedroom unit does not suffice for
the communities they serve, particularly Latino and Southeast Asian
communities, who often have larger households.
»While some cities have first time homeowner resources, there is a great
need here for homeownership resources and opportunities.
»Park Haven has a few 3-bedroom units, all located on the top floor. Most
of these larger units often house families with younger children, which is
inconvenient for seniors.
»Bigger housing tends to be more expensive, especially in Crystal,
Robbinsdale, New Hope, and anywhere along the Blue Line LRT. There
is not a chance for affordable housing along the Blue Line LRT.
»There are some affordable starter homes in Robbinsdale.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works92
3. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing?
For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers.
»Parking ordinances are a barrier. While the shift in parking time makes it
easier for snow plowing, it gets difficult when residents’ vehicles are being
towed.
»The assumption that everyone has a car is a false assumption.
»Lack of sidewalk connections make it difficult for seniors to walk in the
middle of winter. There is also a lack of sidewalk connection from the
neighborhood area to the busy intersection.
»The Blue Line LRT corridor’s busy intersection discourages people
from walking.
»There are no bike lanes.
»Gentrification is a barrier to accessing housing. There is a huge influx
of immigrant and people of color (Hmong, Vietnamese, Liberian, etc.),
and there is an old mentality of keeping the suburb the way it should be.
However, this new form of gentrification is problematic because it pushes
more people into the suburbs without any resources.
»Discriminatory practices are also barriers to accessing housing.
Undocumented immigrants usually pay $75 to $100 more in fees and
rent than any other tenants. Landlords are now asking for car insurance
to get a parking space, which targets undocumented immigrants. Often
the extra money, advocated with the help of La Asamblea, is used to pay
for towing fees and not rental fees.
»Accessing information and resources on the city websites is difficult for
Spanish, Somali and Hmong speakers. It would be beneficial for cities
to send yearly and/or quarterly newsletters about available resources
provided at the city.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 93
»Identifying landlords is very difficult. When an apartment management
company changes, La Asamblea goes door-to-door letting people know
about what to expect from new management; frequently screening
criteria changes.
4. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that
are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/
format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with
disabilities; other design issues.
»See question #2
5. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there
neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit; too
much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc.
»See question #3
6. Other issues
»There is an apparent disconnect between the cities and the county.
»Hennepin County housing inventory is very helpful, and the
organization would like the cities to also know about this document. The
document is beneficial for the cities because it talks about housing cost
burden, who is impacted, and what are the housing needs in the county
and cities.
»Homelessness is rising in the suburbs. La Asamblea want the cities and
county to work together to prevent the increase of homelessness (i.e.,
loitering in the LRT) when the Blue Line LRT comes in.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works94
Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County
Attending: Christine Hart (CAP-HC) Dan Edgerton (Zan), Faith Xiong (Zan)
1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor?
Identifying specific populations, geographies and station areas, if possible.
Organization and Background
»Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County (CAP-HC) is a
service provider organization, and is the only CAP organization that
services all of Hennepin County. A few of the programs established
by the organization focus on homeownership, economic stability, and
housing stability.
Geographies and Population
»CAP-HC serves all communities along the Blue Line LRT. The
organization primarily works with low-income families at 125%-200% of
the federal poverty guideline.
Organization Projects/Programs
»CAP-HC provide energy assistantship, financial services (i.e., financial
literacy workshops, financial and employment counseling, etc.), and
housing stabilization services. The housing stabilization program provides
case management services for someone transitioning from shelter to
affordable housing.
»CAP-HC would like to increase and preserve affordable housing in
Brooklyn Park.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 95
2. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is
most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type”
of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes
vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes
affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older
adults or persons with disabilities; etc.
»There is an abundance of affordable old housing stock in Robbinsdale,
Crystal and New Hope.
»There is less than a 2% vacancy rate for affordable housing ($1,200 or
less) in the county, which is a challenge because people will move out
of the county to find affordable housing elsewhere. The vacancy rate is
nearing 0%, and if people are terminated from their current rental, they
basically have nowhere to go.
»In the current market, there are a lot of families in rental units/housing
because people can’t afford to own a home. There is also a lack of 3
or more-bedroom rentals. Frequently there are six people living in
1-2-bedroom unit housing, which gets tenants in trouble and creates an
ongoing problem for tenants. Three or more-bedroom housing is needed
across Hennepin County.
»Senior housing is also needed. The rent for the New Hope senior
apartment complex that was sold has gone up by $200. In Golden Valley,
there is a community housing team comprised of 3-4 seniors. These
seniors are looking to move out of homeownership because they can no
longer maintain their home; but they also face a challenge with finding
affordable rental housing in the neighborhood. There is a shortage of
affordable senior housing for rent.
3. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing?
For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers.
»Low vacancy rates and discriminatory practices are barriers to accessible
housing. People with housing subsidies (i.e., Section 8 vouchers)
experience discrimination by landlords. Many landlords do not want to
work with people with housing subsidies because they don’t want to take
the extra step to fill out additional paperwork. In some cases, people with
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works96
housing subsidies are being discriminated by property managers because
of their race.
»Rent increases are also a challenge. For example, rent used to be $800/
month, now rents are going up to $1,400/month. This barrier is not only
a hurdle for accessible housing, but also impacts people’s employment
and where children are going to school.
4. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that
are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/
format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with
disabilities; other design issues.
»While there are many issues with layout and design, at the end of the
day these issues do not matter. As long as people have housing, they are
satisfied with whatever housing layout they have. Layout and design are
not a priority for many people.
»There is no tenant protection. Tenants would prefer to not complain
because of the fear of having nowhere to go if they get terminated for
complaining about small things like plumbing.
»There are four policies CAP-HC is pushing for city buy-in:
• Just cost eviction or non-renewal
-Landlords cannot terminate tenants unless there is a
just cause.
• Section 8 ordinances
-Whether or not rent is being paid through housing
subsidies, landlords cannot discriminate potential
tenants by how their rent is being paid.
-Right of First Refusal If the owner/landlord sells the
property, they need to give 90-day notice to tenants.
This allows the city or other agencies to get involved
with rehab or making the property more affordable
for the tenants.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 97
• Inclusionary Housing
-Requires any new development to contribute
a percentage of the total units as permanently
affordable housing.
-Brooklyn Park and Golden Valley both have
inclusionary housing ordinances, and the
organization is working to get other cities on board.
5. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there
neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit;
too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc.
»Walkability – having more sidewalks in neighborhood area.
»Transit – always an issue in the suburbs. Seniors rely on Metro Mobility
to get around, but this service is not enough.
»Cities should prioritize community-building opportunities. In most
cities, community building is not a priority for funding. CAP-HC
emphasized that it is in the city’s best interest to prioritize community
connection opportunities. While cities are aware of this need, there have
been no action to build capacity in moving forward with community
building in the neighborhood.
6 . Other issues
»There is a disconnect between the county and the cities; they are
not working together. The county and cities don’t really have a clear
understanding of what the other is doing.
»CAP-HC would like to have county take a stronger leadership role to
help guide cities with planning for equity.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works98
City of Lakes Community Land Trust
Attending: Staci Howritz (CLCLT), Dan Edgerton (Zan), and Faith Xiong (Zan)
1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor? Identifying specific
populations, geographies and station areas, if possible.
Organization and Background
»City of Lakes Community Land Trust is a business that focuses on
homeownership opportunities in Minneapolis. The organization’s mission
is to “create community ownership that preserves affordability and
inclusivity.”
»CLCLT began in 2002 as a non-profit organization. This year is CLCLT’s
second business year. They are projected to have 38 home closings in the
following year. On average, CLCLT,on average, closes 25-30 houses per
year, earning about $2-4 million in capital.
»CLCLT is marketed through homebuyer education courses, partnerships
and lender referrals, and by word of mouth by current homeowners.
Geographies and Population
»CLCLT serves populations with 80% or less of the median average
income. Most of the people they serve have an average median income of
5% or lower.
»53% of CLCLT homeowners are communities of color (African-
American, East African, Somali, Hmong, and Latino), and 54% of
CLCLT homeowners are single.
»CLCLT only serves the City of Minneapolis
Organization Projects/Programs
»CLCLT’s primary role is to invest in land and make it affordable for
potential homeowners to own a home on the land. While CLCLT owns
the land, the homeowner takes title of the home. Any changes to the net
worth of the home are shared between homeowner and CLCLT.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 99
»CLCLT currently has 250 homes, ranging from single-family homes to
duplexes, condos, and townhomes. The organization also has 50 resales.
While the organization mostly focuses on homeownership, they also have
rental properties near their business.
2. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is
most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type”
of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes
vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes
affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older
adults or persons with disabilities; etc.
»CLCLT needs a range of housing, however their main concern is not
about the type of housing they need, but about who gets to live in
Minneapolis.
»Minneapolis used to be against duplexes, but there is also a need for
density. CLCLT emphasizes that when thinking about filling up empty
city lots in Minneapolis, it is also important to think strategically about
the need for density.
»There is a decent stock of single-family and multi-family housing, and it
is important for the city and county to create different housing options
along LRT.
3. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing?
For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers.
»Credit is the biggest barrier for homeownership.
»There are a lot of rental properties in Minneapolis, but not enough homes
for people to own in Minneapolis. The demand for homeownership is
high, but home inventory is low.
»There is still a traditional mindset that, in order to own a home, one
must have $20,000-$30,000 for closing costs. CLCLT is modeling
homeownership, but it is still difficult.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works100
»Cultural religious policy is also a barrier to homeownership. The idea of
“owning” and “investing” in something is a difficult conversation to have
with religious and cultural communities. For example, Sharia finance
won’t allow Muslim communities to pay interest, but a conventional
mortgage with interest is recommended for owning a home.
»Land ownership has always been a barrier towards homeownership for
many of the cultural and religious communities CLCLT work with.
However, homeownership is possible within these communities when
people accept changes (i.e., Little Earth community).
4. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that
are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/
format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with
disabilities; other design issues.
»There is a need for larger family homes with 4 to 6-bedrooms.
»There is also a need for accessible and visible homes, particularly for
seniors and people with disabilities.
»CLCLT is interested in more transitional and smaller houses (1-bedroom
and smaller footprint) with less maintenance for seniors to transition
from their 3 to 4-bedroom homes.
»CLCLT is also interested in mixed-generational homes and mixed-income
homes in Minneapolis.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 101
5. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there
neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit;
too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc.
»North Minneapolis is a great place, but it also has a very bad reputation
for crime.
»97% of the people who live in Minneapolis live within a six-block
radius to transit. While there is certainly transit accessibility, there is
no accessibility to amenities (i.e., banks, grocery stores, coffee shop,
restaurant options, etc.) where people live.
»It is important to be mindful of creating an economic center where
people can live, work, and play.
6. Other issues
»CLCLT encourages the Blue Line LRT study to think creatively in the
future about landownership and community ownership opportunities.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works102
Northside Residents Redevelopment Council (NRRC)
Attending: Martine Smaller (NRRC), Gale (NRRC), Dan Edgerton (Zan), and Faith Xiong (Zan)
1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor? Identifying specific
populations, geographies and station areas, if possible.
Organization and Background
»Northside Residents Redevelopment Council is non-profit neighborhood
organization that serves both the Willard-Hay and Near North
neighborhoods in North Minneapolis. Their role as a neighborhood
organization is to empower residents to make changes in their
community.
Geographies and Population
»NRRC serves a range of communities. The residents they serve are
African-American, Hmong, Latino, and European American with a wide
range of income.
Organization Projects/Programs
»Some of the programs and services NRRC provides include block grants,
first time homebuyer loans, and reviewing/making recommendations on
development proposals.
1. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is
most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type”
of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes
vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes
affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older
adults or persons with disabilities; etc.
»There is a lot of quality housing (bricked homes) that should be preserved
and respected, and there is also an increase in housing built using poor
quality materials. The quality that housing developers are putting up does
not fit the characteristic and aesthetic of the community. These poor-
quality homes frequently, after a short period of ownership, are turned
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 103
into rental properties. When developers are putting resources in an old
narrative (social service neighborhood), the community is losing income
and the tax base that contributes to the wealth of our neighborhood.
There is a need for more relevant details.
»The definition of affordable housing is a challenge. While there is an
abundance of extremely low-income housing, there is a lack of affordable
housing for younger, talented people. Without any affordable housing
stock, the community is losing young talented people who are choosing
to live elsewhere in the city.
2. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing?
For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers.
»There are a lot of owner-occupied homes and there are also several rentals
that are owned by slum lords. There is a lack of quality rentals in the
neighborhood.
»There are a lot of entities financially dependent on the old narrative (a
community needing of social services resources), and it is not helping the
community.
»Data is also feeding the old narrative, so there is a need to collect new
data and more relevant details to support the neighborhood’s new
narrative.
»The disconnect within Hennepin County and the disconnect between
the county and the city makes it difficult for NRRC to align its
neighborhood small area plan with them.
»NRRC’s role is to gather data from residents and to share it with the city
and the county. In the future, NRRC wants to work more with the city
and the county in this aspect.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works104
3. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that
are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/
format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with
disabilities; other design issues.
»Most of the homes in the neighborhood are stucco and brick homes. New
sidings do not fit in, and we would like to see strategies for preserving the
character of neighborhood. If you look down Plymouth Avenue, there is
a mix of housing/building types which is not cohesive.
4. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there
neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit;
too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc.
»The organization expressed that zoning is the biggest problem. The
current zoning codes have not been changed since the protest and
burning of the small businesses along the corridor. Plymouth Avenue and
Penn Avenue used to be commercial corridors, similar to 50th and France
in South Minneapolis. However, when the city rezoned the neighborhood
into residential zoning, it deprived the community of the opportunity
to grow economically. There is a need for a more proactive approach to
zoning and more commercial zoning in the neighborhood.
»Zoning is also designed specifically for vehicles and not pedestrians,
which is hindering people from getting to know each other.
»Crime is not an issue, but the organization is concerned about the
potential of crime when there is an increase in pedestrian traffic outside
of walkshed.
»Many essential goods are too far for people to walk to. NRRC want more
pedestrian--friendly and walkable neighborhoods.
»NRRC expressed that the Blue Line LRT was planned without seniors in
mind. The organization would like to have more special bus services to
serve senior citizens to get to the Blue Line LRT.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 105
Redeemer Lutheran Church/Redeemer Center for Life
Attending: Pastor Kelly Chatman (Redeemer), Dan Edgerton (Zan), and Faith Xiong (Zan)
1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor? Identifying specific
populations, geographies and station areas, if possible.
Organization and Background
»Redeemer Lutheran Church/Redeemer Center for Life is a church
and non-profit organization in the Harrison Neighborhood.
There are over 4,000 people in the community, in which
39% are African American and 60% rentals in the Harrison
neighborhood.
Geographies and Population
»Harrison Neighborhood is considered near-north due to its
proximity to Downtown Minneapolis.
2. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of
housing is most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very
open ended. “Type” of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example:
rental vs. owned; townhomes vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small
homes; old homes vs new homes; homes affordable to low-income households; homes
designed for children; homes designed for older adults or persons with disabilities; etc.
»The neighborhood is primarily industrial and single-family
residential. A few of these single-family homes are Pride for
Project Living (PPL) housing projects. There is also an abundance
of single-family rentals, some apartment complexes, and vacant
lots in the neighborhood.
»There are more investors than there are foreclosures in the
community.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works106
»There is an early sign of gentrification that is changing the neighborhood
because there is a limited amount of affordable housing, which is
pressuring people to move out. There is an increase of younger people in
the community today.
»As development is coming in, rents will most likely increase. Rent control
is needed when LRT comes in.
3. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing? For example
cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers.
»The Neighborhood Association wants to advocate more for homeowners
and become a homeowner association.
»Historically, there is a lack of attractive retail sites and a disparity in
neighborhood investment. It would be beneficial to have more user-
friendly community retail that has a stronger sense of community
investment (i.e., Whole Foods, coffee shops, cooperatives, replace the
smoke shop with other retails, etc.). The people in this neighborhood
deserve amenities present in other neighborhoods too.
»As gentrification comes in, it is likely that the impound lot and industrial
sites will turn into retail locations. While adding more commercial sites is
a positive thing, there is the risk of further gentrification.
4. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that
are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/
format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with
disabilities; other design issues.
»There is a need to create healthy design to improve community health.
The organization wants to see height limitations, as designs from the city
do not fit the characteristic of the community. The organization doesn’t
want a “downtown/Grand Canyon” feel, but urges planning and design
to maintain the “small town” feel.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 107
5. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there
neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit;
too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc.
»There is a need to expand mobility options (bike lanes, sidewalks,
buses, etc.) to improve connectivity to amenities and facilities in the
neighborhood. It is inaccessible for Minneapolis residents to get to
Theodore Wirth Park, an urban park used for skiing and golfing.
• Theodore Wirth Park facility also needs to program and promote their
facility as a part of the neighborhood. Today, Edina residents are using the
park more than local residents.
• Harrison Neighborhood is a food desert. Access to healthy food is limited.
6. Other issues
»Try to encourage more homeownership and longer-term leases.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works108
Comments Received in Response to Presentation of Draft Findings to
members of the Blue Line Coalition and Health Equity Engagement
Cohort (December 13, 2017 – Brookdale Library)
Attendee #1:
• The number of new affordable units (as listed by the Met Council) seems
small compared to the number of total new units
• Van White will be a busy station. Students coming and going, start of the
corridor
• Like how universal design is being addressed
• Long term affordability
»This needs to be addressed--especially the fact that some developments
are halfway thru their affordability period and will be close to finished by
opening day
»NOAH--be clear on “relative” affordability. Be aware of the pushback by
city officials….”We have NOAH, why do we need more”. Many NOAH
units are substandard.
• Potentially creating homelessness because not producing housing stock that
folks are looking for or need
Attendee #2:
• Much of the naturally-occurring affordable housing in the corridor is
uninhabitable or significantly aged. Poor housing stock is bad for residents,
obviously, but it also increases the risk that these buildings will be targets
for redevelopment. I’d like the report to emphasize that NOAH is unlikely
to remain naturally affordable as the corridor becomes a more attractive
real estate market. The report should encourage cities to be proactive
about preserving affordability either by adding new units or adding rent
protections (and renovations) to current NOAH properties. Cities cannot
rely on their current NOAH stock to continue meeting the affordability
needs of their residents.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 109
• Along this theme, a lot of the current rental housing of all types is aging
and likely in need of capital investment. The increased costs of these
improvements often push property owners to raise their rents. I’d like to
see the report discuss this phenomenon and include recommendations
about how cities can help landlords maintain quality housing stock while
preserving affordability.
• Given the age of the corridor’s housing stock, I would also like to see the
report discuss whether any current affordable housing properties that were
built under Section 42 or similar programs are nearing the end of their
affordability term commitment. Again, this represents another threat to
affordable housing in the corridor as property owners seek to take advantage
of the rising rental market and/or can’t afford capital investments in their
properties without raising rents.
• The corridor’s housing density is currently well under the recommended
levels of density for TOD. I’d like to see the report emphasize that
permitting higher-density development is one way to make affordable
housing and commercial space more financially feasible.
• Concerns were raised about the shortage of 3+ bedroom units in the
corridor, and I worry that pushback about developing larger units could be
a smokescreen for discrimination against immigrant families who tend to be
larger. The report should encourage cities to prioritize housing units of all
sizes in both the ownership and rental markets.
• The report should discuss the current status of owner-occupied multifamily
housing stock within the corridor and include recommendations for affordable
homeownership as an important strategy. Density, homeownership, and
affordability do not need to be mutually exclusive goals.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works110
Attendee #3:
My apologies for being unable to attend this session but I’m confident that my fellow BLC members
were a great representation. My comments are listed below and as indicated represent a context outside
of being in attendance and outside of receiving or providing direct input from the presenters.
a. I would have welcomed better identification of the areas being addressed at the beginning of the report
b. My understanding of a Gap Analysis involves the “comparison of actual performance with
potential or desired performance” and ways to bridge the “Gap”.
c. I was unable to match the “Purpose of a Gap Analysis” with many of the Takeaways. The first
sentence can be said about most major cities but would have preferred to see Takeaways specific
to the Blue Line corridor and its specific needs. In addition, other than “upgrading current
limited stock” there was no need identified for new development in the “under 3 bdrm market.”
d. Without a Glossary, I’m unclear on the definition of an “owner-occupied MF unit” or where are
the “Hennepin County and Twin Cities MSA areas might be located.
e. I would like to see the source document indicating that affordable housing is available as stated
in your document.
f. In that same vein, I disagree and have seen reports that dispute the premise in this report that
most housing along the corridor is owned and not rental, especially when the same report touts
the large population of people of color along this same corridor.
g. I am in disagreement with Page 16’s premise that the median income of people on Golden
Valley Rd. is $80,000 and I would also challenge the amount attributed to Plymouth Ave too.
h. Page 36 graph-2017 Household Size does not include “Oak Grove Parkway” or “Corridor
1-mile” (whatever that is) data.
i. Page 41 does not reference any cost-burdened renters in Oak Grove Parkway or at 93rd Ave, is
that correct?
j. Page 46 Development Trends do not reference a specific area or areas.
k. Page 51 I would suggest an increase in the Community Experts going forward. this group(s) do
not mention government policies around density and zoning that impact housing. They failed
to mention high construction costs, bias against those with criminal backgrounds and those
with unlawful detainers. They did not mention red-lining by banks and lenders and many other
factors impacting construction and rehab of affordable housing.
l. Page 53, I’m unclear on who may have been asked a question and what was the question they
were attempting to answer.
m. There is no reference to gentrification and its related displacement of community members.
n. There appears to be no Equity or Racial Disparity lens applied to any of the captured data and
potential Takeaways.
o. On the “Why Do A Gap Analysis” page, four items (or conclusions) are referenced but none of
the Takeaway’s offer alternatives or solutions to any of these items.
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 111
DATA TABLES
Housing Units by Units in Structure
SF Homes Attached
(THs)
2-4 Unit
Bldgs
5-19 Unit
Bldgs
20+ Unit
Bldgs Other
All
Housing
Units
Oak Grove Pkwy 21 19 0 2 0 0 42
93rd Ave 219 36 3 0 6 0 265
85th Ave 705 436 59 17 46 0 1,263
Brooklyn Blvd 454 70 40 62 102 0 728
63rd Ave 633 90 21 421 894 0 2,058
Bass Lake Rd 524 7 40 126 253 0 951
Robbinsdale 841 212 46 178 598 4 1,879
Golden Valley Rd 1,020 25 28 72 6 0 1,152
Plymouth Ave 1,148 34 68 77 23 3 1,352
Penn Ave 1,113 172 601 184 217 2 2,290
Van White Blvd 281 188 209 423 757 0 1,857
Corridor - 1/2 Mile 11,703 1,585 1,199 1,936 3,392 12 19,827
Corridor - 1 Mile 24,071 3,229 2,234 3,141 9,792 47 42,515
Brooklyn Park 16,410 4,001 544 1,151 4,623 29 26,758
Crystal 7,113 159 236 495 1,345 0 9,348
Robbinsdale 4,066 414 150 503 1,014 14 6,161
Golden Valley 6,289 643 123 677 1,145 28 8,905
Minneapolis 75,287 6,533 22,052 19,183 44,989 341 168,385
Hennepin County 271,200 42,701 28,395 38,148 108,263 1,489 490,196
Twin Cities MSA 826,141 143,539 58,862 81,791 202,845 21,217 1,334,395
Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works112
Rental Housing by Type and Year Built (1-mile Buffer)
Oak Grove Pkwy Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 1 1
1940 to 1959 0
1960 to 1979 0
1980 to 1999 0
2000 and Later 2 279 281
Total 3 0 0 0 279 282
93rd Ave Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 0
1940 to 1959 0
1960 to 1979 1 1
1980 to 1999 22 22
2000 and Later 1 1
Total 24 0 0 0 0 24
85th Ave Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 2 2
1940 to 1959 0
1960 to 1979 38 42 80
1980 to 1999 23 93 116
2000 and Later 3 16 19
Total 66 109 42 0 0 217
Brooklyn Blvd Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 0
1940 to 1959 2 2
1960 to 1979 31 46 14 268 359
1980 to 1999 25 2 27
2000 and Later 1 1
Total 59 0 48 14 268 389
63rd Ave Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 0
1940 to 1959 56 28 27 111
1960 to 1979 9 19 56 1,445 1,529
1980 to 1999 3 7 73 83
2000 and Later 1 7 122 130
Total 69 28 46 70 1,640 1,853
Bass Lake Rd Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 1 2 3
1940 to 1959 60 4 14 78
1960 to 1979 4 28 111 143
1980 to 1999 4 241 245
2000 and Later 0
Total 69 0 6 42 352 469
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 113
Robbinsdale Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 41 30 71
1940 to 1959 38 71 55 164
1960 to 1979 8 11 20 14 185 238
1980 to 1999 11 4 331 346
2000 and Later 2 20 7 36 65
Total 100 31 125 21 607 884
Golden Valley Rd Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 77 13 16 24 130
1940 to 1959 48 6 35 89
1960 to 1979 6 3 13 22
1980 to 1999 10 10
2000 and Later 4 4
Total 145 0 22 51 37 255
Plymouth Ave Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 220 2 62 21 12 317
1940 to 1959 29 6 21 35 91
1960 to 1979 7 5 7 72 91
1980 to 1999 7 7
2000 and Later 7 7 14
Total 270 15 88 63 84 520
Penn Ave Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 237 371 213 88 909
1940 to 1959 39 6 52 14 111
1960 to 1979 43 5 49 63 243 403
1980 to 1999 33 12 11 7 63
2000 and Later 14 7 11 14 46
Total 366 30 494 311 331 1,532
Van White Blvd Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 28 19 83 90 12 232
1940 to 1959 2 2
1960 to 1979 15 8 28 703 754
1980 to 1999 7 6 7 14 88 122
2000 and Later 10 25 8 84 588 715
Total 60 50 108 216 1,391 1,825
Corridor Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total
Before 1940 1,531 290 1,132 666 147 3,766
1940 to 1959 1,054 23 362 174 172 1,785
1960 to 1979 444 449 534 757 5,152 7,336
1980 to 1999 289 271 52 123 834 1,569
2000 and Later 153 390 19 273 1,641 2,476
Total 3,471 1,423 2,099 1,993 7,946 16,932
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works114
Housing Cost-Burdened Status of Households (2015)
Owner Households Renter Households Owner Households Renter Households
Cost-
Burdened
Not Cost-
Burdened
Cost-
Burdened
Not Cost-
Burdened
Cost-
Burdened
Not Cost-
Burdened
Cost-
Burdened
Not Cost-
Burdened
Oak Grove Pkwy 7 28 0 32 10.4%41.8%0.0%47.8%
93rd Ave 74 163 0 32 27.5%60.6%0.0%11.9%
85th Ave 294 788 116 153 21.8%58.3%8.6%11.3%
Brooklyn Blvd 104 332 656 308 7.4%23.7%46.9%22.0%
63rd Ave 203 415 1,422 1,063 6.5%13.4%45.8%34.3%
Bass Lake Rd 150 321 604 455 9.8%21.0%39.5%29.7%
Robbinsdale 901 3,393 1,195 999 13.9%52.3%18.4%15.4%
Golden Valley Rd 173 651 573 496 9.1%34.4%30.3%26.2%
Plymouth Ave 201 587 708 461 10.3%30.0%36.2%23.6%
Penn Ave 250 506 1,870 1,274 6.4%13.0%47.9%32.7%
Van White Blvd 95 234 1,875 1,271 2.7%6.7%54.0%36.6%
Brooklyn Park 4,195 10,248 4,477 3,239 18.9%46.2%20.2%14.6%
Crystal 1,374 3,309 1,514 1,171 18.6%44.9%20.5%15.9%
Golden Valley 1,121 3,506 924 997 15.4%45.2%20.4%19.0%
Robbinsdale 786 2,306 1,041 967 17.1%53.5%14.1%15.2%
Hennepin County 60,081 163,163 84,579 91,932 15.0%40.8%21.2%23.0%
Twin Cities MSA 180,536 504,729 186,397 198,387 16.9%47.2%17.4%18.5%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 115
Age Distribution 2015 (Numeric)
1/2 Mile Radius 0-18 19-24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total Median
Oak Grove Pkwy 67 17 49 43 37 40 24 12 2 291 37.5
93rd Ave 298 69 152 156 140 102 49 26 8 1,000 33.9
85th Ave 931 240 585 505 446 427 266 142 47 3,589 35.7
Brooklyn Blvd 672 211 346 256 253 268 169 47 9 2,231 31.5
63rd Ave 1,298 493 755 599 453 402 291 197 161 4,649 32.0
Bass Lake Rd 531 191 345 345 332 300 180 82 58 2,364 38.2
Robbinsdale 871 330 618 635 530 518 337 181 161 4,181 38.9
Golden Valley Rd 637 226 333 398 383 403 258 97 43 2,778 39.7
Plymouth Ave 1,093 400 554 490 438 458 312 128 48 3,921 33.3
Penn Ave 1,929 775 951 775 702 594 345 128 47 6,246 29.0
Van White 1,755 521 932 581 382 340 259 93 36 4,899 26.7
Corridor
(1/2-mile)12,556 4,157 7,647 6,286 6,107 4,716 2,377 1,627 821 46,294 34.9
1 Mile Radius 0-18 19-24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total Median
Oak Grove Pkwy 417 111 291 258 226 225 130 63 9 1,730 36.6
93rd Ave 1,521 384 911 821 773 641 354 243 105 5,753 35.7
85th Ave 2,930 861 1,706 1,460 1,343 1,266 782 354 126 10,828 34.5
Brooklyn Blvd 2,787 894 1,610 1,252 1,134 1,189 758 259 68 9,951 33.0
63rd Ave 3,979 1,516 2,433 1,983 1,638 1,439 996 559 329 14,872 32.9
Bass Lake Rd 2,427 858 1,602 1,627 1,511 1,421 880 434 255 11,015 38.6
Robbinsdale 3,267 1,121 2,251 2,210 1,985 1,954 1,244 665 489 15,186 39.1
Golden Valley Rd 4,139 1,600 2,027 1,960 1,758 1,702 1,032 419 166 14,803 33.1
Plymouth Ave 4,361 1,770 2,148 1,821 1,669 1,558 946 390 152 14,815 30.5
Penn Ave 5,732 2,062 2,919 2,335 1,969 1,780 1,133 408 147 18,485 29.6
Van White 5,218 2,494 4,724 2,859 2,360 2,037 1,115 387 127 21,321 30.5
Corridor 25,330 9,055 16,900 13,377 13,210 10,019 4,821 3,306 1,688 97,706 34.7
Cities & Region 0 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total Median
Golden Valley 4,382 730 2,671 2,149 3,130 3,526 2,251 1,126 875 20,845 46.5
Robbinsdale 3,001 800 2,615 2,015 2,015 1,600 941 646 379 14,046 36.8
Crystal 5,471 746 3,662 3,459 3,233 2,916 1,513 1,084 497 22,584 38.9
Brooklyn Park 24,006 5,317 12,355 10,244 10,947 8,445 4,466 1,959 627 78,351 32.8
Hennepin County 297,048 79,053 203,622 158,106 166,491 148,524 79,053 43,120 22,758 1,197,776 36.1
Twin Cities MSA 930,415 217,904 508,442 460,019 508,442 425,431 224,821 121,058 58,799 3,458,790 36.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works116
Age Distribution 2015 (Percentage)
1/2 Mile Radius 0 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total
Oak Grove Pkwy 23%6%17%15%13%14%8%4%1%100%
93rd Ave 30%7%15%16%14%10%5%3%1%100%
85th Ave 26%7%16%14%12%12%7%4%1%100%
Brooklyn Blvd 30%9%16%11%11%12%8%2%0%100%
63rd Ave 28%11%16%13%10%9%6%4%3%100%
Bass Lake Rd 22%8%15%15%14%13%8%3%2%100%
Robbinsdale 21%8%15%15%13%12%8%4%4%100%
Golden Valley Rd 23%8%12%14%14%15%9%3%2%100%
Plymouth Ave 28%10%14%12%11%12%8%3%1%100%
Penn Ave 31%12%15%12%11%10%6%2%1%100%
Van White 36%11%19%12%8%7%5%2%1%100%
1 Mile Radius 0 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total
Oak Grove Pkwy 24%6%17%15%13%13%8%4%1%100%
93rd Ave 26%7%16%14%13%11%6%4%2%100%
85th Ave 27%8%16%13%12%12%7%3%1%100%
Brooklyn Blvd 28%9%16%13%11%12%8%3%1%100%
63rd Ave 27%10%16%13%11%10%7%4%2%100%
Bass Lake Rd 22%8%15%15%14%13%8%4%2%100%
Robbinsdale 22%7%15%15%13%13%8%4%3%100%
Golden Valley Rd 28%11%14%13%12%11%7%3%1%100%
Plymouth Ave 29%12%14%12%11%11%6%3%1%100%
Penn Ave 31%11%16%13%11%10%6%2%1%100%
Van White 24%12%22%13%11%10%5%2%1%100%
Corridor
Cities & Region 0 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total
Golden Valley 21%4%13%10%15%17%11%5%4%100%
Robbinsdale 21%6%19%14%14%11%7%5%3%100%
Crystal 24%3%16%15%14%13%7%5%2%100%
Brooklyn Park 31%7%16%13%14%11%6%3%1%100%
Hennepin County 25%7%17%13%14%12%7%4%2%100%
Twin Cities MSA 27%6%15%13%15%12%7%4%2%100%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 117
Median Age (2000-2022)
1/2 Mile Radius 2000 2010 2017 2022
Oak Grove Pkwy 39.0 36.4 37.5 38.2
93rd Ave 29.6 32.8 33.9 35.7
85th Ave 35.3 34.6 35.7 36.7
Brooklyn Blvd 31.9 30.2 31.5 32.1
63rd Ave 30.4 30.6 32.0 32.6
Bass Lake Rd 35.7 37.0 38.2 39.0
Robbinsdale 38.2 36.7 38.9 40.4
Golden Valley Rd 34.9 37.8 39.7 41.2
Plymouth Ave 29.5 31.3 33.3 34.8
Penn Ave 24.9 28.1 29.0 29.4
Van White 21.8 25.5 26.7 27.3
Golden Valley 42.7 45.7 47.4 47.9
Robbinsdale 37.6 36.9 38.7 39.9
Crystal 36.9 38.0 39.5 40.3
Brooklyn Park 32.0 32.6 33.6 34.6
Hennepin County 34.9 35.9 37.3 38.1
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works118
Household Size 2015
1/2-Mile Radius
Oak Grove Pkwy 3.3
93rd Ave 3.7
85th Ave 2.8
Brooklyn Blvd 3.0
63rd Ave 2.5
Bass Lake Rd 2.5
Robbinsdale 2.1
Golden Valley Rd 2.5
Plymouth Ave 3.1
Penn Ave 3.1
Van White 2.7
Corridor (1/2-mile)2.5
Corridor (1-mile)2.6
1- Mile Radius
Oak Grove Pkwy 2.8
93rd Ave 2.8
85th Ave 2.9
Brooklyn Blvd 2.8
63rd Ave 2.6
Bass Lake Rd 2.4
Robbinsdale 2.3
Golden Valley Rd 2.7
Plymouth Ave 2.8
Penn Ave 2.7
Van White 2.2
Corridor 2.4
Cities & Region
Brooklyn Park 2.9
Crystal 2.4
Robbinsdale 2.3
Golden Valley 2.3
Hennepin County 2.3
Twin Cities MSA 2.5
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 5-year ACS,
Esri, Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 119
Household Type (2015)
Household Type Married Couple w/
Children
Married
Couple w/o
Children
Other Family
w/ Children
Other
Family
w/o Children
Non-
family (2+
persons)
Living
Alone
Half Mile Radius
Oak Grove Pkwy 13 9 4 3 1 8
93rd Ave 91 62 61 17 7 39
85th Ave 354 335 114 36 36 329
Brooklyn Blvd 151 165 167 83 23 124
63rd Ave 362 400 428 132 115 538
Bass Lake Rd 174 157 89 57 86 357
Robbinsdale 154 325 185 120 209 790
Golden Valley Rd 174 342 133 64 89 288
Plymouth Ave 190 260 271 74 148 291
Penn Ave 264 254 594 180 214 610
Van White 176 124 658 76 118 607
Corridor (1/2-Mile)3,329 3,920 3,417 1,247 1,488 5,486
One Mile Radius
Oak Grove Pkwy 138 96 55 29 7 77
93rd Ave 564 480 251 99 42 456
85th Ave 984 872 611 157 128 827
Brooklyn Blvd 660 706 679 214 125 865
63rd Ave 1,175 1,025 1,148 417 297 1,664
Bass Lake Rd 938 889 504 257 372 1,352
Robbinsdale 1,021 1,501 769 494 622 2,056
Golden Valley Rd 887 978 959 361 424 1,276
Plymouth Ave 739 813 1,174 374 414 1,261
Penn Ave 858 887 1,716 433 613 1,851
Van White 729 1,133 1,628 387 841 3,706
Corridor 7,010 8,058 6,619 2,507 3,060 12,797
Cities & Region
Brooklyn Park 6,543 6,694 4,436 1,776 1,107 6,202
Crystal 1,735 2,085 1,058 707 737 3,026
Robbinsdale 1,033 1,416 715 371 610 2,016
Golden Valley 1,578 2,844 707 542 514 2,720
Hennepin County 94,700 120,473 44,999 23,774 45,563 160,687
Twin Cities MSA 305,630 367,720 127,855 64,344 98,744 370,102
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works120
Households by Number of Bedrooms
Owner-
Occupied Total No
Bedroom
1
Bedroom
2
Bedrooms
3
Bedrooms
4
Bedrooms
5+
Bedrooms Total Bedrooms
Oak Grove N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
93rd Ave 649 0 10 170 161 254 54 2,130
85th Ave 2,407 12 29 576 626 1,008 156 7,914
Brooklyn Blvd 3,183 12 119 641 1,108 1,118 185 10,171
63rd Ave 2,552 0 112 495 1,352 486 107 7,658
Bass Lake Rd 2,334 0 24 418 1,417 397 78 7,105
Robbinsdale 2,609 14 122 502 1,457 427 87 7,671
Golden Valley Rd 3,357 0 35 533 1,771 831 187 10,710
Plymouth Ave 2,048 0 14 277 1,087 501 169 6,712
Penn Ave 2,502 0 50 602 1,155 519 176 7,710
Van White 1,871 7 105 385 743 438 193 5,867
Brooklyn Park 18,743 12 267 3,446 6,963 6,278 1,777 62,412
Crystal 6,594 0 107 1,134 3,794 1,345 214 20,250
Robbinsdale 4,083 14 105 791 2,312 732 129 12,236
Golden Valley 6,851 0 127 915 3,179 2,070 560 22,686
Hennepin County 307,395 595 12,504 67,039 118,634 81,659 26,964 969,928
Twin Cities MSA 932,769 1,449 23,571 185,911 371,780 268,897 81,161 3,009,807
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 121
Households by Number of Bedrooms – Renter-Occupied 2015
Renter-
Occupied Total No
Bedroom
1
Bedroom
2
Bedrooms
3
Bedrooms
4
Bedrooms
5+
Bedrooms Total Bedrooms
Oak Grove N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
93rd Ave 45 0 0 32 13 0 0 103
85th Ave 528 0 97 187 135 84 25 1,342
Brooklyn Blvd 964 0 293 306 216 124 25 2,179
63rd Ave 2,124 79 652 1,042 263 81 7 3,964
Bass Lake Rd 576 6 71 191 217 91 0 1,474
Robbinsdale 1,805 50 739 747 213 30 26 3,177
Golden Valley Rd 1,320 14 104 481 491 215 15 3,491
Plymouth Ave 1,194 39 233 426 305 176 15 2,821
Penn Ave 3,343 198 801 1,109 758 359 118 7,541
Van White 3,295 220 957 1,143 598 266 111 6,898
Brooklyn Park 8,015 250 2,749 3,116 1,063 597 240 16,056
Crystal 2,754 75 932 939 643 159 6 5,481
Robbinsdale 2,078 50 739 914 323 26 26 3,825
Golden Valley 2,054 42 698 821 391 85 17 3,983
Hennepin County 182,801 12,192 72,588 64,026 23,385 7,690 2,920 328,931
Twin Cities MSA 401,626 21,118 140,480 152,216 61,485 19,819 6,508 763,603
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works122
Households by Number of Bedrooms – All Occupied Households 2015
Total-Occupied Total No Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5+ Bedrooms Total Bedrooms
Oak Grove N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
93rd Ave 694 0 10 202 174 254 54 2,233
85th Ave 2,935 12 126 763 761 1,092 181 9,256
Brooklyn Blvd 4,147 12 412 947 1,324 1,242 210 12,350
63rd Ave 4,676 79 764 1,537 1,615 567 114 11,623
Bass Lake Rd 2,910 6 95 609 1,634 488 78 8,579
Robbinsdale 4,414 64 861 1,249 1,670 457 113 10,849
Golden Valley Rd 4,677 14 139 1,014 2,262 1,046 202 14,201
Plymouth Ave 3,242 39 247 703 1,392 677 184 9,533
Penn Ave 5,845 198 851 1,711 1,913 878 294 15,251
Van White 5,166 227 1,062 1,528 1,341 704 304 12,765
Brooklyn Park 26,758 262 3,016 6,562 8,026 6,875 2,017 78,468
Crystal 9,348 75 1,039 2,073 4,437 1,504 220 25,731
Robbinsdale 6,161 64 844 1,705 2,635 758 155 16,061
Golden Valley 8,905 42 825 1,736 3,570 2,155 577 26,669
Hennepin County 490,196 12,787 85,092 131,065 142,019 89,349 29,884 1,298,859
Twin Cities MSA 1,334,395 22,567 164,051 338,127 433,265 288,716 87,669 3,773,410
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 123
Year Householder Moved Into Dwelling Unit (2015)
1/2 Mile Radius Moved in 2010
or later
Moved in 2000
to 2009
Moved in 1990
to 1999
Moved in
1980 to 1989
Moved in 1979 and
Earlier
Oak Grove Pkwy 113 195 47 22 26
93rd Ave 534 846 365 88 59
85th Ave 1,028 1,446 628 249 227
Brooklyn Blvd 960 1,256 532 216 285
63rd Ave 2,371 1,675 755 349 576
Bass Lake Rd 1,310 1,365 617 385 634
Robbinsdale 2,027 2,227 1,007 437 764
Golden Valley Rd 1,874 1,427 653 339 591
Plymouth Ave 2,189 1,165 557 307 557
Penn Ave 2,855 2,030 583 290 599
Van White Blvd 4,319 2,733 500 268 604
Corridor (1/2-mile)14,819 13,304 5,255 2,602 4,071
Brooklyn Park 8,816 9,739 4,702 1,928 1,573
Crystal 2,693 2,803 1,513 954 1,385
Golden Valley 1,956 3,175 1,655 932 1,187
Minneapolis 74,762 52,112 20,714 10,650 10,147
Robbinsdale 2,027 2,251 939 358 586
Hennepin County 172,848 161,342 79,003 39,882 37,121
Twin Cities MSA 417,614 472,598 230,987 110,528 102,668
Sources: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works124
Number of Vehicles Available to Households
All Occupied Housing Units
None 1 2 3 or More
Oak Grove Pkwy 1 111 212 70
93rd Ave 59 546 869 325
85th Ave 115 1,055 1,711 486
Brooklyn Blvd 338 1,055 1,261 366
63rd Ave 610 2,391 1,900 613
Bass Lake Rd 344 1,716 1,606 502
Robbinsdale 762 2,345 2,369 786
Golden Valley Rd 649 1,668 1,941 470
Plymouth Ave 895 1,733 1,540 426
Penn Ave 1,472 2,463 1,814 408
Van White Blvd 2,316 3,857 1,789 321
Corridor (1-mile)5,345 15,505 13,930 3,962
Brooklyn Park 2,156 7,734 10,541 6,327
Crystal 747 3,403 3,836 1,362
Robbinsdale 727 2,196 2,367 871
Golden Valley 497 3,162 4,012 1,234
Minneapolis 30,549 70,851 52,200 14,785
Hennepin County 50,479 176,114 189,982 73,621
Twin Cities MSA 100,220 411,746 549,084 273,345
Source: Esri, Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 125
Race, Ethnicity, and Hispanic Origin (2015)
1/2 Mile
Radius White African
Amer.
Amer.
Indian Asian Pacific
Islander
Other
Race
Two or
More
Races
Total Hispanic*
Oak Grove
Pkwy 198 44 1 33 1 4 8 289 7
93rd Ave 462 174 2 321 0 14 26 999 28
85th Ave 1,760 707 7 883 7 68 158 3,591 133
Brooklyn Blvd 814 818 18 421 0 49 107 2,229 143
63rd Ave 1,891 1,654 19 325 0 544 214 4,647 823
Bass Lake Rd 1,440 487 14 142 0 168 111 2,365 270
Robbinsdale 2,907 820 13 172 0 92 176 4,183 234
Golden Valley
Rd 1,475 878 14 197 0 58 156 2,778 142
Plymouth Ave 968 2,137 43 416 0 125 227 3,921 227
Penn Ave 1,206 3,255 87 1,081 0 250 362 6,248 481
Van White 779 3,047 39 558 0 240 230 4,899 554
Corridor 24,951 15,304 354 5,505 0 2,020 2,374 50,508 3,889
1 Mile Radius
Oak Grove
Pkwy 1,114 273 5 263 5 24 43 1,730 40
93rd Ave 3,118 874 17 1,484 0 92 167 5,753 184
85th Ave 5,188 2,513 43 2,339 11 271 455 10,831 520
Brooklyn Blvd 4,109 3,254 60 1,711 10 338 468 9,950 687
63rd Ave 7,019 4,520 74 1,234 0 1,368 654 14,870 2,141
Bass Lake Rd 7,467 1,817 77 617 0 485 562 11,014 859
Robbinsdale 11,330 2,111 76 623 15 349 699 15,188 835
Golden Valley
Rd 5,477 6,173 148 1,688 15 444 859 14,804 933
Plymouth Ave 3,601 7,557 193 2,045 15 489 919 14,817 978
Penn Ave 4,455 9,668 222 2,440 18 702 980 18,486 1,405
Van White 7,291 9,295 277 2,622 21 682 1,109 21,319 1,684
Corridor 55,610 30,489 859 11,272 107 3,972 5,046 107,356 7,944
Cities & Region
Golden Valley 17,352 1,787 132 860 0 126 609 20,866 529
Robbinsdale 11,353 1,992 58 218 0 180 488 14,289 507
Crystal 18,429 2,337 161 804 0 312 564 22,607 1,858
Brooklyn Park 40,851 20,998 246 11,986 57 1,617 2,440 78,195 5,133
Hennepin
County 889,634 145,718 8,273 81,406 475 30,305 41,965 1,197,776 81,719
Twin Cities MSA 2,790,735 262,209 20,834 211,862 1,192 64,386 107,572 3,458,790 192,461
* Persons of Hispanic origin can be of any race
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 5-year ACS, Esri, Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works126
Household Income 2015
1/2 Mile Radius <$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
-$74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total Median
Oak Grove Pkwy 4 4 10 8 20 13 18 5 6 88 $71,454
93rd Ave 6 13 18 20 49 52 79 26 12 275 $88,134
85th Ave 52 66 97 153 270 172 227 161 102 1,300 $76,323
Brooklyn Blvd 93 119 44 116 108 130 79 41 16 746 $50,160
63rd Ave 183 316 255 342 401 156 140 39 16 1,848 $41,101
Bass Lake Rd 97 131 111 103 256 118 101 10 21 948 $51,914
Robbinsdale 218 321 160 307 407 181 230 96 34 1,954 $48,121
Golden Valley Rd 69 97 77 116 185 108 235 115 90 1,092 $75,360
Plymouth Ave 159 139 118 175 225 143 172 71 61 1,263 $53,189
Penn Ave 451 352 243 330 300 142 116 36 15 1,985 $32,276
Van White 703 338 242 237 153 66 53 15 21 1,828 $20,186
Corridor (1/2-mile)2,298 2,380 1,881 2,716 3,813 2,218 2,570 843 550 19,269 $51,570
Corridor (1-mile)4,351 4,520 4,114 5,547 7,922 5,045 6,140 2,137 1,768 41,544 $55,170
1 Mile Radius <$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
- $74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total Median
Oak Grove Pkwy 23 26 64 56 135 100 138 37 40 619 $76,002
93rd Ave 78 115 161 233 374 293 437 197 116 2,004 $77,670
85th Ave 171 226 341 462 762 570 691 328 170 3,721 $70,407
Brooklyn Blvd 334 366 365 493 688 504 443 152 75 3,420 $53,887
63rd Ave 568 853 757 958 1,162 594 521 145 79 5,637 $43,841
Bass Lake Rd 359 445 473 543 1,077 669 655 156 124 4,501 $57,408
Robbinsdale 489 761 555 950 1,488 822 1,079 330 137 6,611 $56,833
Golden Valley Rd 512 562 521 643 872 562 776 261 202 4,911 $54,553
Plymouth Ave 752 701 502 696 775 429 536 216 167 4,774 $43,146
Penn Ave 1,413 942 762 926 893 493 458 239 193 6,319 $35,492
Van White 1,744 1,099 866 1,056 1,154 819 1,080 451 655 8,924 $44,753
Corridor 4,351 4,520 4,114 5,547 7,922 5,045 6,140 2,137 1,768 41,544 $55,170
Cities & Region <$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
- $74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total Median
Brooklyn Park 2,049 2,323 2,483 4,128 4,511 4,212 4,586 1,490 976 26,758 $62,974
Crystal 710 882 965 1,311 2,266 1,275 1,435 371 133 9,348 $59,188
Robbinsdale 795 530 463 935 1,066 911 1,098 262 101 6,161 $57,357
Golden Valley 546 697 585 717 1,631 1,031 1,813 797 1,088 8,905 $81,534
Hennepin County 49,098 41,037 40,528 58,734 83,304 63,792 78,453 34,052 41,198 490,196 $65,834
Twin Cities MSA 111,789 104,137 105,671 158,769 242,392 191,985 234,382 95,089 90,181 1,334,395 $68,778
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 5-year ACS, Esri, Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 127
Household Income by Age of Householder 2015 (1-mile Radius)
Age: Under 25 <$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
- $74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total
Oak Grove Pkwy 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 12
93rd Ave 2 5 6 7 8 6 5 1 1 41
85th Ave 7 12 15 17 21 12 8 3 1 96
Brooklyn Blvd 32 30 22 23 26 15 5 2 1 156
63rd Ave 68 93 62 67 53 17 9 4 1 374
Bass Lake Rd 15 18 20 15 25 10 4 5 0 112
Robbinsdale 19 30 20 34 38 15 8 3 0 167
Golden Valley Rd 35 42 27 26 31 12 6 2 0 181
Plymouth Ave 50 51 28 33 31 12 6 4 0 215
Penn Ave 126 77 43 51 36 14 7 2 0 356
Van White 217 129 112 117 83 49 48 20 18 793
Corridor 403 359 286 312 296 137 96 40 22 1,951
Age: 25-44 <$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
- $74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total
Oak Grove Pkwy 2 3 9 9 27 21 31 11 12 125
93rd Ave 10 12 26 40 70 68 107 62 30 425
85th Ave 21 24 48 76 147 127 162 100 47 752
Brooklyn Blvd 48 43 49 79 134 101 104 46 22 626
63rd Ave 78 92 102 149 212 120 112 42 25 932
Bass Lake Rd 54 53 65 90 227 146 151 47 41 874
Robbinsdale 56 85 76 152 277 165 240 96 39 1,186
Golden Valley Rd 80 72 80 110 171 111 175 78 54 931
Plymouth Ave 134 98 81 125 148 82 116 63 46 893
Penn Ave 207 119 115 165 172 95 102 81 60 1,116
Van White 231 129 113 168 197 128 176 95 144 1,381
Corridor 1395 1,394 1,588 2,096 3,245 2,231 2,860 906 738 16,453
Age: 45-64 <$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
- $74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total
Oak Grove Pkwy 8 8 22 20 54 39 58 17 20 246
93rd Ave 30 31 57 79 145 121 187 94 55 799
85th Ave 63 64 113 155 300 241 302 162 86 1,486
Brooklyn Blvd 127 105 113 165 272 203 198 78 39 1,300
63rd Ave 174 195 197 284 395 221 209 67 44 1,786
Bass Lake Rd 133 125 142 180 432 269 289 77 70 1,717
Robbinsdale 156 213 165 309 555 320 469 161 65 2,413
Golden Valley Rd 194 167 166 222 331 225 339 140 111 1,895
Plymouth Ave 299 216 156 244 287 164 230 112 91 1,799
Penn Ave 462 259 222 312 327 184 192 131 113 2,202
Van White 561 291 213 309 366 231 316 150 255 2,692
Corridor 1460 1225 1,177 1,759 2,899 1,901 2,514 998 850 14,783
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works128
Age: 65+<$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
- $74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total
Oak Grove Pkwy 9 8 20 13 26 14 15 3 3 111
93rd Ave 28 50 47 71 77 40 36 15 13 377
85th Ave 53 91 101 134 135 77 72 22 16 701
Brooklyn Blvd 72 124 100 120 103 62 45 9 3 638
63rd Ave 144 246 201 222 233 97 63 20 2 1,228
Bass Lake Rd 114 190 162 189 217 118 74 14 11 1,089
Robbinsdale 213 341 186 293 311 154 127 29 15 1,669
Golden Valley Rd 121 177 128 152 169 91 98 37 37 1,010
Plymouth Ave 152 211 112 139 143 68 72 30 26 953
Penn Ave 264 270 133 151 135 70 50 20 16 1,109
Van White 312 289 105 116 103 61 64 19 33 1,102
Corridor 1094 1,542 1,062 1,380 1,483 776 668 193 159 8,357
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 5-year ACS; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services
HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018
Bottineau Community Works 129
Household Income by Age of Householder 2015
Age: Under 25 <$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
- $74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total
Golden Valley 546 697 585 717 1,631 1,031 1,813 797 1,088 8,905
Robbinsdale 795 530 463 935 1,066 911 1,098 262 101 6,161
Crystal 710 882 965 1,311 2,266 1,275 1,435 371 133 9,348
Brooklyn Park 2,049 2,323 2,483 4,128 4,511 4,212 4,586 1,490 976 26,758
Hennepin County 49,098 41,037 40,528 58,734 83,304 63,792 78,453 34,052 41,198 490,196
Twin Cities MSA 111,789 104,137 105,671 158,769 242,392 191,985 234,382 95,089 90,181 1,334,395
Age: 25-44 <$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
- $74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total
Golden Valley 546 697 585 717 1,631 1,031 1,813 797 1,088 8,905
Robbinsdale 795 530 463 935 1,066 911 1,098 262 101 6,161
Crystal 710 882 965 1,311 2,266 1,275 1,435 371 133 9,348
Brooklyn Park 2,049 2,323 2,483 4,128 4,511 4,212 4,586 1,490 976 26,758
Hennepin County 49,098 41,037 40,528 58,734 83,304 63,792 78,453 34,052 41,198 490,196
Twin Cities MSA 111,789 104,137 105,671 158,769 242,392 191,985 234,382 95,089 90,181 1,334,395
Age: 45-64 <$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
- $74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total
Golden Valley 546 697 585 717 1,631 1,031 1,813 797 1,088 8,905
Robbinsdale 795 530 463 935 1,066 911 1,098 262 101 6,161
Crystal 710 882 965 1,311 2,266 1,275 1,435 371 133 9,348
Brooklyn Park 2,049 2,323 2,483 4,128 4,511 4,212 4,586 1,490 976 26,758
Hennepin County 49,098 41,037 40,528 58,734 83,304 63,792 78,453 34,052 41,198 490,196
Twin Cities MSA 111,789 104,137 105,671 158,769 242,392 191,985 234,382 95,089 90,181 1,334,395
Age: 65+<$15,000 $15,000
- $24,999
$25,000
- $34,999
$35,000
- $49,999
$50,000
- $74,999
$75,000
- $99,999
$100,000
- $149,999
$150,000
- $199,999 $200,000+Total
Golden Valley 546 697 585 717 1,631 1,031 1,813 797 1,088 8,905
Robbinsdale 795 530 463 935 1,066 911 1,098 262 101 6,161
Crystal 710 882 965 1,311 2,266 1,275 1,435 371 133 9,348
Brooklyn Park 2,049 2,323 2,483 4,128 4,511 4,212 4,586 1,490 976 26,758
Hennepin County 49,098 41,037 40,528 58,734 83,304 63,792 78,453 34,052 41,198 490,196
Twin Cities MSA 111,789 104,137 105,671 158,769 242,392 191,985 234,382 95,089 90,181 1,334,395
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 5-year ACS; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services
DRAFT CHAPTER 4:
Housing & Neighborhood
Comprehensive Plan 2040
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-1
INTRODUCTION
This Chapter evaluates Brooklyn Center’s existing housing stock and plans for future
housing needs based on household projections, population projections, and identified needs
communicated through this planning process. As required in the City’s 2015 System Statement
prepared by the Metropolitan Council, understanding and planning for the City’s housing
stock is a critical part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The City’s planned land use
includes three residential categories and residential components of new mixed-use designations
which together account for approximately half of the City’s land use area. Residential land use
will continue to be the largest land use in the community. A diverse housing stock that offers
neighborhood stability combined with access to open space, goods and services is essential to
a healthy, sustainable, and resilient community. It protects the community’s tax base against
market fluctuations; it builds community pride and engagement of existing residents; it helps
the community’s economic competitiveness by assisting Brooklyn Center businesses with
employee attraction and retention; it provides options for existing residents to remain in the
community should their life circumstances (e.g., aging-in-place) change; and it offers future
residents access to amenities and levels of service that support a stable and supportive housing
and neighborhood environment.
The first part of this Chapter focuses on the existing housing stock. It summarizes important
information regarding the overall number of housing units, the type of units, their affordability,
and the profile of their residents. These sections are a summary of more detailed socio-economic
data which is attached to this Plan as an Appendix and serves as a supporting resource to this
Chapter. Understanding the existing housing stock is key to determining what types of housing
products may be demanded over the next 10-20 years and where they should be located.
In conjunction to the statistical or inventory information collected, this Chapter includes
a summary of community, stakeholder and policy-maker feedback related to housing and
neighborhoods heard throughout this planning process. Additionally, this Chapter addresses
the projected housing needs during the planning period and presents some neighborhood and
housing aspirations as identified by the City’s residents and policy-makers. The final section
of this Chapter links projected housing need to practical implementation tools to help the
City achieve its housing goals and identified strategies. The list contained in this Chapter is
not exhaustive but provides a starting place from which the City can continue to expand and
consider opportunities to meet current and future resident needs.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-34-2
ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY
Overview of Brooklyn Center’s Residential Neighborhoods
The City of Brooklyn Center’s residential neighborhoods are diverse and include a variety of
housing types from single-family neighborhoods to large-scale apartment complexes. Although
the City originally incorporated as a village in 1911, it wasn’t until the Post-World War II era
that the City began to develop on a large scale in which entire blocks and neighborhoods were
constructed with tract housing, suburban streets, and neighborhood parks. Like much of the
region’s first ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center took on the role of a typical bedroom community
where residents could get to their jobs in the downtown, stop for groceries at the retail center,
and go home and park their cars in their garages for the evening. This pattern of development
can be seen throughout the region, but Brooklyn Center had one significant difference for
many decades – the regional mall known as Brookdale. The prominence of the mall and its
surrounding commercial district played a major role in how neighborhoods were built and
developed, which influenced neighborhood patterns and housing types.
Even though the mall is now gone, it continues to have lasting effects on the existing housing
types and neighborhoods and will influence future housing as described in subsequent
sections of this Chapter. For example, in the decades that the mall and regional retail center
was operational much of Brooklyn Center’s multi-family and apartment development was
concentrated near the mall and its surrounding commercial district and provided a transition to
the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Therefore, even though the mall no longer exists,
the apartments developed around the periphery of its retail area in the 1960s continue to be in
high demand and provide a critical source of housing for many households.
2040 Housing & Neighborhood Goals
»Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and
accessible housing options to all of Brooklyn Center’s residents.
»Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing
with the City’s changing demographics.
»Explore opportunities to improve the City’s housing policies and
ordinances to make them more responsive to current and future
residents.
»Maintain the existing housing stock in primarily single-family
neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentive programs and
enforcement.
»Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into
redevelopment areas that promote safe, secure and economically
diverse neighborhoods.
* Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals and Strategies
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-54-4
While related to housing age, the size or square footage of single-family homes also plays a
significant role in the demographics of a community. Changes to family structure, technology,
and other factors alter housing preferences over time, which can lead to functional obsolescence
of homes and result in reduced home values because they no longer meet current buyers’
expectations. Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock is fairly homogeneous and the
overwhelming majority of homes in every neighborhood are less than 1,500 square feet – and
in many areas less than 1,000 square feet. This is a relatively modest single-family housing size,
and, therefore, the single-family housing stock lacks diversity, which results in lack of choice
for current and prospective residents. At the same time, these homes offer an option for small
families, single and two-person households, and first time homebuyers.
Because the majority of the City’s single-family housing stock is relatively small, older, and of
a homogeneous type as compared to newer larger homes or neighborhoods with more housing
variety, housing prices in Brooklyn Center tend to be affordable. Also, given the similar age, size
and styles of many of the homes, housing in the community has a fairly consistent price-per-
square foot. Affordability in the existing housing stock can be a positive attribute that has the
potential to provide long-term stability to residents and neighborhoods. However, as shown in
the Background Report residents of Brooklyn Center also tend to have lower median household
incomes, which can mean residents may struggle to pay for large-scale capital investments in
their homes such as replacing windows or a roof.
Additionally, within the region some communities with similar single-family stock to Brooklyn
Center have experienced pressure for tear-downs and major remodeling, and that market
trend has yet to reach the City. While that trend may eventually impact the community, at
the present time the change and growth impacting the single-family neighborhoods is mostly
related to the evolving demographics within the community. This change presents different
considerations and challenges
because it is not necessarily physical
growth or changes to homes
and neighborhoods. Instead the
community is challenged with
how to manage larger numbers of
people living within a household
such as growing numbers of multi-
generational households.
The following sections identify and inventory the existing housing stock in the community
including single-family, attached and apartment uses. Each of these housing types serve a
different role in the community, but each type is an important part of the City’s neighborhoods.
A summary of the City’s existing residential types and neighborhoods are as follows:
Single-Family Residential
Single-family residential neighborhoods are the dominant land use within the City and single-
family detached homes comprise nearly 63 percent of the City’s housing stock. The City’s
single-family detached neighborhoods were developed surrounding higher density and higher
intensity land uses that included the former regional retail center and the major freeway
corridors of I-94 and Highway 100. Most of the single-family neighborhoods are developed on
a grid system with traditional ‘urban’ size lots. Exceptions of some larger lots are interspersed
within the traditional block pattern and along the Mississippi River where a pocket of residents
have views and/or frontage of the river corridor.
The 1950s were the peak decade for housing construction in the City; a period in which owner-
occupied housing predominated. While other housing types began to emerge post 1950s, the
demand for single-family detached housing continued through 1980 as the remaining land
in the community developed. Given the period in which the majority of Brooklyn Center’s
housing stock was built, nearly the entire single-family detached housing stock is more than 40
years old. This is a major concern because at 40 years of age exterior components of a building
including siding, windows, and roofs often need to be replaced to protect its structural integrity.
Because the City became mostly built-out by the late 1970s, nearly all of the City’s housing
stock falls into this category, which means the City must be cognizant of potential issues and
proactively monitor the situation to ensure neighborhoods are sustainable into the future.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-74-6
Multi-family Residential
Nearly one third (29 percent) of the City’s housing units are in multi-family residential
buildings located throughout the community. Nearly all of these buildings were constructed
in the 1960s and 1970s, and are primarily located on major roadways or corridors, and
surrounding the former regional retail areas. This means these buildings are nearly 50 years old
or older. Just as noted within the single-family neighborhoods, the potential for deterioration
and need for significant investment in these aging buildings can pose a threat to the quality of
the City’s housing stock if the buildings are not properly maintained, managed and updated.
There has been some maintenance and
management of the multi-family housing
stock, and a few complexes have even
incorporated modest upgrades to the
interiors. In fact, the City has started one
large-scale rehabilitation of a building
that would bring higher-market rate rental
options to the community once completed.
However, this is one project and despite
these improvements the City’s multi-family
housing stock continues to be one of the
most affordable in the region with some of
the lowest rental rates in the metropolitan
area.
Many of the multi-family areas are near
major corridors and are adjacent to high
intensity uses that do not necessarily
support or serve the residential use with the
current development and land use patterns.
As a result, many of the multi-family areas
do not feel like an incorporated part of
the City’s neighborhoods. As discussed in
subsequent sections of this Chapter, the
City is planning for redevelopment in or
adjacent to many of the existing multi-
family areas that will hopefully reinvigorate
and reconnect the existing multi-family
uses into a larger neighborhood context.
Existing Single-family Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process
Throughout this planning process policy-makers and residents alike expressed the desire to
maintain the affordability of the existing single-family neighborhoods but acknowledged the
current challenges of helping residents maintain their structures, blocks and neighborhoods in
the face of compounding maintenance due to the age of the City’s neighborhoods. In addition
to the physical condition of the structures, residents and policy-makers also acknowledged that
as the City’s population and demographics become increasingly more diverse new residents are
changing how existing homes are being occupied and, therefore, it would be valuable for the
City to evaluate it’s ordinances and policies to ensure they align with the needs of residents.
The demographic considerations are identified in subsequent sections of this Chapter, but it
is worth noting that the demographic changes can have a significant impact the character of
existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Most recognized this as a positive change, but
also acknowledged and stated that the City must figure out how to pro-actively address some
of these changes to protect the existing neighborhood fabric. For example, multi-generational
households are becoming increasingly more prevalent within the City’s single-family
neighborhoods which can impact how rooms within a home are used, how many cars may be
present at the home, and how outdoor spaces and yards may be used.
Closely related to the demographic changes in the community is the City’s aspiration to
promote and maintain neighborhood stability. This objective emerged repeatedly throughout
this planning process as residents and policy-makers expressed the desire to identify strategies to
help promote and encourage sustainability, resiliency and accessibility within the single-family
neighborhoods. In part this objective is the result of several years of turnover within the single-
family neighborhoods as long-term residents begin to age and move onto other housing options,
new residents and families are moving into the neighborhoods. This life-cycle of housing is
common, but the City wants to find ways to ensure new residents want to stay in their homes,
their neighborhoods, and the community long-term and invest in making the City a better place
for generations to come.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-94-8
Housing Stock Statistics
The following existing housing stock characteristics support the previous neighborhood
descriptions through more detail. This information, coupled with the previous description,
provides a valuable baseline from which the City can evaluate and plan for the future of its
housing stock.
Total Housing Units
According to data from the Metropolitan
Council and the City of Brooklyn Center,
there are 11,603 housing units in Brooklyn
Center as of 2017. As a fully developed
community, new residential development in
Brooklyn Center has been limited since the
late 1980s. According to the Metropolitan
Council, around 100 new housing units
have been built since 2000 and these homes
were primarily small infill locations or small
redevelopment opportunities.
Housing Tenure (Owned and Rented Units)
Nearly 40 percent of the community’s residents rent, and the majority of those renters live in
apartment buildings which are integrated throughout the community. The Background Report
in the Appendix includes maps illustrating the location of rental housing and demographics of
renters. Given that a significant portion of the City’s population lives in apartments, the age of
such structures becomes critically important
to the overall health of the housing supply.
The majority of the apartments were
constructed prior to 1979 with the bulk of
the units being constructed between 1966
and 1969. This means that the majority of
the apartments is more than 50 years old,
and that structural deficiencies and major
capital improvements may be required in
the relatively near term in order for the
structures to remain marketable.
Multifamily Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process
Throughout this planning process the City’s residents were vocal about the existing multi-family
options available in the community and the lack of diversity within the multi-family housing
stock. Without a full inventory of all available multi-family units it is difficult to confirm some
of the anecdotal comments heard throughout the process, but nevertheless it is important to
consider since residents’ testimony provides valuable insight into the existing housing stock.
Several residents indicated that there are few options available for larger multi-family units with
at least three (3) bedrooms, making it difficult to find stable living options for families with
more than two (2) children. Residents also communicated a desire to have housing options that
were closer to supportive retail, commercial and services so that they could walk, bike or easily
use transit to meet their needs. Despite these challenges, the City’s parks, trails and open spaces
were viewed as an integral and important part of their quality of life.
Similarly, to the single-family neighborhoods, the community’s aspiration to create a stable,
accessible, and economically diverse multi-family housing stock was established as a short and
long-term priority. Though not discussed at length during this planning process, it is widely
known and understood that resident turnover, including evictions, is a serious problem that
is most concentrated within the multi-family neighborhoods of the City. While this Chapter
does not attempt to fully evaluate the causes for turnover and eviction in these neighborhoods,
it does acknowledge it as a significant challenge and issue which shapes the character of these
areas of the community. Turnover, including evictions, changes how residents feel about the
community whether the City is directly involved or not. It has lasting affects on how safe people
feel within a community, how invested in an area they want to become and how willing they
are to contribute and reinvest in the City. For these reasons, it is imperative that the City tackle
these issues and create a more stable, and integrated living environment so all residents feel a
part of a neighborhood, and the larger community.
11,603 Brooklyn Center
housing units as of February 2017
- Sources: Metropolitan Council
40% of community residents
are renters
- Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-114-10
Approximately 86 percent of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock (over 10,000 units) is more than
40 years old. This is an overwhelming portion of the City’s housing, and it is therefore important
to track the condition of these older homes as they are at-risk of deferred maintenance. This can
rapidly result in critical structural problems. At the same time, well-maintained older housing can
be an important source of entry-level housing because of its relative affordability when compared
to newer construction.
Table 4-1. Year Built
Housing Type
Related to housing tenure is housing type. Due to
Brooklyn Center’s peak time of housing development in
the 1950s, the housing type is predominantly single-family
detached homes. As of 2017, there are 8,270 units (71
percent) of single-family housing (attached and detached)
and 3,333 (29 percent) classified as multi-family housing.
The type of housing structure can influence not only
affordability but also overall livability. Having a range of
housing structures can provide residents of a community
options that best meet their needs as they shift from one
life stage to another. For example, retirees often desire
multi-family housing not only for the ease of maintenance, but also for security reasons. Multifamily
residences are less susceptible to home maintenance issues or burglary concerns because of on-site
management. For those with health concerns, multi-family residences often have neighbors that can also
provide oversight should an acute health problem occur.
The majority (63 percent) of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock consists of detached single-family homes.
This is above the proportion found in Hennepin County (55 percent) or throughout the metropolitan
area (59 percent). Nevertheless, the City’s housing stock is diversified, with many multi-family units in
large structures, as well as a significant number of single-family attached units. More detailed data are
included in the Background Report in the Appendix.
Year Built
The age of the housing stock is an important characteristic of the community particularly as it relates
to potential structural obsolescence and other limiting factors which correlate to housing values. As
described earlier, much of Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock was developed post-World
War II between 1950 and 1963 and many of the homes in this age range were dominated by rambler
architectural styles. As shown on Map 15, entire neighborhoods were all constructed in a relatively
short period of time which strongly defines a neighborhood pattern. As shown, most of Brooklyn
Center was developed on a fairly regular grid pattern and does not reflect a ‘suburban’ development
pattern. This is positive from the perspective that transportation and transit connections should be
easier to improve, where necessary, because of the relatively dense population of the neighborhoods.
However, aging neighborhoods can present a challenge as major systems (i.e. roof, siding, windows,
HVAC, etc.) reach the end of their useful life. This can be particularly difficult if residents are unable
to reinvest and maintain their properties, which leads to deferred maintenance and the potential for
more significant problems that would become widespread across entire neighborhoods.
71% of housing units are
single-family
- Sources: Metropolitan Council;
US Census; SHC
86% of housing stock is
more than 40 years old
- Sources: US Census; SHC
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-134-12
Map 4-1. Estimated Market Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Housing Affordability
The Metropolitan Council considers housing affordable when low-income households are spending
no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Households are considered low-income if
their income is at or below 80 percent of the metropolitan area’s median income (AMI).
The housing stock in Brooklyn Center is affordable relative to other communities in the Twin
Cities region. According to the Metropolitan Council, 93 percent of the housing units in 2017
in Brooklyn Center were considered affordable. Moreover, only a small portion (5 percent) of
this housing is publicly subsidized. Therefore, most housing is privately-owned and pricing
is set by the market. According to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, there were
480 home sales in Brooklyn Center in 2017 with a median sales price of $186,125. This was
roughly 25 percent lower than the Metro Area median sales price of $247,900. For rental
housing, according to CoStar, a national provider of real estate data, the average monthly rent
for a market rate apartment in Brooklyn Center in 2017 was $981 compared to the Metro Area
average of $1,190.Brooklyn
Center
Broo klyn Park
Columbia
Heights
Crystal
Fridley
Robbinsdale
Minneapolis
-
Owner-Occupied Housing by Estimated Market Value
1/5/2018
.1 in = 0.55 miles
Brooklyn Center
County Boundaries
City and Township Boundaries
Streets
Lakes and Rivers
Owner-Occupied Housing
Estimated Market Value, 2016
$243,500 or Less
$243,501 to $350,000
$350,001 to $450,000
Over $450,000
Source: MetroGIS Regional Parcel Dataset,
2016 estimated market values for taxes payable
in 2017.
Note: Estimated Market Value includes only
homesteaded units with a building on the parcel.
$186,125
2017 median home sale price
in Brooklyn Center
$247,900
2017 median home sale price
in the Metro Area
- Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors,
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-154-14
The high rate of affordability is largely due to the prevalence of smaller and older homes in the
single-family neighborhoods, and the age and level of improvements within the multi-family
rental neighborhoods. Such small sized properties are typically less expensive because they
have significantly less living space than newer homes (average construction square footage has
increased each decade since the 1950s). Age and level of update and improvements within the
apartment stock, coupled with the average number of bedrooms in the rental units is impacting
the relative affordability of the multi-family units. The condition in both the single-family
and multi-family housing stock is what is known as Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
(NOAH), because the physical characteristics of the properties are what makes them affordable
rather than the affordability being established through a legally binding contract. Although there
is a high rate of affordability for existing units, the Metropolitan Council identifies a need for
additional affordable units in any new housing construction added to the community through
2040. This condition would most likely be achieved by a legally binding contract, or some other
financing mechanism as new affordable housing product would be difficult to achieve without
some assistance given construction and land costs. Of the 2,258 projected new housing units, the
Metropolitan Council establishes a need of 238 units to be affordable to households at or below
80 percent AMI to satisfy the regional share of affordable housing.
Although nearly all of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock essentially fits within the criteria as
naturally occurring affordable housing, there are some observable trends that would suggest
the price of housing in Brooklyn Center could rise in the coming years. Most recently in 2018
the City’s for-sale housing median home sales price surpassed the pre-bust pricing. While the
median remains below the regional median, it does indicate growing demand and increased
pricing. Significant areas of redevelopment identified on the Future Land Use Plan, including
the former regional mall (Brookdale) location, present opportunities for higher-market rates for
new housing added. These opportunities have the potential to create a more economically diverse
housing stock within the City, which is relatively homogeneous at the time this Plan is written.
Given these opportunities, it is important to continue to monitor the City’s NOAH stock, and
to evaluate and establish policies to incorporate legally binding and protected affordable housing
as redevelopment occurs. This is a careful balancing act that requires concerted and direct
monitoring, study, and evaluation in order to ensure an economically diverse, sustainable and
resilient housing stock for the long-term success of the community.
Table 4-2. Existing Housing Assessment
Total Housing Units1 11,608
Affordability2
Units affordable to households with
income at or below 30% of AMI
Units affordable to households
with income 31% to 50% of AMI
Units affordable to households with income
51% to 80% of AMI
460 4,451 6,029
Tenure3
Ownership Units Rental Units
6,911 4,697
Type1
Single-family Units Multifamily Units Manufactured Homes Other Housing
Units
8,275 3,333 0 0
Publicly Subsidized Units4
All publicly subsidized units Publicly subsidized senior units Publicly subsidized units
for people with disabilities
Publicly
subsidized units:
all others
553 22 0 531
Housing Cost Burdened Households5
Income at or below 30% of AMI Income 31% to 50% of AMI Income 51% to 80% AMI
1,691 1,406 895
1 Metropolitan Council, 2016 housing sock estimate. Single-family units include single-family detached homes and townhomes. Multifamily units include units in duplex, triplex, and
quadplex buildings as well as those in buildings with five or more units.
2 Metropolitan Council staff estimates for 2016 based on 2016 and 2017 MetroGIS Regional Parcel Datasets (ownership units), 2010-2014 Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy data from HUD (rental units and household income), and the Council’s 2016 Manufactured Housing Parks Survey (manufactured homes). Counts from
these datasets were adjusted to better match the Council’s estimates of housing units and households in 2016 as well as more current tenure, affordability, and income
data from eh American Community Survey, home value data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and rents from HousingLink’s Twin Cities Rental Revue data.
3 US Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey five-year estimates; counts adjusted to better match the Council’s 2016 housing stock estimates.
4 Source: HousingLink Streams data (covers projects whose financing closed by December 2016)
5 Housing cost burden refers to households whose housing costs are at least 30% of their income. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010-
2014 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, with counts adjusted to better match Metropolitan Council 2016 household estimates.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-174-16
Cost Burdened Households
Cost burden is the proportion of household income spent toward housing and utilities. When
lower income households spend more than 30 percent of their income toward housing and
utilities this burden is considered excessive because it begins to limit the money available for
other essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and healthcare. According to data from
the Metropolitan Council, 4,114 (35 percent) Brooklyn Center households at or below 80
percent average median income (AMI) are considered cost-burdened which means they spend
more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. This percentage is well above
the metro area rate of 23 percent. Half of these Brooklyn Center households are lower income
households who earn at or less than 30 percent AMI. The high incidence of cost burdened
households is correlated with younger wage earners, lower-wage jobs, and a high proportion of
older households, many of which are in retirement and no longer working.
FUTURE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
Projected Housing Need
As referenced in Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment and the following Table 4-4, the
Metropolitan Council’s 2015 System Statement forecasts that Brooklyn Center will add
approximately 4,169 new residents and 2,258 new households through 2040 and identifies the
following affordable housing allocation to be accommodated between 2020 and 2030.
Table 4-3. Affordable Housing Need Allocation
At or below 30% AMI 103
31 to 50% AMI 0
51 to 80% AMI 135
Total Units 238
Source: 2015 System Statement - Metropolitan Council
Housing Challenges inform Housing Needs
The Metropolitan Council’s System Statement identifies approximately 10% of the planned
housing units for some level of affordability as identified in Table 4-3. As described in other
chapters of this Plan, for the first time since the post-World War II housing boom the City
is expected to add a significant number of new households. These new households have the
opportunity to provide a more diverse housing stock, and add to the options of available for
existing and new residents in the community. Redevelopment can reinvigorate and revive
KEY DEMOGRAPHICS
Age Profile of the Population
The age profile of a community has important ramifications on demand for housing, goods
and services, and social cohesion. Tables and figures illustrating the City’s age distribution are
presented in the Background Report in the Appendix. Unlike the broader region, in which the
population continues to age rapidly, Brooklyn Center’s population grew younger between 2000
and 2010, and has stayed relatively stable since 2010. This is largely due to a significant increase
in people age 25 to 34, many of which are starting families and having children. Increases in
the number of young families place demands on schools, housing affordability, and the types of
retail goods and services needed.
The median age of residents in Brooklyn Center in 2016 was 32.8, which is consistent with
the 2010 median age of 32.6. This is younger than 2000 when the median ages was 35.3. With
such a young population, it is expected housing units may turn over more frequently. But, as
of 2016, more than 60 percent all households have been living in their homes for more than
five (5) years. More data about geographic mobility of households is found in the Background
Report in the Appendix.
Household & Family Type
Changing family and household structures can
also have a profound effect on housing and
other community needs. For example, decreasing
household size has a direct impact on the amount
of housing a household needs. As mentioned, the
presence of children not only impacts local schools
and parks, but also the types of retailers that can be
supported and the nature of housing demanded.
Since 2010, the number of households with children
in both single-parent and married couple households
has been growing significantly. Meanwhile, the
trend among households without children, especially
married couples (i.e., empty-nesters) has been on the
decline. The percentage of households with children
is approaching 40 percent, which is well above the
rate in the County and the metro area.
32.8 Median age of
Brooklyn Center residents
- Sources: US Census, SHC
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-194-18
• The City has discussed developing a more formal housing action plan to better
understand the needs of its residents. The plan would work to better understand
cost-burdened households, eviction rates and policies, home-ownership racial
disparities, and gaps in the housing stock.
• Continuing to revise, enhance and modify its policies and ordinance to respond to
residents needs. This includes monitoring best-practices in the region, being agile
and open to changes and enhancements. As an example of this type of ordinance
or policy response the City recently adopted a Tenant Protection Ordinance that is
aimed and protecting the City’s residents ability to maintain stable, safe housing.
The City’s projected housing needs are complex, and are likely to become more complicated
as redevelopment occurs. However, the City intends to continue to prioritize discussion
and action around creating safe and stable housing throughout the City. The following
sections specifically address the new housing expected to be develop in this planning period.
The new and redevelopment areas should be considered collectively with the City’s existing
neighborhoods to ensure an incorporated, integrated approach to the City’s neighborhoods is
achieved to create a dynamic community for generations to come.
areas of the community with vibrant, experience-rich areas that will benefit everyone in the
community. The City is excited for redevelopment to create a dynamic central hub of activity
in the community, but also acknowledges that it must be balanced with strong assessment,
planning and appropriate protection of its existing housing stock to ensure neighborhood
sustainability and stability in all areas of the community.
New housing stock brings the possibility of adverse impacts to existing single-family and
multi-family properties if proactive steps are not taken to protect existing naturally occurring
affordable housing (NOAH), single-family neighborhoods, and multi-family properties.
The City’s policy makers throughout this process discussed and acknowledged that bringing
new market-rate, amenity rich housing products could have deleterious affects specifically
on existing naturally occurring affordable housing if a plan to protect affordability is not
implemented. This is a huge concern as resident stability through access to safe and healthy
housing is one of the City’s adopted strategic priorities. If proper tools are not in place there are
no protections to keep rents reasonable for residents and to maintain reasonably priced for-sale
housing as redevelopment takes holds.
One of the positive aspects of the City’s identified redevelopment areas is that the land proposed
for redevelopment does not contain existing housing. In a fully-development community this
is unusual for a large redevelopment area, and is positive because no residents will be displaced
as a result of the City’s redevelopment aspirations. However, even though residents will not be
displaced directly, indirectly, redevelopment could increase the desirability of activities such as
flipping single-family homes and converting NOAH multi-family properties for higher-rents.
To address some of these concerns an extensive list of high-level tools have been outlined
in Table 4-5 of this Chapter. The City recognizes that this chapter is only the start of an
ongoing conversation, and it is the City’s policy-makers intent to continue to be proactive,
and to collaborate with non-profits and advocate for a broader regional approach to housing
affordability. In addition to the tools identified in Table 4-5, the City is also continuing
conversations about:
• Viability of a non-discrimination ordinance related to Section 8 acceptance.
Adjacent Cities, including Minneapolis, have attempted to include ordinances in
their tool-kit addressing this issue. While the issue is currently in court, Brooklyn
Center will continue to monitor the process and may consider adoption of a
similar ordinance depending on its outcome.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-214-20
Future Residential Uses in Planned [Re] Development Opportunity Areas
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)
Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a new land use and redevelopment concept in the City
that focuses on existing and planned transit as a major amenity and catalyst for redevelopment.
While previous planning efforts have acknowledged the presence of transit in the community, none
have embraced it as an opportunity for redevelopment. As this portion of the City redevelops,
the location of future transit enhancements has the potential to attract significant new housing
development. Therefore, this is where guided densities are the highest. This is purposeful because
the area has exceptional visibility and access from Highway 100 and I-94, and will be served by two
transit stops (one being a transit hub) for the C-Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and the potential
future D-Line BRT. The C-Line BRT is planned to open in 2019 and will mimic the operations
of LRT (light rail transit), offering frequent transit service that will connect residents to the larger
region. To best support the C-Line, and future D-Line, the City has planned to reinvigorate
and re-imagine this central area of the community as a more livable, walkable, and connected
neighborhood within the City. In addition, the potential for desirable views of Downtown
Minneapolis could result in pressure to build taller structures in this area. Any development of
this area should also be seen as an opportunity to support commercial users, improve multi-modal
service and access, and allow safe, pleasant, and walkable connections to transit, parks, and other
community destinations.
As this area evolves, the desirability of this area as an amenity-rich livable area is likely to improve.
As change occurs, the housing within the area is likely to be at market rates adding to a more
economically diverse housing stock than is currently available in the community. This would add
more housing choices in Brooklyn Center, and it could also support a mix of both market rate
and affordable units; provided proper policies are developed to ensure legally binding affordable
housing is incorporated into development plans. Communities oftentimes explore policies such as
inclusionary zoning as redevelopment accelerates which may become an appropriate consideration
in the future, but is likely not to be the best approach given current market conditions. However,
in the future if significant increases in the market occur it
may warrant further discussion in the City. Regardless of the
policy tool (whether regulatory or incentive based) selected,
consideration will need to be given to working with any future
developer in a possible partnership with the City to help deliver
affordable units as part of redevelopment. As described within
the Chapter 9: Implementation, the City will continue to explore
proper methodology and policies to ensure an economically
diverse housing stock is created as housing continues to evolve in
the community.
New Housing Opportunities in this Planning Period
Recognizing that the land use plan for Brooklyn Center identifies several key areas that are
envisioned for new development or redevelopment, this will result in an opportunity to
accommodate more housing and increase the City’s number of households. Based on guided
residential densities in the development opportunity areas, the City can accommodate the
Metropolitan Council’s forecasted households as well as meet the allocated affordable units as
shown in Table 4-3 above. As indicated in the Land Use Chapter, depending on how the market
responds to these redevelopment areas the City could accommodate anywhere between 2,658
and 3,836 new households by 2040 (Chapter 3: Table 3-5, repeated in the following Table 4-4).
Table 4-4. Future Land Use Densities and Projected Acres, Households & Population
Future Land
Use Density (DU/A)2020 Acres
(Res)b HH Popc 2030 Acres
(Res)b HH Popc
Transit Orient
Development
31.01-130
DU/A 9 279 619 26 814 1,807
Neighborhood
Mixed-Use
15.01-31
DU/A 13 195 433 19 285 632
Commercial
Mixed Use
10.01 – 25
DU/A 8 80 178 15 150 333
High Density
Residential
15.01-31
DU/A 212 3,180 7,060 212 3,180 7,060
TOTAL ----3,734 8,290 --4,429 9,832
Source: Metropolitan Council, Thrive 2040 Brooklyn Center 2015 System Statement, SHC.
a Acreages assume that some recently redeveloped areas within these land use designations will not experience
redevelopment until post-2040 and therefore households are not calculated. Please refer to Map 3-3 that identifies
areas planned for change within this planning period.
b Note, there are existing households in each of the designations today that would be re-guided for potential
redevelopment in the future. This accounts for existing households and those that my potentially develop over the
next two years.
c Calculation multiplies households by 2.22 persons per household (According to the 2016 ACS (Census), for multi-
family units (5+ units in structure)
There are three large districts identified in the City with guided land use that allows for
significant potential of new development and redevelopment through 2040. These areas have
the potential to greatly expand Brooklyn Center’s current housing numbers and choices.
Moreover, each opportunity area has the potential to not only provide new forms and types of
housing but to catalyze or rejuvenate investment into the City resulting in stronger linkages
between neighborhoods and districts that are currently isolated from one another. The following
section discusses these areas further.
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-234-22
Commercial Mixed-Use Areas
The Commercial Mixed-Use areas generally surround the TOD area and are contemplated for large-
scale redevelopment but are equally as focused on supporting business and office users. These areas are
generally within one mile of the transit station that serves as a major hub for regional and local transit
services, and therefore new housing will still have opportunities to capitalize on this as an amenity.
Slightly less dense than the TOD district, these areas may provide exceptional opportunities to introduce
multi-family uses such as town homes, row homes, and small lot single-family uses that could cater
to larger families and incorporate more units with three or more bedrooms. As indicated in previous
sections of this Chapter, the City’s residents expressed a desire to have access to more rental units with
more bedrooms and larger square footages. While a detailed market study would likely be needed to
confirm the demand for these uses, if we can take the anecdotal information as true, this area has the
potential to support those types of uses. As with the TOD district, affordability is likely to become a
consideration in any redevelopment within these areas because new construction naturally costs more
and as the area redevelops interest and demand is likely to escalate costs. It is therefore important, just
as with the redevelopment of the TOD district, that the City evaluate and explore ways to incorporate a
range of affordable and market rate opportunities in new developments.
Neighborhood Mixed-Use Areas
The Neighborhood Mixed-Use is a new land use designation that responds to resident and policy-makers
desire to incorporate retail and services into the neighborhood fabric. One of the ways the City can
accomplish that objective is to create ‘nodes’ of mixed-uses that include residential uses, but protect
key corners for small retailers, shops, or restaurants that create a more vibrant streetscape. The City
acknowledges that these areas are less likely to redevelop with any regularity. Therefore, the number
of new housing units expected to come on-line in these areas is a little less tangible than in areas with
large contiguous redevelopment acres. However, the nodes have the opportunity to provide yet another
housing style and type, as these areas are not envisioned for large high-rises or extensive master plans.
Instead, these areas are contemplated to have smaller footprints with living units above a small store
front or restaurant for example.
HOUSING RESOURCES, STRATEGIES & TOOLS
Table 4-5 outlines a variety of resources, strategies, and tools to implement Brooklyn Center’s
identified housing needs and stated housing goals. There is a wealth of resources available to
assist communities in meeting their goals. The following table should be considered a starting
point. As the City’s housing needs evolve or become clearer, this set of tools should expand with
options.
Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies & Tools
Housing Goal
Tool/
Resource/
Strategy
Description Affordability
Target
Promote a diverse
stock that provides
opportunities for
all income levels
Housing
Demand
Market Study
Conduct a market study and gaps analysis to track housing
demand. This study and report could double as a marketing
and promotional piece about housing opportunities.
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
HRA/CDA/
EDA
Work with the County HRA and City EDA to protect and
enhance existing NOAH in the City. Use Market Studies
to help identify opportunities to meet housing needs in the
City and evaluate ways to partner with the County and
other program providers.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Site
Assembly
Consider strategies for assembling sites in high-density
or mixed-use districts that would increase appeal to
developers.
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
CDBG
Work with Hennepin County to use CDBG funds to help
low-and moderate-income homeowners with rehabilitation
assistance. CDBG funds will also be explored for use
to support redevelopment efforts that meet the City’s
goals towards a diverse housing stock (units and market/
affordable diversity).
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
Tax
Abatement
Consider tax abatement for large rental project proposals
that provide unit and income-mix within a single project.
The City is particularly interested in projects with market
diversity and units of different size to cater to a larger
market (singles, families, multi-generational, etc).
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
HOME and
Affordable
Housing
Incentive
Fund
Consider application, and utilization, of HOME and
Affordable Housing Incentive fund grants to support a
diverse housing stock. The City will prioritize projects that
include a unit size and income mix that meets the needs of
single-person and families in the City.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
Housing
Bonds
The City would consider issuing Housing Bonds for projects
that include units for large families, particularly in projects
with a mix of unit sizes and incomes. However, it should be
noted that there are limitations to the city bonding authority
and other programs may be more suitable
<30% AMI
51-80% AMI
Brownfield
Clean-up
In potential redevelopment areas, explore EPA and MN
DEED grant programs that provide funding and assistance
with planning, assessment, and site clean-up.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
4D for NOAH
Properties
The City will continue use of 4D classification for the
purpose of protecting its Naturally Occurring Affordable
Housing (NOAH) uses throughout the City.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
Pooled TIF
Funds
Explore the use of TIF housing funds to create a revolving
loan program to support the rehabilitation of existing single-
family and multi-family NOAH properties.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-254-24
Housing Goal
Tool/
Resource/
Strategy
Description Affordability
Target
Identify ways to
match housing
stock with changing
demographic Housing
Coordinator
Position
The City would create a position that would serve as
a liaison to existing landlords to help them respond to
shifting demographics through training and access to city
resources. The position could also serve as a resource
for tenants to connect to support services in the event of
eviction notices, discriminatory practices, and other issues
related to housing access. The position would include
coordinating housing programs, including home ownership
programs, resident financial literacy programs, with the
intent to convert Brooklyn Center renters to successful
home owners.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Referrals
Review and update reference procedures and training for
applicable staff including a plan to maintain our ability to
refer residents to any applicable housing programs outside
the scope of local services.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Preserve
LIHTC
properties
The City will monitor expiring LIHTC properties and work to
find solutions to protect and preserve these affordable units
to meet the needs and demands of the City’s residents.
The City will approach owners with expiring properties to
discuss the possibility of 4d program tax breaks
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
Explore
opportunities
to improve City
housing policies
and ordinance
to make more
responsive
Expedited
Application
Process
Streamline the pre-application process in order to minimize
unnecessary delay for projects that address our stated
housing needs, prior to a formal application submittal
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Fair Housing
Policy
The City will work to incorporate a Fair Housing policy into
its ordinances and policies.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Existing
ordinances
The City will continue to operate its Rental Licensing
Program, and will periodically review and make
enhancements to support the City’s residents.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Update the
City’s Zoning
to support
new land
uses
The City’s future land use plan provides opportunities
to include high density residential uses in the areas
identified for redevelopment. The City will update its
zoning ordinance, including prepare new zoning districts,
to support the housing needs identified in this Housing
chapter.
<30% AMI
51-80%
Maintain existing
housing stock
in single-family
neighborhoods
through proper
ordinances,
incentives and
enforcement
Foreclosure
Prevention
In established neighborhoods, a rash of foreclosures,
especially in close proximity to one another, can have a
deleterious effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Be
aware of foreclosures and be able to direct homeowners
at-risk of foreclosure to resources that can help prevent
foreclosures. http://www.hocmn.org/
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Low or No
Cost Home
Loans
Providing low-or no-cost loans to help homeowners repair
heating, plumbing, or electrical systems helps preserve
existing housing. For example, Minnesota Housing’s
Rehabilitation Loan and Emergency Loan programs
make zero percent, deferred loans that are forgivable if
the borrower lives in the home for 30 years. Minnesota
Housing’s Community Fix Up Program offers lower-cost
home improvement loans, often with discounted interest
rates, remodeling advising, or home energy services,
through a trained lender network.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Home
Ownership
Program
Work with residents to provide education and programs
to make home ownership possible, particularly converting
existing renters to home owners through supporting down-
payment assistance programs.
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Code
Enforcement
The City will continue to operate a robust code
enforcement program that includes both complaint-based
enforcement and proactive sweeps.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Vacant
Building
Program
The City will continue to operate its Vacant Building
Program that tracks and monitors vacant properties in the
City to ensure adequate upkeep and maintenance.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Explore
opportunities to
incorporate new
affordable housing
into redevelopment
areas
Inclusionary
Housing
Ordinance
If the market strengthens in redevelopment areas to the
extent that policies would not deter investment, the City
could consider an inclusionary housing ordinance to
ensure that affordable housing is a component of any new
housing development. Since current market conditions
in the City are well below those of adjacent communities,
an inclusionary policy may deter short-term investment.
The City may want to explore this policy in the future if the
market rents rise to levels of at least 80% AMI.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Livable
Communities
(LCA
and LCA
LCDA-TOD)
Consider supporting/sponsoring an application to LCDA
programs for multi-family rental proposals in areas guided
for high density residential and targeted to households of
all income levels.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
Tax
Increment
Financing
(TIF)
To help meet the need for low-income housing, the City
will establish a TIF district in an area guided for TOD and
mixed uses.
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
51-80%
HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4-274-26
DRAFT Chapter 9: Implementation
Comprehensive Plan 2040
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
2
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
1
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is a critical part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process providing a roadmap
for the City of next steps and implementation strategies to help bring this Plan to reality. The
implementation strategies contained in subsequent sections of this Plan are specific to the
chapters, goals and strategies, and feedback heard throughout this planning process.
Throughout this planning process consistent themes and messaging emerged that became
the foundation for plan development, including the implementation strategies found in this
chapter. At key milestones in this process the City solicited targeted feedback from residents,
stakeholders, commission members and the City Council in an effort to establish Brooklyn
Center’s top priorities for the next 10–20 years. The following top priorities, including those
characteristics of the community that are important to maintain, emerged from the planning
process (unordered):
• Our location is exceptional but a consistent brand for the community has yet to
be recognizable in the region since Brookdale closed. We have an opportunity to
reimagine and redevelop this area—we have to design and implement a plan that is
innovative, forward thinking and creative.
• Brooklyn Center’s population is diverse and will be into the future. The City
should embrace its diversity and use it as a differentiator that makes the City a
desirable, exciting and vibrant place to live, work, and recreate.
• Creating an economically competitive, accessible and stable business climate is
important to developing a stable, vibrant and sustainable community long-term.
• Brooklyn Center’s accessible regional location in conjunction with the available
redevelopment areas in the center city provide an opportunity to create a dynamic
and vibrant sub-regional job center that provides employment opportunities to the
City’s residents and the larger region.
• Our youth is our future and we need to focus on their needs today, and in the
future. We should partner with schools, work-programs, public and private post-
secondary institutions to ensure kids have opportunities to work and live in the
City as they become adults.
• The City’s housing stock is aging and lacks economic diversity. We need to find
ways to integrate a range of housing types, sizes, affordability, and market rate into
redevelopment to expand the choices available to new and existing residents.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
2
• We need to establish clear standards and regulations for areas designated or
identified for redevelopment. It is important to consider massing, setbacks,
relationship with existing homes, open spaces, trails, and natural resources.
• We should capitalize on the transit improvements, particularly the C-Line, that
could be an amenity to any new development in the center city if designed and
planned for appropriately.
• The City should establish and enhance key relationships with partner agencies
such as Metropolitan Council, DEED, MnDNR, Three Rivers Park District and
Hennepin County to create a more integrated region that provides improved
connections within the City and to the region.
• Safety of transit users was repeatedly mentioned particularly for users that would
like to use the main transit station in the community. Community members
identified concerns such as loitering, lighting, accessibility, and lack of consistency
with routes as concerns. This transit ‘hub’ will likely become busier as the C-Line
opens, and it is important for the City to partner with Metro Transit to plan for
this station to ensure residents feel comfortable and safe at the station.
Based on these guiding priorities and principles the following implementation strategies were
derived. Most chapters’ implementation strategies can be found in the following sections with
the exception of some the Housing Implementation Strategies that are partially included within
the individual chapter for consistency with the Metropolitan Council’s checklist.
The following implementation strategies are meant to identify a set of high-level steps and
considerations that will help guide the City to achieve the goals and objectives of this Plan. The
strategies are not all encompassing, but instead are meant to serve as a guide and roadmap to
describe the methods, steps and types of questions the City will tackle throughout this planning
period. Just as this list may not include every strategy, Brooklyn Center may not complete every
strategy on this list based on market dynamics or other external factors. But generally the City
will use the following strategies as a guide to work towards implementing the Vision and Goals
that this Plan has established for the City as it continues to evolve and change into 2040.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
3
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
The Capital Improvement Program is a flexible plan based upon long-range physical planning
and financial projections, which schedules the major public improvements that may be
incurred by the City over the next five years. Flexibility of the Capital Improvement Plan is
established through annual review, and revision if necessary. The annual review assures that the
program will become a continuing part of the budgetary process and that it will be consistent
with changing demands as well as changing patterns in cost and financial resources. Funds
are appropriated only for the first year of the program, which is then included in the annual
budget. The Capital Improvement Plan serves as a tool for implementing certain aspects of
the City’s comprehensive plan; therefore, the program describes the overall objectives of City
development, the relationship between projects with respect to timing and need, and the City’s
fiscal capabilities.
The full Capital Improvement Plan is available at Brooklyn Center City Hall and on the City’s
website. It is also included as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. Specific implementation
strategies for water, sewer and transportation infrastructure are also described in those chapters.
CHAPTER 3: LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals
and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
Land Use
1. The City will complete a full update of its zoning ordinance to support the modified
land use designations identified on the Future Land Use Plan.
a. The update at a minimum will include a full review of all residential, commercial,
and industrial zoning classifications that consider the following:
i. Setbacks
ii. Parking
iii. Height Restrictions
iv. Coverage
v. Performance Standards
vi. Permitted/Un-permitted Uses
vii. Conditional Uses
viii. Accessory Structures/Uses
ix. Fencing/Screening
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
4
b. To support the individual zoning district update process, a full review of the City
Code as it may pertain to the administration of the Zoning Code will be completed.
This process may result in changes and updates or may find that the existing
ordinances are adequate. At a minimum, the review will consider the following:
i. Sign Standards
ii. Public Nuisances
iii. Special Use Permit (SUP) will be brought into Compliance with Minnesota
State Statute requirements for Conditional Use Permits
iv. Variance process and language will be updated and revised to reflect
‘Practical Difficulties’ if not already completed.
v. Platting ordinance will be reviewed for platting process compliance and
proper reference to revised zoning ordinance.
vi. PUD process and procedures will be reviewed for consistency with the City’s
stated goals and objectives, particularly as it relates to redevelopment
areas identified within this Plan.
vii. Addition of a Shoreland Ordinance to comply with MRCCA requirements.
c. The process to prepare the zoning ordinance update will be led by the City’s staff,
with support and assistance from a Consultant and input and direction from the
City Council.
i. The City may establish a community engagement plan for the Zoning
Code update process. This may include a sub-committee or task force to
provide feedback and input on key issues throughout the update process
to ensure a broad spectrum of perspectives is represented and addressed
within the process.
2. The City will continue to support and explore incorporating policies within ordinance
updates that address community resiliency and long-term sustainability.
a. As ordinances are updated, the City will explore
opportunities to encourage through incentives or
regulations energy efficiency in redevelopment and site
design.
b. Addressing resiliency with respect to the City
infrastructure and PTOS systems can be cost-effective
when incorporated into initial site design requirements.
The City will explore opportunities to address
and incorporate such site design standards into its
ordinances, particularly within new zoning districts.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
5
Redevelopment
1. The City will create zoning districts to support the new land use designations identified
on the Future Land Use Plan.
a. At a minimum seven new zoning districts will be developed for consistency with
the Transit Oriented Development (TOD), Neighborhood Mixed-Use (N-MU),
Commercial Mixed-Use (C-MU), and Business Mixed Use (B-MU) land use
designations.
b. The process to prepare the new zoning districts will be led by Staff and a Consultant
with direction from the City Council and City Commissions. The process should
be initiated immediately upon adoption of this Comprehensive Plan and should be
completed within nine (9) months of its adoption. Each zoning district will address,
at a minimum:
i. Massing and architectural design
ii. Setbacks
iii. Height restrictions
iv. Site design/landscape standards
v. Permitted, conditionally permitted and not permitted uses
vi. Accessory structures/uses
vii. Transition of uses
viii. Mix of uses
ix. PUD process or other incentive process
x. Establishment of how mixed-use will be applied (i.e. through a master plan
approach, parcel-by-parcel basis, etc.)
2. The City will develop a process and methodology for tracking the mixed-use and
redevelopment projects to achieve the mix of uses as contemplated within this
Comprehensive Plan. The ordinances should be developed with graphic representations
of the standards to be more user friendly. The process may include exploration of
ghost-platting, development of a database/tracking spreadsheet, and the development
of ‘cheat-sheet’ or development reference guides for developers and land owners that
describe the mix of uses contemplated and the process to ensure compliance with the
ordinance and this Plan.
3. The City will establish guidelines and procedures for the sale of EDA-owned property.
This may include creating marketing materials and promoting revised ordinances that
highlight the ease of developing in the community.
4. The City will continue to evaluate opportunities for additional land acquisition
particularly within proximity to land holdings in the center city that may offer larger
redevelopment opportunities.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
6
5. The City will participate as an active partner in any redevelopment effort that includes
City financial participation including as the land owner, or TIF, tax abatement, grant
partner, etc.
6. What has historically been known as the “Opportunity Site” is re-guided in this
Plan to allow for mixed-use development of the site. At the time of this Plan the
City is working with a developer on a master plan for the redevelopment that will
add a significant number of new households to the community. Understanding that
this redevelopment effort is in-progress, the new zoning districts that are created to
support the land use designation must be prepared for consistency with the anticipated
development. In an effort to minimize duplication of the process, the City will
create a minimum of one supporting zoning district that is consistent with the known
redevelopment plans. The zoning district will address, at a minimum, the following:
a. A minimum percentage of a project that must contain commercial, office or retail
uses that support and are consistent with any developed housing.
b. The ordinance development process should consider how to incorporate a range of
housing types, including considering incentives and/or standards that encourage the
construction of new affordable housing
c. The ordinance will incorporate architectural and landscape design standards that
support the goals and strategies contained within Chapter 2 of this Plan.
d. The ordinance will incorporate incentives, and where applicable standards, that are
focus on sustainable site improvements and resilient infrastructure improvements
such as: transit, trail and sidewalk connections, pervious pavers and other innovate
landscape products, localized surface water management and other low impact
development techniques.
e. The ordinance will require development that incorporates best practices for
creating transit oriented places, including density minimums, parking maximums,
pedestrian-oriented design, and accommodates a mix of uses.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
7
CHAPTER 4: HOUSING
The Implementation Strategies that support the Metropolitan Council’s checklist to achieve
the City’s Housing goals and objectives can be found in Chapter 4 of this Plan. The following
implementation strategies support those contained within Chapter 4.
1. As part of the zoning ordinance update process the City will evaluate the rules and
regulations to ensure that they allow existing and future residents to improve their
homes in ways that add value and are desirable, and allow for infill housing that offers a
range of housing types and products.
a. Residential zoning districts should be written to allow for a mix of housing types,
with various setbacks and massing standards to allow for diversity within an
individual development.
b. Ordinances should be written to define ‘family’ consistently with current
demographics. This may require additional study to fully understand the greatest
needs anticipated in the community over the next planning period.
c. Setback requirements should reflect existing conditions and allow reasonable
expansions and additions to homes.
2. The City will evaluate the housing stock for consistency with current and projected
demographics. This includes understanding appropriate mix of bedrooms, unit types,
etc., that match the changing needs of the City’s residents. The following examples may
require additional study:
a. Unit mix, such as studios, 1-bedrooms, 2-bedrooms, 3 and 3+ Bedrooms
b. Private entry rental opportunities such as town homes, row homes, etc., versus
standard multi-family apartments and condominium development.
3. The City will continue to operate its Rental Licensing Program, which has proven to be
highly effective in maintaining the City’s rental housing stock.
4. The City will continue to operate a robust code enforcement program that incorporates
both complaint-based enforcement and proactive sweeps. The City will continue
to engage residents and business owners to ensure code compliance and to provide
information in a way that is understandable and clear.
5. The City will continue to operate its Vacant Building Program, which tracts and
monitors vacant properties in the City, as well as ensuring adequate upkeep and
maintenance.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
8
6. The City will explore programs and policies that promote home ownership in the City.
7. The City will explore programs and policies that provide assistance with single-family
housing rehabilitation and maintenance, including low and no-cost loans and grants,
project consultation, and other resources. This may include partnerships with outside
agencies as well as programs administered by the City.
8. The City will explore polices and ordinances, including incentives and standards, that
encourage the construction of new affordable housing.
9. The City will explore partnerships that provide sources of financing and incentives to
preserve existing multi-family housing, particularly ways to preserve naturally occurring
affordable housing that maintains its affordability.
10. The City will explore programs and policies that encourage landlords to invest in their
rental properties.
11. The City will consider creating a housing coordinator position to build relationships
with existing landlords and tenants, administer programs, seek funding opportunities,
and promote the City’s housing goals.
12. The City will consider adopting policies that promote further the goal of providing safe,
secure, and stable housing for renters. This may include adopting ordinances and/or
policies that protect the rights of renters.
13. The City will consider inclusionary housing policies that ensure that affordable housing
is a component of new housing development when the market strengthens to the extent
that it would not deter investment.
a. For example, if market rents rise to levels that are affordable to those making 80%
AMI then the City would consider adopting an inclusionary housing policy.
14. The City will consider adopting a
public subsidy policy that gives greater
consideration to projects that forward the
City’s housing goals. This includes the
option of TIF Housing Set-Aside funds
or new TIF Districts that support mixed-
income and affordable housing. The City
will support grant applications to outside
agencies to benefit projects that forward
the City’s housing goals.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
9
CHAPTER 5: COMMUNITY IMAGE,
BUSINESS STABILITY & ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals
and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
1. The City will work to create strategies and supporting resources to incorporate
affordable commercial, retail and office space into new redevelopment areas.
2. The City will actively pursue a branding and marketing strategy that leverages the
community’s diversity as a key asset from which new businesses can be developed.
3. To promote and support local businesses the City will explore the development of a
local procurement policy.
4. The City will form a task force or steering committee to study local entrepreneurial
needs, gaps and opportunities of residents. Study and research will focus on:
a. Identification of barriers to growing or starting a business in the City.
b. Review of existing ordinances and policies to ensure they support small, start-up and
pop-up businesses.
c. Understand what opportunities exist locally and regionally, and what strategies the
City might employ to further support local entrepreneurs.
5. The City will explore the feasibility of a commercial land trust model that promotes
perpetually affordable commercial space.
6. The City will review its existing business and industrial zoning district designations and
revise and update, as necessary, language and policies to ensure regulations support and
incentivize:
a. Local businesses to stay and grown in the City
b. New businesses to locate in the community
c. A mix of land uses that reflect current market needs and desires
7. The City will explore opportunities to enhance partnerships with local secondary and
post-secondary education institutions that support school-work opportunities, skills and
job training, and matching local companies with young talent.
8. The City will partner with DEED and Hennepin County to offer entrepreneurial
resource and support programs such as WomenVenture and Open to Business.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
10
9. The City will create a Business Retention & Expansion Program to work directly with
the businesses within the community to ensure that their needs are being met.
10. The City will amend its Business Subsidy Policy to prioritize the creation of livable and
high wage jobs.
11. The City will create and fund a revolving loan/grant program to assist property and
business owners with expansions, interior buildouts, equipment purchasing, and exterior
enhancements.
12. The City will explore other economic development programs, including with outside
agencies, which would incentivize business expansion and attraction.
13. The City will explore job training and career pathways programs and policies that would
benefit residents.
14. The City will explore options to connect the local workforce to employers.
15. The City will continue to support partnerships that promote workforce readiness and
removing barriers for existing residents to access education and workforce training, such
as the Brooklynk partnership with Brooklyn Park.
16. The City will explore partnerships and programs that promote financial literacy and
wealth creation amongst residents.
17. The City will continue to explore ways to reduce racial disparities that exist as they
relate the economic stability of its residents, including access to livable wage jobs,
home ownership opportunities, financial literacy and wealth creation, and job pathways
training.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
11
CHAPTER 6: PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE (PTOS)
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals
and strategies identified in Chapter 6 of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
1. The City will continue to prioritize the completion of the PTOS system within
redevelopment areas and will work with developers to identify appropriate and
reasonable opportunities to enhance and improve access to the system by all residents.
2. Redevelopment projects will be required to provide trail connections that align with
the surrounding local and regional trail system that are existing or planned within this
Plan.
3. Redevelopment projects will be required to plan for parks and open spaces consistent
with this Plan, and the City will work with developers to identify and prioritize
improvements to the PTOS system.
4. The City will continue to maintain and manage the existing parks, trails and open space
plan consistent with past and current practices. Current management includes:
a. Annual CIP budgeting and planning to support current park, trail, and open space
function.
b. Continue to support the City’s Community Activities, Recreation and Services
(CARS) division through appropriate capital investments.
c. Periodic survey of residents and stakeholders to understand appropriate and needed
parks, trails, and open space programming within the system.
d. Prepare and plan for system improvements that respond to the needs of the
community. This includes improvements such as park system component
conversions including transitioning baseball fields to multi-purpose fields (example)
5. Brooklyn Center will continue to support opportunities for community gatherings
at each of its parks, including, but not limited to the summer markets, pavilion
rentals, Brooklyn Center’s movie in the parks, and Central Park events that unite the
community.
6. The City will continue to complete the sidewalk and trail network consistent with
previous planning efforts. This plan acknowledges that trails and sidewalks are a critical
component of the Park and Recreation system but are equally as important to the
transportation system.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
12
CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORTATION
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals
and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
1. The City’s accessibility to the region, and within the region, is an important
differentiator and asset to the community. The City will continue to prioritize roadways
as an important part of the transportation network.
2. The City will continue to partner with Hennepin County and MnDOT on planned road
reconstruction projects to ensure safety and accessibility of the road system within the
City are prioritized.
3. Any roadway reconstruction or improvement will consider the incorporation of a
stormwater assessment, and any plans should incorporate and implement the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices to improve stormwater quality,
recharge local aquifers, and reuse and conserve stormwater where possible.
4. The City will continue to budget for regular maintenance of roadways approximately
every five to eight years and include such plan within the City’s Capital Improvement
Program.
5. Brooklyn Center will plan for completing the Regional Bicycle Transportation Network
(RBTN) that is currently planned within the City to connect to other regional and sub-
regional job centers. As redevelopment and reconstruction of roadways occurs RBTN
segments or gaps will be constructed to help complete the system.
6. Many of the City’s residents use Transit, and many more could if service were improved
in the City. Currently the City is divided into Transit Market II and Transit Market II,
which provides varying levels of services. The following summary of considerations is
provided:
a. The City will work with Metro Transit over this planning period to evaluate the
appropriate Transit Market areas for the City per the Metropolitan Council.
i. The mapping completed for this Plan demonstrates that some of the
residents that may benefit most from frequent and reliable transit may
be underserved.
ii. The City is developed with a similar urban grid pattern for the
majority of its neighborhoods without much distinction. Therefore,
it seems inaccurate to identify some areas as more typical “suburban”
development.
b. The City’s Future Land Use Plan has identified the ‘central spine’ for possible
redevelopment in this planning period. The redevelopment pattern contemplated
embraces the Transit Station and uses it as an organizing feature.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
13
CHAPTER 8: INFRASTRUCTURE (UTILITIES)
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals
and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update.
1. The City will continue to plan for water and sewer infrastructure improvements to occur
concurrently with any planned roadway improvements and reconstruction projects.
2. The City prepared a full sanitary sewer plan and supportive modeling in conjunction
with this Plan update. As redevelopment occurs, the sewer plan will be used to guide
proper infrastructure improvements including sizing and capacity recommendations,
timing and consideration for future phases of redevelopment.
3. The City prepared an update to its water plan and supportive modeling in conjunction
with this Plan update. As redevelopment occurs the water plan will be used to guide
proper/necessary infrastructure improvements.
a. The water supply permit from the DNR will be updated once this Plan and Future
Land Use Plan are adopted to reflect projected housing and employment forecasts
contained in this Plan.
4. The LSWMP identifies several capital and administrative projects that are incorporated
into this implementation plan by reference. The City will properly manage and
schedule such improvements to be included within its CIP for on-going planning and
action.
5. The City will continue to work with its regional partners, including the Metropolitan
Council, on sewer and water infrastructure planning and development so that regional
coordination is maintained throughout this planning period.
6. Consideration for how to incorporate sustainable and resilient infrastructure through
new development will be addressed at the specific site redevelopment level. This will
first be accomplished through the ordinance review, creation and update process and
described within previous sections; and will then be implemented through site and
redevelopment plan sets and engineering.
a. The City’s Public Works Department and its staff will work collaboratively with
the Community Development department to identify potential ordinance revisions
that would support the development of an integrated green network that not only
supports the PTOS system but the City’s infrastructure.
IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018
City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040
14
APPENDIX: MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL CORRIDOR AREA PLAN
The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the
MRCCA Plan contained within Appendix B of this Plan.
1. The City will develop ordinances to support the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MnDNR) requirements to regulate property contained within the MRCCA
overlay designations.
a. At a minimum the City will develop a shoreland ordinance for properties that abut
the Mississippi River and will structure the ordinance to comply with MnDNR
requirements.
b. The City will work collaboratively with the MnDNR to establish appropriate setback
and height standards based on specific parcel locations and potential redevelopment.
i. The City may seek flexibility from the MnDNR’s standard
requirements, particularly on sites identified for redevelopment. The
City will work with the MnDNR to identify appropriate standards.
c. The City will engage residents during the ordinance development to provide
education about the MRCCA standard requirements and ordinance development
process.
i. The public engagement process will also solicit feedback regarding
specific standards development include appropriate setbacks, height,
coverage requirements, etc.
Fair Housing Policy
1. Purpose and Vision
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act establishes federal policy for providing fair housing throughout
the United States. The intent of Title VIII is to assure equal housing opportunities for all
citizens. Furthermore, the City of Bloomington, as a recipient of federal community
development funds under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, is
obligated to certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing.
The City of Bloomington strives to advance its commitment to inclusion and equity by
developing this Fair Housing Policy to further the goal of creating a vibrant, safe, and healthy
community where all residents will thrive.
2. Policy Statement
It is the policy and commitment of the City of Bloomington to ensure that fair and equal housing
opportunities are available to all persons in all housing opportunities and development activities
funded by the City regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status,
status with regard to public assistance, creed, familial status, national origin, or disability. This
is done through external policies to provide meaningful access to all constituents as well as fair
housing information and referral services; and through internal practices and procedures that
promote fair housing and support the City’s equity and inclusion goals.
City of Bloomington, Minnesota
Fair Housing Policy
2
3. External Practices
a. Intake and Referral
The City of Bloomington has designated the Staff Liaison to the Human Rights
Commission as the responsible authority for the intake and referral of all fair housing
complaints. At a minimum the Staff Liaison will be trained in state and federal fair
housing laws, the complaint process for filing discrimination complaints, and the state
and federal agencies that handle complaints. The date, time, and nature of the fair
housing complaint and the referrals and information given will be fully documented. The
Human Rights Commission will advise the City Council on City programs and policies
affecting fair housing and raise issues and concerns where appropriate.
b. Meaningful Access
i. Online Information. The City of Bloomington will continue to display
information about fair housing prominently on its website. The website
will continue to include links to various fair housing resources, including
the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Minnesota
Department of Human Rights, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, and others as
well as links to state and federal fair housing complaint forms. In
addition, the City will post the following documents on its website:
1. Reasonable Accommodation Policy;
2. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Policy;
3. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Policy regarding access to
City services; and
4. The State of Minnesota’s Olmstead Plan.
ii. In-Person Information. The City of Bloomington will provide in-person
fair housing information including:
1. A list of fair housing enforcement agencies;
2. Frequently asked questions regarding fair housing law; and
3. Fair housing complaint forms for enforcement agencies
City of Bloomington, Minnesota
Fair Housing Policy
3
c. Languages. The City of Bloomington is committed to providing information in
the native language of its residents. The City of Bloomington will provide
information in languages other than English as described in its LEP Policy.
4. Internal Practices
The City of Bloomington commits to the following steps to promote awareness and
competency regarding fair housing issues in all of its government functions.
a. Staff and Officials Training. The City will continue to train its staff and officials
on fair housing considerations.
b. Housing Analysis. The City will review its housing periodically to examine the
affordability of both rental and owner-occupied housing to inform future City
actions.
c. Code Analysis. The City will review its municipal code periodically, with
specific focus on ordinances related to zoning, building, and occupancy standards,
to identify any potential for disparate impact or treatment.
d. Project Planning and Analysis. City planning functions and development review
will consider housing issues, including whether potential projects may perpetuate
segregation or lead to displacement of protected classes.
e. Community Engagement. The City will seek input from underrepresented
populations in the community. Conversations regarding fair housing,
development, zoning, and land use changes may be facilitated by the City.
f. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. As a recipient of federal funds, the City
agrees to participate in the Regional Analysis of Impediments, as organized by the
regional Fair Housing Implementation Council (FHIC), an ad hoc coalition of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement jurisdictions and
City of Bloomington, Minnesota
Fair Housing Policy
4
others working together to affirmatively further fair housing. The City will
review the recommendations from the analysis for potential integration into City
planning documents, including the Consolidated Plan, the Comprehensive Plan,
and other related documents.
Adopted by the City Council on August 6, 2018
Housing
Policy Guide
Approved by APA Delegate Assembly, April 14, 2019
Ratified by APA Board of Directors, May 14, 2019
planning.org/policy
planning.org/policy
Table of Contents
03 Introduction
04 Emerging Trends
08 Policy Positions
13 Related Policy Guides
The American Planning Association advocates for public
policies that create just, healthy, and prosperous communi-
ties that expand opportunity for all through good planning.
APA’s advocacy is based on adopted positions and principles
contained in policy guides. These guides address the critical
policy issues confronting planners and communities by
identifying solutions for local, state, and federal policy makers.
Policy guides are led by the APA Legislative and Policy Com-
mittee, ratified by the APA Board of Directors, and developed
through the careful and extensive involvement of planners
across the country. APA policy guides articulate and advance
the principles of good planning in law and regulation.
Policy Guide Authors
Angela Brooks, aicp, Co-chair
Jennifer Raitt, Co-chair
Aldea Coleman
Brian Loughlin, aia
Thomas Eddington, aicp, asla
Benjamin D. Frost, Esq., aicp
Michael A. Levine, aicp
Kelly Murphy, aicp
Martha Sickles, aicp
Legislative and Policy Committee
George Homewood, faicp, Chair
Whit Blanton, faicp
Brian Campbell, faicp
Aldea Coleman
Kara Drane, aicp
Jessica Garrow, aicp
Daniel Haake, aicp
Charles Liuzzo
Sarah Marchant, aicp
Wendy E. Moeller, faicp
Ramona Mullahey
Pete Parkinson, aicp
Jennifer Raitt
Dan Reuter, faicp
Edward Sullivan
Susan Wood, aicp
APA Board of Directors
Kurt E. Christiansen, faicp, APA President
Cynthia Bowen, faicp,
APA Immediate Past President
Wendy E. Moeller, faicp,
Secretary, Director Region IV
Courtenay D. Mercer, aicp,
Treasurer, Director Region I
Deborah Alaimo Lawlor, faicp, pp,
AICP President
Rodger Lentz, aicp, Director Region II
Wendy D. Shabay, aicp, Director Region III
Leo Asuncion, Jr., aicp, Director Region V
Kristen Asp, aicp, Director Region VI
Kara W. Drane, aicp, Director at Large
Lauren Driscoll, aicp, Director at Large
Marjorie Press, Director at Large, Focused
Fleming El-Amin, aicp,
Director at Large, Focused
Ben Hitchings, faicp, Director,
Chapter Presidents Council Chair
David Fields, aicp,
Director, Divisions Council Chair
Rachael Thompson Panik,
Director, Student Representatives
Council Chair
COPYRIGHT 2019 BY THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION.
Cover: Westlawn Gardens in Milwaukee, recipient of a 2018 APA
National Planning Excellence Award, created 250 new affordable
housing options in a community where they were needed most.
Born out of a master-planning process, Westlawn Gardens is an
example of the type of housing options possible when planners,
community members, and public and private partners work together
to create a shared vision.
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 3
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
Introduction
“In order for communities to function, there must be an
adequate supply of housing in proximity to employment,
public transportation, and community facilities, such as
public schools. The housing stock must include affordable
and accessible for sale and rental units, not only to meet
social equity goals, but in order to ensure community
viability. The development of a diverse and affordable
housing stock must be carried out without sacrificing
sound regulations that are in place to protect the environ-
ment and public health.”
— Housing Policy Guide, 2006
While the goals of the 2006 Housing Policy Guide remain as valid as
ever, progress has been mixed over the past 13 years. Many of the
same challenges remain and some, particularly housing availability and
affordability, have worsened. Many desirable communities are out of
reach for those earning an average wage and too many Americans must
spend an inordinate amount of their income on housing expenses. In
addition, the long-term adverse effects of discriminatory financial lend-
ing practices and exclusionary zoning—including redlining—continue
to impact the social, cultural, ethnographic, and economic diversity
of our urban, exurban, and suburban regions in ways that negatively
impact low-income and minority households disproportionately.
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 4
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
Emerging Trends
1. Inventory and conditions
The nation’s housing supply has continued to rise from 122.7 million
units in 2004 to 134.1 million in 2016 but at a slower rate than previous
years. While housing stock keeps ahead of overall household growth, it
fails to meet the needs of changing socioeconomic characteristics of
the population.
Housing starts have slowed, with an average of 0.8 million units built
annually from 2010 through 2016 compared to a 1.1 million average
previously. The percentages of unit types in the national housing supply
varied slightly: The number of single-unit structures rose from 67 per-
cent to 67.4 percent; multiunit structures were constant at 26 percent;
and mobile homes declined from seven to 6.3 percent.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Characteristics of New Single-
Family Houses Completed, the average size of single-family homes
constructed nationally declined during the Great Recession from a
high of 2,528 square feet in 2008 to a low of 2,402 in 2009, then steadily
increased to 2,637 square feet in 2016. Beyond increased space, most of
these new homes contain additional amenities such as multiple bathrooms.
The national average single-family home price was $356,160 in 2016,
increasing 34 percent over a five-year period. While there are variations
in household income, cost burden is measured as not paying more
than 30 percent on housing costs. For an average owner not to be cost
burdened, their income would have to be $103,200 annually to have
afforded the “average” single-family home constructed in 2016. Renters
can face an even higher burden.
Average home lot sizes decreased from a high of 18,871 square feet
in 2009 to a low of 15,167 in 2013, rising the following years to 16,381 in
2015 and dropping to 15,641 in 2016. The National Association of Home
Builders/Wells Fargo Housing Market Index found that the percentage
of builders reporting a low or very-low supply of lots in their markets
rose to 64 percent in 2017 from nine percent in 2009.
National annual average multifamily housing construction more than
doubled from 2010 (155,000 units) to 2016 (358,000 units). Newly con-
structed units, unless subsidized as affordable housing, had higher sales
and rental prices consistent with increased pricing of the newly constructed
single-family homes. The deviation of construction and land cost increases
and stagnating incomes put much of the newly constructed multifamily
dwelling units beyond the reach of even those of median income.
According to the State of the Nation’s Housing 2018, there are four
primary impediments to stronger housing construction. The first is a
deficient supply of skilled workers. The second is a rise in cost of build-
ing materials. Third is the depletion of developable lots and fourth, the
impact of land-use regulations and zoning on the density and type of
construction. Productivity gains in housing construction have lagged
against other industries, an additional impediment to the market.
Lowered vacancy rates from 2010 to 2016, 2.4 to 1.8 percent in owner-
occupied housing and 7.8 to 6.2 percent in rental housing, signal a
tightening of the housing market. Vacancy rates are lowest in lower-cost
housing, relaxing as the price of units increase.
Overcrowded conditions are reported slightly higher in the 2016
American Community Survey data, rising from 3.4 to 3.9 percent. The
survey shows 3.3 percent of households live with more than one person
per room while 1.2 million households or 1.1 percent live with more
than 1.5 persons per room.
The National Housing Preservation Database indicates that of the
nearly 4.7 million publicly supported rental homes, more than 10
percent with affordability restrictions will expire in the next five years.
With more than 8.1 million extremely low-income households spending
more than half of their income on rent, there is a shortage of approx-
imately 7.4 million homes affordable to the extremely low-income
households in need.
There has been an uptick in a loss of older housing inventory. A
Hudson Institute analysis found that about 60 percent of low-cost units
in 1985 were lost from the U.S. housing stock by 2013 through a combi-
nation of permanent removals (27 percent), conversions to other uses
(18 percent), and upgrading to higher rents (12 percent). Moreover, just
under a third of affordable rentals in 2013 had been low-cost units in
1985, underscoring the importance of affordable housing preservation.
2. Affordability
Perhaps the most significant economic trend of the last 12 years is the
widening gap between the highest earners and the average wage.
Those at the top of the income curve have seen their earnings increase
while the majority has experienced stagnation or reduction. This has
directly affected the housing supply, which is steadily bifurcating into
strong or weaker markets while the middle range is shrinking.
Over 41 million households in the United States (approximately
35 percent) are described as cost burdened, meaning these house-
holds are spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing
expenses. The numbers are increasingly dire for those households
that earn roughly a minimum wage income. Assume the breadwinner
in a household earns $10 per hour at a full-time job; this equates to
an annual household income of $20,000 per year. This income cohort
represents 15 percent of U.S. households and more than 80 percent of
these low-income households are cost burdened.
Further complicating the issue is the fact that wages have not
increased proportionally to housing costs. After adjusting for inflation,
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 5
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
wages are only 10 percent higher in 2017 than they were in 1973 (with
annual real wage growth just below 0.2 percent). During that same
period, the cost of housing increased almost 30 percent nationally and
at significantly higher percentages in markets such as New York City,
Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. According to
the State of the Nation’s Housing 2018 report by the Joint Center for
Housing Studies of Harvard University, “In 1988, when the first State of
the Nation’s Housing report highlighted historically high homeowner-
ship costs, the national home price-to-income ratio was 3.2, with just
one metro posting a ratio above 6.0. In 2017, the national price-to-
income ratio stood at 4.2, and 22 metros had ratios above 6.0.” As a
rule of thumb, most banks consider a home price-to-income ratio in
the 3.0–3.5 range generally financeable (assuming minimal outstanding
debt obligations for car loans, student loans, credit cards, etc.).
As the cost per square foot to build housing continues to increase,
a greater number of units built by the private market have moved to
higher rent or for-sale units while losing lower rent or for sale units.
With the average cost per square foot for new construction in the
$150 to $300 range (geography dependent), it is impossible to build
a new 1,500-square-foot single-family house that is affordable to
households earning the U.S. median income of $57,652 (in 2017)
without a public subsidy in the form of land, money, or both. Unfortu-
nately, many of the state and federal programs are limited to assisting
only those households at 60 percent area median income (AMI) or less.
The reality is that housing is often unaffordable to households earning
up to 120 percent AMI (and higher in many markets). A tiered approach
to the provision of subsidies and economic incentives, especially at the
local level, is necessary to ensure the construction and preservation of
a wide range of affordable housing types in our nation’s communities.
Scaling back the size of newly constructed housing offers some
cost savings provided the minimum buildable lot size is reduced
accordingly to realize a savings on land acquisition. Homes in the 900-
to 1,200-square-foot range are becoming more commonplace, but
the trend in America is still toward larger houses. According to the
U.S. Census, the size of the average single-family house increased from 1,535
square feet in 1975 to 2,169 square feet in 2010—an increase of 41 percent.
3. Housing Location
There is an increasing disconnect between job location and
housing supply, placing greater demands on our transportation
system and causing a greater proportion of time and income to be
spent on commuting.
Long Commutes. Driven in part by the search for affordable housing,
rising commute times are an issue both regionally and nationwide,
adding even more expenses to full-time workers. Brookings Institution
research found that between 2000 and 2012, more Americans took
on outsized commutes: The number of jobs within the typical com-
mute distance for residents in a major metro area fell by seven percent
nationwide. The 2015 American Community Survey found that the
country’s average commute rose to 26.4 minutes in 2015, and the num-
ber of Americans who live in one county and work in another soared
from 23.5 million to 40.1 million between 1990 and 2014, a 71 percent
increase. More time behind the wheel or on a bus or train is taking more
money from the working poor.
The census data shows the longest commutes are also the fastest
growing. The number of workers who are over the age of 16 grew by
roughly 1.7 percent from 2014 to 2015 (a total of 148.3 million workers).
But the number of workers with 45-minute commutes grew even faster
(3.5 percent). The number with hour-long commutes grew even faster
than that (5.1 percent). And workers with extreme commutes—90 minutes
or more—grew by the fastest rate of all (eight percent). At the other
end of the spectrum, the number of workers with commutes less than
10 minutes actually shrank.
But research increasingly finds that for many, longer drives are a
direct result of a dearth of housing near jobs, especially in increasingly
expensive downtown districts. Our dreary national commute reflects
larger choices about zoning, housing development, and infrastructure
investments which add to the affordability crisis that has gotten worse
over the last decade, especially for the poor and the middle class.
The median commute distance for those earning $15,000 a year or
less has jumped from 12 to 21 miles between 2006 and 2013. There’s
also a pronounced racial dimension to the increase in commuting time:
Brookings Institution research found that as more lower-income urban
Americans are pushed to suburban areas due to rising rents, the number
of jobs near the typical Hispanic (17 percent decline) and black (14 percent
decline) resident in major metro areas declined much more steeply
than for white residents (six percent decline).
Production. Nationally, the number of households grew by 11.2 million
between 2005 and 2015, while only 9.9 million new housing units were
constructed during the same period. Only 10 of the nation’s 50 largest
metros have produced enough new housing to keep pace with job growth
in recent years. Job growth tends to be centered in the counties containing
a core city while a greater share of housing units is added to the surround-
ing suburbs—leading to heightened levels of undersupply in the core cities.
There is a strong correlation between the number of jobs and rent
growth from 2005 to 2015. Real estate values plummeted following
the Great Recession and construction came to a near halt across
the country, with the number of new housing units permitted to be
constructed dropping to the lowest level on record in May 2009. Since
then, the housing market and the overall economy have recovered, but
new construction continues to lag. The number of companies building
homes dropped by 50 percent from 2007 to 2012, and the construction
industry is currently facing a serious labor shortage. The resulting lack of
new construction is contributing to rising rents, which are creating an
affordability crisis in many parts of the country.
In the postrecession period, most large metros areas are lacking
in housing supply but are high in demand. When we focus on the
postrecession period from 2010 to 2015, only 10 of the 50 largest
metros added fewer than two jobs per residential building permit.
Cost/Income. Out of 30 metro areas that increased economic produc-
tivity, average wages, and standard of living since 2010, only 11 were
able to distribute that growth across income groups.
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 6
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
4. Housing Needs for All
Over the past 12 years, home design has evolved to building homes
that accommodate the changing demographics of our nation. More
housing is being developed for a mix of life stages and at a range of
price points, including extended families and caretakers, those who
may need first-floor living and zero-step entries, larger families, and
single-person households. A diversity of housing types accommodates
all needs.
Universal Design and Visitability Principles. Creating a range
of housing options for residents in a community is one way for older
adults to not only remain in their homes, but also remain in their
communities. Over the past decade, builders have implemented more
Universal Design and Visitability elements in housing design as standard
rather than as an option. The principles emphasize the design of build-
ings and environments that are accessible to all people, regardless of
age, disability, or other factors.
Aging in Community. According to AARP’s Public Policy Institute,
the vast majority of people age 50 and older want to stay in their
homes and communities for as long as possible. However, Fannie
Mae’s research anticipates that aging baby boomers will trigger an
exodus in the housing market. Fannie Mae states: “The beginning of
a mass exodus looms on the horizon, fueling fears of a ‘generational
housing bubble.’” Such a scenario “would reverberate through the
housing market and economy.” Fannie Mae’s report states that “the
number of homeowners who reach age 65 by the year 2026 will
drop by 10.5 million to 11.9 million, more than the loss of 9.2 million
in that age bracket from 2006 to 2016.” A broader range of housing
options benefits a broader range of people and households,
including accessory dwelling units and smaller rental homes. Commu-
nity planning should incorporate access to amenities such
as parks, trails, and transportation networks near existing housing for
older populations.
Cost Burden. Housing and transportation are the two biggest
expenses in a typical U.S. household. Statistics suggest that the combi-
nation of housing affordability and affordable transportation is an issue
for more than two-thirds of Americans, with the nation’s lowest-income
households absorbing the greatest costs. Access to alternative modes of
affordable transportation, particularly transit, is critical to these households.
Future Home Owners. More than 32 percent of Americans age 18 to
35 currently reside with their family. There may be a number of reasons
for this. The first is the lack of a range of housing options in regions
throughout the United States. The second is the increased economic
instability of young adults due to increased personal debt burden and,
in some locations, lack of access to job growth opportunities. These
two issues combined present barriers to future home ownership and
economic stability.
Impacts of Immigration. For decades, immigration has affected
communities throughout the United States. According to Joint Center
for Housing Studies data, immigrants currently make up 20 percent of
renter households and 12 percent of home owners. From 2006 through
2016, these households have been shown to stabilize both urban and
rural communities that might have otherwise lost populations.
Sustainable Design. In the past few years, efforts to create more
sustainable homes have increased. There has been progress in the use
of cleaner fuels and renewable energy for home heating. From 2010 to
2016 electric heat increased from 34.2 percent of the market to 37.7;
solar increased from 1.26 to 1.82 percent. Utility gas/bottled/LP gas
decreased from 63.1 percent to 62.5; however, fuel oil/kerosene increased
from 15.6 to 16.1 percent and use of wood from 9.3 to 10.3 percent.
Increased interest in carbon reduction leads to greater focus
on energy efficiency of lighting, plug loads, HVAC systems, and
water-saving devices as well as improved building codes. While there
is considerable variation in state policies, most encourage use of the
measures cited above.
This factor and carbon reduction strategies in all other sectors is
reflected in the steady decline of annual per capita energy use (300
million BTU) and CO2 emissions (15.8 metric tons of CO2) in 2017, lower
than any year after 1970.
Clear indications of the energy market transformation is the rapid
increase in the number of passive house and net-zero building projects
in the country. Projects exist in states with more stringent building
codes such as California and Florida, but are gaining traction in other
states and localities that are committed to reducing greenhouse gases
substantially by 2030 and 2050.
A passive house combines a high level of comfort with very low
energy consumption through an efficient envelope requiring less
heating and cooling. The number of passive house projects certified or
in construction rose from 25 in 2011 to 350 in 2016, providing approxi-
mately 3,000 housing units. Net-zero buildings, very efficient buildings
with solar and batteries that produce as much energy as they use, are
increasing as states adopt more stringent energy codes. Currently the
Net-Zero Energy Coalition estimates there are more than 5,000 NZE
single-family homes and 7,000 NZE multifamily units nationwide. For
example, by 2020 all new buildings in California will meet these stan-
dards, producing 100,000 NZE homes annually.
Homelessness. In 2017, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) reported that 553,742 people experienced
homelessness in the United States on a single night. Two-thirds of the
homeless were located in transitional housing or emergency shelters,
with the remaining third in unsheltered locations. Thirty-three percent
of the homeless were in families with children; the remaining 67 percent
were single individuals. Most of the families were in sheltered situations.
From 2016 to 2017, there was an overall increase in the homeless
population of one percent, consisting of a rise in homeless individuals
counterbalanced by a five percent decline in the number of homeless
families. This is the first reported increase in national homelessness in
seven years. The increase occurred in major cities, with a decrease in
the homeless in smaller towns and statewide. Across the nation there
was an increase in the persons experiencing homelessness who were
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 7
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
unsheltered. On a particular night in January 2017, approximately 24 percent
of those experiencing homelessness were chronically homeless,
a decline of five percent from 2007. However, the share of unsheltered
chronically homeless increased from 65 percent to 69 percent.
Approximately half of the homeless are located in one of five states:
California (25 percent), New York (16 percent), Florida (six percent), and
Texas and Washington (four percent). There are also wide variances by
state in the percentage of homeless unsheltered, ranging from a high of
77.8 percent in California to a low of 6.9 percent in Iowa.
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 8
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
Policy Positions
should also research and analyze, and as part of any zoning amendment,
preempt all restrictive covenants and barriers to fair housing and access to
housing choice, including barriers to on-street, overnight parking.
Location should be addressed without compromising equity or
resiliency. Local jurisdictions should consider incorporating into bylaws
and ordinances transit-oriented development principles and principles
that address the importance of housing location in relation to access
and proximity to schools, jobs, parks, transportation, and other critical
amenities and resources. States should consider moving to a Housing +
Transportation Index when determining affordability.
Position 1C The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support a better regional location balance for jobs, schools,
and housing. Planners should support a regional fair-share distribu-
tion of housing, in general, and affordable housing, in particular, in
proximity to employment opportunities. Planners recognize that
housing markets closely align with labor markets, and function on a
regional scale. Addressing any misalignment between them calls for
interjurisdictional dialogue and cooperation. Local jurisdictions should
amend zoning and regulations to encourage better balance of jobs
and housing, including an increase of mixed uses in downtown and
commercial areas, and establishing home occupation standards that
have a low regulatory burden.
Position 1D The American Planning Association and its Chapters
and Divisions recognize and support ongoing and expanded efforts
to build market-rate and workforce housing in rural locations. Aging
demographics and declining wages, combined with an older
unmaintained housing stock, contribute to the need to ensure an
equitable supply of safe housing in these areas. State, county, and
local planners must ensure that resources, including capital, are directed
to housing efforts in these locations, including funding for utilities
and infrastructure, such as water and wastewater systems and roads,
particularly in areas with lower-income populations.
Position 1E The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions emphasize the importance of having an adequate supply
of housing, and especially affordable housing, in economic devel-
opment strategies. State and local jurisdictions should engage with
business leaders to provide public messaging on the importance of
housing and housing development to meet the needs of economic
growth. Examples of potential strategies include: preserving existing
mixed-income, multifamily housing stock near major employers and
transit hubs in order to create housing opportunities in close proximity
POSITION 1 Modernize state and local laws
to ensure housing opportunities are available,
accessible, and affordable to all.
Position 1A The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support the modernization of state planning laws to ensure
that state enabling statutes for zoning promote local planning efforts
and provide housing resources to solve our most pressing affordability
challenges. State involvement and resources are needed to ensure con-
sistency and universal participation among municipalities. States should
require binding comprehensive plans or a specific community-wide
housing plan that both understand current and future housing trends
and actively plan for the availability and affordability of housing. Further,
states should not prohibit jurisdictions from establishing inclusionary
housing and zoning programs and related rules and regulations aimed
at creating and preserving housing. Mandates, funding, technical assis-
tance, or other incentives may be used. Further, states should designate
a single agency to oversee housing policy, support local planning, and
achieve key production and affordability goals.
Position 1B The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support the modernization of local zoning bylaws and ordi-
nances to increase housing production, while taking local context and
conditions into account. While challenging to confront and, ultimately,
amend or dismantle exclusionary zoning, rules, and practices, planners
must take the lead in modernizing zoning. Local jurisdictions should
adopt bylaws or ordinances, policies, and incentives that facilitate a
range of housing types and densities and that serve a diversity of hous-
ing needs. Local jurisdictions should review and modernize bylaws and
ordinances and planners need resources to make updates happen and
to ensure adequate public engagement occurs.
Updates to bylaws and ordinances should address mixed use and mul-
tifamily development, including affordability. Updates should also include
rezoning for higher densities where there may be existing lower densities.
Local jurisdictions should consider reducing or eliminating minimum lot-
size requirements, reducing minimum dwelling unit requirements, allowing
greater height and density and reducing or eliminating off-street minimum
parking requirements, and they should specifically identify and eliminate or
minimize regulatory obstacles to the establishment of accessory dwelling
units, whether attached to or detached from the principal dwelling unit.
Local jurisdictions should also allow for and encourage adaptive reuse
and use conversions to encourage housing production. Local jurisdictions
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 9
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
to new suburban, exurban, and rural employment and service centers;
performing housing impact studies, in conjunction with large employ-
ers, to analyze the availability of affordable housing for their workforce
in proximity to work locations; encouraging employers to invest in
their workforce and neighborhoods by supporting employer-assisted
housing programs; and supporting transportation and transit improve-
ments to increase job access and tracking and managing impacts from
short-term rentals.
Position 1F The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support inclusionary growth to ensure fair opportunities to
access affordable housing and economic prosperity, while addressing
the negative effects of gentrification. Fair share increases opportunity
such as access and proximity to jobs, accredited schools, community
centers, and mobility options. State should remove barriers and create
enabling legislation to allow local jurisdictions to adopt inclusionary
growth and related requirements which may: mandate a minimum per-
centage of affordable units in a development are set aside in exchange
for greater density, allow for a prorated number of affordable units that
may be provided off-site, allow for payment to a dedicated fund for use
by other developers, and require a diversity of housing unit sizes, includ-
ing housing units with at least three bedrooms in support of families
and households that include caregivers.
Position 1G The American Planning Association and its Chapters
and Divisions should eliminate barriers to affordable and multifamily
housing development and exclusionary zoning, rules, and practices,
especially in areas where such development is supported by the
necessary transportation, social, cultural, utility, and economic infra-
structure. Local jurisdictions should allow multifamily, mixed-income
housing as a by-right use and reduce permitting barriers that create
development uncertainty, increase the cost of land and develop-
ment, and stimulate opposition. Local jurisdictions should streamline
approval processes that coincide with identified housing needs and
demand and establish higher thresholds that are subject to special
permit reviews.
Position 1H The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support “enabling design”—design that enables residents of
varying levels of physical ability to live in all multifamily housing and
single-family residential, and recommends requiring its use in housing
assisted with federal subsidies.
Position 1I The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions should work to transform the community engagement process
relative to multifamily and mixed-income housing preservation and
development. Local jurisdictions should move to active implementation
of housing policy and development and build public support for housing
affordability. Local jurisdictions should consider developing outreach
and engagement strategies to establish a framework and guide dialogue
with the public and key stakeholders about housing need, demand, and
trends, as well as the consequences of inaction. Local jurisdictions should
be inclusive and responsive to a broad range of constituents, while
promoting best practices and educating the public with attention to
ensuring all populations have access to information in a variety of formats.
Position 1J The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support efforts to combat housing discrimination and support
efforts that foster racial and economic integration. This includes support
for the inclusive goals of the National Housing Act of 1949 and the
Fair Housing Act of 1968, specifically including the latter’s objective
of affirmatively furthering fair housing. It also includes support for the
adoption of federal and state laws that would prohibit and provide
additional protections against housing discrimination based on the
source of income/ receiving public assistance and other protected
classes, including but not limited to additional protections for ancestry,
age, gender identity, genetic information, marital status, sexual orienta-
tion, and veteran/ military history. Finally, APA supports the dismantling
of exclusionary land use and zoning practice and policies that contrib-
ute to and continue historic patterns of segregation, which includes
discriminatory definitions of family in local zoning and ordinances.
Position 1K The American Planning Association and its Chapters
and Divisions support better understanding of the variations in
acceptable housing occupancy standards across cultures to encourage
and support flexibility in housing occupancy standards while ensuring
safe, humane, and reasonable standards of living. Housing occupancy
varies across different sociocultural groups including different
preferences for multigenerational and larger households.
Position 1L The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions have a special responsibility to establish affordable, accessible
and available housing as core values in states and localities. Engage-
ment of community leaders, elected officials, and the public in support
of these core values can lay the groundwork for modernization of state
enabling statutes and reform of local plans and codes that may inhibit
housing affordability and availability. Effective engagement can also
diminish concerns regarding increased density and new housing forms in
existing neighborhoods.
POSITION 2 Preserve existing housing to
maintain the quality and overall supply of
affordable housing.
Position 2A The American Planning Association and its Chapters
and Divisions recognize that preservation of the existing affordable
housing stock is critical for protecting older owner-occupied and
renter-occupied housing. These types of housing units are often the
dominant building fabric and largest source of naturally occurring
affordable housing for many inner-ring neighborhoods. Communities
should develop plans for substandard and abandoned housing and
identify properties that risk falling into substandard conditions. Local
jurisdictions should ensure that comprehensive housing plan policy
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 10
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
recommendations support the preservation of existing housing stock
as a key component of those plans. Incentivizing and/or mandating
the preservation of existing affordable housing is also often the most
sustainable way a municipality can ensure housing provision. The only
exception to this position would be in the case of existing housing
that is substandard, the removal of which would give way to high-
er-density multifamily developments.
Position 2B The American Planning Association and its Chapters
and Divisions support the preservation of existing affordable housing.
In order to stem the loss of existing affordable units in gentrifying
neighborhoods due to permanent removal, conversion to other uses,
and rent increases, local jurisdictions should support the preservation
or replacement of these units. Planners and local policy makers should
consider a package of incentives to ensure some level of affordability
remains associated with these units. Planners should encourage models
to preserve affordable housing units, such as low-equity cooperatives
and community land trusts. Local jurisdictions should consider the
impact of redevelopment proposals on existing neighborhoods, partic-
ularly with regard to the potential for residential displacement of low- to
middle-income households. Planners should encourage adoption of
inclusionary zoning and regulatory measures that proactively preserve
housing that is affordable to low- and very-low income households
along current and future transit corridors, downtowns, and village or
community centers. This ensures that transit-dependent populations in
developing or redeveloping areas will have continued access to ameni-
ties such as jobs, schools, health care, and goods and services.
Position 2C The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support monitoring of existing affordable housing units in
state and local jurisdictions. Many communities nationwide have suc-
cessfully used inclusionary zoning as a means to ensure that a specified
percent of new market units developed are rent- or sale-restricted for
households earning less than 100 percent of Area Median Income. Plan-
ners should ensure that units remain affordable through the term
of their deed restriction.
Position 2D The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support options for older adults to age in community. Local juris-
dictions should encourage the maintenance and modernization of existing
housing by providing or identifying options for financial assistance from
loan and grant programs, home modification programs for people with
disabilities, and weatherization and home energy assistance programs.
Position 2E The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support options for public education on home ownership,
maintenance, and repair. First-time home owners should understand
the benefits and responsibility of home ownership.
POSITION 3 Encourage environmental
sustainability and resiliency as critical elements
of housing availability and affordability.
Position 3A: The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions encourage sustainability, resiliency, and energy and water
efficiency in the housing sector. States and local jurisdictions should
investigate opportunities to amend zoning and building requirements
to increase production of net-zero and passive homes, and homes with
water harvesting and gray water systems. Planners should work with
the developers to educate energy end users about choosing renewable
energy, water conservation and reuse, and sustainable lifestyles.
Position 3B The American Planning Association and its Chapters
and Divisions encourage additional housing to be located in walkable,
transit-rich areas to support broader low-carbon emission choices
and goals.
Position 3C The American Planning Association and its Chapters
and Divisions encourage the siting and design of housing away from
flood-prone areas and areas prone to natural disasters and hazards,
incorporating green infrastructure into future development. Planners
should encourage compact development and mixed use housing to
reduce impacts on watersheds and environmentally sensitive areas and
in areas prone to natural disasters and hazards.
Position 3D The American Planning Association and its Chapters
and Divisions should work to ensure that environmental sustainability
and resilience are incorporated into the design and construction of all
housing typologies.
POSITION 4 Ensure that public and private finance
keeps pace and innovates to support increased
housing availability and affordability.
Position 4A The American Planning Association and its Chapters
and Divisions support increased financial resources from the federal
government to support the preservation and production of housing.
Planners should advocate for the continued reauthorization and
increased funding for federal housing programs, such as the HOME
Investment Partnerships Program, the Community Development Block
Grant, Housing Choice Vouchers, and the Native American Housing and
Self-Determination Act funding. Planners should support the continued
allocation of funds to the National Housing Trust Fund from the profits
of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Planners should support increases to
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program and reforms to simplify
that program. Planners should support the preservation and mod-
ernization of federally assisted housing for older residents, including
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 11
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture 515 and 521 programs. Finally, planners should support
full federal funding for public housing capital and administrative funds.
Position 4B The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support reforms to private financial resources to support the
preservation and production of housing. Lending institutions often
have inflexible standards or periods of restricted lending. Planners
should encourage lending institutions to support mixed use and other
nontraditional development formats while avoiding risky lending
practices and lax regulation. Lenders also can support housing afford-
ability by reducing requirements for parking spaces. Planners should
advocate for reforms to the Community Reinvestment Act to ensure fair
lending practices and greater investment in lower-income communi-
ties. Lenders must address historic patterns of discrimination practices,
particularly against mortgage applicants who are black and Hispanic to
ensure that the opportunity of home ownership is available to all.
Position 4C The American Planning Association and its Chapters
and Divisions support the establishment and growth of creative and
flexible housing programs, such as the Rental Assistance Demonstration
Program (recapitalization of public housing) and the Moving to Work
Program (flexible use of housing choice vouchers). As much as possible,
planners should seek to use regulatory tools to leverage the power of
private capital to create affordable housing, and significant gains can be
made through robust inclusionary zoning incentives in areas where the
market supports new housing development.
Position 4D The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions should support the continued role of the federal government
in ensuring access to residential mortgage capital support to the hous-
ing market either indirectly through existing government sponsored
enterprises (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), or through some other
similar mechanism that also provides ongoing market stability. Planners
should support the Duty to Serve program of the Federal Housing
Finance Agency as a means of providing access to mortgage financing
for low-income home purchasers, including purchasers of manufactured
housing. Planners should support the establishment and use of inno-
vative approaches that create home ownership opportunities, such as
shared-equity home ownership, resident-owned manufactured housing
communities, life-cycle underwriting, and portable and assumable mort-
gages. Planners should support changes to the mortgage interest tax
deduction that directly benefit low- and moderate-income home owners.
Position 4E The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support increased coordination among existing federal plan-
ning programs, such as the Consolidated Plan required for HUD funds,
with state and local plans. Planners should support the alignment of
funding cycles among different programs and matching regulatory
requirements to simplify developer compliance and to expedite both
reviews and approvals of funding applications. Unified application
processes will reduce developer regulatory burdens and increase
program utility to improve the efficiency of funds deployed. Planners
should advocate to their federal representatives the importance of
restoring and increasing HUD funding. Further, planners should advo-
cate for federal representatives to address the impacts of recent tax
reform on a range of tax credits and related financing tools for housing.
Position 4F The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support innovations to government assessment and tax poli-
cies. State and local jurisdictions should work together to create reforms
to tax assessment policies, creating model frameworks and local
assessment categories. Planners should educate assessors and others
engaged in local tax policy setting with affordable housing assessment
policies. At the federal level, planners should support the establishment
of a project-based low-income renters’ tax credit, to be administered at
the state level to maximize coordination with other programs such as
the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit. Planners should also support the
establishment of a middle-income housing tax credit.
Position 4G The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions should support the establishment of programs at the state and
local levels to provide financing for or subsidize development of accessory
dwelling units that are targeted for occupancy by lower-income house-
holds, including those with Housing Choice (Section 8) and Veterans Affairs
Supportive Housing Vouchers, or that have below-market rents.
Position 4H The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions continue to support the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit
program that provides equity for new and rehab housing developments
directed at households earning below 60 percent or 50 percent of Area
Median Income. Planners should support the ongoing reform of the asso-
ciated Qualified Allocation Plans that are a requirement for each state for
the allocation of these tax credits. In particular, states should consider the
inclusion of criteria that ensure equal representation for rural and urban
housing as well as additional locational preferences.
Position 4I The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support the ongoing creation and funding of Housing Trust
Funds (HTFs) around the country, specifically and solely for the purpose
of housing-related expenditures. Whether these funds are established
at the local, county, or state level, they are designed to receive ongoing
sources of public funding to support the preservation and production of
affordable housing and increase opportunities for families and individuals
to access decent affordable homes. Planners support funding HTFs via
direct allocation from general funds (budgetary line items) as well as the
issuance of housing bonds at both the local and state level. Planners
should prioritize dedicated funding streams to fund HTFs when possible
in addition to annual allocations from general funds. Dedicated funding
streams prevent volatile changes in funding based on an administration’s
political views. All HTF funds should be limited to expenditures related to
creating or preserving affordable housing; use of these funds should not
be directed to other projects or budget items.
Position 4J The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support the cultivation of partnerships to best utilize the full
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 12
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
range of available resources to develop affordable housing. Local juris-
dictions should seek to pair potential partners to broaden community
involvement in the production of affordable housing. Organizations and
individuals that are not typically involved in housing production, such
as arts groups, medical associations, or education coalitions, should be
sought out for potential partnerships in addition to nonprofit commu-
nity foundations.
POSITION 5 Support funding and program
flexibility to provide services, shelters, and
permanent supportive housing for people
experiencing homelessness, veterans, immigrants,
and the formerly incarcerated.
Position 5A The American Planning Association and its Chapters and
Divisions support continued reauthorization and full funding of federal
programs that directly benefit America’s homeless population, includ-
ing the HUD Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance and Emergency
Solutions Grant Programs, and also continued funding of the National
Housing Trust Fund, which is used to produce new housing that targets
extremely low-income people. Planners should also support the cre-
ative and flexible use of other federal, state, and local housing resources
that are used to establish and operate shelters and permanent support-
ive housing for people experiencing homelessness, including but not
limited to veterans, immigrants, and the formerly incarcerated.
American Planning Association | planning.org/policy 13
HOUSING POLICY GUIDE
Related Policy Guides
In addition to housing, APA has recently or is currently issuing guides on
topics as diverse as social equity, water, food policy, and autonomous
vehicles. Almost no topic stands completely apart from the others and
housing touches upon every other topic. A sampling of relevant Policy
Guides includes the following:
Equity
The Planning for Equity Policy Guide, adopted in 2019, is a compre-
hensive assessment of the growing disparities in income, opportunity,
mobility and choice. Specific to housing, the Policy Guide cites the
principal goal of the National Housing Act of 1949 as “realization as
soon as feasible of the goal of a decent home and suitable living
environment for every American family” and examines where we, as
a nation, have fallen short.
Public Health
The Healthy Communities Policy Guide, adopted in October 2017,
defines healthy communities as “places where all individuals have
access to healthy built, social, economic, and natural environments that
give them the opportunity to live to their fullest potential regardless
of their race, ethnicity, gender, income, age, abilities, or other socially
defined circumstances.” The Policy Guide emphasizes neighborhood
design that is conducive to walking and bicycling.
Sustainability
The Sustainability Policy Framework, adopted in January 2016, is
intended to supersede the Planning for Sustainability Policy Guide
adopted in 2000. Among the key elements of the Framework is the goal
to “ensure that all elements of the built environment, including land
use, transportation, housing, energy, and infrastructure, work together
to provide sustainable, green places for living, working, and recreation,
with a high quality of life” and specifically that local development codes
include “provisions for a variety of housing types (e.g., accessory dwell-
ing units, cohousing, multiplexes, row houses, and mixed use buildings)
for neighborhood residents of all ages, with different incomes, needs,
and physical abilities.”
Water
The Water Policy Guide, second update adopted July 2016, stressed the
need to evolve from planning for hazard mitigation and flood control
to considering the supply, demand, and quality of our drinking water.
The recommendations for integrated resource management include
community land-use planning that seeks to achieve development that
results in sustainable land-use patterns coupled with the efficient use
of scarce and/or oversubscribed water supplies. Beyond the obvious
recommendations to avoid or minimize housing construction within
flood hazard areas, the Policy Guide emphasizes the need to consider
proximity to water supply and to incorporate sustainable design prac-
tices to reduce water demand.
Aging in Community
Implementing housing policies is critical to advancing the Aging in
Community Policy Guide, adopted in April 2014. The guide states that
planners should aim to “provide a range of affordable and accessible
housing options. Promote housing development of differing sizes and
costs. Better utilize existing housing resources, and advance universal
design and visitability standards to promote accessibility in new housing.”
Surface Transportation
The Surface Transportation Policy Guide, adopted in 2019, emphasizes
the role of transportation in mitigating the effects of climate change,
how data can be leveraged to make equitable and effective transit deci-
sions, and transportation revenue amid a changing policy landscape.
The location of housing relative to job sites is undoubtedly the single
most important factor in assessing transportation needs.
Please refer directly to these closely allied policy guides for additional
information on these topics: http://planning.org/policy.
M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION
DAT E:11/25/2019
TO :C ity C ounc il
F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager
T HR O UG H:Dr. R eggie Ed wards, Deputy C ity Manager
B Y:
S UBJ E C T:P ending Items
Recommendation:
M etro T ransit B us - (upcomi ng C C presentati on)
Livable Wages - 12/9
F reeway P ark /Mo und C emetery MO U - 1/13
Enviro nmental S us tainab ility R eport - 1/13
F o o d Trucks - 1/27
R ental Lic ens e Update - 1/27
C ensus Up d ate - 1/27
C o mmemoratio n o f 400 years of S lavery Ac tivities - 2/10
Us e of EDA O wned P roperty - 3/9
O ptio ns for Us e of Adjac ent S pac e to Liq uor S tore - 3/9
Dis cus s io n of Mayo r/C ity C o uncil ro les & res p o ns ibilities
(C ommonS ens e Inc .)
B ackground:
S trategic Priorities and Values:
O peratio nal Exc ellence
City of Brooklyn Center
REQUEST:
Preliminary and Final Plat
for Brooklyn Center EDA
First Addition |City ROW
Dedication
Item 9.a
City Council Meeting of 11/25/2019
Background & Request
Applicant is requesting preliminary
•
and final plat approval for BROOKLYN
CENTER EDA FIRST ADDITION.
Located in vicinity of 55Avenue North and Brooklyn
th
•
Boulevard Frontage Road
Comprises 7 properties
•
5401, 5407, 5415, 5455, and 5459 Brooklyn Boulevard
•
Two properties do not possess addresses
•
Ownership is by the City of Brooklyn Center, EDA,
•
and RobbinsdaleSchool District No. 281
Background & Request (Cont.)
Request associated with Brooklyn Boulevard Phase I reconstruction
•
and modernization project
Re-alignment of Frontage Road to “reduce confusion, congestion, and
•
improve vehicle stacking for motorists eastbound on 55Avenue North”
th
Previous alignment only allowed for stacking of approximately 2 vehicles
•
eastbound on 55Avenue North
th
New alignment allows for additional vehicle stacking on 55without blocking
th
•
cross-traffic on Frontage Road
Area of Review
Area of Review
Area of Review
Plat and City ROW Dedication
Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg provided a review on October 31,
•
2019.
Aworking copy of the preliminary plat will need to be provided that identifies all
•
easements (vacated/proposed), utilities, legal descriptions, etc.
The submitted plat would result in dedication of new City ROW as Frontage
•
Road was re-aligned.
No plans to vacate existing City ROW as there is existing underground infrastructure
•
in place.
Notification
Note:Plattingrequestsrequirethatapublichearingbescheduled.
•
An Affidavit of Publication was received, confirming publication of public
•
hearing notice in Brooklyn Center Sun Post on October 31, 2019.
Mail notices were also sent out to property owners in accordance with
•
Section 15-104 (Preliminary Plan) of Brooklyn Center Platting Ordinance.
Summary
A public hearing was held on November 14, 2019 at the Planning Commission meeting.
•
One resident was present—
•
Hoped to learn more about Brooklyn Boulevard reconstruction and modernization
•
project
Lives south of project area and complimented the City on the new road alignment near
•
55Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard
th
Commissioner Schonning works in area and often avoided intersection due to stacking
•
issues
Pleasantly surprised with changes to alignment
•
Following close of public hearing, Planning Commission elected to unanimously (5-0)
•
recommendCity Council approval of requested plats and dedication of ROW.
Approval Conditions
1)Approvalofthepreliminaryandfinalplatsarecontingentupontheaddressingof
commentsbyAssistantCityEngineerHogginhismemorandumdatedOctober31,
2019.
2)FinalplatandassociatedmylarshallbesubjecttotheprovisionsofChapter15ofthe
CityCodeofOrdinances(Platting).
3)Anycommentsand/orrequirementsasprovidedbyHennepinCounty.
4)Anycommentsand/orrequirementsfromtheCityAttorney’soffice,andspecifically
regardinganupdatedcertifiedabstractoftitlefortheaffectedproperties.
5)Thesuccessfulrecordingofsaidplat(mylar)withHennepinCounty.
Recommendation
MotiontoadoptaresolutionapprovingPlanningCommission
•
ApplicationNo.2019-016forpreliminaryandfinalplatapprovalof
theBrooklynCenterEDAFirstAdditionanddedicationofcertain
Right-of-Way(Locatedinthevicinityof55AvenueNorthand
th
BrooklynBoulevard)basedonthefindingsoffactandsubmitted
plans,asamendedbytheconditionsofapprovalintheresolution.
Real Estate Equities, LLC
REQUEST:
Preliminary and Final Plat
for Northway Crossing
Item 9.b
City Council Meeting of 11/25/2019
Background & Request
Applicant is requesting preliminary
•
and final plat approval for NORTHWAY
CROSSING
Property, located at 5801 Xerxes Avenue North, is
•
under consideration for subdivision into two parcels
Known as “Northeasterly Parcel” and “Southwesterly
•
Parcel”
Northeasterly Parcel: 115,954 SF | 2.66 acres
•
Southwesterly Parcel: 140,116 SF | 3.22 acres
•
Background & Request (Cont.)
Subject Property recently received approval for construction of
•
(PC Application No. 2019-006 | CC Resolution No. 2019-081):
5-story, independent affordable senior living apartments (NE Parcel)
•
4-story, workforce apartments (SW Parcel)
•
Subject Property was re-zoned from C2 (Commerce) District to PUD-TOD
•
(Planned Unit Development-Transit Oriented Development)
Subject Property removed from Central Commerce Overlay District
•
Plat Review
PUDs allow for more than one principal building to be located on each platted
•
locatwithin a PUD
Applicant has noted that financing for project requires each building to be located on
•
its own parcel
No plans to alter building setbacks or site approved under PC Application No. 2019-
•
006
Only change is creation of new lot line
•
Applicant submitted exhibits outlining shared access/parking easements, etc.
•
City Staff worked with City Attorney to determine need to amend PUD
•
No need to amend PUD so long as site/building orientation remains substantially the
•
same and meets conditions of approval under CC Resolution No. 2019-081.
Plat Review (Cont.)
Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg provided a review on October 31, 2019, who noted
•
a working copy of the preliminary plat will need to be provided that identifies all
easements (vacated/proposed), utilities, legal descriptions, etc.
A 10-Foot Drainage and Utility Easement is required around plat on Lots 1 and 2 of Block 1
•
Revisions to ensure pedestrian ramps are entirely located in identified City ROW
•
Louckshas been in contact with Hennepin County and Assistant City Engineer to address
•
changes.
Notification
Note:Plattingrequestsrequirethatapublichearingbescheduled.
•
An Affidavit of Publication was received, confirming publication of public
•
hearing notice in Brooklyn Center Sun Post on October 31, 2019.
Mail notices were also sent out to property owners in accordance with
•
Section 15-104 (Preliminary Plan) of Brooklyn Center Platting Ordinance.
Summary
ApublichearingwasheldonNovember14,2019atthePlanningCommissionmeeting.
•
Noresidentspresentatmeeting
•
Oneresidentcalledpriortomeeting—inquiredaboutrestrictionsonthe
•
independentseniorbuildingthatwouldpreventchildrenfromstayingatthe
apartments.
RepresentativesofApplicantwerepresentatmeetingandaddressedforrecord
•
regulationssurroundingallowanceofminors(i.e.children)inseniorbuildingaswellas
otherquestionsfromCommissioners.
Followingcloseofpublichearing,PlanningCommissionelectedtounanimously(5-0)
•
recommendCityCouncilapprovalofpreliminary/finalplats.
Approval Conditions
Conformance with all conditions of approval addressed under City Council Resolution No. 2019-
•
081 for related PUD and development site plan approvals (PC Application No. 2019-006);
Address comments by Assistant City Engineer Hogg in his memorandum dated October 31, 2019;
•
Final plat and associated mylarsubject to and must comply with the provisions of Chapter 15 of
•
the City Code of Ordinances (Platting);
Subject Property remains subject to the agreements required by the City in its previous approvals;
•
Address comments and/or requirements as provided by Hennepin County, and City Attorney’s
•
office (e.g. updated certified abstract of title for property); and
The successful recording of said plat (mylar) with Hennepin County at the time of or after closing
•
on the Subject Property with current property owner, ILEX Group, LLC.
Recommendation
MotiontoadoptaresolutionapprovingPlanningCommissionNo.
2019-017forpreliminaryandfinalplatapprovalofNorthwayCrossing
(Locatedat5801XerxesAvenueNorthandFormerlyKnownasthe
Jerry’sFoodsSite)basedonthefindingsoffactandsubmittedplans,as
amendedbytheconditionsofapprovalintheresolution.