Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 01-13 CCPCouncil S tudy S ession City Hall Council C hambers J anuary 13, 2020 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. 1.C ity C ouncil Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions - 6 p.m. 2.M iscellaneous a.Highway 252 Work S ession - Provide feedback on the attached agenda 3.D iscussion of Work Session Agenda Item as T ime P ermits 4.Adjourn C ouncil Study Session DAT E:1 /13/2 0 2 0 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:C ur t Boganey, C ity M anager S U B J E C T:H ighw ay 2 5 2 Work S es s ion B ackground: AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip-on Upload D ate Ty pe D ra/ A genda 1/8/2020 Backup M aterial TH 252 Environmental Review Outline I.Introductions and presentation A. History of TH 252 corridor previous studies 1. MnDOT’s 2005 Transportation System Plan (TSP) 2. Brooklyn Park 2005 request for Corridor Study 3. Met Council 2015 Intersection Conversion Study 4. City of Brooklyn Center 2016 Corridor Study 5. MnDOT 2018 MnPASS System Study Phase 3 6. Current TH 252 Environmental Review B. TH 252 Environmental Review TAC Summary (SRF) 1. NEPA summary 2. TH 252 Environmental Review partners 3. Purpose and Need 4. Decision 1 – Freeway vs Expressway a) Mobility b) Safety 5. Decision 2 – Access Locations a) Evaluation criteria b) Comparative analysis c) Summary of outcomes 6. Decision 3 – Access Types a) Focus on 66th Avenue 7. Decision 4 – Use of Additional Lanes (brief) C. Closing remarks 1. Pros and cons vs Purpose and Need 2. Pros and cons for community 3. Safety 4. Funding TH 252 Freeway Conversion Work Session A G E N D A Call to Order – 6:00 Roll Call – 6:05 TH 252 Presentation – 6:05 to 7:30 A.History of TH 252 corridor previous studies B.TH 252 Environmental Review TAC Summary (SRF) C.Closing remarks Council Question and Answer – 7:30 – 8:30 Public Comment – 8:30 – 9:00 Discuss Next Steps – 9:00 – 9:15 Adjournment – 9:15 1/29/2020 6:00 pm City Council Chambers C IT Y C O UNC IL M E E T I NG City Hall Council Chambers J anuary 13, 2020 AGE NDA 1.Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m. Provides an opportunity for the public to address the C ounc 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 attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with presenter. Questions from the C ounc il will be for c larific 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.Call to Order Regular Business M eeting The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City C ounc il packet is available to the public . The packet ring binder is loc ated at the entrance of the council chambers. 4.Roll Call 5.P ledge of Allegiance 6.Approval of Agenda and Consent 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 Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the c onsent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration I tems. a.Approval of Minutes - Motion to approve the following minutes: December 2, 2019 Special Meeting December 9, 2019 Study Session December 9, 2019 Regular Session December 9, 2019 Work Session b.Approval of L icenses - Motion to approve li censes as presented c.Resolution Designating Official Newspaper - Approve resolution Designating Official Newspaper for 2020 d.Resolution Designating Depositories of City F unds for 2020 - Motion to approve a resol ution designating depositori es of Ci ty funds for the 2020 fiscal year. e.Resolution Opting Not to Waive L imited Tort L iability for 2020 - Motion to approve a resolution adopting the no waiver option for statutory tort liability insurance. f.Resolution Granting Corporate A uthority for Signing of Checks and Transactions of Financial B usiness Matters - Motion to approve a resolution granting corporate authority for signing checks and transactions of financial business matters to the City Manager, and Interim Finance Director for the City of Brooklyn Center. g.Resolution A ppointing B rooklyn Center Representatives to Executive Committee and/or B oard of Directors of the Brooklyn B ridge Alliance for Youth, Hennepin Recycling Group, L ocal Government I nformation S ystems, Minneapolis Northwest Convention & Visitors B ureau, North Metro Mayors Association, Northwest S uburbs Cable Communications Commission, Pets Under P olice Security, and Twin L ake J oint P owers Organization - Motion to approve the resolution appointing Brooklyn Center representatives h.Resolution Selecting P residing Officers- Mayor Pro Tem and Acting Mayor Pro Tem - Appoint the Mayor Pro Tem and Acting President Pro Tem for 2020 i.Resolution A ppointing Municipal Trustees to the B rooklyn Center Firefighters Relief A ssociation B oard of Trustees - Motion to approve a resolution Appointing Municipal Trustees to the Brooklyn Center Firefighters Relief Association Board of Trustees j.Resolution Recognizing the Contributions of E thnic P opulations and Heritage Celebrations - Approve a resolution Recognizing the Contributions of Ethnic Populations and Heritage Celebrations k.Resolution A ccepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, I mprovement P roject No. 2019-15, 2019 70th Ave Storm S ewer Rehabilitation Project - Moti on to approve the l owest responsible bid and award a contract to Engineering and Construction Innovators, Inc. for Improvement Project No. 2019-15, 2019 70th Ave Storm Sewer Rehabilitation Project. l.Resolution A pproving P lans and Specifications and Authorizing Advertisement for Bids, I mprovement P roject Nos. 2020-01, 02, 03 and 04, Grandview North Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility I mprovements - Motion to approve the attached resolution approving pl ans and specifications and authorizing advertisement for bids, Improvement Project Nos. 2020-01, 02, 03 and 04, Grandview North Area Street, Storm Drainage, and Utility Improvements. m.An Ordinance Vacating a Portion of Right-of-Way B rooklyn Boulevard - F irst Reading - Motion to approve first reading and setting second reading and Public Hearing for February 24, 2020, on An Ordi nance Vacating a Portion of Right-of-Way: Brooklyn Boulevard. n.An Ordinance Establishing the E astbrook E states 2nd A ddition Storm S ewer I mprovement Tax District - Motion to approve an Ordinance Establishing the Eastbrook Estates 2nd Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District. o.Resolution A dopting the 2040 B rooklyn Center Comprehensive P lan Update - Motion to approve a resolution adopting the 2040 Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan Update, a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, and maps for guiding the overall development and redevelopment of the local government unit. p.Resolution A ccepting Work Performed and Authorizing Final P ayment, I mprovement Project No. 2016-06, Freeway B oulevard Mill and Overlay (E ast of Xerxes Avenue) Street I mprovements - Motion to approve a resolution accepting work performed and authorizing final payment, Improvement Project No. 2016-06, Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay (East of Xerxes Avenue) Street Improvements. q.Receive Environmental S ustainability Report Motion to receive Environmental S ustainability Report. 7.P resentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations a.Resolution Expressing Recognition and A ppreciation of B ruce (Doc) Miller for Over 18 Years of Dedicated Service to the City Of B rooklyn Center - Motion to approve of a resoluti on recognizi ng the dedicated publ ic service of Bruce (Doc) Miller. 8.P ublic Hearings a.An Ordinance A mending Chapter 23 and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Entertainment L icensing and Uses - 2nd Reading - Request City Council to: Motion to open public hearing; Receive public input; Close public hearing; Consider an Ordinance Amending Chapters 23 and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Entertainment Licensing and Uses. - Approve a resolution for a summary publication for Ordinance 2019-14. 9.P lanning Commission Items a.Resolution to Approve Planning Commission A pplication No. 2019-018, Re- issuance of a S pecial Use Permit at 6440 J ames Circle North Motion to approve a resolution f or Planning C ommission Application No. 2019-018 for re-issuance of a S pecial Use P ermit to convert a former bowling alley and restaurant into an event center in the C 2 (C ommerce) D istrict located at 6440 J ames Circle North, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the conditions of approval in the resolution. 10.Council Consideration Items a.Resolution Declaring Commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter - Approve resolution Declaring Commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter b.Resolution A ppointing City Council Members to S erve as L iaisons to City Advisory Commissions and as City Representatives/Voting Delegates for Other Organizations for 2020 - Approve a resolution appointing City Council Members to Serve as Liaisons to City Advisory Commissions and as City Representatives/Voting Delegates for Other Organizations for 2020 11.Council Report 12.Adjournment C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:A pproval of Minutes B ackground: I n accordance with M innesota S tate S tatute 15.17, the official records of all mee4ngs must be documented and approved by the governing body. S trategic Priories and Values: O pera4onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip4on U pload D ate Type D ecember 2 S pecial M ee4ng 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial D ecember 9 S tudy S ession 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial D ecember 9 Regular S es s ion 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial D ecember 9 Work S ession 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial 12/02/19 -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 SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 2, 2019 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council Special Meeting was called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:30 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Acting Finance Director Andy Splinter, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. 3. 2020 BUDGET 3a. CONSIDERATION OF 2020 BUDGET AND PUBLIC HEARING City Manager Curt Boganey stated the purpose of this Special City Council meeting is to consider the 2020 Budget and hold a public hearing before potential City Council acceptance of the Budget and approval of final tax capacity levy for the General Fund. The City Council is asked to consider the adoption of the 2020 Annual Operating Budget and 2020-2034 Capital Improvement Plan, as well as the adoption of the 2020 Capital Program. Acting Finance Director Andrew Splinter reviewed the City’s budgeting process, including consideration of strategic priorities, proposed levies; an overview of revenue and expenditures; and property taxation. He added tonight the City Council is requested to open the public hearing and receive public comment, before considering action on the proposed levy, budget and capital improvement plan, as required by Statute. He noted the budgeting process began July 15, 2019, at the Financial Commission’s meeting. At this meeting the Capital Improvement Plan was reviewed, followed by an overview at the City Council’s July 29, 2019 meeting. Mr. Splinter stated the City Council adopted the preliminary levy on September 23, 2019, and adopted utility rates on November 25, 2019. He added the focus has been economic stability and targeted redevelopment, as well as enhancing community image, creating safer communities, and transportation investments. He noted the proposed budget ensures investment in these key areas. Mr. Splinter reviewed the City tax levies for General Fund operations of $17.9 million; Public Improvement Debt Service Bond of $1.5 million; a final year of abatement for the Embassy 12/02/19 -2- DRAFT Suites project of $95,000; for a proposed 2020 levy of $19.5 million, which is an increase of 5.87% or $1.1 million from 2019. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) levy is proposed at approximately $405,000, which is an increase from $24,971 in 2019. Since 2014, the City of Brooklyn Center has been under the Statewide average for levy amounts, but in 2019 the City’s average levy is slightly higher than the Statewide average. Mr. Splinter stated General Fund revenues show a total increase in property tax revenue slightly lower than 5.87%, but changes in tax increment distribution bring it up to 6%. The general property tax levy is approximately $1 million, with 75% revenue from property taxes, 7% other taxes, and 5% intergovernmental taxes. Mr. Splinter reviewed expenditures by function, including general government, increase to $4.4 million in 2020, primarily due to the expansion of communication and community engagement. Mayor Elliott asked whether Community Development will be adding another staff member. Mr. Splinter confirmed this. Councilmember Graves requested clarification regarding “Other Services.” Mr. Splinter stated that refers to insurance, City building accounts, and unallocated items. Mr. Boganey stated the most significant increase is in wages for employees, with a 3% base wage increase that is consistent with collective bargaining unit negotiations. He added there is a net increase in the Community Engagement position, which was part-time in 2019 but proposed to be full-time for 2020. Additionally, a full-time Human Resources Development Specialist to implement inclusion and diversity as well as the equity process and coordinate the diversion initiative. He noted the in 2019, the HR position was budgeted at part-time, but it has been challenging to find a candidate with the necessary skills and experience who is interested in a part-time job. Mr. Boganey stated the proposed full-time Associate Planner position is new. This position will be involved in planning, development and new planning applications as well as the Opportunity Site planning. He added the new proposed part-time Housing Inspector position as a means of retaining a current Housing Inspector who will retire in 2-3 years. He noted funding for election judges is included, which is required in 2020. Councilmember Butler requested clarification regarding the allocation of $230,000 for expansion of Community Development office space in City Hall. Mr. Boganey stated that it would be addressed under the Capital Improvement Plan portion of the meeting. Mr. Boganey reviewed costs associated with new software, including NovusAgenda for City Council packets, POLCO for resident surveys; implementation of an online performance review system for City Staff; Invisio strategic planning software for reporting; a new IMS system for the online permitting process. 12/02/19 -3- DRAFT Mr. Boganey stated the City’s IT system maintenance and infrastructure software is through a consortium of local municipalities. The consortium is more cost-effective and attracts expertise that the City could not afford independently. He added the City had been a member of the LOGIS government software provider for 20 years. Mr. Splinter stated the 15-year Capital Improvement Plan encompasses public improvements, including utilities and streets, park improvements and building maintenance. The 2020 Capital Improvement Plan totals $10.83 million. Including the Grandview North improvements of approximately $6.6 million; $1 million for the rehabilitation of Water Tower 1; $406,000 for Shingle Creek stabilization, and miscellaneous projects including ponds rehabilitation, replacement of parks equipment and building improvements. Councilmember Butler expressed concern about renovating City Hall with these funds when there is a chance that there will be a new City Hall component in the Opportunity Site. Mr. Boganey stated the Community Development Department has the lowest amount of square footage in City Hall. He added that this department had a significant increase in staffing and new positions that they are unable to fill due to lack of space. He noted the goal is to create a more efficient environment for the employees. Mr. Boganey agreed that it is a significant investment. He added this type of capital improvement project would not be expended if there is any likelihood that City Hall will be relocating within the next 2-3 years. He noted he considers this budget item to be a placeholder, which is not atypical when identifying long-term capital projects. Mr. Boganey stressed the importance of finding office space solutions for the Community Development Department to ensure that they can operate efficiently. He stated Community Development currently has 130 square feet per employee, which is lower than any other department. Mayor Elliott asked whether this is something that is a real need. He wondered how much space this project would create and how many offices. Mr. Boganey stated he believes this will create two additional offices. Mayor Elliott stated adjacent to Community Development is the Finance Department with an available open office and a free space near the Finance Director’s office. He asked whether Community Development staff could use those spaces and whether other alternatives like this have been discussed. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff has looked at multiple alternatives. He added temporary arrangements need to be made for these staff, including the rearrangement of cubicles and the creation of an adequate workspace that will improve efficiency and customer service. He noted 12/02/19 -4- DRAFT renting office space somewhere else is also an option that could be pursued rather than investing in renovations that won’t be recovered. Mayor Elliott requested a follow-up on this issue. He added it seems like a long-term need. Mr. Boganey stated every department knows that they can make a case for improving their workspace, and supports this request. He added no other department in City Hall is as cramped for space as Community Development, and the other departments realize that. Mr. Boganey stated improvements are necessary to increase efficiency and make room to be able to fill open positions. He added City Hall could stay where it is for ten years, and the Community Development Department will require improvements to their workspace. Councilmember Ryan stated he appreciates Councilmember Butler’s comment on this issue. He added, to be clear, this is a placeholder in the Building Capital Improvement Plan, which has that type of flexibility built into it, so the City does not have to micromanage future funding. He noted the initial Phase 1 of the Opportunity Site is not finalized, and City Hall is not even part of the Phase 1 discussion. Councilmember Ryan stated Mr. Boganey has suggested the possibility of renting office space outside of City Hall, but at this point it is a placeholder and something that will be addressed during next year’s budget process. Councilmember Butler asked whether there would be a City Council vote for approval before office improvements are made. Mr. Boganey confirmed this type of expenditure requires City Council approval. Councilmember Butler stated $230,000 is a lot of money to spend on an office renovation, and residents who hear about this would probably agree. She added it is the City Council’s responsibility to question expenditure of taxpayer money, and that is not “micromanaging”. Councilmember Ryan stated he did not mean the dollar amount is insignificant, but rather the fact that the placeholder allows the City Council to support resolution of this issue for City Staff. He agreed it is very appropriate to look at dollar amounts. Mr. Boganey stated this issue would come back to the City Council, and a decision will be required within the year. He added City Staff will continue to review alternatives as well as how to ensure the value of any potential investment is recouped. Mayor Elliott asked how the renovation project would be paid for. Mr. Splinter stated this is included in the Capital Improvement Fund, which is largely funded by Local Government Aid. 12/02/19 -5- DRAFT Mr. Splinter stated Capital Improvement projects funding for 2020 include a $7 million bond issue funded through water utility, storm sewer utility and property taxes. He added there are sufficient funds for the Grandview Park project, and it will not need to be bonded. Mr. Splinter stated the market value of the median residential home in Brooklyn Center was $184,000 in 2019 with a taxable value of $166,320. He added, in 2020, the median value increased $14,000 to $198,000 with a taxable value of $178,580, or an increase of $15,000. Mr. Splinter stated City tax rates are expected to decrease, as the total levy of 5.87% is lower than the 12% total increase in the City’s value. Councilmember Ryan moved, and Councilmember Graves seconded to open the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. A resident spoke during the public hearing, thanking the City Council for their willingness to hear and respond to residents. He added he believes City Staff deserves a new office. He noted he believes mental health issues are of great concern, and he is glad to see the City Council is addressing that. The resident stated he has values that he can offer to the City, as he is a grant writer and database administrator. He asked what kinds of grants the City applies for. Mr. Boganey stated the City’s departments review grant funding that is available in their area of responsibility. He added the City applies for grant funding on a regular basis. The resident stated the City Council does a great job. He asked whether there are any regulations about hiring a third-party administrator to pursue grant funding. Mr. Boganey stated he would follow up with the resident. He apologized for not having done so sooner, as the resident spoke at a recent City Council Work Session at which Mr. Boganey had agreed to contact him. Councilmember Butler moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 3b. CITY MANAGER’S BUDGDET TRANSMITTAL LETTER FOR 2020 FISCAL YEAR Commissioner Graves moved and Commissioner Ryan seconded to Accept the Letter of Transmittal, Transmitting the 2020 Budget Adoption. Motion passed unanimously. 3c. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX ADOPTING FINAL TAX CAPACITY LEVIES FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND DEBT SERVICE FUNDS AND MARKET VALUE 12/02/19 -6- DRAFT TAX LEVY FOR THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY FOR PROPERTY TAXES PAYABLE IN 2020 Commissioner Ryan moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX Approving Final Tax Capacity Levies for the General Fund and Debt Service Funds and Market Value Tax Levy for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority for Property Taxes Payable in 2020. Motion passed unanimously. 3d. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX ADOPTING THE 2020 ANNUAL CITY BUDGET Commissioner Ryan moved and Commissioner Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX Adopting the 2020 Annual City Budget. Motion passed unanimously. 3e. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX ADOPTING THE 2020-2034 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND ADOPTING THE 2020 CAPITAL PROGRAM Commissioner Graves moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX Adopting the 2020-2034 Capital Improvement Plan and Adopting the 2020 Capital Program. Motion passed unanimously. 4. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded adjournment of the Special City Council meeting at 7:33 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 12/09/19 -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 DECEMBER 9, 2019 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Acting Mayor Dan Ryan at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott (arrived at 6:03 p.m.) 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, Police Chief Tim Gannon, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Mr. Boganey stated the City Council received an amended copy of the Resolution to be approved under Consent Agenda Item 6h, related to the sale of tobacco and tobacco-related products. Mr. Boganey stated Mayor Elliott had indicated that he intended to pull Consent Agenda Item 6h and added to the Regular Agenda under Presentations as Agenda Item 7a1 or 7c. Mayor Elliott arrived at 6:03 p.m. He requested that the City Council move Consent Agenda Item 6h to Regular Agenda Item 7a1, and Regular Agenda Item 7a would become Agenda Item 7a2. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she noted three typing errors in November 12, 2019, Work Session minutes, and provided them to the Recording Secretary for correction. She added these corrections do not affect the content of the discussion. Councilmember Graves stated the tabled Work Session Item from the City Council’s last meeting is not included on this evening’s agenda. Mr. Boganey stated the Housing Policy discussion has been moved to the City Council’s first meeting in January 2020, as City Staff intends to make changes to the working document that will make it easier to communicate recommendations and expectations. MISCELLANEOUS 12/09/19 -2- DRAFT HIGHWAY 252 DISCUSSION Mayor Elliott stated many concerned residents and community organizations in Brooklyn Center had contacted the City Council regarding the Highway 252 project. He added the currently proposed design had raised concerns regarding traffic and pedestrian safety, critical national park boundaries as well as environmental issues including air and water quality and stormwater management, and potential impact on the neighborhood on the east side of Highway 252 at 66. Mayor Elliott stated other concerns related to safe intersections that prioritize pedestrians and bicycles and the availability of public transit. He added quality public transport is critical to the community of Brooklyn Center. He stressed the importance of bus rapid transit (BRT) on Highway 94, which, according to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is one of the most highly polluted roadways in Minnesota. Councilmember Butler stated she had expressed concern to City Staff that the Highway 252 informational sessions are not attended by the entire City Council to provide consensus on the issues related to the Highway 252 project. She requested a work session to address these issues. Mayor Elliott agreed that a discussion on this issue could be scheduled for a work session in January 2020. Mr. Boganey agreed, adding a work session would be helpful and could include representatives from the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Hennepin County, and consulting engineers. He said the City of Brooklyn Park held a similar work session regarding Highway 252. He requested some dates that would work for the City Council. Councilmember Butler stated she is free on Mondays or Wednesdays. Councilmember Ryan said he is flexible. Mayor Elliott stated he is available on January 8, 11, or 29. Councilmember Graves stated she would not be back until January 23. Councilmember Ryan stated a Highway 252 meeting is scheduled for February 21, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. at the Brookdale Library. ALTERNATE MEETING CALENDAR Mr. Boganey, the City Council, recently discussed potential changes to the 2020 meeting calendar. He added City Staff could provide an extra day for the City Council to review the meeting packet so that packets would be ready on the Wednesday before the City Council meeting. He noted the City Council reached a consensus not to schedule an additional monthly work session; however, five other dates have been added to the calendar for potential work session meetings. 12/09/19 -3- DRAFT Councilmember Ryan stated the City Council decided not to add meetings unless they are required. He said there had been a lack of effectiveness and efficiency with the way work sessions are conducted. He noted this could be discussed further at Phase 2 of the City Council’s team-building exercise/workshop early in 2020. Councilmember Ryan stated he takes issue with residents who attend work session meetings and are allowed to engage in dialogue, as it creates difficulties in terms of how the City Council deliberates essential matters. He noted, at a recent work session, there was tension between a City Councilmember and a resident, and the situation was not managed well. He provided copies of documents related work session procedures for the City Council’s review. Mayor Elliott stated it is helpful to have placeholder dates, so work sessions can be scheduled as needed. Councilmember Butler stated the City Council has looked at their calendars to figure out additional meeting dates that work for everyone. She added having dates on the calendar to hold specific dates open for potential meetings. She noted she supports having placeholder dates. Councilmember Graves agreed. Councilmember Ryan stated he could see the functional value of having dates open and available. He added, however, the reason this is necessary is that the work session meetings are not run efficiently. He noted he hopes the City Council takes the time to review the documents he provided. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she is okay with penciling in some dates. She added she does not support having an additional meeting every month. She noted she is fine with the dates that were selected. It was the majority Consensus of the City Council to add Alternate Meeting Calendar to Consent Agenda Item 6d as reviewed by the City Council. SNOW REMOVAL AT BUS STOPS Councilmember Ryan stated he forwarded an email to City Staff that he received from a resident expressing concern regarding snow removal at City bus stops. He requested that the City Staff respond to the resident. Mr. Boganey stated snowplowing around bus stops is the responsibility of Metro Transit and not the City. He added City Staff would contact the resident to discuss this issue and provide additional information. 12/09/19 -4- DRAFT Councilmember Ryan stated snow removal is an important safety issue. He added City Councilmembers should forward all such resident comments to City Staff for tracking purposes. He noted it might be necessary for the City Council to revisit this issue. DEVELOPMENT SIGN – 57 TH AVENUE N Councilmember Graves stated she saw a recent post on social media about a sign at the Opportunity Site that encourages residents to contact Community Development Director Meg Beekman with their opinions about development. She added the signs refer to the status of a park called Monarch Park that is being planned. She noted she was tagged in the post. She asked whether the City Staff has any information on the sign. Mr. Boganey agreed to follow up and provide an update for the City Council at their next meeting. TYPE 4 RENTAL LICENSES REPORT Councilmember Graves stated City Council had requested information regarding police data related to Type 4 rental licenses. She added City Staff has been collecting data for over a year now. She asked when those reports would be available. Mr. Boganey stated that information would be available in early 2020. He added the data is related to police generated stops and frisks and has been organized by demographic information that does not relate to complaints or settlements. He noted he is unsure whether that data is available. SNOW REMOVAL ORDINANCE Mayor Elliott requested a City Council discussion regarding the impact of the City’s snow removal ordinance early in 2020. Councilmember Graves stated she is open to that discussion. Mr. Boganey stated he would recommend having that discussion in March 2020 after the snow removal season is almost over, and the information will be more complete. Mayor Elliott said he would like to have the discussion sooner rather than later. ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL Mayor Elliott closed the Study Session at 6:45 p.m. 12/09/19 -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 DECEMBER 9, 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, Police Chief Tim Gannon, City Engineer Mike Albers, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for Informal Open Forum. David Evanson, 711 69 th Avenue N, stated there had been a change in stormwater drainage patterns near Eastbrook Estates, at 711 69 th Avenue N, of which he is a partial owner. He added a catch basin was planned to be installed at a low point, which will create drainage problems in the spring when the snow melts. He noted he hopes something can be done about it. Mr. Evanson stated the property was assessed as a double assessment for street improvements as there was a home on a portion of the property for many years. He added the City’s assessment policy states that deviations might be justified. He noted he is asking for a reasonable interpretation, which would be a single assessment. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff would follow up on Mr. Evanson’s comments and report back to the City Council. He thanked Mr. Evanson for his remarks. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved, and Councilmember Graves seconded to close the Informal Open Forum at 6:56 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 2. INVOCATION 12/09/19 -2- DRAFT Mayor Elliott read the following quote as an Invocation: “ . . . the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life -- the sick, the needy and the handicapped." (Hubert H. Humphrey, November 1977) Mayor Elliott expressed his appreciation of Public Works staff for cleaning up all the snow. He added a resident at Brookdale Library commented to him that the City’s streets are always so well-plowed. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 7:00 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, Police Chief Tim Gannon, City Engineer Mike Albers, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, City Clerk Barb Suciu, 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 Mayor Elliott noted that the attendees for Agenda Item 7a1 had not arrived at the meeting yet. He requested that Item 7a2 be addressed as Item 7a1. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, as amended, with amendments to the Work Session Minutes of November 12, 2019, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 12, 2019 - Work Session 2. November 25, 2019 - Study Session 3. November 25, 2019 - Regular Session 4. November 25, 2019 - Work Session 6b. LICENSES CHRISTMAS TREE SALES 12/09/19 -3- DRAFT PQT Company dba Rum River Tree Farms 5040 Brooklyn Blvd Brooklyn Center 55429 GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE Casey's Retail Company dba Casey's General Store #382 3 2101 Freeway Blvd Brooklyn Center 55430 Metropolitan Council 677 Transfer Road St Paul 55114 Royalty & Sons Inc dba Brooklyn BP 6044 Brooklyn Blvd Brooklyn Center 55429 LIQUOR - OFF SALE 3.2 MALT Casey's Retail Company dba Casey's Ge neral Store #3823 2101 Freeway Blvd Brooklyn Center 55430 City of Brooklyn Center Centennial Park 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy Brooklyn Center 55430 City of Brooklyn Center Evergreen Park 7112 Bryant Avenue N Brooklyn Center 55430 Ku, Leng dba Sun Foods 6350 Brooklyn Blvd Brooklyn Center 55429 LIQUOR - INTOXICATING American Legion Post 630 6110 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center 55430 City of Brooklyn Center Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 Lilac Drive N Brooklyn Center 55430 Jambo Africa, Inc. Jambo Africa Restaurant & Bar 1601 Freeway Blvd Brooklyn Center 55430 LIQUOR - SUNDAY SALES American Legion Post 630 6110 Brooklyn Blvd. Brooklyn Center 55430 City of Brooklyn Center Centerbrook Golf Course 5500 Lilac Drive N Brook lyn Center 55430 Jambo Africa, Inc. Jambo Africa Restaurant & Bar 1601 Freeway Blvd Brooklyn Center 55430 MECHANICAL LICENSE Affordable Comfort Mechanical 1167 Viking Drive E. Mapl ewood 55109 B & B Plumbing Inc. 25593 109 th NW Zim merman 55398 12/09/19 -4- DRAFT Major Mechanical, Inc. 11201 86 th Avenue N Maple Grove 55369 Residential Heating & Air 7454 Washington Avenue S. Eden Prairie 55344 SECONDHAND GOODS LICENSE Gamestop #535 6068 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center 55430 TOBACCO LICENSE AM PM Corner Market Inc 6501 Humboldt St N Brooklyn Center 55430 Casey's Retail Company dba Casey's General Store #3823 2101 Freeway Blvd Brooklyn Center 55430 Royalty & Sons Inc dba Brooklyn BP 6044 Brooklyn Blvd Brooklyn Center 55429 RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 3207 67th Avenue N Elijah Nyambane 3307 Quarles Road Norrine Nelson INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 5411 72nd Circle Maya Ly 6430 Indiana Avenue N Omolola Akinsoji RENEWAL (TYPE IV – one-year license) 4000 61st Avenue N Adegbola Ogundipe missing CPTED Inspection 5025 Ewing Avenue N Julie Kazmierkoski/Kaz Properties missing CPTED 4913 Winchester Lane Huda Hassen RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 7256 Unity Avenue N/Unity Place CHDC Ltd Partnership 3349 49th Avenue Isaac Obi - met mitigation plan 5207 Boulder Lane Ross Herman/First Housing met action plan 5201 Drew Avenue N Ahmed Omar 5740 Irving Avenue N Sean Rahn RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 5640 Fremont Avenue N Douglas Wahl/Cel Monton met mitigation plan 12/09/19 -5- DRAFT 6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-172 APPROVING THE 2020 FEE SCHEDULE 6d. APPROVE THE 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-173 SETTING SALARIES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2020 6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-174 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2020-06, 2020 POND MAINTENANCE 6g. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-175 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF FUNDS FOR CERTAIN FINANCIAL GUARANTEES BEING HELD BY THE CITY 6h. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-176 DISCONTINUING THE SALE OF TOBACCO AND TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES (moved to Agenda Item 7a1) 6i. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-177 AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF POLICIES; SECTION 1.6 AGENDA AND SECTION 1.13; SUBSECTION 5; MOTION TO FIX HOUR OF ADJOURNMENT Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a1. OPPORTUNITY SITE COMMUNITY PARTNER COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT REPORT – BROOKLYN BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH Meg Beekman stated City Staff had been engaged in outreach to different groups in the community that will be impacted by the Opportunity Site development. She added Brooklyn Bridge Alliance is one of those groups, as the City’s youth will be significantly affected by and involved in the Opportunity Site as it is developed. She noted Brooklyn Bridge has engaged a group of students and youth and asked them to consider the future of Brooklyn Center, as well as their own needs within the community that could be served by new development. These engagement efforts are a pivotal point in the Opportunity Site planning process, as the Master Plan is developed. Ms. Beekman welcomed members of the Brooklyns Youth Council (BYC) and invited them to share a summary report of their engagement activities. She added this report would be included, along with other engagement activities, in a single guiding document. She invited the youth representatives to introduce themselves. 12/09/19 -6- DRAFT Tiffany stated she is a junior at Osseo High School and lives in Brooklyn Park. Alexander Garguno said he is a sophomore at Brooklyn Center High School and lives in Brooklyn Center. Catalina Mua stated she is a senior at Brooklyn Center High School and lives in Brooklyn Center. Andrew Mua, Brooklyn Bridge Youth Engagement, thanked the City Council for their support of the vital work of Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth. He thanked Mayor Elliott for putting youth at the forefront of the City’s engagement efforts, and Councilmember Graves for being the City Council Liaison. He stressed the importance of allowing the youth of the community to share their thoughts, wishes and concerns. Mr. Mua stated consensus-building workshops were conducted involving Brooklyn Bridge Alliance youth, representatives from the Citizen’s League, including Judith Marquez, and Brooklyn Center schools. The goal of these sessions was to inform the City of Brooklyn Center about what youth want to see in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the Opportunity Site development. Catalina stated the focus group facilitators hosted a workshop to build consensus among all members regardless of their position. The questions that were asked were, “What do you want to see in Brooklyn Center in 2040? What would it take for you to stay in Brooklyn Center to live and work? What do you need from the community of Brooklyn Center that would help you reach your fullest potential?” Catalina stated the workshop participants included community members from many different demographic groups, including 81 students, 51 of whom live in Brooklyn Center, representing 15 different racial and ethnic identities. She added responses indicated that the youth of the community want more investment in schools and education, a better-organized school system, and the opportunity to support schools in different ways. Alexander stated youth indicated they would like to have expanded retail options, and more entertainment options, but not expensive large-scale establishments like TopGolf that are not accessible for students. Tiffany stated youth want affordable housing for all residents and different housing options, and housing for the homeless was a priority. She added youth agreed that disparities in housing as a result of development was not desirable. She stressed the importance that development should not cause an increase in rents that would be a burden to residents. She noted youth expressed a need for community spaces, not just for sports, but for engagement with youth and families of varying backgrounds and interests. Alexander stated there was a consensus about the importance of specific spaces for teen activities, diversity of food and restaurant options, sports and recreation, and more job opportunities. Roads and transportation were indicated as an essential priority, as well as creating a safe and welcome community and caring for the environment. 12/09/19 -7- DRAFT Mr. Mua stated other categories that were named less frequently were increased awareness for religious and cultural groups, childcare assistance for families, and a safe and clean environment for pets. Mr. Mua reviewed the four major themes that were a result of the workshops: investing in schools and education, expanded retail and entertainment options, affordable housing opportunities and expanded housing, and community spaces for youth and families to bond. Mr. Mua stated the balance between development and affordable housing is acknowledged throughout these discussions. He added the goal is to figure out how these things can happen concurrently. He noted another consideration is that the reality of today’s youth does not necessarily reflect where they will be in 2040. Still, their ideas provide insight into what they would like their community to look like. Mr. Mua asked the BYC members to reflect on their experience with Opportunity Site community engagement efforts. Tiffany thanked the City Council for allowing the BYC youth to speak on this issue. She added she feels the youth of Brooklyn Center have a lot to say. Alexander thanked the City Council for giving time and space for the youth to provide their input. He added, through this process, he has realized that many youths care a lot about the future and development of Brooklyn Center. He stressed the importance of thinking about how the city can be developed and improved. Catalina stated many local youths have opinions about potential plans for their community. She added some youth envisioned a community-based future, while others want to focus on entertainment options. Mr. Mua thanked the City Council for the opportunity to present their report. Mayor Elliott thanked Mr. Mua and representatives of Brooklyn Bridge Alliance, as well as the BYC youth, for their stellar presentation and the incredible amount of work they have done on this issue. He stated the Opportunity Site is an incredible development for Brooklyn Center, and the future of the City belongs to its young people. Councilmember Butler thanked the BYC youth for their presentation. She stated she had encouraged youth engagement in this project and appreciated being able to hear from the youth about what they want for the Opportunity Site project. She asked what the City can do to engage other students who might want to be a part of this process. Mr. Mua stated young people between the ages of 19-25 years are a demographic that should be engaged. He added their opinions would provide a clear shift of perspectives from residents who 12/09/19 -8- DRAFT are a little older than high school students. He stressed the importance of keeping youth and young people informed and involved. Councilmember Ryan thanked the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance group for their presentation. He stated the City Council is grateful for the opportunity to learn from the City’s youth as the process goes forward. He added the Opportunity Site development is an opportunity to recreate Brooklyn Center, and many residents and local businesses are heavily invested in the community. He noted it would be a great source of strength to have the input and feedback of the City’s youth. Councilmember Graves stated she appreciates having the youth present at the City Council meeting, as they contribute a sense of energy. She asked what it means to the youth to acknowledge the tension between development and community continuity and how leaders can make the best decisions while acknowledging that relationship. Tiffany stated many residents were not sure if these community engagement sessions would make a difference. She added she appreciates the acknowledgment that the City’s youth is an essential source of input and feedback on development in Brooklyn Center. Catalina stated keeping youth informed is the most important point. She added in these types of conversations, youth are not often included, and their voice needs to be heard. She noted the City’s youth have a lot to offer in problem-solving, finding solutions, and providing input. Councilmember Graves asked what motivates the local youth to continue to want to be involved in and informed about these issues. Catalina stated community engagement opportunities are a good approach for reaching youth. She added the process indicates to the youth that it is okay to think differently, have opinions, and be motivated to relay their message to adults. Tiffany agreed, adding more community engagement sessions would be a good idea. She said this process has shown that youth care about the future of Brooklyn Center, and want to create a comfortable space for youth to voice their opinions. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson thanked the youth for their presentation. She stated they are eloquent and articulate, and very bright young people. She expressed her appreciation for their thoughts and insights as well as their hard work. Mayor Elliott acknowledged Tiffany, who attended a national conference in Denver along with City Councilmembers. Rebecca Gilgen, Executive Director of Brooklyn Bridge Alliance, stated representatives of the City of Brooklyn Center and the School District have been holding informational meetings, to re- 12/09/19 -9- DRAFT envision what their relationship should look like. She added the next step is to pursue School District support for local engagements at the area’s schools. She noted it is exciting to see young people coming out and getting involved in this issue. Mayor Elliott stated the next step is to implement these findings into plans for the Opportunity Site and to ensure that the youth of the City hold the City Council accountable for following through. The City should continue to encourage youth feedback and input and ensure that their ideas are incorporated into development plans. The process of development is best done when residents themselves shape how the community looks, sounds and feels. He stressed the importance of engaging 19-25-year-old residents and overlaying their ideas and plans into Opportunity Site development. Mr. Boganey stated Tiffany was a BrookLynk intern in the Community Development Department this past summer. He thanked all the young people who have presented their feedback tonight for doing such a great job. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Butler seconded to accept a Presentation and Report by Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth. Motion passed unanimously. 7a2. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-176 DISCONTINUING THE SALE OF TOBACCO AND TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCTS IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER MUNICIPAL LIQUOR STORES Mr. Boganey stated a Resolution was drafted for the City Council’s review and potential adoption, related to the sale of tobacco and tobacco-related products. He welcomed Yong Chao Yang, who, along with her sister Khee Mee Yang, was instrumental in bringing forward a request for discontinuing the sale of tobacco and tobacco-related products in the city of Brooklyn Center municipal liquor stores. Mayor Elliott read the Resolution in full, which was translated by Hmong interpreter Long Yang. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2019-176 Discontinuing the Sale of Tobacco and Tobacco-Related Products in the City of Brooklyn Center Municipal Liquor Stores. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Butler stated she was impressed that the two young women lifted their voices and demonstrated what can be accomplished when consideration is given to the opinions and thoughts of the City’s youth. She added the two young women came and addressed the City Council and changed public policy. She thanked them and asked them to continue to speak out because the City Council listens. 12/09/19 -10- DRAFT Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson acknowledged Emily Anderson, an advocate with Minnesota Non-Smoker’s Association. Councilmember Ryan acknowledged Jess Knowland representing the American Heart Association, who has been a firm supporter of the City of Brooklyn Center’s efforts to limit youth access to tobacco products. He thanked her and expressed his thanks and appreciation to the two young women who came forward to initiate this change in public policy. Young Chao Yang thanked the City Council for acknowledging an issue, listening to a solution, and making a decision that will help create a better community. She added her sister is home sick with the flu. Ms. Anderson stated the Yang sisters have been instrumental in bringing attention to the tobacco issue, particularly vaping for over a year. She added many young people are interested in making a change that will help improve the community. Ms. Knowland thanked the City Council for their position on this issue, establishing them as leaders for youth, residents, and all Minnesotans. Mayor Elliott presented copies of the resolution for the Yang sisters and thanked Ms. Yang for initiating this policy change in Brooklyn Center. 7b. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-178 RECOGNIZING TODD BERG, FIRE CHIEF, AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION (APWA) MINNESOTA CHAPTER SUPERVISOR OF THE YEAR Public Works Director Doran Cote reviewed a Resolution recognizing Todd Berg, Brooklyn Center Fire Chief, who was recently awarded the American Public Works Association (APWA) Minnesota Chapter Supervisor of the Year Award. Mayor Elliott thanked Mr. Berg for his years of service and deep commitment to the community. He added the City thanks to Mr. Berg and honored him for his service. Mayor Elliott read a Resolution in full recognizing Fire Chief Todd Berg for receiving the American Public Works Association (APWA) Minnesota Chapter Supervisor of the Year Award. Todd Berg thanked the Public Works Department and Mr. Cote, his family, and countless others. He added he could not have accomplished his goals without a lot of support. Councilmember Ryan moved, and Councilmember Graves seconded to approve RESOLUTION NO. 2019-178 Recognizing Todd Berg, Fire Chief, American Public Works Association (APWA) Minnesota Chapter Supervisor of the Year. 12/09/19 -11- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-179 CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2020-01 AND 2020-02, GRANDVIEW NORTH AREA STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS City Engineer Mike Albers reviewed the Grandview North Area Street and Storm Drainage improvement plan. He stated tonight the request of the council is consideration of a resolution in support of Grandview North area street and Storm Utility improvements, which includes roadway reconstruction, storm drainage and utility improvements. There was a neighborhood meeting held on September 5, 2019, and plans and the City Council authorized specifications for the project on October 28, 2019. As part of the process, notification to all property owners that would be assessed was notified of this meeting date and assessment report. Mr. Albers stated recommended improvements include complete replacement of the sanitary sewer system and replacement of 30% of the water main; removal and replacement of storm sewer and implementation of water quality treatment where feasible. Streets lights are proposed to be replaced with fiberglass poles and LED light fixtures. Streets are proposed to be reconstructed to 30-feet wide, with full-depth pavement and aggregate base, and sidewalk improvements and repairs are proposed to be completed as needed. Preliminary budgets, as presented, will be subject to change. Special assessments will account for 13.9% of total project costs, and residents who meet specific criteria can defer a portion of the assessment. Mr. Albers stated bids would be accepted in February/March 2020, with construction commenced in the spring and completion in fall 2020. He added a public hearing is required on special assessments, as well as a simple majority vote of the City Council. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. A resident asked if there is an option to make payments against the assessment, instead of paying it off. She wondered whether the unpaid portion would go on property tax. Mr. Albers responded that the City does not accept partial payments. He added residents who pay either the street or storm assessment can have the other assessment added to their property tax. The resident asked whether she will be responsible for taking care of the sidewalk in front of her house. She added she has never had a sidewalk before. Mr. Albers stated the City maintains all sidewalks and plows them in the winter. 12/09/19 -12- DRAFT The resident asked how much of her driveway will be removed and then replaced. Mr. Albers stated 15 feet at the end of the driveway will be removed and replaced. The resident asked if she can redo her entire driveway at that time. Mr. Albers stated many residents choose to do that, but it will be necessary to negotiate that with the contractor. Mr. Albers stated he could contact the resident and answer any additional questions she might have. Jude Nadi, a resident, stated he is a local contractor and he can work with the City of Brooklyn Center to help engage with and hire local minority contractors. He added this would boost the economy of the City of Brooklyn Center. He said he is available to talk to City staff about this option. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff is looking into the suggestion related to hiring minority contractors. He added it is highly unlikely that something would be in place before the upcoming bids, as an ordinance would need to be in place for 60-90 days before bids could be sent out. City Attorney Gilchrist stated he provided preliminary background information to the City Manager on this issue, outlining what other cities have done. He added many cities had structured this as an Ordinance, which Brooklyn Center could also pursue. Councilmember Graves stated she is pleased to know City Staff is moving forward with a review of this issue. She added the information regarding how the City plans to consider proposals could be shared even if an Ordinance is not in place before this contract. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff is very interested in receiving names of contractors who might be interested in being considered so that information can be forwarded to them. Her added the list could be fairly complete since there is a limited number of local contractors. Councilmember Ryan stated the City is required under State Statute to accept the most qualified bid on contracts. He added the lowest qualified or certified general contractor would have some discretion, which would open up opportunities for local contractors. Mr. Gilchrist agreed, adding it is the contractor’s responsibility to put it together and present it to the City. Councilmember Butler moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Ryan moved, and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-179 Certifying Special Assessments for Improvement Project Nos. 2020-01 and 2020- 02, Grandview North Area Street and Storm Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls. 12/09/19 -13- DRAFT Motion passed unanimously. 8b. ORDINANCE NO. 2019-13 AMENDING CHAPTER 11 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING LIQUOR AND LIQUOR LICENSING City Clerk Barb Suciu reviewed the second reading of a proposed Ordinance amending Chapter 11 of City Code of Ordinances regarding liquor and liquor licensing. She added this includes 2:00 a.m. optional liquor license and eliminates the 300-foot restriction. She noted a public hearing is required. Ms. Suciu stated City Staff recommends City Council approval of an Ordinance amending Chapter 11 of the City Code of Ordinances. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Butler seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Estella Fuller, the owner of Estella’s Kitchen, stated she had contacted the City about getting a liquor license for her restaurant and catering business. She added it is difficult to run a successful restaurant without alcoholic beverages. She said she would like to have some resolution about getting a liquor license. Councilmember Ryan moved, and Councilmember Graves seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2019-13 Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Liquor and Liquor Licensing. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS -None. 11. COUNCIL REPORT Councilmember Butler expressed her thanks to the Brooklyn Center Lions Club for hosting Holly Sunday at the Community Center, which she attended with her family. She thanked the Community Center staff for their hard work, and for adding extra staff for the event. Councilmember Ryan stated he was also at Holly Sunday, outside helping kids get on and off the hayride. He added he is President of the Lions Club, and thanked Councilmember Butler for her 12/09/19 -14- DRAFT comments. He expressed his appreciation of the Community Center staff for another successful Holly Sunday. Councilmember Graves stated it was nice to see the beautiful decorations and see families come out and participate in this festive occasion. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked whether there is a tree-lighting ceremony. Mr. Boganey stated he believes it has been discontinued but agreed to report back on that. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved, and Councilmember Graves seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 8:47 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 12/09/19 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION DECEMBER 9, 2019 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Mike Elliott at 8:50 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Mike Elliott and Councilmembers/Commissioners Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Police Chief Tim Gannon, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. XERXES/NORTHWAY ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY Police Chief Tim Gannon reviewed concerns brought to the City Council/EDA by a business owner, Mr. Lutz, in Sector 5, the City’s main commercial area that has a dedicated team of Police Officers. The business owner expressed concern about loitering and foot traffic at Brooklyn Center Transit Center (BCTC), for which Metro Transit has trained officers on duty seven days a week, including both day and night patrols. He added the current coverage is a significant improvement in staffing at the location. Chief Gannon stated a foreseeable consequence of additional patrols has been that BCTC foot traffic has moved out to surrounding businesses and resulted in a dramatic increase in calls in the surrounding areas. The Police Department is aware of the problem and dispatched a patrol detail in the area of concern for 30 days. Contact was made with 33 individuals, of which 115 were deterred from loitering. Chief Gannon stated Mr. Lutz and other business owners requested removal of benches, which has resulted in an end to loitering. The business owners have been appreciative of the officers’ efforts and happy with the results. The Police Department will need to ensure consistent levels of enforcement to ensure that this positive result continues. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan thanked Chief Gannon for his report, and the thorough follow-up, and the fact that Metro Transit made changes to their patrol. He added Mr. Lutz indicated that he always gets a prompt response when he contacts the Police Department. 12/09/19 -2- DRAFT Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan asked whether Chief Gannon is still considering his earlier recommendation of the addition of two patrol officers. Chief Gannon confirmed this, adding it is important to note that the Police Department is currently at its full complement of 49 sworn Officers. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated many of the people loitering at the Transit Station are young people, as evident in the video presented by Mr. Lutz. She added youth outreach efforts might be pursued by tapping into resources within the community. She noted Brooklyn Park has a youth outreach team, and the Minneapolis Police Department has Youth Officers and Community Navigators. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves stated it would be helpful to consider different approaches and messaging, assisting the increased police presence. She expressed concern about how this issue affects local businesses. She stressed the importance of showing human kindness in these types of situations. Mayor/President Elliott agreed, adding this could be an opportunity for outreach. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan stated he spoke with Paul Jackson, Manager of Cub Foods, about how they patrol their parking lot. He added they encourage people to move along and only call the Police Department if someone is not cooperative. He noted there are constructive ways to approach how to get young people actively involved in activities and then encourage local businesses to support that effort. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson move and Councilmember/Commissioner Graves seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 9:15 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:A lix Bentrud, D eputy City Clerk S U B J E C T:A pproval of Licens es B ackground: The follow ing bus ines s es /per s ons have applied for C ity licens es as noted. Each busines s /person has fulfilled the requirements of the C ity O rdinance governing respec4v e licens es , submi5ed appropriate applica4ons, and paid proper fees. A pplicants for r ental dwelling licens es are in compliance w ith C hapter 12 of the City C ode of O rdinances , unless comments are noted below the property address on the a5ached rental report. G A S O L I N E S E R V I C E S TATI O N L I C E N S E A M P M Corner Market I nc 6501 H umboldt Ave N Brooklyn C enter 55430 Boulevard Enterprises I nc dba Chris ty's A uto S ervice 5300 D upont Ave N Brooklyn C enter 55430 M EC H A N I C A L L I C E N S E A bsolute Mechanical, L L C 7338 O hms L ane Edina 55439 A E S M echanical S ervices G roup, I nc 2171 A L H w y 229 Tallas s ee F L 36078 Faircon S ervice Company 764 Vandalia S t S t. Paul 55114 H omew orks S ervices Co 1230 Eagan I ndustrial Rd. #117 Eagan 55121 I deal A ir L L C 17900 A z tec S treet N W A ndover 55304 J -Berd M echanical C ontractors, I nc P O Box 7308 S aint C loud 56302 J omac Mechanical 9318 S pring Lake Rd N E North Branch 55056 L ane P lumbing I nc 29910 104th Ave N H anover 55341 L egend C ompanies 12467 Boone Ave S avage 55378 M ajes4c P lumbing I nc 2801 7th Ave #411 A noka 55303 M asterpiece M echanical L L C 12400 G e5ysburg Ave N #17 A pple Valley 55124 P ierce Refrigera4on 1920 2nd Ave S A noka 55303 Q uality S ys tems A /C & Refrigera4on 16857 Welcome Ave S E P rior L ake 55372 Res iden4al H ea4ng and A ir 7454 Was hington Ave S Eden P rairie 55344 S age H ea4ng and Cooling L L C 3913 Z arthan Ave S Minneapolis 55416 The Crew Facility Maintenance, I nc 951 A merican Blvd E Bloomington 55420 S EC O N D H A N D GO O DS L I C E N S E G amestop #535 6068 S hingle Creek P kwy Brooklyn Center 55430 S I G N HA N G E R S L I C E N S E I ndigo S ignw orks I nc 1622 M ain Ave Fargo N D 58103 Tw in Ci4es S ign I nstalla4ons 8880 140th S t N H ugo 55038 TO B A C C O L I C E N S E A M P M Corner Market I nc 6501 H umboldt S t N Brooklyn C enter 55430 S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip4on U pload D ate Type Rental C riteria 5/7/2019 Backup M aterial 1-13-2020 Rentals 1/8/2020 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  *** 61 0 1  Be a r d  Av e  N      Be a r d  Ap a r t m e n t s Mu l t i  1  Bl d g 24  Un i t s In i t i a l B M W  / Ha l v e r s o n  & Bl a i s e r  Gr o u p 53 2. 2  pe r  un i t II I N/ A III 50 0 1  Ew i n g  Av e  N 1  Bl d g  3  Un i t s In i t i a l M a r y  An n  Ne i l 7   2. 3  pe r  Un i t II I N/ A III 53 1 6  Ru s s e l l  Av e  N 2  Fa m i l y  1  Un i t In i t i a l D e v i n  & Ma d e l e i n e  Mo r k 3 II N/ A II 38 1 3  58 t h  Av e  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  / Xi a n  Li n 4 II N/ A II 21 0 8  70 t h  Av e  N Si n g l e In i t i a l S y l v e s t e r  On a i w u 2 II N/ A II 10 1 2  72 n d  Av e  N Si n g l e In i t i a l J o s e p h  Fl o r c z a k / H P A  US A 1  LL C 0 II N/ A II 67 3 6  Co l f a x  Av e  N Si n g l e In i t i a l J o h n  Ch a o 9 II I N/ A III 57 3 7  Em e r s o n  Av e  N Si n g l e In i t i a l N u t i d a  Wo n g 7 II I N/ A III 70 0 1  Fr e m o n t  Av e  N S i n g l e I n i t i a l H P A  Bo r r o w e r  20 1 8 ‐1  ML  LL C 7 II I N/ A III 38 1 3  Ja n e t  La S i n g l e I n i t i a l A b d i r a h m a n  Dh u n k a l 1 0 IV N/ A IV 55 4 8  Lo g a n  Av e S i n g l e I n i t i a l L a t e e f  Ol a r i n d e 2 II N/ A II 53 0 0  Pe n n  Av e  N Si n g l e In i t i a l J i m m e y  Le e  Wh i t e h e a d 7 II I N/ A III 31 0 0  Th u r b e r  Rd Si n g i e In i t i a l T y l e r  He n d e r s o n 5 II N/ A II 42 0 0  Wi n c h e s t e r  La S i n g l e I n i t i a l O b a f e m i  Ol a d e j i / K o l a d e x  Ve n t u r e  LL C 9 I I I N/ A III 36 0 1  47 t h  Av e  N  Ry a n  Cr e e k  Ma n o r Mu l t i  4  Bl d g  44   Un i t s Re n e w a l BM W  / Ha l v e r s o n  & Bl a i s e r  Gr o u p  ‐   Mi s s i n g  CP T E D 86    1. 9 5  pe r  un i t II I 13  va l i d    .3  per  unit   1/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9   Di s t u r b a n c e   2/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   2/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   2/ 2 3 / 2 0 1 9   Di s t u r b a n c e  3/5/2019   Di s t u r b a n c e  3/202019   Di s t u r b a n c e   4/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 9  Assault   5/ 1 / 2 0 1 9  Assault   5/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 9  Narcotics   10 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9   Va n d a l i s m   11 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   12 / 7 / 2 0 1 9   Di s t u r b a n c e   12 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 9   Di s t u r b a n c e IV IV 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  Ja n u a r y  13 ,  20 2 0 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  *** 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  Ja n u a r y  13 ,  20 2 0 45 0 0  58 t h  Av e  N  Tw i n  La k e  No r t h  Ap t s Mu l t i  46  Bl d g 27 6  Un i t s Re n e w a l T L N  LA  NE L 56 7   2. 0 5  pe r  un i t II I 34  va l i d   0. 1 2  pe r  unit 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 9  Auto  Theft 3/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 9  Vandalism 3/ 1 4 / 2 0 1 9  Dusturbance 3/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 9  Vandalism 4/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 9  Disturbance   4/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 9  Theft 4/ 2 5 / 2 0 1 9  Auto  Theft   5/ 9 / 2 0 1 9  Vandalism 5/ 1 1 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   6/ 2 / 2 0 1 9  Weapons 6/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 9  Vandalism 7/ 3 / 2 0 1 9  Burglary 7/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   7/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 9  Vandalism 7/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 9  Theft 7/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 9  Theft 7/ 3 0 / 2 0 1 9  Theft 8/ 6 / 2 0 1 9  Th e f t  9/3/2019   Va n d a l i s m  9/ 6 / 2 0 1 9  Auto   Th e f t  9/ 1 8 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   10 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   10 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   10 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 9  Assault   11 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9  Burglary   11 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   12 / 1 6 / 2 0 1 9  Auto  Theft   12 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   12 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 9  BurglaryIII 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  *** 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  Ja n u a r y  13 ,  20 2 0 70 0  66 t h  Av e  N    Ge o r g e t o w n  Pa r k Mu l t i  24  Bl d g 92  Un i t s Re n e w a l S c o t t  Ga n n / W i e n s c h  Co n s t r u c t i o n 28 3  3  pe r  un i t II I 16  va l i d 0. 1 7  pe r  unit 1/ 1 2 / 2 0 1 9   Au t o  Theft 2/ 2 4 / 2 0 1 9   Au t o  Theft 4/ 7 / 2 0 1 9  Auto  Theft 5/ 1 3 / 2 0 1 9  Theft 5/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 9  Theft 6/ 2 8 / 2 0 1 9  Disturbance 7/ 7 / 2 0 1 9  Theft 8/ 5 / 2 0 1 9  Theft 8/ 1 0 / 2 0 1 9  Disorderly   Co n d u c t 8/ 1 1 / 2 0 1 9  Vandalism 9/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 9  Theft 9/ 2 9 / 2 0 1 9  Vandalism 10 / 4 / 2 0 1 9  Theft   11 / 9 / 2 0 1 9  Au t o  Theft 11 / 9 / 2 0 1 9 Au t o  Theft   11 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 9   Au t o  TheftIII III 11 0 0  69 t h  Av e  N Mu l t i  1  Bl d g 7  Un i t s Re n e w a l Ev a n g e l i c a l  Lu t h e r a n  Ch u r c h  of  th e   Ma s t e r 14 2  pe r  un i t II I 0 III IV 52 3 9 ‐41  Dr e w  Av e  N 2  Fa m i l y   2  Un i t Re n e w a l J a y  & Gi n a  Ba t t e n b e r g 0 I 0 II I 54 1 2  1/ 2  Fr e m o n t  Av e  N 2  Fa m i l y  1  Un i t Re n e w a l G a r y  An a k k a l a 2 I 0 II I 42 1 6  La k e b r e e z e  Av e Mu l t i  1  Bl d g  4  Un i t s Re n e w a l D a n i e l  Ta n 11  2. 7 5  Pe r  Un i t II I 0 III IV 53 0 1  Ru s s e l l  Av e  N Mu l t i  2  Bl d g  36   Un i t s Re n e w a l M i d w e s t  GI R  Gr o u p 93   2. 5 8  pe r  un i t II I 5  va l i d  .0 5  per  unit 1/ 2 7 / 1 9  Burglary,  5/ 1 9 / 1 9 ,  th e f t  from   au t o ,  9/ 1 4 / 1 9   di s t u r b i n g  peace,  9/ 2 8 / 1 9  wreckless   di s c h a r g e  of  a  firearm 12 / 1 7 / 1 9  burglary   III IV 47 4 8 ‐52  Tw i n  La k e  Av e 2  Fa m i l y  2  Un i t Re n e w a l G r a n t  & Pa m  Os g o o d  ‐   Mi s s i n g  CP T E D 1 0 I V 0 I V I V 38 1 8  61 s t  Av e  N Si n g l e Re n e w a l S h e r m a n  Kh o 7 I I I 0 III III 38 1 9  61 s t  Av e  N Si n g l e Re n e w a l F r e d  Ha n u s 9 I I I 0 III II 13 1 2  68 t h  Ln Si n g l e   Re n e w a l W a g n e r  Pr o p e r t i e s 5 I I 0 II I 13 1 6  68 t h  Ln   Si n g l e Re n e w a l V a l e r i e  Mc K i s s a c k    Mi s s i n g  CP T E D 0 I 0 III III 29 3 0  68 t h  Ln Si n g l e Re n e w a l V e n e s s a  Bu t l e r 4 I I 0 II I 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  *** 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  Ja n u a r y  13 ,  20 2 0 53 3 1  70 t h  Ci r Si n g l e Re n e w a l B o u k a r i  Ka b o r e 2 0 I V 0 I V I V 53 3 1  70 t h  Ci r Si n g l e Re n e w a l B o u k a r i  Ka b o r e  ‐   Mi s s i n g  CP T E D 0 I 0 I V I V 53 1 4  71 s t  Ci r Si n g l e Re n e w a l A b b a s  Al i / A F S  Re n t a l s  LL C 1 I 0 I I 35 1 2  72 n d  Av e  N Si n g l e Re n e w a l C h e n  Zh o u 2 I 0 I I 53 2 8  72 n d  Ci r Si n g l e Re n e w a l S h u x i n g  & Ma n y i n g  Su n 3 I I 0 II I 61 1 6  Al d r i c h  Av e  N Si n g l e Re n e w a l M N S F  II  LL C 6 I I I 0 IV 67 2 5  Br y a n t  Av e  N Si n g l e Re n e w a l V o n g  Du o n g  ‐   mi s s i n g  CP T E D 9 I I I 0 IV IV 54 0 8  Co l f a x  Av e  N Si n g l e Re n e w a l S u  Fe n g  Zh e n g 0 I 0 I III 64 1 8  Co l f a x  Av e  N Si n g l e Re n e w a l S h a w n  Ch a  & Ma n n y  Ph o t h i r a t h 2 I 0 II I 36 1 2  Co m m o d o r e  Dr Si n g l e Re n e w a l I H 3  Pr o p e r t y  Il l i n o i s  LP  ‐   Mi s s i n g  CP T E D 8 I I I 0 IV IV 66 0 0  Du p o n t  Av e  N Si n g l e Re n e w a l M a i  Le e 1 I 0 II V 61 0 7  Em e r s o n  Av e  N Si n g l e Re n e w a l L y d i a  Ye b o a h   12 I V 0 IV III 24 0 7  Er i c o n  Dr Si n g l e Re n e w a l P l i a  Th a o 6 I I I 0 III II 24 1 2  Er i c o n  Dr Si n g l e Re n e w a l K u r t  Te m p l i n 2 I 0 II I 53 0 0  Fr a n c e  Av e  N Si n g l e Re n e w a l I H 3  Pr o p e r t y  Il l i n o i s  LP  ‐   Mi s s i n g  CP T E D 5 I I 0 IV IV 56 0 7  Ha l i f a x  Av e  N S i n g l e R e n e w a l Ka n e  Bu s s 1I 0 I I I 15 3 1  Hu m b o l d t  Pl  N S i 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 2I 0 I I 56 3 6  Ir v i n g  Av e  N S i n g l e R e n e w a l Br u c e  Go l d b e r g 4 I I 0 I I I I 53 2 1  Ja m e s  Av e  N S i n g l e R e n e w a l To u  Vu e  ‐   Mi s s i n g  Cr i m e  Fr e e II I V 0 I V I I 59 1 3  Ju n e  Av e  N Si n g l e R e n e w a l Mo h a m m e d  Me h d i  ‐   Mi s s i n g  Cr i m e   Fr e e 0I 0 II I 42 0 1  La k e s i d e  Av e  N  #1 1 7 Si n g l e R e n e w a l Be c c a  Jo n e s 3I I 0 II I 72 2 5  Ma j o r  Av e  N Si n g l e R e n e w a l Ki n  Ch e w /  Ur b a n  En t e r p r i s e s 5I I 0 II IV 71 1 1  Ri v e r d a l e  Rd S i n g l e R e n e w a l Al l a n  & Vi c k i  Ol s o n 3I I 0 II I 69 0 8  Un i t y  Av e  N S i n g l e R e n e w a l Xi n g f u  Ch e n 2I 0 I III 53 0 4  Vi n v c e n t  Av e  N S i n g l e R e n e w a l Pa o  Va n g 10 I V 0 IV II 59 3 7  Vi n c e n t  Av e  N S i n g l e R e n e w a l Ja c k  Jo h n s o n 2I 0 II V 66 4 9  Xe r x e s  Pl  N S i n g l e R e n e w a l La n e  Sc h w a r t z  ‐   Mi s s i n g  Cr i m e  Fr e e 3I I 0 II II * 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 ** *  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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on D esigna,ng O fficial Newspaper B ackground: S ec,on 12.01 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter requires the City Council to annually designate a legal newspaper of general circula,on of the C ity as its official newspaper in w hich the C ity will publish ordinances, bids , public hearing no,ces, adver,sing for propos als, asses s ments , bonds, financial reports, and other ma5ers as required by law. S un Media has once again requested that the City Council consider designa,ng Brooklyn C enter S un-Post to be the official new s paper for 2019. Brooklyn C enter S un-Post meets all neces s ary requirements of a qualified newspaper. The rate structure is as follows: - $11.90 per column inch (9 lines per inch= $1.32 per line). B udget I ssues: The 2019 budget includes $5,000 for legal publica,ons. S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, O pera,onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type M N S tatutes 331 A 1/3/2019 Backup M aterial Excerpt from B C C ity C harter 12/9/2019 Backup M aterial Q uote 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial Res olu,on 12/9/2019 Resolu,on Le5er EXCERPT FROM CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER CHAPTER 12 MISCELLANEOUS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS Section 12.01. OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS. The Council shall annually designate a legal newspaper of general circulation in the City as its official newspaper in which shall be published ordinances and other matters required by law to be so published, as well as such other matters as the Council may deem it in the public interest to have published in this manner. January 2, 2020 City of Brooklyn Center City Council 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear City Council Members: Please accept the following bid from the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post for legal newspaper designation for the City of Brooklyn Center. This newspaper is qualified by the State of Minnesota as a legal newspaper under Minnesota Statutes Section 331A.02, Subd. 1. The following rate structure for legals is effective January 1, 2020: First insertion: $11.90 per column inch Subsequent insertions: $7.00 per column inch Characters per inch: 320 Lines per inch: 9 A notarized affidavit will be provided for each notice published. Additional affidavits are $2.50 each. A $20.00 charge will be assessed on legal notices that require typing. All published legal notices are posted on the Sun-Post website at no additional charge. The Sun-Post is published weekly on Thursdays. The deadline is 2:00 p.m. on Thursday for publication the following Thursday. Please email legal notices to publicnotice@ecm -inc.com. Thank you for considering the Sun-Post as the official newspaper for the City of Brooklyn Center for the upcoming year. We appreciate the opportunity to serve the needs of your community. Sincerely, Steve Gall Advertising Director 10917 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 • 952 -392.6844 • POST.MNSUN.COM Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION DESIGNATING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER WHEREAS, Section 12.01 of the Brooklyn Center City Charter requires the City Council to annually at its first meeting of the year designate a legal newspaper of general circulation in the city as its official newspaper in which shall be published such ordinances and other matters as are required by law to be so published and such other matters as the council may deem it advisable and in the public interest to have published in this manner; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post has previously been so designated; and WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post meets all necessary requirements for designation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the Brooklyn Center Sun-Post is hereby designated as the official newspaper for the City of Brooklyn Center for the year 2020. January 13, 2020 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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:A ndrew S plinter, I nterim F inance D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu,on D esigna,ng D epositories of C ity F unds for 2020 B ackground: At the beginning of each fiscal year, in accordance with M innesota S tatutes 118 A .02 and City Council Policy 2.22.4.A , the C ity C ouncil cons iders a resolu,on authoriz ing depos itories for C ity funds. The resolu,on includes banks with a pres ence in Brooklyn Center as well as any banks with whom the C ity deals on a regular bas is throughout the year. The a7ached res olu,on des ignates banks which may not currently hold City funds but w hich may during the fis cal year, become a depository for City funds . O ther financial depositories, s uch as the 4 M F unds, are included becaus e we are members of thos e depos itories . Not all inves tment dealers /brokers are part of the City ’s current program but are authoriz ed, a:er filing the appropriate Broker C er,fica,on Form, a requirement of Minnes ota S tatutes 118 A , to trans act busines s w ith the C ity of Brooklyn C enter. I f the City has no contact or ac,vity with a dealer/broker during the previous fiscal year, that firm is removed not included in the succeeding year ’s list. A ll banks , depos itories , inves tment dealers and brokers , with the excep,on of the Federal Res erve Bank of M inneapolis , are checked for cer,fica,on by F D I C , S I P C or other cer,fica,on as required by Minnes ota S tatutes 118 A . A ll of this documenta,on is review ed by the C ity ’s auditors during the financial statement audit each year. B udget I ssues: There is no direct financial impact on the City. S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Res olu,on des igna,ng depositories of C ity funds for 2020 12/16/2019 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS WHEREAS, Section 7.01 of the City Charter provides the City Council with authority over City funds that includes the safekeeping and disbursement of public monies; and WHEREAS, Section 7.10 of the City Charter provides that City funds shall be disbursed by check bearing the actual or facsimile signature of the City Manager and City Treasurer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota as follows: 1. That US Bank, NA is hereby designated as a depository for funds of the City of Brooklyn Center for operational banking and investment purposes. 2. That the following named bankers and brokers are hereby designated as additional depositories to be used for investment purposes: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Minnesota Municipal Money Market Fund (4M Fund) Minnesota Municipal Money Market Plus Fund (4M Plus Fund) Minnesota Municipal Money Market Time Series Pools (4M Time Series) Oppenheimer & Co., Inc UBS Financial Services Wells Fargo Securities, LLC Moreton Capital Markets, LLC The City Treasurer is hereby authorized to deposit funds in accounts guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Securities Insurance Protection Corporation (SIPC), successors of the FDIC or SIPC or other governmental institutions insuring the safety and liquidity of public monies. Funds deposited with designated depositories in excess of the insurance limits available through FDIC, SIPC or its successor institutions shall be covered by collateral in the form of government securities held in the City’s name or other collateral proposed by the institution and approved by the City of not less than 110% of the value of the uninsured deposits. RESOLUTION NO. _______________ 3. That the following named clearinghouses for credit card transactions are hereby designated for accepting payments: Wells Fargo Merchant Services Elavon Incorporated Sage Payment Solutions Chase Paymentech 4. Wells Fargo Institutional Trust Services is hereby designated as the safekeeping depository for investment instruments in the City’s investment portfolio and as clearinghouse for the City’s investment portfolio transactions. 5. That the City Council authorizes the City Manager, the City Treasurer, or the Deputy City Treasurer to act for the City in all of its business activities with these designated depositories. January 13, 2020 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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:A ndrew S plinter, I nterim F inance D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu,on O p,ng Not to Waive Limited Tort Liability for 2020 B ackground: Each year the C ity mus t chos e whether to w aive tort liability limit protec,ons of Minnes ota S tatutes 466.04 as part of the ins urance policy renewal applica,on process. M.S . 466.04 s tates that the maximum liability for a city for any claim is $500,000 with an aggregate maximum of $1,500,000 per incident. I n pas t years the C ity C ouncil has chosen not to w aive the liability limits and the regular premium for insurance has covered all claims. I f the City w ere to waive the limits s et by s tatute, it would be prudent to purchas e addi,onal ins urance coverage to cover possible higher aw ards in liability claims . P remiums for such insurance w ould be approximately $9,000 per year B udget I ssues: The 2020 budget an,cipates leaving the no w aiver op,on in place for 2020 and has an,cipated ins urance premiums based on that no waiver op,on. Waiving the s tatutory limits w ould require that at approximately $9,000 in addi,onal premium cos ts be allocated for 2020 and in each s ucceeding year. S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Non-Waiver of L iability Limits Resolu,on 12/16/2019 Resolu,on Le=er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION OPTING NOT TO WAIVE LIMITED TORT LIABILITY FOR 2020 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has an option to waive its protection under the tort liability limitation contained in Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and WHEREAS, the statutory tort limit for 2020 is $500,000 per individual with an aggregate of $1,500,000 per incident; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center has not opted to waive its rights to limited tort liability in past years and is required to make a declaration of its intention every year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City does not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04 for 2019. January 13, 2020 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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:A ndrew S plinter, I nterim F inance D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu,on G ran,ng Corporate A uthority for S igning of Checks and Transac,ons of F inancial Bus iness M a0ers B ackground: Many investment firms require the adop,on of a resolu,on by the corporate board, in this cas e the City Council, authoriz ing specific officers to transact financial bus iness involving treasury notes , cer,ficates of deposit and other s ecuri,es . The a0ached resolu,on fulfills that requirement by appoin,ng the City Manager, and the I nterim F inance D irector, w ho s erves as the City Treas urer, as the officers authorized to trans act such busines s . B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Res olu,on G ran,ng Corporate A uthority 12/16/2019 Resolu,on Le0er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION GRANTING CORPORATE AUTHORITY FOR SIGNING OF CHECKS AND TRANSACTIONS OF FINANCIAL BUSINESS MATTERS WHEREAS, the City Treasurer must be a signatory to any and all checks issued by the City in payment of obligations of the City; and WHEREAS, specific individuals must be designated by the City Council as authorized to sell, assign and endorse for transfer various financial instruments in the regular conduct of City business. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that Cornelius L. Boganey, City Manager, and Andrew Splinter, Interim Finance Director, are hereby authorized to sell, assign and endorse for transfer certificates representing treasury notes, bonds, or other securities now registered or hereafter registered in the name of this municipality. January 13, 2020 _____________ 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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on A ppoin,ng Brooklyn C enter Repres enta,ves to Execu,ve C ommi0ee and/or Board of D irectors of the Brooklyn Bridge A lliance for Youth, H ennepin Recycling G roup, L ocal G overnment I nforma,on S ystems, Minneapolis Northwes t Conven,on & V isitors Bureau, North Metro M ayors A ssocia,on, Northw est S uburbs Cable C ommunica,ons C ommis s ion, Pets Under Police S ecurity, and Twin L ake Joint Powers O rganiz a,on B ackground: The C ity of Brooklyn C enter has entered into s everal J oint and C oopera,ve A greements w ith various organiza,ons. Each of the joint pow ers agreements have been review ed and the organiz a,ons w hos e agreements provide that appointment of directors be made by the governing body or by C ity C ouncil res olu,on have been iden,fied. S ome of the agreements require annual appointment, s ome provide that a director is appointed un,l s ucceeded, and some provide that a certain posi,on s erve as the repres enta,ve. A s ummary of each of the Joint and Coopera,ve A greements can be found in the S ec,on V I I of the C ity C ouncil Reference Book. The 2020 appointment res olu,on will be forthcoming. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community I mage, O pera,onal Excellence C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on S elec,ng P res iding O fficers - Mayor P ro Tem and A c,ng M ayor P ro Tem B ackground: S ec,on 2.06 of the City Charter requires the Council to choose from its members a P resident P ro Tem w ho s hall hold office at the pleasure of the council and shall s erve as P res ident in the Mayor's absence and as Mayor in case of the M ayor's disability or absence from the City. City Council Res olu,on No. 92-262, Es tablishing and D esigna,ng an A c,ng P resident P ro Tem of the C ity Council, s tates the mos t s enior Council member s hall preside in the abs ence of both the M ayor and P resident P ro Tem, and that in the event two or more members have equal seniority, then that member s hall preside w ho received the most votes in their mos t recent elec,on. Follow ing is a lis t of Council members by s eniority and the votes cas t per member in the most recent elec,on. D an Ryan (first elected November 7, 2006) Kris L awrence-A nders on (first elected November 6, 2012) A pril G raves (first elected November 4, 2014) Marquita Butler (firs t elected November 8, 2016) B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: O pera,onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Res 92-262 1/11/2019 Backup M aterial C ity C harter 1/11/2019 Backup M aterial Res olu,on 12/23/2019 Resolu,on LeBer Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. ____________ RESOLUTION APPOINTING PRESIDING OFFICERS – MAYOR PRO TEM AND ACTING MAYOR PRO TEM BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that for 2020 the Mayor Pro Tem be Councilmember Dan Ryan and the Acting Mayor Pro Tem is Kris Lawrence-Anderson January 13, 2020 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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on A ppoin,ng M unicipal Trustees to the Brooklyn Center F irefighters Relief A ssocia,on Board of Trus tees B ackground: A nnually the C ity C ouncil needs to appoint municipal trus tees to the Brooklyn C enter F irefighters Relief A s s ocia,on Board of Trustees. A r,cle V of the Brooklyn Center F irefighters Relief A ssocia,on Bylaw s s tates : A rcle V B OA R D O F T R U S T E E S 5.1 C omposi on. The Board of Trustees shall consist of nine (9) members. S ix (6) trustees shall be elected from the membership of the relief associa on. There shall be three (3) officials draw n from the M unicipality. The three (3) Municipal Trustees must be one (1) elected municipal official and one (1) elected or appointed municipal official w ho are designated as municipal representa ves by the municipal governing board annually and the chief of the municipal fire department. The M unicipal Trustees must be designated annually by the C ity C ouncil of the M unicipality. A res olu,on is a2ached for review and cons idera,on. B udget I ssues: There are not budget is s ues to consider S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, O pera,onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Res olu,on 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPOINTING MUNICIPAL TRUSTEES TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTERS RELIEF ASSOCIATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHEREAS, Article V of the Brooklyn Center Firefighters Relief Association Bylaws states that the Board of Directors shall consist of three (3) officials drawn from the Municipality; and WHEREAS, the three (3) Municipal Officials must be one (1) elected municipal official and one (1) elected or appointed municipal official who are designated as municipal representatives by the municipal governing board annually, and the chief of the municipal fire department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following appointments are hereby approved for 2020: Elected Municipal Official Mike Elliott Elected or Appointed Municipal Official Andrew Splinter Fire Chief Todd Berg January 13, 2020 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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on Recognizing the C ontribu,ons of Ethnic Popula,ons and H eritage C elebra,ons B ackground: S ince 2003, as part of the City Council's goal of inclusivenes s , one of the as pects was to recognize the various ethnic popula,ons and their contribu,ons as w ell as heritage celebra,ons . The proposed res olu,on implements that C ouncil policy by an inclusive list of celebra,ons and contribu,ons in one res olu,on. By adop,ng this resolu,on, the City acknow ledges thes e many events that occur throughout the course of the year. This list is reviewed and amended annually. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community I mage, I nclusive C ommunity Engagement, O pera,onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Res olu,on 12/23/2019 Resolu,on Le8er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNIC POPULATIONS AND HERITAGE CELEBRATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council has established a goal to promote the inclusion of all residents in Brooklyn Center’s community life by emphasizing opportunities to include all residents in the community’s activities and plans; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that its cultural composition has changed significantly over the past two decades, with its ethnic population over half of its total population; and WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center is strengthened by the rich cultural diversity of its people, and welcomes individuals of all races, religions, and cultural backgrounds; and WHEREAS, each individual brings a part of his or her own heritage and over time each heritage becomes part of our common heritage, leading us to become a more united people; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the vital contributions ethnic populations have made to the strength and diversity of our community and recognizes their rich legacy of ingenuity, perseverance, and achievement; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the following heritage celebrations and all other heritage celebrations reflected in Brooklyn Center’s population are recognized for the purpose of encouraging our citizens to learn more about the history of ethnic populations and how they have contributed to the culture and heritage of our community: February African American History Month March Irish-American Heritage Month March 25 Greek Independence Day April 14 Pan American Day May Asian and Pacific American Heritage Month May Jewish American Heritage Month May 17 (Syttende Mai) Norwegian Constitution Day May 21 World Day for Cultural Diversity June Caribbean-American Heritage Month June 6 Swedish National Day September 15-October 15 Hispanic Heritage Month October Italian American Heritage Month October 6 German-American Day November American Indigenous Heritage Month RESOLUTION NO. _______________ January 13, 2020 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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D oran Cote, P E. , D irector of P ublic Works BY:A ndrew H ogg, A ssistant City Engineer S U B J E C T:Res olu.on A ccep.ng Bid and A w arding a Contract, I mprovement P roject No. 2019-15, 2019 70th Ave S torm S ewer Rehabilita.on P roject B ackground: Bids for the 70th Ave S tor m S ewer Rehabilita.on P roject were r eceived and opened on D ecember 18, 2019. The project as bid included the pipe and joint rehabilita.on on the concr ete pipe and s pin-cas t lining the corrugated metal pipe. Three bids were received and res ults are tabulated below: B idder Total B ase B id Engineering and C ons truc.on I nnovators $265,170.00 P I C Roads $454,037.40 M inger C ons truc.on $539,454.50 O f the three bids , the low est bas e bid was of $265.170.00 from Engineering and Construc.on I nnovators (E C I ), I nc. I t is staff ’s recommenda.on to award the project bas ed on the total bas e bid that was submiBed by E C I , I nc. for winter 2019/2020 cons truc.on. This contractor has the experience, equipment and capacity to qualify as the low est responsible bidder for the project. B udget I ssues: The bid amount of $265,170.00 is w ithin the 2019 C I P budgeted amount of $328,000. The total es.mated budget including con.ngencies, adminis tra.on, engineering and legal is $357,706.00 (s ee aBached Resolu.on – C os ts and Revenues tables). S trategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta.on I nvestments AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip.on U pload D ate Type Res olu.on 1/6/2020 Cover Memo A ward L eBer 1/6/2020 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2019-15, 2019 70 TH AVE STORM SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No. 2019-15, bids were received, opened and tabulated by the City Clerk and City Engineer on the 18th day of December, 2019. Said bids were as follows: BIDDER TOTAL BASE BID Engineering and Construction Innovators, Inc. $265.170.00 PCIRoads $454,037.40 Minger, Inc. $539,454.50 WHEREAS, Engineering and Construction Innovators (ECI), Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder, based on the total base bid and; WHEREAS, the City Engineer recommends that the contract be awarded to ECI, Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that 1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with Engineering and Construction Innovators, Inc. in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 2019- 15, according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the office of the City Engineer. 2. The estimated project costs and revenues are as follows: Amended COSTS Estimated per Low Bid Construction Cost $243,000.00 $ 265,170.00 Engineering and Administrative $ 65,000.00 $ 70,536.00 Contingency $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 TOTAL $ 328,000.00 $ 357,706.00 Amended REVENUES Estimated per Low Bid Storm Sewer Fund $328,000.00 $357,706.00 RESOLUTION NO._______________ January 13, 2020 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. H:\BRCN\C17119792\1_Corres\C_To Others\119792 Award Letter.docx December 23th, 2019 Mr. Andrew Hogg Assistant City Engineer City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: 70th Avenue Storm Sewer Trunk Line Rehabilitation Project City of Brooklyn Center Project No.:C17.119792 Dear Mr. Hogg, Bids were received on December 18th, 2019 for the 70th Avenue Storm Sewer Trunk Line Rehabilitation Project. Bids were received as shown below: Contractor Bid Amount Engineering & Construction Innovations $265,170.00 PCIRoads $454,037.40 Minger Construction $539,454.50 We have checked the bids for errors and completed due diligence. I am recommending the award of this project to Engineering & Construction Innovations for a total contract of $265,170.00. Engineer & Construction Innovations has successfully completed several projetcs throughout the Metro area, some quite recently for MN/DOT, of a similar size and scope. They meet the requirements under Minnesota State statute as a responsible bidder at this time. Sincerely, Brian D. Simmons, P.E. Project Manager Bolton & Menk, Inc. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D oran M. Cote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works BY:M ike A lbers, P.E., C ity Engineer S U B J E C T:Res olu,on A pproving P lans and S pecifica,ons and A uthoriz ing A dver,sement for Bids , I mprovement P roject Nos. 2020-01, 02, 03 and 04, G randview North A rea S treet, S torm D rainage and U,lity I mprovements B ackground: O n S eptember 23, 2 0 1 9 , the C ity C ouncil receiv ed a Feasibility Repor t regarding the pr opos ed G randview North A rea S treet, S torm D rainage, and U ,lity I mprovements . A n I mprov ement P ublic H earing to consider ordering the impr ovements was held on O ctober 28, 2019. At that mee,ng, the City C ouncil ordered the improvements and directed s taff to prepare plans and specifica,ons for the project. Construc,on plans , s pecifica,ons, and contract documents hav e been prepar ed for the proj ect. T he overall s cope of the project remains consistent w ith improvements outlined in the feas ibility study. S taff is prepared to begin the project bidding process upon authoriza,on from the City Council. The bidding proces s would involve adv er,sement of the project in the C ity ’s official newspaper and in F inance and C ommer ce. S ealed bids w ill be collected, opened on a s cheduled bid opening date, and tabulated by the C ity Clerk and City Engineer. S taff an,cipates that the bid res ults w ill be presented to the City Council for cons idera,on at the February 24, 2020, City Council mee,ng. B udget I ssues: The total project cos t is es ,mated to be $6 ,294,0 0 0 . F unding s our ces for the proj ect are budgeted from s ources as described in the proj ect feas ibility r epor t prev ious ly accepted by the C ity C ouncil on S eptember 23, 2 0 1 9 . The s pecial asses s ment rates w er e adopted by the C ity C ouncil on N ovember 12, 2 0 1 9 , and the funding s ources w ere amended and presented to the C ity C ouncil at the A sses s ment P ublic H earing on D ecember 9, 2019. S trategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta,on I nvestments AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Res olu,on 1/6/2020 Cover Memo Title & G eneral Layout 1/6/2020 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2020-01, 02, 03 AND 04, GRANDVIEW NORTH AREA STREET, STORM DRAINAGE AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center City Council, by Resolution No. 2019-145, ordered Improvement Project Nos. 2020-01, 02, 03 and 04 and authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for the Grandview North Area Street, Storm Drainage and Utility Improvements; and WHEREAS, said plans and specifications have been prepared under the direction of the City Engineer. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The plans and specifications for Improvement Project Nos. 2020-01, 02, 03 and 04 are hereby approved, ordered and filed with the City Clerk. 2. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted in the official newspaper and in Finance and Commerce an advertisement for bids for the making of such improvements in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall be published in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, shall specify the work to be done and state the time and location at which bids will be opened by the City Clerk and City Manager or their designees. Any bidder whose responsibility is questioned during consideration of the bid will be given an opportunity to address the City Council on the issue of responsibility. No bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cash deposit, cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City of Brooklyn Center for five percent of the amount of such bid. January 13, 2020 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. GRANDVIEW NORTH SURVEY CONTROL 1 201223.095 523147.095 848.581 CNT /IP PT1 2 201340.388 523412.436 845.243 CNT /IP PT2 3 201402.749 523737.533 841.928 CNT /IP 4 200657.338 523449.562 845.677 CNT /IP PT4 5 200595.189 523834.375 843.436 CNT /IP 6 200599.733 523184.781 847.5 CNT /IP 7 200646.598 524117.341 843.06 CNT /IP CNT /IP 8 200590.164 524489.322 841.753 CNT /IP 9 201095.541 524438.355 838.478 CNT /IP 10 200632.624 524921.825 839.065 CNT /IP 11 200147.013 525029.605 838.15 CNT /IP 12 199510.005 524939.532 836.605 CNT /IP 13 198793.486 524928.269 836.071 CNT /IP 14 198105.967 524781.278 836.425 CNT /IP 15 198747.671 524511.839 840.786 CNT /IP 16 199408.056 524474.644 842.719 CNT /IP 17 200059.769 524486.649 840.57 CNT /IP 18 200118.246 524199.188 844.393 CNT /IP 19 199489.239 524141.629 843.522 CNT /IP 20 198798.927 524184.69 842.446 CNT /IP 21 198748.831 523803.594 843.713 CNT /IP 22 199430.588 523857.757 842.485 CNT /IP 23 200074.89 523826.55 841.946 CNT /IP CNT /IP 24 200131.494 523544.222 844.015 CNT /IP 25 200079.734 523158.828 844.608 CNT /IP 26 199483.812 523480.764 843.022 CNT /IP 27 199424.834 523142.508 843.544 CNT /IP 28 198814.812 523510.033 842.836 CNT /IP C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D oran M. Cote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works BY:M ike A lbers, P.E., C ity Engineer S U B J E C T:A n O rdinance Vaca.ng a Por.on of Right-of-Way Brooklyn Boulevard - F irs t Reading B ackground: O n May 9, 2016, the City Council directed s taff to proceed with the preliminary design, environmental documenta.on, easement acquis i.on, and final des ign wor k for the Br ookly n Boulev ard Cor ridor P roject P has e 1 (49th Avenue to Bas s Lake Road), P roject No. 2018-05, S P 109-020-013. The City of Brooklyn Center ow ns a fee interes t in cer tain lands located adj acent to Brook lyn Boulevard, legally described in the aBached Exhibit A . The s ubject ar ea for vaca.on w as for merly used for a s ec.on of roadw ay that was r emoved as par t of the Boulev ard C orr idor P roject P has e 1 . This vacated area w ould be us ed to mi.gate the los s of par king on the Br ookdale C ovenant Church property due to the installa.on of a new s ignal at Trunk H ighway 100 S outh Ramp and the extens ion of Lilac D rive North. The property owner w ill be required to dedicate a drainage and u.lity eas ement over the v acated por.on of the right-of-way to maintain access to the exis.ng u.li.es w ithin the vacated area. Consistent with the City Charter, a firs t reading to es tablis h a date for a s econd reading and public hearing to cons ider the propos ed ordinance is requested for February 24, 2020. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta.on I nvestments AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip.on U pload D ate Type O rdinance 1/6/2020 Cover Memo CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 24 nd day of February, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance vacating certain public right-of-way adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard. Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763-569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO.______________ AN ORDINANCE VACATING A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY: BROOKLYN BOULEVARD WHEREAS , The City of Brooklyn Center owns a fee interest in certain lands originally acquired for highway purposes, all of which are located adjacent to Brooklyn Boulevard, legally described in the attached Exhibit A (the “ Subject Right-of-Way ”); WHEREAS , the Subject Right-of-Way is no longer needed for a public purpose; and WHEREAS , after due notice and a public hearing, the City Council has determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the Subject Right-of-Way pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, sections 412.851. NOW, THEREFORE , THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Article I. The above recitals are hereby adopted as findings and incorporated into this Ordinance. Article III. The Subject Right-of-Way is hereby vacated. Article IV. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following its legal publication. Article V. Upon the ordinance becoming effective, the City Clerk is directed to prepare a Notice of Completion of Vacation Proceedings and to record it with the Hennepin County Recorder or Hennepin County Registrar of Titles, as appropriate. Adopted this day of , 2020. __________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Date of Publication_________________________ Effective Date_____________________________ EXHIBIT A Legal Description All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 118, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying east of the following-described “Parcel A” and lying west of the following described “Line A” and lying between the northerly boundary line of "Parcel A” extended East and the southern-most boundary line of "Parcel A” extended East, to wit: “Parcel A” being all that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 10, Township 118, Range 21, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southeasterly line of the right-of way of State Trunk Highway Number 100 with a line drawn East from a point on the West line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, distant 518 feet South of the Northwest corner of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East 64.2 feet to the Southwesterly line of the right-of-way of County Road Number 152, formerly State Highway Number 152; thence Southeasterly along said right-of-way line of County Road Number 152, formerly State Highway Number 152, a distance of 600 feet; thence West 200 feet; thence Northwesterly parallel with said right-of- way line of County Road Number 152, formerly State Highway Number 152, a distance of 150 feet; thence West 292.50 feet to said right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway Number 100; thence Northeasterly along said right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway Number 100 a distance of 493.9 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. “Line A” being described as follows: commencing at the northeast corner of said Section 10; thence westerly along the north line of said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 623.78 feet; thence Southwesterly deflecting left 58°55’00” for a distance of 289.80 feet to the point of beginning of said “Line A”; thence southeasterly deflecting to the left 52°34’45” for a distance of 718.00 feet; thence southeasterly deflecting to the right 8°49’11” for a distance of 163.64 feet to the point of intersection with the easterly prolongation of the south line of said “Parcel A” and there terminating. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D oran Cote, P.E., P ublic Works D irector BY:A ndrew H ogg, P.E, A ssistant City Engineer S U B J E C T:A n O rdinance Es tablishing the Eastbrook Estates 2nd A ddi.on S torm S ewer I mprovement Tax D istrict B ackground: A s a part of the s ubdivision agreement for the Eas tbrook Es tates development, the C ity is requiring a S torm S ewer I mprovement Tax D is trict for the proper.es that are part of the Eastbrook Estates 2nd A ddi.on, excluding Lots 13 & 14, Block 1. The es tablishment of the dis trict is as follow s ; the City Council would hold a first reading of the ordinance per its us ual procedure. P rior to the s econd reading and hearing, at leas t tw o w eeks published no.ce is required, with the last publica.on occurring at least seven days prior the day of the hearing. The City Council would hold the hearing, conduct the s econd reading, and adopt the ordinance by at leas t a 2/3 vote. The ordinance must be recorded w ith the county auditor and county recorder. The C ity is then authoriz ed to “acquire, cons truct, recons truct, extend, maintain, and otherw is e improve storm sew er s ystems and related facili.es within the dis trict.” I mportantly, the dis trict allow s for “[t]he cos t of the sys tems and facili.es described in this subdivis ion may be recovered by the tax authoriz ed in sec.on 444.20.” P rior to issuing a contract for any improvement w ithin the district, the city mus t obtain a feas ibility report and hold a public hearing. The city mus t provide tw o publis hed no.ces of the hearing that are a week apart and the las t must be at least three days a@er the s econd publica.on. No.ce mus t also be mailed to the ow ners in the district at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The no.ces must include a des crip.on of the improvement, the es .mated cos t, and the es .mated tax to be imposed. O nce the hearing is held, the City Council can adopt a res olu.on ordering the improvement. The city may is s ue bonds for the improvement. The city is authoriz ed to levy a tax on taxable property w ithin the district to pay for the improvement and its maintenance. This dis trict is way of protec.ng the city for the inevitable improvements to this private pond that in the future. C onsistent with the C ity C harter, a first reading to establish a date for a second reading and public hearing to consider the proposed ordinance is requested for February 10, 2020. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip.on U pload D ate Type O rdinance 1/6/2020 Cover Memo S torm S ew er I mprovement Tax D istrict Exhibit 1/6/2020 Cover Memo 1 603234v2BR291-402 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 establishing a storm sewer improvement tax district. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the City Clerk at 763-569-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE EASTBROOK ESTATES 2ND ADDITION STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT TAX DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Article I . Background; Findings. 1.01. The City of Brooklyn Center (the “City”) is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, sections 444.16 – 444.21 (the “Act”) to establish a storm sewer improvement tax district in connection with the Eastbrook Estates 2 nd Addition plat (the “District”) to acquire, construct, reconstruct, extend, maintain and otherwise improve storm sewer systems and related facilities within the District and to acquire, construct, maintain and improve stormwater holding areas and ponds outside of the District which are for the benefit of the District in accordance with the Act and to levy a tax on all taxable property within the District to finance such activities. 1.02. The establishment of the District to address repairs and improvements to the stormwater pond and related facilities within the plat that may be needed if the owners within the plat fail to keep such facilities adequately maintained and functioning was addressed in the development agreement and the stormwater agreement entered into with the developer of the plat. Both agreements are being recorded against the property to help ensure those who purchase lots within the plat are aware of their shared obligation to keep the stormwater pond and related facilities properly maintained and that the City may, but is not obligated, to repair or improve the stormwater pond and charge the costs back against the lots within the District. 1.03. It is found and determined that it is in the best interests of the City and its taxpayers that the District be established to ensure the costs generated by the storm water facilities associated with the Eastbrook Estates 2 nd Addition development are paid for by the property owners within the plat. The District shall be comprised of all lots within the plat of Eastbrook Estates 2 nd Addition as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A and legally described in the attached Exhibit B. Article II . Establishment; Authorizations. 2 603234v2BR291-402 2.01. The Eastbrook Estates 2 nd Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District is hereby established. The City shall have all powers and authority conferred by the Act in the operation and financing of the activities of the District. 2.02. The boundaries of the District include all properties within the plat of Eastbrook Estates 2nd Addition, excluding Lots 13 & 14, Block 1 as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A and legally described in the attached Exhibit B. 2.03. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this ordinance with the Auditor and Recorder of Hennepin County. Article III . This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its publication. Adopted this ___ day of __________, 2019. ____________________________ Mike Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ City Clerk Date of Publication _________________________ Effective Date _____________________________ A-3 603234v2BR291-402 EXHIBIT A Map of District (attached hereto) B-4 603234v2BR291-402 EXHIBIT B Legal description of properties contained within boundaries of Eastbrook Estates 2 nd Addition Storm Sewer Improvement Tax District Lots 1-12, Lot 15-19, Block 1; Lots 1-5, Block 2; and Lots 1-8, Block 3; all in Eastbrook Estates 2nd Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. C I V I L E N G I N E E R S L A N D P L A N N E R S L A N D S U R V E Y O R S L A N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T S C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu+on A dop+ng the 2040 Brooklyn Center Comprehensive P lan U pdate B ackground: O n S eptember 17, 2015, the C ity of Brooklyn C enter received its 2015 S ys tem S tatement from the Metropolitan Council (a5ached). The S y s tem S tatement triggered the community's obliga+on to r ev iew and amend its comprehens ive plan by the end of 2 0 1 8 , in order to be in compliance with recently adopted regional policy documents . S pecifically, the city w as required to comply w ith the Metropolitan s ystem plan's Thrive M S P 2040 document, as w ell as the 2040 Transportaon Policy P lan, the 2040 Regional Parks Policy P lan, the 2040 Water Resources Policy P lan, and the 2040 H ousing Policy P lan. Metropolitan sys tem plans are long-range comprehensiv e plans for the regional s y s tems – trans it, highways, and airpor ts ; w astew ater s erv ices ; and par ks and open s pace – along with the capital budgets for metropolitan w astew ater s ervices , tr ans por ta+on, and r egional recrea+on open s pace. S y s tem statements explain the implica+ons of metr opolitan s ys tem plans for each indiv idual community in the metropolitan area. They are intended to help communi+es prepare or update their comprehensive plan, as required by the M etropolitan L and P lanning A ct. The sys tem s tatement includes a checklis t of items that each community must addres s in its comprehens ive plan update, along w ith other informa+on s uch as the community des igna+on as assigned by the Metropolitan Council; forecasted popula+on, households , and employment through 2040; guidance on appropriate dens i+es ; and affordable housing need alloca+on for each community. Each community is required to address each of the elements in the sys tem s tatement w ithin their comprehens ive plan update in order to receive approval from the M etropolitan C ouncil. The city engaged S wans on H as kamp C ons ul+ng to assist with the background and prepara+on of its 2040 comprehens ive plan update. The consultants first prepared a background report of all per+nent demographic, hous ing, and economic data that w as readily available in order to as s ess where the priori+es and strategies for Brooklyn C enter might exis t. Work began in the spring of 2018 in earnest on comple+ng the 2040 Comprehensive P lan update, and the P lanning C ommis s ion w as iden+fied as the group to oversee the w ork. They met monthly throughout the year to provide input on the proces s and guide the direc+on of the w ork. A deadline extension reques t w as submi5ed to the Metropolitan Council and granted to allow for a five month extension for the city to s ubmit its updated plan by the end of A pril 2019. This was due in part to s taff changes at the D irector level that delayed the s tart of the plan update. Mul+ple community input s essions were help in conjunc+on with other community events over the cours e of the year and half that the plan w as developed. I nput guided the goals and strategies that developed each chapter, par+cularly the L and U s e and Redevelopment and H ous ing chapters . Each Commission and Commi5ee was engaged mul+ple +mes to provide input on crea+ng the goals for each chapter, and then to dive deeper on s trategies that w ent into the Land Use and Redevelopment and H ousing chapters. O nce the draG w as completed it w as sent out to affected s urrounding jurisdic+ons including all four school dis tricts which operate within the city, as w ell as neighboring communi+es , for review and comment. At that +me the draG w as als o made public for a six month public comment period. D uring that +me two more work sessions were held with both the Planning C ommission and C ity C ouncil to review the draG plan in more detail. At the clos e of the public comment period a third work ses s ion w as held w ith both the P lanning Commission and C ity C ouncil to go over public comments and conduct a final review of the plan. Then the P lanning Commission held an official public hearing and any public comments which had been received were review ed for the record. The P lanning C ommis s ion recommended approval of the 2040 C omprehens ive P lan to the C ity C ouncil and its release to the M etropolitan C ouncil for final review and approval. At their A pril 8, 2019, mee+ng the City Council made a final review of the P lan and voted to approve the P lan and release it to the M etropolitan C ouncil for review and final approval. The M etropolitan C ouncil has now completed its review. O n November 4, 2019, the P lan was review ed by the C ommunity D evelopment C ommi5ee, which unanimously recommended approval and praised the Brooklyn Center City Council for their leaders hip on producing s uch a high quality, forward thinking plan. O n November 12, 2019, the Environmental Commi5ee reviewed the P lan and also unanimously recommended approval. The M etropolitan C ouncil met on D ecember 11, 2019, to review the P lan and cons ider the commi5ee recommenda+ons. They voted unanimous ly to approve the P lan. The approval le5er, dated D ecember 17, 2019, with recommenda+ons is a5ached. The city must now adopt the P lan in its final form, aGer cons idering any recommended changes by the Metropolitan Council. I n Brooklyn C enter's cas e, there were no recommended changes to the city's P lan, s o the only ac+on is to adopt and enact the final P lan and submit a hard copy and one electronic copy of the P lan to the M etropolitan C ouncil, along with a copy of the res olu+on evidencing final adop+on. A ny changes to the city's 2040 Comprehensive P lan at this point w ould trigger a new review by the Metropolitan Council. This could pos e unintended challenges since the city is currently opera+ng under its 2030 P lan, which had a different future land us e vis ion and controls than the 2040 P lan. O nce the 2040 P lan is put into effect, the city must then update any official controls, s uch as zoning, to comply w ith the 2040 C omprehens ive P lan. The final 2040 Comprehensive P lan is a5ached to this report and w ill also be uploaded to the C ity's webs ite s o it is readily available to the public. A ppendices are not included in this report, but will be available on the City's w ebsite for review. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider at this +me. S trategic Priories and Values: O pera+onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip+on U pload D ate Type Res olu+on of A pproval 1/6/2020 Resolu+on Le5er L e5er of A pproval from the M etropolitan C ouncil dated D ecember 17, 2019 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial 2015 S ys tem S tatement 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial C hapter 1 - I ntroduc+on and C ommunity C ontext 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial C hapter 2 - V ision, G oals , and S trategies 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial C hapter 3 - L and U s e and Redevelopment 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial C hapter 4 - H ous ing and Neighborhood 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial C hapter 5 - C ommunity I mage, Economic C ompe++veness, and S tability 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial C hapter 6 - Parks , Trails , and O pen S pace 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial C hapter 7 - Trans porta+on and Transit 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial C hapter 8 - I nfras tructure and U+li+es 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial C hapter 9 - I mplementa+on 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2040 BROOKLYN CENTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, A COMPILATION OF POLICY STATEMENTS, GOALS, STANDARDS, AND MAPS FOR GUIDING THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL UNIT WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires each local governmental unit to review and, if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan and its fiscal devices and official controls at least once every ten years to ensure its comprehensive plan conforms to metropolitan system plans and ensure its fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with the comprehensive plan or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local governmental units to complete their “decennial” reviews by December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center authorized the review and update of its Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the proposed Brooklyn Center 2040 Comprehensive Plan is a planning tool intended to guide the future growth and development of the City of Brooklyn Center in a manner that conforms with metropolitan system plans and complies with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and other applicable planning statutes; and WHEREAS, the proposed Brooklyn Center 2040 Comprehensive Plan reflects a community planning process conducted in the years 2016 through 2018 involving elected officials, appointed officials, city staff, community organizations, the public at large, developers, and other stakeholders; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.858, the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan was submitted to adjacent governmental units and affected special districts and school districts for review and comment on October 8, 2018, and the statutory six-month review and comment period has elapsed; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2019 the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan and all public comments, and thereafter submitted its recommendations to the City of Brooklyn Center; and WHEREAS, on April 8, 2019, the City of Brooklyn Center approved Resolution 2019-065 authorizing the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review; and WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on December 11, 2019, the Metropolitan Council completed its review of the proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan and found that the Plan meets the Resolution No. requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act; conforms to the metropolitan system plans for transportation (including aviation), water resources, and parks; is consistent with Thrive MSP 2040 ; and is compatible with the plans of adjacent jurisdictions and affected special districts and school districts; and WHEREAS, the 2040 proposed Comprehensive Plan includes all revisions made during the review process and responds to additional advisory comments that are part of the Metropolitan Council’s actions authorizing the City of Brooklyn Center to place its proposed 2040 Comprehensive Plan into effect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the City of Brooklyn Center’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan is adopted and is effective as of the date of this resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, pursuant to sections 473.864 and 473.865 of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center will direct that the City: (1) review its fiscal devices and official controls; (2) if necessary, amend its fiscal devices and official controls to ensure they do not conflict with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan or permit activity in conflict with metropolitan system plans; and (3) submit amendments to fiscal devices or official controls to the Metropolitan Council for “information purposes.” January 13, 2020 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. 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT System Statement Issue Date: 2015SYSTEM STATEMENT Page - 1 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER INTRODUCTION 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT FOR CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER September 17, 2015 Regional Development Plan Adoption In May 2014, the Metropolitan Council adopted Thrive MSP 2040. Following adoption of Thrive, the Council adopted the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan, the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan, the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, and the 2040 Housing Policy Plan. The Metropolitan Council is now issuing system statements pursuant to State statute. Receipt of this system statement and the metropolitan system plans triggers a community’s obligation to review and, as necessary, amend its comprehensive plan within the next three years, by the end of 2018. The complete text of Thrive MSP 2040 as well as complete copies of the recently adopted metropolitan system and policy plans are available for viewing and downloading at http://www.metrocouncil.org/Communities/Planning.aspx. Paper copies are available by calling the Council’s Data Center at 651-602-1140. System Statement Definition Metropolitan system plans are long-range comprehensive plans for the regional systems – transit, highways, and airports; wastewater services; and parks and open space – along with the capital budgets for metropolitan wastewater services, transportation, and regional recreation open space. System statements explain the implications of metropolitan system plans for each individual community in the metropolitan area. They are intended to help communities prepare or update their comprehensive plan, as required by the Metropolitan Land Planning Act: Within nine months after receiving a system statement for an amendment to a metropolitan system plan, and within three years after receiving a system statement issued in conjunction with the decennial review required under section 473.864, subdivision 2, each affected local governmental unit shall review its comprehensive plan to determine if an amendment is necessary to ensure continued conformity with metropolitan system plans. If an amendment is necessary, the governmental unit shall prepare the amendment and submit it to the council for review. Local comprehensive plans, and amendments thereto, will be reviewed by the Council for conformance to metropolitan system plans, consistency with Council policies, and compatibility with adjacent and affected governmental units. Updated local comprehensive plans are due to the Council for review by December 31, 2018. What is in this System Statement The system statement includes information specific to your community, including: • your community designation or designation(s); • forecasted population, households, and employment through the year 2040; • guidance on appropriate densities to ensure that regional services and costly regional infrastructure can be provided as efficiently as possible. • affordable housing need allocation; Page - 2 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER INTRODUCTION In the following sections, this system statement contains an overview of each of the system plan updates and specific system changes that affect your community. The sections are: • Transportation, including metropolitan highways, aviation, and transit • Water Resources, including wastewater, surface water, and water supply planning • Regional parks and trails Dispute Process If your community disagrees with elements of this system statement, or has any questions about this system statement, please contact your Sector Representative, Eric Wojchik, at 651-602-1330, to review and discuss potential issues or concerns. The Council and local government units and districts have usually resolved issues relating to the system statement through discussion. Request for Hearing If a local governmental unit and the Council are unable to resolve disagreements over the content of a system statement, the unit or district may, by resolution, request that a hearing be conducted by the Council’s Land Use Advisory Committee or by the State Office of Administrative Hearings for the purpose of considering amendments to the system statement. According to Minnesota Statutes section 473.857, the request shall be made by the local governmental unit or school district within 60 days after receipt of the system statement. If no request for a hearing is received by the Council within 60 days, the statement becomes final. Page - 3 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER INTRODUCTION Regional Development Guide The Council adopted Thrive MSP 2040 as the new regional development guide on May 28, 2014. Thrive identifies five outcomes that set the policy direction for the region’s system and policy plans. Building on our region’s history of effective stewardship of our resources, Thrive envisions a prosperous, equitable, and livable region that is sustainable for today and generations to come. The Council is directing its operations, plans, policies, programs, and resources toward achieving this shared long-term vision. Three principles define the Council’s approach to implementing regional policy: integration, collaboration, and accountability. These principles reflect the Council’s roles in integrating policy areas, supporting local governments and regional partners, and promoting and implementing the regional vision. The principles define the Council’s approach to policy implementation and set expectations for how the Council interacts with local governments. Thrive also outlines seven land use policies and community designations important for local comprehensive planning updates. The land use policies establish a series of commitments from the Council for local governments and uses community designations to shape development policies for communities. Community designations group jurisdictions with similar characteristics based on Urban or Rural character for the application of regional policies. Together, the land use policies and community designations help to implement the region’s vision by setting expectations for development density and the character of development throughout the region. Community Designation Community designations group jurisdictions with similar characteristics for the application of regional policies. The Council uses community designations to guide regional growth and development; establish land use expectations including overall development densities and patterns; and outline the respective roles of the Council and individual communities, along with strategies for planning for forecasted growth. If there are discrepancies between the Thrive MSP 2040 Community Designations Map and the Community Designation map contained herein because of adjustments and refinements that occurred subsequent to the adoption of Thrive, communities should follow the specific guidance contained in this System Statement. Thrive identifies Brooklyn Center with the community designation of Urban (Figure 1). Urban communities experienced rapid development during the post-World War II era, and exhibit the transition toward the development stage dominated by the influence of the automobile. Urban communities are expected to plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities of at least 10 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. In addition, Urban communities are expected to target opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments at densities and in a manner articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. Specific strategies for Urban communities can be found on Brooklyn Center’s Community Page in the Local Planning Handbook. Page - 4 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER INTRODUCTION Forecasts The Council uses the forecasts developed as part of Thrive to plan for regional systems. Communities should base their planning work on these forecasts. Given the nature of long-range forecasts and the planning timeline undertaken by most communities, the Council will maintain on-going dialogue with communities to consider any changes in growth trends or community expectations about growth that may have an impact on regional systems. The Thrive forecasts for population, households, and employment for your community are: 2010 (actual) 2014 (est.) 2020 2030 2040 Population 30,104 29,889 31,400 33,000 35,400 Households 10,756 10,852 11,300 12,300 13,300 Employment 11,001 12,582 13,000 13,800 14,600 Housing Policy The Council adopted the Housing Policy Plan on December 10, 2014, and amended the plan on July 8, 2015. The purpose of the plan is to provide leadership and guidance on regional housing needs and challenges and to support Thrive MSP 2040. The Housing Policy Plan provides an integrated policy framework to address housing challenges greater than any one city or county can tackle alone. Consistent with state statute (Minn. Stat. 473.859, subd. 2(c) and subd. 4), communities must include a housing element and implementation program in their local comprehensive plans that address existing and projected housing needs. The Council has also determined the regional need for low and moderate income housing for the decade of 2021-2030 (see Part III and Appendix B in the Housing Policy Plan). Brooklyn Center’s share of the region’s need for low and moderate income housing is 238 new units affordable to households earning 80% of area median income (AMI) or below. Of these new units, the need is for 103 affordable to households earning at or below 30% of AMI, 0 affordable to households earning 31% to 50% of AMI, and 135 affordable to households earning 51% to 80% of AMI. Affordable Housing Need Allocation for Brooklyn Center At or below 30% AMI 103 31 to 50% AMI 0 51 to 80% AMI 135 Total Units 238 Specific requirements for the housing element and housing implementation programs of local comprehensive plans can be found in the Local Planning Handbook. Page - 5 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER INTRODUCTION Figure 1. Brooklyn Center Community Designation Page - 6 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM STATEMENT City of Brooklyn Center The 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) is the metropolitan system plan for highways, transit, and aviation to which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement summarizes significant changes to these three systems, as well as other changes made to the Transportation Policy Plan since the last 2030 TPP was adopted in 2010, and highlights those elements of the system plan that apply specifically to your community. The TPP incorporates the policy direction and the new 2040 socio economic forecasts adopted by the Metropolitan Council in the Thrive MSP 2040, and extends the planning horizon from 2030 to 2040. Federal Requirements The TPP must respond to requirements outlined in state statute, as well as federal law, such as some new requirements included in the federal law known as the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). For instance, metropolitan transportation plans must now be performance based, so the TPP now includes goals, objectives, and strategies outlined in chapter 2. In previous versions of the TPP the strategies were known as policies; while some are new, the wording of many strategies are similar to the wording of policies in previous plans. Performance measurements for this plan are also discussed in Chapter 12, Federal Requirements. Federal law requires the long range plan to identify regionally significant transportation investments expected to be made over the next two decades, and to demonstrate that these planned investments can be afforded under the plan’s financial assumptions. Both costs and available revenues have changed since the last plan was adopted in 2010, resulting in many changes in the plan. Federal law does allow the plan to provide a vision for how an increased level of transportation revenue might be spent if more resources become available, but the programs or projects identified in this scenario are not considered part of the approved plan. The TPP includes two funding scenarios for the metropolitan highway and transit systems: the “Current Revenue Scenario” and the “Increased Revenue Scenario.” • The Current Revenue Scenario represents the fiscally constrained regional transportation plan, which assumes revenues that the region can reasonably expect to be available based on past experience and current laws and allocation formulas. • The Increased Revenue Scenario represents an illustration of what be achieved with a reasonable increase in revenues for transportation. Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, local comprehensive plans are expected to conform to the Current Revenue Scenario, which is the official metropolitan system plan. Potential improvements in the Increased Revenue Scenario can be identified separately in local plans as unfunded proposals. A more detailed description of how to handle the various improvements in this category is included under Other Plan Considerations. In addition to reviewing this system statement, your community should consult the entire 2040 Transportation Policy Plan to ensure that your community’s local comprehensive plan and plan amendments conform to the metropolitan transportation system plan. Chapter 3, Land Use and Local Planning, has been expanded and all communities should carefully review this chapter. A PDF file of Page - 7 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION the entire 2040 Transportation Policy Plan can be found at the Metropolitan Council’s website: http://www.metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Planning-2/Key-Transportation-Planning- Documents/Transportation-Policy-Plan-(1)/The-Adopted-2040-TPP-(1).aspx. The format of the plan is slightly different than past Transportation Policy Plans. An introductory Overview, Chapter 1: Existing System and Chapter 10: Equity and Environmental Justice have been added to this version of the TPP, in addition to the changes noted in the first paragraph. Please note some modifications have been made to the appendices as well. Key Changes in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in January 2015, the revised 2040 Transportation Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: Metropolitan Highway System - Chapter 5 The Metropolitan Highway System is made up of principal arterials, shown in Fig 1-1 of the TPP and also attached to this system statement. Although no new highways have been added to this system in the 2040 TPP, the last incomplete segment of this system, TH 610, is now under construction in Maple Grove. • The TPP acknowledges that congestion cannot be eliminated or greatly reduced. The region’s mobility efforts will need to focus on managing congestion and working to provide alternatives. The majority of resources available between now and 2040 will be needed for preservation, management and operation of the existing highway system. • Due to increased costs and decreased revenue expectations, many long-planned major projects to add general purpose highway lanes are not in this fiscally constrained plan. While the preservation, safety, and mobility needs of these corridors are recognized, investments in these corridors will be focused on implementing traffic management strategies, lower cost-high benefit spot mobility improvements, and implementing MnPASS lanes. Some specific projects have been identified in this plan, but funding has primarily been allocated into various investment categories rather than specific projects. The highway projects specifically identified in the Current Revenue Scenario are shown in Figure 5-8 of the TPP which is also attached to this system statement. • Modifications were made to Appendix D - Functional Classification Criteria, and Appendix F – Highway Interchange Requests. Appendix C – Project List is new and contains all of the transit and highway projects that have been identified between 2014 and 2023. Transit System - Chapter 6 The transit system plan provides an overview of the basic components of transit planning, including demographic factors, transit route and network design factors and urban design factors that support transit usage. Local governments have the primary responsibility for planning transit-supportive land use, through their comprehensive planning, and subdivision and zoning ordinances. • The TPP includes updated Transit Market Areas (shown in TPP Figure 6-3, also attached) which reflect 2010 Census information and an updated methodology that better aligns types and levels of transit service to expected demand. These market areas identify the types of transit services that are provided within each area. • The TPP includes limited capital funding for transit expansion and modernization. Opportunities primarily exist through competitive grant programs such as the regional solicitation for US DOT Page - 8 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION funding. These opportunities are guided by the strategies in the TPP and the various elements of the Transit Investment Plan. • The TPP includes an updated transitway system plan that more clearly articulates which projects can be funded within reasonable revenue expectations through year 2040 (Current Revenue Scenario as shown in TPP Figure 6-8, which is also attached). The plan includes five new or expanded METRO lines, three new arterial bus rapid transit lines, and three corridors under study for mode and alignment but identified in the Counties Transit Improvement Board’s (CTIB) Phase I Program of Projects. This system was developed in collaboration with CTIB, a major partner in regional transitway expansion. • The TPP does not include operating funding for transit service expansion beyond the existing network of regular route bus, general public dial-a-ride, and Metro Vanpool. • The Increased Revenue Scenario (shown TPP Figure 6-9, which is also attached) illustrates the level of expansion for the bus and support system and transitway system that might be reasonable if additional revenues were made available to accelerate construction of the transitway vision for the region. • The plan includes updated requirements and considerations for land use planning around the region’s transit system. This includes new residential density standards for areas near major regional transit investments and an increased emphasis on proactive land use planning in coordination with the planning of the transit system. Aviation System - Chapter 9 The Metropolitan Aviation System is comprised of nine airports (shown in Figure 1-9 of the TPP and also attached to this system statement) and off-airport navigational aids. There are no new airports or navigational aids that have been added to the system in the 2040 TPP. • The TPP discusses the regional airport classification system as well as providing an overview of roles and responsibilities in aviation for our regional and national partners. The investment plan in includes an overview of funding sources for projects, and an overview of projects proposed for the local airports that will maintain and enhance the regional airport system. • Modifications were made to Appendix I – Regional Airspace, Appendix J – Metropolitan Airports Commission Capital Investment Review Process, Appendix K – Airport Long Term Comprehensive Plans and Appendix L – Aviation Land Use Compatibility. Other Plan Changes Regional Bicycle Transportation Network - Chapter 7 The 2040 TPP encourages the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation. To that end, the TPP establishes for the first time a Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN). The goal of the RBTN is to establish an integrated seamless network of on-street bikeways and off-road trails that complement each other to most effectively improve conditions for bicycle transportation at the regional level. Cities, counties, and parks agencies are encouraged to plan for and implement future bikeways within and along these designated corridors and alignments to support the RBTN vision. Page - 9 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Freight - Chapter 8 Most aspects of freight movement are controlled by the private sector, so unlike other sections of the TPP, there is not a specific plan adopted for future public sector investment in freight facilities. However, the discussion of the need for a safe and efficient multimodal freight system has been updated and expanded in the TPP to recognize challenges and opportunities for freight movement as well as the future direction of freight by mode. It acknowledges the closure of the Minneapolis Upper Harbor in 2015, leaving St Paul and Shakopee as the region’s major barge terminal areas in the future. The plan also acknowledges the increase of trains since 2010 carrying oil from North Dakota on BNSF and CP rail tracks, which is expected to continue into the future. Although railroad trackage in the region was significantly decreased over the last 20 years to “right size” the system after federal deregulation, communities should not expect much additional rail abandonment. Many tracks that appear to be seldom used are owned by the smaller Class III railroads that serve local businesses by providing direct rail connections from manufacturing and warehousing/distribution facilities to the major national railroads. The major Class I railroads are approaching capacity and actually adding tracks in some locations. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Brooklyn Center should consult the complete 2040 Transportation Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In addition, Brooklyn Center should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the current version of the Metropolitan Council’s Local Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its comprehensive plan. Specific system plan considerations affecting Brooklyn Center are detailed below. Metropolitan Highways There are three principal arterials located within Brooklyn Center: I-94/694, TH 252 and TH 100. The TPP does not identify any specific regional mobility improvements on these highways, although maintenance and preservation investments will be made on all highways. Transit System Brooklyn Center includes the following Transit Market Areas: Transit Market Area Market Area Description and Typical Transit Services Market Area II Transit Market Area II has high to moderately high population and employment densities and typically has a traditional street grid comparable to Market Area I. Much of Market Area II is also categorized as an Urban Center and it can support many of the same types of fixed-route transit as Market Area I, although usually at lower frequencies or shorter service spans. Market Area III Transit Market Area III has moderate density but tends to have a less traditional street grid that can limit the effectiveness of transit. It is typically Urban with large portions of Suburban and Suburban Edge communities. Transit service in this area is primarily commuter express bus service with some fixed-route local service providing basic coverage. General public dial-a-ride services are available where fixed-route service is not viable. Brooklyn Center should identify and map existing transit services and facilities in the local comprehensive plan. Brooklyn Center should also work with transit providers serving their community to identify potential future transit service options and facilities that are consistent with the TPP and the applicable Transit Market Areas. Communities can find further maps and guidance for transit planning in the Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook. Page - 10 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Transitways Current Revenue Scenario Transitways Brooklyn Center should acknowledge in your local comprehensive plan the transitway investments planned for your community in the Current Revenue Scenario (TPP Figure 6-8). Brooklyn Center includes Chicago-Emerson-Fremont Arterial BRT with a mode and alignment adopted in the TPP. Brooklyn Center should also identify potential stations along planned transitways (once identified) and adopt guiding land use policies, station-area plans, and associated zoning, infrastructure, and implementation tools that support future growth around transit stations consistent with Chapter 3 - Land Use and Local Planning from the TPP and consistent with the project phase of development. Communities can find further guidance for station-area planning in the Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook and the Transit Oriented Development Guide. The Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook also includes a map of existing, planned, and proposed transitway stations throughout the region and the planning status of these stations that should be reflected in Comprehensive Plans. Increased Revenue Scenario Transitways The TPP Increased Revenue Scenario shows additional transitway corridors beyond the scope of the plan’s adopted and fiscally constrained Transit Investment Plan (the Current Revenue Scenario). These corridors are listed on page 6.63 of the TPP, and TPP Figure 6-9, which is attached, shows the complete transitway vision for the region. If Brooklyn Center believes it might be directly impacted by transitways in the Increased Revenue Scenario (for example, because they are participating in transitway corridor studies or feasibility analyses), the transitways may be acknowledged in the Comprehensive Plan. These additional corridors are or will be under study for mode and alignment recommendations, but they are not included in fiscally constrained plan. However, they should be clearly identified as not funded within the currently expected resources for transitways. The Council recognizes the important planning work that goes into a corridor prior to it becoming part of the region’s Transit Investment Plan, especially if increased revenues were to become available. Similar to Current Revenue Scenario Transitways, communities should identify known potential stations along planned transitways and consider guiding land use policies, station area plans, and associated zoning, infrastructure, and implementation tools that support future growth around transit stations. These policies can also influence station siting in initial planning phases of transitway corridors and influence the competitiveness of a transitway for funding. Communities can find further guidance for station area planning in the Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook and the Transit Oriented Development Guide. Communities not in the Transit Capital Levy District Brooklyn Center is not within the Transit Capital Levy District as shown in Fig 1-3 of the TPP (Existing Transit System with Transit Capital Levy District). Regardless of the Transit Market Area or transitway corridor planning, the only transit services provided in this type of community are Transit Link dial-a-ride service and various ridesharing services. A list of Transit Link service areas and communities can be found on the Council’s website: http://www.metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Services/Transit- Link/Transit-Link-Service-Areas.aspx?source=child If Brooklyn Center is interested in additional transit services and a need for transit services can be identified, Brooklyn Center would first have to agree to pay the regional transit capital levy, as defined in MN Stat. 473.446 and 473.4461. Page - 11 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Aviation All communities must include an aviation element in the transportation sections of their comprehensive plans. The degree of aviation planning and development considerations that need to be included in the comprehensive plan varies by community. Even those communities not impacted directly by an airport have a responsibility to include airspace protection in their comprehensive plan. The protection element should include potential hazards to air navigation including electronic interference. Crystal Airport is within Brooklyn Center. The long term comprehensive plan (LTCP) for this airport shown in Appendix K of the 2040 TPP has not changed from the LTCP included in the 2030 TPP adopted by the Metropolitan Council in 2010. However, updated LTCP’s are anticipated prior to 2018. Communities influenced by this airport should review the LTCP to assure that the updated comprehensive plan developed by the community remains consistent with the airport plans. Consult the Local Planning Handbook for specific comprehensive planning requirements and considerations such as airport zoning, noise and other environmental mitigation, airport development and economic impacts, ground access needs, infrastructure requirements, and general land use compatibility. Other Plan Considerations Regional Bicycle Transportation Network TPP Figure 7-1 shows the RBTN as established for the first time in the 2040 TPP. The network consists of a series of prioritized Tier 1 and Tier 2 corridors and dedicated alignments (routes). The process used to develop the RBTN, as well as the general principles and analysis factors used in its development, can be found in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Chapter of the TPP. The RBTN corridors and alignments make up the “trunk arterials” of the overall system of bikeways that connect to regional employment and activity centers. These are not intended to be the only bicycle facilities in the region, and local units should also consider planning for any additional bike facilities desired by their communities. RBTN corridors are shown where more specific alignments within those corridors have not yet been designated, so local governments are encouraged to use their comprehensive planning process to identify suitable alignments within the RBTN corridors for future incorporation into the TPP. In addition, agencies should plan their local on and off-road bikeway networks to connect to the designated Tier 1 and Tier 2 alignments, as well as any new network alignments within RBTN corridors to be proposed in local comprehensive plans. Bikeway projects that complete segments of, or connect to, the RBTN are given priority for federal transportation funds through the Transportation Advisory Board’s biannual regional solicitation. Figure 7-1 shows that your community currently has one or more RBTN corridors and alignments within its jurisdiction. The Council encourages local governments to incorporate the RBTN map within their local bicycle plan maps to show how the local and regional systems are planned to work together. An on-line interactive RBTN map, which allows communities to view the RBTN links in their community at a much more detailed scale than Figure 7-1, can be found in the Transportation section of the Local Planning Handbook. The handbook also includes best practices, references, and guidance for all local bicycle planning. A Minor System / Functional Classification The TPP has always recognized the A minor arterial system as an important supplement to the regional highway system, and the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) continues to maintain the official regional map of these roads. The 2040 TPP does include an updated functional classification map (Fig. 1-2 in Chapter 1) and a modified Appendix D - Functional Classification Criteria. Communities should Page - 12 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION consult the Local Plan Handbook for more information on functional classification, how to reflect the A minor arterial system in their plan, and how to request functional classification changes if necessary. Freight The Council encourages all local governments to plan for freight movement in their communities. Trucks are the major mode of freight movement in the region and across the nation to distribute consumer goods as well as move manufactured goods and commodities, and they operate in every community. Communities with special freight facilities shown on TPP Figure 8-1, Metropolitan Freight System, (attached) should also include those additional modes and facilities in their local plan, and plan for compatible adjacent land uses. Page - 13 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Figure 1-1 of the TPP Page - 14 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Figure 1-2 of the TPP Page - 15 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Figure 5-8 of the TPP Page - 16 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Figure 6-3 of the TPP Page - 17 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Figure 6-8 of the TPP Page - 18 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Figure 6-9 of the TPP Page - 19 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Figure 7-1 of the TPP Page - 20 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Figure 8-1 of the TPP Page - 21 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSPORTATION Figure 9-1 of the TPP Page - 22 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER WATER RESOURCES WATER RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS/ WASTEWATER SYSTEM STATEMENT City of Brooklyn Center The 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan includes policies and strategies to achieve the following goal: To protect, conserve, and utilize the region’s groundwater and surface water in ways that protect public health, support economical growth and development, maintain habitat and ecosystem health, and provide for recreational opportunities, which are essential to our region’s quality of life. The Policy Plan takes an integrated approach to water supply, water quality, and wastewater issues. This approach moves beyond managing wastewater and stormwater only to meet regulatory requirements by viewing wastewater and stormwater as resources, with the goal of protecting the quantity and quality of water our region needs now and for future generations. The Policy Plan includes policies and strategies to: • Maximize regional benefits from regional investments in the areas of wastewater, water supply and surface water. • Pursue reuse of wastewater and stormwater to offset demands on groundwater supplies. • Promote greater collaboration, financial support, and technical support in working with partners to address wastewater, water quality, water quantity and water supply issues. • Implement environmental stewardship in operating the regional wastewater system by reusing wastewater, reducing energy use and air pollutant emissions, and reducing, reusing, and recycling solid waste. Key Concepts in the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in May 2015, the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan is the metropolitan system plan for metropolitan wastewater services with which local comprehensive plans must conform. The Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: • Centers on and around an integrated approach to water supply, wastewater, and surface water planning. • Promotes the investigation of the issues and challenges in furthering our work in water conservation, wastewater and stormwater reuse, and low impact development practices in order to promote a more sustainable region. • Promotes the concept of sustainable water resources where, through collaboration and cooperation, the region will take steps to manage its water resources in a sustainable way aimed at: o Providing an adequate water supply for the region o Promoting and implementing best management practices that protect the quality and quantity of our resources o Providing efficient and cost effective wastewater services to the region o Efficiently addressing nonpoint and point sources pollution issues and solutions, and, o Assessing and monitoring lakes, rivers, and streams so that we can adequately manage, protect, and restore our valued resources. • Continues the Council’s position that communities that permit the construction and operation of subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater treatment systems are Page - 23 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER WATER RESOURCES responsible for ensuring that these systems are installed, maintained, managed and regulated consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080-7083. • Includes requirements in Appendix C for comprehensive sewer plans, local water plans, and local water supply plans. • Establishes inflow and infiltration goals for all communities served by the regional wastewater system and requires all communities to include their inflow and infiltration mitigation programs in their comprehensive sewer plan. • Works with the State to attempt to (1) make funds available for inflow and infiltration mitigation, and (2) promote statutes, rules, and regulations to encourage I/I mitigation. Brooklyn Center should consult the complete Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In addition, Brooklyn Center should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the Local Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its comprehensive plan. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Metropolitan Sewer Service Under state law (Minn. Stat. 473.513) local governments are required to submit both a wastewater plan element to their comprehensive plan as well as a comprehensive sewer plan describing service needs from the Council. Specific requirements for the sewer element of your comprehensive plan can be found in the Water Resources section of the Local Planning Handbook. Forecasts The forecasts of population, households, employment, and wastewater flows for Brooklyn Center as contained in the adopted 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan can be found at: http://www.metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-Water/Planning/2040-Water-Resources-Policy-Plan.aspx and on your Community Page in the Local Planning Handbook. These forecasts are for sewered development. The sewered housing forecasts were estimated using SAC data, annual city reports, current trends, existing and future local wastewater service areas and other information relating to your community. The wastewater flows are based on historical wastewater flow data, future projected wastewater generation rates, and the projected sewered population and employment data. The Council will use these growth and wastewater flow forecasts to plan future interceptor and treatment works improvements needed to serve your community. The Council will not design future interceptor improvements or treatment facilities to handle peak hourly flows in excess of the allowable rate for your community. Brooklyn Center, through its comprehensive planning process, must decide the location and staging of development, and then plan and design its local wastewater collection system to serve this development. The Council will use its judgment as to where to assign growth within your community to determine regional system capacity adequacy. If Brooklyn Center wishes to identify specific areas within the community to concentrate its growth, it should do so within its Comprehensive Sewer Plan. You should also note that urban development at overall densities that are substantially lower than those identified for your community in the Community Designation Section of this Systems Statement will also be analyzed by the Council for their potential adverse effects on the cost of providing metropolitan sewer service. Description of the Metropolitan Disposal System Serving Your Community Figure 1 shows the location of the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) serving your community. Wastewater flow from Brooklyn Center is treated at the Metropolitan WWTP. Page - 24 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER WATER RESOURCES Description of the Regional Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) Program The 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan states that the Council will establish I/I goals for all communities discharging wastewater to the MDS. Communities that have excessive I/I in their sanitary sewer systems will be required to eliminate excessive I/I. The Council will continue the implementation of its on-going I/I reduction program. Communities identified through the program as needing to eliminate excessive I/I will be required to submit a work plan that details work activities to identify and eliminate sources of I/I. The Council can limit increases in service within those communities having excess I/I that do not demonstrate progress in reducing their excess I/I. The Council will meet with the community and discuss this alternative before it is implemented. It is required that those communities that have been identified as contributors of excessive I/I, and that have not already addressed private property sources, do so as part of their I/I program. Significant work has been accomplished on the public infrastructure portion of the wastewater system. The Council will pursue making funds available through the State for I/I mitigation, and promote statutes, rules and regulations to encourage I/I mitigation. Management of Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS) and Private Systems The Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires the sewer element of the local comprehensive plan to describe the standards and conditions under which the installation of subsurface sewage treatment systems and other private wastewater treatment systems will be permitted and to the extent practicable, the areas not suitable for public or private systems. The appropriate density for development with subsurface sewage treatment systems depends on the suitability of the soils to treat wastewater and whether space is available for a primary and back up drainfield. It is the Council’s position that all municipalities and counties allowing subsurface sewage treatment systems should incorporate current MPCA regulations (Minn. Rules Chapter 7080-7083) as part of a program for managing subsurface sewage treatment systems in the sewer element of their local comprehensive plan and implement the standards in issuing permits. Brooklyn Center should adopt a management program consistent with state rules. An overview of Brooklyn Center’s management program must be included in the community’s local comprehensive plan update. If adequate information on the management program is not included; the comprehensive plan will be found incomplete for review until the required information is provided to the Council. Specific requirements for the local comprehensive plan can be found in the Local Planning Handbook. Small private treatment plants are located throughout the Metropolitan Area serving such developments as individual industries, mobile home parks, and other urban type uses. The Council’s position is that such private wastewater treatment plants should be permitted only if they are in areas not programmed for metropolitan sewer service in the future and they are provided for in a community’s comprehensive plan that the Council has approved. Furthermore, the community is responsible for permitting all community or cluster wastewater treatment systems consistent with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080- 7083 and MPCA standards. The Council will not provide financial support to assist communities if these systems fail. Brooklyn Center should include in the sewer element of its local comprehensive plan the conditions under which private treatment plants or municipal treatments would be allowed, and include appropriate management techniques sufficiently detailed to ensure that the facilities conform to permit conditions. Brooklyn Center is responsible for ensuring that permit conditions for private treatment plants are met and financial resources to manage these facilities are available. Page - 25 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER WATER RESOURCES Surface Water Management In 1995, Minnesota Statutes Section 473.859, subd. 2 was amended to make the local water plan (often referred to as local surface water management plans) required by section 103B. 235 a part of the land use plan of the local comprehensive plan. Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, updated in July of 2015, includes the requirements for local water management plans. The main change that you need to be aware of is that all communities in the metropolitan area must update their local water plan between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. This means that Brooklyn Center must update its local water plan as part of the comprehensive plan update. The community’s updated local water plan should be submitted to the Council for its review concurrent with the review by the Watershed Management Organization(s) within whose watershed(s) the community is located. Failure to have an updated local water plan will result in the comprehensive plan being found incomplete for review until the required plan is provided to the Council. Local water plans must meet the requirements for local water plans in Minnesota Statutes, section 103B.235 and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410. In general, local surface water plans need to include a summary of the priorities and problems in the community; structural, nonstructural and programmatic actions to take to address the priorities and problems; and clearly identified funding mechanisms to fix the problems. More detailed guidance for the local water plans can be found in Appendix C of the Council’s 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan and in the Council’s current Local Planning Handbook. In addition, the Council has also updated its priority lake list that was first developed in the 1980s as part of the Water Resources Policy Plan update. Figure 2 shows the priority lakes for Brooklyn Center. The Council uses the priority lake list to focus its limited resources. The list is also used in the environmental review process. Where a proposed development may impact a priority lake, the project proposer must complete a nutrient budget analysis for the lake as part of the environmental review process. Also included on Figure 2 is the watershed organization(s) that Brooklyn Center is part of and a list of impaired waters in the community for use in development of your local water plans. Other Plan Considerations Water Supply Local comprehensive plans also address water supply (Minn. Stat., Sec. 473.859). For communities in the metropolitan area with municipal water supply systems, this local comprehensive plan requirement is met by completing the local water supply plan template, which was jointly developed by the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR). FOR COMMUNITIES WHO OWN/OPERATE A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM: Because your community owns/operates a municipal community public water supply system (PWS), the local water supply plan must be updated as part of the local comprehensive plan (Minn. Stat., Sec. 103G.291). The updated local water supply plan should include information about your community along with information about any neighboring communities served by your system. You should update your local water supply plan upon notification by DNR. Local water supply plan due dates will be staggered between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. Your updated local water Page - 26 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER WATER RESOURCES supply plan should be submitted to the DNR. DNR will share the plan with the Council, and it will be reviewed concurrently by both agencies. This schedule allows the local water supply plans to be completed and included in the local comprehensive plan. Failure to have an updated local water plan will result in the comprehensive plan being found incomplete for review until the required plan is provided to the Council. The water supply plan template fulfills multiple statutory obligations including: • Minn. Stat., Sec. 103G.291 to complete a water supply plan including demand reduction • Minn. Stat., Sec. 473.859 to address water supply in local comprehensive plans • Minn. Administrative Rules 4720.5280 to address contingency planning for water supply interruption The plan must be officially adopted by your community, and if applicable the utility board, as part of the local comprehensive plan. At a minimum, the updated local water supply plan must use the joint DNR and Metropolitan Council template and include water demand projections that are consistent with the community’s population forecast provided in the introductory section of this system statement. Potential water supply issues should be acknowledged, monitoring and conservation programs should be developed, and approaches to resolve any issues should be identified. Guidance and information for water supply planning can be found in the Appendix C of the 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan, the Local Planning Handbook, and the Council’s Master Water Supply Plan. The Council’s Master Water Supply Plan provides communities in the region with planning assistance for water supply in a way that: • Recognizes local control and responsibility for owning, maintaining and operating water systems • Is developed in cooperation and consultation with municipal water suppliers, regional stakeholders and state agencies • Protects critical habitat and water resources over the long term • Meets regional needs for a reliable, secure water supply • Highlights the benefits of integrated planning for stormwater, wastewater and water supply • Emphasizes and supports conservation and inter-jurisdictional cooperation • Provides clear guidance by identifying key challenges/issues/considerations in the region and available approaches without dictating solutions Figures 3-5 illustrate some water supply considerations that the community may consider as they develop their local water supply plans, such as: aquifer water levels, groundwater and surface water interactions, areas where aquifer tests or monitoring may be needed to reduce uncertainty, regulatory and management areas, and emergency interconnections. Page - 27 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER WATER RESOURCES Figure 1. MCES Sanitary Sewer Meter Service Areas Page - 28 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER WATER RESOURCES Figure 2. Surface Water Resources Page - 29 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER WATER RESOURCES Figure 3. Surface water features and interaction with the regional groundwater system, and state-protected surface water features Page - 30 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER WATER RESOURCES Figure 4. Availability of MN Department of Natural Resources groundwater level and MN Department of Health aquifer test data Page - 31 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER WATER RESOURCES Figure 5. Municipal public water supply system interconnections and regulatory management areas Page - 32 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER REGIONAL PARKS REGIONAL PARKS SYSTEM STATEMENT City of Brooklyn Center The Regional Parks System includes 62 regional parks, park reserves, and special recreation features, plus more than 340 miles of regional trails that showcase the unique landscapes of the region and provide year-round recreation. The Regional Parks System is well-loved by our region’s residents and attracted over 48 million annual visits in 2014. The organizational structure of the Regional Parks System is unique, built upon a strong partnership between the Council and the ten regional park implementing agencies that own and operate Regional Parks System units. The regional park implementing agencies are: Anoka County Ramsey County City of Bloomington City of Saint Paul Carver County Scott County Dakota County Three Rivers Park District Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Washington County The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan was developed based on furthering the Thrive MSP 2040 outcomes of Stewardship, Prosperity, Equity, Livability, and Sustainability. Thrive MSP 2040 states that the Council will collaborate with the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, the regional park agencies, and state partners to: • Expand the Regional Parks System to conserve, maintain, and connect natural resources identified as being of high quality or having regional importance, as identified in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan. • Provide a comprehensive regional park and trail system that preserves high-quality natural resources, increases climate resiliency, fosters healthy outcomes, connects communities, and enhances quality of life in the region. • Promote expanded multimodal access to regional parks, regional trails, and the transit network, where appropriate. • Strengthen equitable usage of regional parks and trails by all our region’s residents, such as across age, race, ethnicity, income, national origin, and ability. Key Concepts in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan includes the following policies, each with specific associated strategies: • Recreation Activities and Facilities Policy: Provide a regional system of recreation opportunities for all residents, while maintaining the integrity of the natural resource base within the Regional Parks System. Page - 33 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER REGIONAL PARKS • Siting and Acquisition Policy: Identify lands with high-quality natural resources that are desirable for Regional Parks System activities and put these lands in a protected status so they will be available for recreational uses and conservation purposes in perpetuity. • Planning Policy: Promote master planning and help provide integrated resource planning across jurisdictions. • Finance Policy: Provide adequate and equitable funding for the Regional Parks System units and facilities in a manner that provides the greatest possible benefits to the people of the region. • System Protection Policy: Protect public investment in acquisition and development by assuring that every component in the system is able to fully carry out its designated role as long as a need for it can be demonstrated. The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan is the metropolitan system plan for regional recreation open space with which local comprehensive plans must conform. This system statement highlights the elements of the system plan which apply specifically to your community. Find the complete text of the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan on the Council’s website. 2040 Regional Parks System Facilities The Regional Parks System is comprised of four main types of facilities: regional parks, park reserves, special recreation features and regional trails. Regional Parks Regional parks most notably contain a diversity of nature-based resources, either naturally occurring or human-built, and are typically 200-500 acres in size. Regional parks accommodate a variety of passive recreation activities. Park Reserves Park reserves, like regional parks, provide for a diversity of outdoor recreation activities. One major feature that distinguishes a park reserve from a regional park is its size. The minimum size for a park reserve is 1,000 acres. An additional characteristic of park reserves is that up to 20 percent of the park reserve can be developed for recreational use, with at least 80 percent of the park reserve to be managed as natural lands that protect the ecological functions of the native landscape. Special Recreation Features Special recreation features are defined as Regional Parks System opportunities not generally found in the regional parks, park reserves or trail corridors. Special recreation features often require a unique managing or programming effort. Regional Trails Regional trails are classified as 1) destination or greenway trails and 2) linking trails. Destination or greenway trails typically follow along routes with high-quality natural resources that make the trail itself a destination. Linking trails are predominately intended to provide connections between various Regional Parks System facilities, most notably regional parks or park reserves. 2040 Regional Parks System Components The 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan identifies six components which together comprise the vision for the Regional Parks System in 2040, as described below. Page - 34 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER REGIONAL PARKS Existing Regional Parks System Facilities: include Regional Parks System Facilities that are open for public use. These facilities include land that is owned by regional park implementing agencies, and may include inholding parcels within the boundaries of these parks and trail corridors that have not yet been acquired. Existing regional trails may include planned segments that will be developed in the future. Planned Regional Parks System Facilities (not yet open to the public): include Regional Parks System Facilities that have a Council-approved master plan and may be in stages of acquisition and development, but are not yet open for public use. Regional Parks System Boundary Adjustments: include general areas identified as potential additions to existing Regional Parks System Facilities to add recreational opportunities or protect natural resources. Specific adjustments to park or trail corridor boundaries have not yet been planned. Regional Park Search Areas: include general areas for future regional parks to meet the recreational needs of the region by 2040 where the regional park boundary has not yet been planned. Regional Trail Search Corridors: include proposed regional trails to provide connections between Regional Parks System facilities where the trail alignment has not yet been planned. 2040 Regional Trail Search Corridor System Additions: include regional trail search corridors that were added to the Regional Parks System as part of the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan. Key Changes in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan Adopted by the Metropolitan Council in February 2015, the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan incorporates the following changes: Identify all proposed regional trails as regional trail search corridors All proposed regional trails that are not yet open to the public and do not have a Metropolitan Council approved master plan are represented as a general regional trail search corridor. The 2030 Regional Parks Policy Plan depicted these trails with a proposed alignment. The alignment of these regional trails will be determined in the future through a planning process led by the regional park implementing agency. The alignment of these trails is subject to Metropolitan Council approval of a regional trail master plan. Acquire and develop ten new regional trails or trail extensions to meet the needs of the region in 2040. The 2040 Regional Trail Search Corridor Additions include: Carver County: • County Road 61 • Highway 41 Three Rivers Park District: • CP Rail Extension • Dakota Rail Extension • Lake Independence Extension • Lake Sarah Extension Page - 35 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER REGIONAL PARKS • Minnetrista Extension • North-South 1 • North-South 2 • West Mississippi River The 2040 Regional Parks System Plan Map is depicted in Figure 1. Brooklyn Center should consult the complete 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan in preparing its local comprehensive plan. In addition, Brooklyn Center should consult Thrive MSP 2040 and the current version of the Metropolitan Council’s Local Planning Handbook for specific information needed in its comprehensive plan. System Plan Considerations Affecting Your Community Regional Parks System Components in your community The following Regional Parks System Components within Brooklyn Center as identified in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan are listed below. Regional Parks, Park Reserves, and Special Recreation Features North Mississippi Regional Park: This is an existing regional park with an established boundary. The regional park boundary as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Regional Trails Shingle Creek Regional Trail: This is a regional trail that includes segments that are open to the public as well as planned segments that will be developed in the future. The regional trail travels through Minneapolis, Brooklyn Center, and Brooklyn Park as it connects Above the Falls Regional Park, Victory Memorial Parkway Regional Trail, Twin Lakes Regional Trail and Rush Creek Regional Trail. The regional trail alignment as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Twin Lakes Regional Trail: This is a regional trail that includes segments that are open to the public as well as planned segments that will be developed in the future. The regional trail travels through Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale as it connects Mississippi River Regional Trail Search Corridor, Shingle Creek Regional Trail and Crystal Lake Regional Trail. The regional trail alignment as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. West Mississippi River Regional Trail Search Corridor: This regional trail search corridor was added to the Regional Parks System as part of the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan. The search corridor travels through Dayton, Champlin, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center as it connects Crow River Regional Trail Search Corridor, Elm Creek Park Reserve, Rush Creek Regional Trail, Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park, Twin Lakes Regional Trail and North Mississippi Regional Park. Three Rivers Park District will lead a planning process in the future to determine the alignment of the regional trail. When preparing its comprehensive plan, Brooklyn Center should verify whether a master plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council. If a master plan has been approved, the planned regional trail alignment should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Otherwise, the general search corridor as shown in Figure 2 should be acknowledged in the comprehensive plan. Please contact Three Rivers Park District for more information regarding Regional Parks System Components in Brooklyn Center. Page - 36 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER REGIONAL PARKS Figure 1. 2040 Regional Parks System Plan Map Page - 37 | 2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT – BROOKLYN CENTER REGIONAL PARKS Figure 2. Regional Parks System Facilities in and adjacent to Brooklyn Center BROOKLYN CENTER Comprehensive Plan Update 2040 This page is blank. Acknowledgments City of Brooklyn Center Mayor Mike Elliott Councilmember Marquita Butler Councilmember April Graves Councilmember Kris Lawrence-Anderson Councilmember Dan Ryan Former Mayor Tim Wilson (Term ended 12/31/2018) Planning Commission: Randall Christensen, Chair Alexander Koenig, Vice Chair John MacMillan Stephen Schonning Rochelle Sweeney Susan Tade Abraham Rizvi (Term ended 2018) City Staff: Curt Boganey, City Manager Reggie Edwards, Deputy City Manager Meg Beekman, Community Development Director Ginny McIntosh, City Planner and Zoning Administrator Doran Cote, Director of Public Works Brett Angell, Business and Workforce Development Specialist Prepared by: Swanson Haskamp Consulting, LLC Contributing Consultants: Perkins + Will, Inc. Sambatek, Inc. SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Rani Engineering Comprehensive Plan 2040 This page is blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Community & Planning Context Chapter 2: Vision, Goals & Strategies Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment Chapter 4: Housing & Neighborhood Chapter 5: Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability Chapter 6: Parks, Trails & Open Space Chapter 7: Transportation & Transit Chapter 8: Infrastructure & Utilities Chapter 9: Implementation APPENDIX A. Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area (MRCCA) B. Glossary of Terms - Goals & Strategies C. Background Report D. Capital Improvement Plan E. Water Supply Plan F. Surface Water Management Plan G. City Code - Chapter 4 Public Works H. Reviews and Responses I. Resolution and Plan Adoption Comprehensive Plan 2040 This page is blank. CHAPTER 1: Community & Planning Context. Comprehensive Plan 2040 COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-1 INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center is a first-ring suburb of the Twin Cities metropolitan area and is one of the best positioned, and most accessible communities in the region. Most of the community’s neighborhoods were developed in the Post-World War II era between the 1950s and 1970s, with the community fully built-out by the 1980s. Once defined by the Brookdale Mall, the City was an active hub of regional retail activity for decades that provided a shopping destination for not only local residents but the northwest region of the Twin Cities. The presence of the mall played a significant role in shaping the physical development of the community as supporting retailers, service providers and offices soon began to co-locate near the mall creating a vibrant and active city center. Soon the ‘center city’ was bustling with activity, jobs, and eventually new residents in nearby multi-family developments. For decades the presence of an indoor mall was an important differentiator of cities in the region – there were not many of them, so if your city was lucky enough to have a mall it was as close to a guarantee of success, not only the mall, but for all of the supporting small shops, offices and other destinations in the City. No one would have suspected that retail would change so drastically over the course of such a short period of time, but that is exactly what happened over the past decade and Brooklyn Center experienced the worst decline of any other City with a regional mall in the region. Brooklyn Center’s core began to experience pressure and decline more than 15-years ago as adjacent communities like Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove began to develop. In conjunction with new residential development came new service and retail platforms that slowly replaced the demand for a regional, enclosed mall. The new, larger homes coupled with more modern retail environments in nearby communities would ultimately prove to be fatal to the success of Brookdale and the ‘center city’ that was once so vibrant. For the better part of the past decade the ‘center city’ has slowly evolved into what is now a large national big box store and other local retail destinations that have replaced the once regional retail hub. Though some new users have started to emerge, there remains significant areas of under-developed and underutilized properties which present opportunities to Brooklyn Center that are unparalleled at this time within the region. COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-2 As this area began to decline, the City slowly began to shift its focus from ‘saving Brookdale’ to looking for new opportunities to redefine the City through redevelopment. For the past decade the City has methodically and strategically acquired properties within the center city to assemble a larger, contiguous area of land that would be available for redevelopment. The City’s leaders and policy-makers have been proactive to support a new vision for the center city, one that once again will define Brooklyn Center as a resilient and vibrant community for generations to come. This 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update (Plan) is not just about redevelopment in the center city, but it is about redefining and reimagining the community as whole as change takes hold over this planning period. While redevelopment of the center city has the potential to physically impact and define the community, equally important is its relationship and connectivity to existing neighborhoods. This Plan works to establish strategies that integrate and connect new and established parts of the community together – the concept that existing areas can benefit by improvements and investments of new areas thereby contributing to the long-term sustainability and resiliency of the community as a whole. Like many other first-ring suburbs, the City’s early years were focused on single-family neighborhoods where residential uses dominated the landscape. That dominance remains today and as such housing continues to be at the forefront of the City’s planning efforts within this Plan. Whether existing or new, housing stability, affordability and diversity will continue to be central to any planning and redevelopment efforts in the community. However, before we can begin to develop the plan for the community’s future it is important to describe the City’s context within the region and understand the framework from which subsequent Chapters of this Plan are derived. The following sections of this Chapter provide a snapshot of the community’s context that summarizes a more detailed set of data which can be found in the Background Report Appendix C. This Chapter is intended to provide context regarding the following: • Summary of current demographic and socio-economic trends • Current market snapshot (local and regional) • Planning context: - Regional context and requirements - Metropolitan Council - Local context and objectives guiding Plan development COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-3 Community Demographics and Socio-Economic Conditions The City of Brooklyn Center is a moderate size community comprising approximately 5,360-acres, and is bordered by the Cities of Minneapolis, Brooklyn Park, and Crystal. The full extent of the City’s eastern border is along the Mississippi River, with intermittent public access and views to the river corridor. Brooklyn Center is considered a first-ring suburb to the City of Minneapolis, and is geographically positioned just 10-minutes from downtown Minneapolis. The community is highly accessible by car to the larger region from I-94, Highway 252, and Highway 100, and within the City by an extensive network of county and local roadways. The City’s population in 2016 was estimated at 31,231 and approximately 11,300 households. Other key 2016 demographic statistics compiled from the American Community Survey and US Census that were used to inform Plan development include: • Age • Household tenure • Race • Median income Market Snapshot A critical component to planning for the City’s future is to understand the current market dynamics in the community and compare those to the larger region. This is an important aspect of the planning process because it provides context from which the City’s vision for it’s future can be derived. The purpose of this Plan is to be aspirational, but also to consider and be rooted within market reality so that the community can evolve and grow over this planning period. As shown in the following Figure 1-1 and Table 1-1 the City’s existing housing stock is diverse and includes single-family, condominium, townhome and multi-family products. While the housing stock is diverse, most of the product was developed more than 40-years ago, and much of the single-family housing was developed more than 50-years ago. COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-4 Figure 1-1. Year Housing Structure Built 2015 Page 32 of 41 Figure H-27: Year Housing Structure Built 2015 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Pre- 1950 1950- 1959 1960- 1969 1970- 1979 1980- 1989 1990- 1999 2000- 2009 2010- Present P e r c e n t o f H o u s i n g U n i t s Year Built BROOKLYN CENTER HENNEPIN COUNTY 7-COUNTY METRO AREA Source: US Census: 2011-2015 American Community Survey Table 1-1. Housing Structure Type 2000-2015 Page 33 of 41 Housing Structure Type The type 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 multifamily housing not only for the ease of maintenance, but also for security reasons. For those fortunate to travel south during the winter, multifamily residences are less susceptible to home maintenance issues or burglary concerns because of on-site management. For those with health concerns, multifamily residences often have neighbors that can also provide oversight should an acute health problem occur. The majority (63%) of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock consists of detached single-family homes. This is above the proportion found in Hennepin County (55%) or throughout the metropolitan area (59%). Nevertheless, the City’s housing stock is diversified, with many multifamily units in large structures, as well as a significant number of single family attached units. Table H-22: Housing Structure Type 2000-2015 Housing Type 2000 2010 2015 No.Pct.2000 2010 2015 BROOKLYN CENTER Single Family Detached 7,180 6,696 6,872 -308 -4.3%62.9%63.5%62.5% Single Family Attached 929 965 884 -45 -4.8%8.1%9.1%8.0% 2-Units 97 83 94 -3 -3.1%0.8%0.8%0.9% 3-4 Units 142 105 105 -37 -26.1%1.2%1.0%1.0% 5 or more Units 3,048 2,678 3,033 -15 -0.5%26.7%25.4%27.6% Other Unit Types 28 26 8 -20 -71.4%0.2%0.2%0.1% Total 11,424 10,553 10,996 -428 -3.7%100.0%100.0%100.0% HENNEPIN COUNTY Single Family Detached 260,349 265,319 271,200 10,851 4.2%57.1%56.0%55.3% Single Family Attached 32,477 41,925 42,701 10,224 31.5%7.1%8.8%8.7% 2-Units 20,555 17,579 16,841 -3,714 -18.1%4.5%3.7%3.4% 3-4 Units 11,816 10,795 11,554 -262 -2.2%2.6%2.3%2.4% 5 or more Units 129,411 136,607 146,411 17,000 13.1%28.4%28.8%29.9% Other Unit Types 1,521 1,631 1,489 -32 -2.1%0.3%0.3%0.3% Total 456,129 473,856 490,196 34,067 7.5%100.0%100.0%100.0% 7-COUNTY METRO AREA Single Family Detached 624,734 669,718 682,595 57,861 9.3%61.2%60.3%59.3% Single Family Attached 84,436 123,763 130,366 45,930 54.4%8.3%11.1%11.3% 2-Units 35,054 29,435 29,780 -5,274 -15.0%3.4%2.7%2.6% 3-4 Units 24,416 22,573 23,891 -525 -2.2%2.4%2.0%2.1% 5 or more Units 236,350 250,059 268,930 32,580 13.8%23.1%22.5%23.4% Other Unit Types 16,464 15,169 14,592 -1,872 -11.4%1.6%1.4%1.3% Total 1,021,454 1,110,717 1,150,154 128,700 12.6%100.0%100.0%100.0% Source: US Census, 2011-2015 American Community Survey Change 2000-2015 Distribution COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-5 Mi s s i s s i p p i Tw i n T w i n Ryan Palmer Twin Twin 94 100 2 5 2 69th Du p o n t 63rd 8 1 Br y a n t 10 73rd 55th 6t h Ca m d e n Gi r a r d J u n e 59th Kn o x 58th B e a r d Ne w t o n 65th Sc o t t 61st Hu m b o l d t Fr a n c e Wi l l o w 66th 64th Freeway 60th U n i t y Sh i n g l e C r e e k We s t R i v e r Lo g a n Re g e n t 78th 70th K y l e P e r r y 52nd Ja m e s 50th O s s e o Lila c 53rd Al d r i c h Gr i m e s L e e Howe Ohenry Mo r g a n 4 t h L y n d a l e Ramp Qu e e n 77th 72nd 694 Xe n i a C o l f a x Twin L a k e 67th 54th Ru s s e l l Ericon Meadowwood Ol i v e r Xe r x e s 62nd 76th Br o o k l y n 5 t h Sh e r i d a n Up t o n Nash V i o l e t Janet Irving 47th Summit Bernard 68th 75th MumfordJoyce Ew i n g Dr e w 51st 74th Estate Az e l i a Amy P a l m e r L a k e Oak North w a y Ze n i t h N o b l e Ea s t L y n d a l e 49th Ha l i f a x Q u a i l Yo r k 46th La k e b r e e z e 56th 48th 74 1/2 57th A b b o t t Quarl e s Ju d y Jo h n M a r t i n Wing a r d T o l e d o Urban Poe I m p e r i a l Wilshire Thurber Th o m a s Corvallis N o r t h p o r t Br o o k v i e w Woodbi n e S a i l o r Winchester Eleanor Ri v e r d a l e Pe a r s o n Ad m i r a l Brook d a l e C e n t e r Brookd a l e Vi n c e n t W e l c o m e Bellvue 71st In d i a n a Or c h a r d P e n n Paul Da l l a s Fairview Ve r a C r u z M a r l i n Si e r r a Byron E m e r s o n M a j o r Sh o r e s M i s s i s s i p p i Ea r l e B r o w n Wa s h b u r n Boulder B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d F r o n t a g e 46 1/2 Fr e m o n t Lawrence La k e v i e w Fa i r f i e l d Eckberg Burquest Parkway Chowen Ponds Lakeside Angeline L a k e l a n d Kathr e n e Shari A n n 58 1/2 R i v e r w o o d 49 1/2 Al d r i c h 76th 2 5 2 Ir v i n g Pe r r y Co l f a x 73rd Ramp To l e d o C h o w e n Dr e w 67th 73rd C h o w e n 67th 75th Qu a i l A l d r i c h 8 1 Ra m p B e a r d 61st Q u a i l Ramp 46th E m e r s o n Ja m e s 66th Ramp Re g e n t Vi n c e n t Ma j o r 65th 70th 76 t h Ramp 55th 62nd 56th 52nd 71st Ha l i f a x 48th Al d r i c h Perry Un i t y Ab b o t t O r c h a r d 74th Lilac 49th 69th B r y a n t 64th 100 Em e r s o n Da l l a s R a m p 76 t h Qu a i l Xe r x e s Le e R e g e n t F r e m o n t 74th Woodbine 59th 57th 53rd R a m p 72ndLe e Lilac Ra m p Ha l i f a x U n i t y 76th Lo g a n X e r x e s 10 0 Uni t y Ab b o t t Qu e e n 51st Pe n n S c o t t 56th Ja m e s 72nd 71st Du p o n t Ja m e s Pe r r y Fr e m o n t V e r a C r u z Pe r r y 51st Ju n e 72nd 56th Ramp We l c o m e 70th Twin L a k e 50th 71st C a m d e n Yo r k To l e d o 65th Co l f a x F r a n c e 58th Co l f a x Ky l e Ramp Ram p 56th P e r r y Fr e m o n t Lilac F r a n c e Ha l i f a x Fr a n c e Wa s h b u r n G r i m e s 70th 58th 48th L e e N o b l e 694 72 n d Ramp D r e w 66th Qu a i l Ne w t o n 73rd 50th 74th 69t h Ju n e 67th Ol i v e r Ma j o r 54th 51st Up t o n 52nd Yo r k B e a r d Ma j o r Ma j o r 68th Br y a n t Lyn d a l e 74th D r e w C o l f a x 75th Up t o n D r e w 64th Dr e w Wa s h b u r n Xe r x e s 52nd O r c h a r d 61st Shi n g l e C r e e k 67th C a m d e n 69th E w i n g 60th Du p o n t Noble Gi r a r d 47th 62nd 59th 73rd We l c o m e Em e r s o n Orch a r d P e r r y F r a n c e 67th 50th Ca m d e n Kn o x Ra m p 73rd Shingle Creek Sc o t t Re g e n t We s t R i v e r R e g e n t R a m p 53rd 62nd R a m p Ri v e r d a l e 66th Oliver Qu a i l 67th Un i t y 76th 67th 64th Shingle C r e e k X e r x e s M a j o r Ram p 74th 60th Ra m p 66th Ne w t o n X e r x e s S c o t t Grim e s 49th 70th 77th 74th 61st 52nd M i s s i s s i p p i Ru s s e l l 48th 68th K y l e 54th Gi r a r d 10 70th P e r r y 75th P e r r y I n d i a n a 4t h Le e Lo g a n W i l l o w 56th 56th Lila c R a m p Lilac Co l f a x Dupont Ly n d a l e 77th Ir v i n g Hu m b o l d t Yo r k Or c h a r d Lilac Ky l e Ramp N o b l e 47th R a m p S c o t t Em e r s o n Un i t y N o r t h p o r t Q u a i l 71st 47th 60th Lilac Gi r a r d 74th 57th Tw i n L a k e 73rd Ol i v e r 51st 70th 54th G r i m e s Ram p A d m i r a l Bro o k l y n 56th Tw i n L a k e 73rd 4t h Gi r a r d Bea r d 72nd Mo r g a n We l c o m e Lilac Mo r g a n 50th 50th Kn o x Le e Winchester Aldrich 75th Hu m b o l d t Fr e m o n t Pe n n Ew i n g Ra m p Ew i n g We l c o m e B r y a n t Ir v i n g 47th 70th 66th Fr a n c e U n i t y 53rd Kn o x M o r g a n Ze n i t h Ramp 73rd Al d r i c h 72nd 70th 76th 53rd Qu a i l Pe n n BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN PARK CRYSTAL MINNEAPOLIS ROBBINSDALE F YEAR_BUILT 1856 - 1913 1914 - 1935 1936- 1949 1950 - 1956 1957 - 1963 1964 - 1974 1975 - 1989 1990 - 2015 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 Feet Homestead Properties - Year Built Map 1-1. Homestead Properties - Year Built COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-6 Housing Market Trends The Brooklyn Center housing market was hit particularly hard in the housing bust of the late 2000s that resulted in a high number of foreclosures and declining median home values. The great recession was officially over by the late 2000s, but after-effects lasted far longer and impacted housing prices into the mid 2010s. By 2015 many communities within the region had recovered to pre-bust prices, but Brooklyn Center lagged slightly behind as indicated within the Background Report prepared in the fall of 2017. The market is slowly recovering, and finally in 2018 updated data indicates that the City has now surpassed pre-bust pricing for single-family homes. Despite the modest recovery, the City’s median home prices continue to be well below that of the metropolitan area. According to the Minneapolis Association of Realtors, the median sales price of homes in Brooklyn Center is $186,125 as compared to $247,900 in the metro area. As discussed in subsequent chapters, much of this price difference can be associated with the age of structures in the community, relatively small square-footage of structures (Map 1-2) and lack of neighborhood and structural diversity. Nearly a third of the City’s housing stock is renter occupied, and most is contained within larger multi-family structures and complexes. The majority of the multi-family housing is located adjacent to major roadway corridors and near the former regional mall site. The City’s rental product is considered to be affordable, but it is naturally occurring due to age of buildings, units, and level of finish of existing units. This is an important distinction because no new multi-family housing or large-scale apartment product has been developed in the community for more than 40-years which may signal potential issues with deferred maintenance, unwanted conversions or wanted conversions to higher market-rate product, deteriorating quality and lack of options that meet changing demographic demands of the City’s residents. The recent apartment boom in adjacent communities such as Saint Paul and Minneapolis bring new product to the market place that is renting at substantially higher rates, thus further contributing to the disparity between the region and the City. Part of this Plan is to evaluate and understand how pricing in new multi-family development will compare to the larger region, and to address affordability as a component of new development to ensure economic diversity within newer areas of the community is planned and strategies are developed to ensure a range of affordability into perpetuity. COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-7 Map 1-2. Square Footage of Single-Family Homes INTERSTATE 94 H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 63RD AVE N X E R X E S A V E N 69TH AVE N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 INTERSTATE 694 57TH AVE N B R O O K L Y N B L V D D U P O N T A V E N 58TH AVE N S H I N G L E C R E E K P K W Y H U M B O L D T A V E N J U N E A V E N B R Y A N T A V E N F R A N C E A V E N L Y N D A L E A V E N 65TH AVE N COUNTY ROAD 10 FREEWAY BLVD 53RD AVE N H A L I F A X A V E N 7 0 T H A V E N SB HWY252 TO WB I94 S B I 9 4 T O 5 3 R D A V E N N O B L E A V E N WB I94 TO BROOKLYN BLVD 51ST AVE N INTERSTATE 94 53RD AVE N H U M B O L D T A V E N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 F R A N C E A V E N H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 INTERSTATE 694 F R A N C E A V E N BROOKLYN CENTER MINNEAPOLIS CRYSTAL BROOKLYN PARK ROBBINSDALE F 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 FeetSize of Homesteaded Single Family Homes Finished Square Feet 0 - 1,019 1,019 - 1,196 1,196 - 1,462 1,462 - 1,948 1,948 - 3,323 COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-8 Employment and Commercial Trends This Plan acknowledges and identifies the significant change in retail, office and employment that has occurred in the City since the 2030 Plan was prepared and adopted. Peak employment in the City occurred around 2000 when there approximately 16,700 jobs which then began to decline steeply as Brookdale closed leaving a little more than 11,000 jobs in the community by 2010. Since 2010, the City has slowly begun to add jobs back into the community and that trend is expected to continue through this planning period as redevelopment efforts take shape and come to fruition. Throughout this planning process residents, commissioners and policy-makers have emphasized that the City should capitalize on the entrepreneurial attitudes of new residents. Repeatedly this process revealed a passion, interest and commitment of residents and stakeholders to renew, reimagine and reinvigorate the city center with new business uses that could benefit from new nearby residences. From local restaurants, cafes, start-up business/office spaces to larger specialty shops and services residents are eager to create a more dynamic and mixed-use environment in the community. This objective is consistent with regional trends provided new residences are also planned for so that vibrant, mixed-use areas are developed. At both a regional and national level, market trends suggest that creating experienced-based places with diverse services, work opportunities and retailers in an accessible location is most desirable for redevelopment. As described in subsequent chapters of this Plan, Brooklyn Center is uniquely positioned to capitalize on this trend because underdeveloped and undeveloped land is available with key regional adjacencies such as the new C-Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) which will open in 2019. The presence of key infrastructure, coupled with proximity to the major employment centers, provides an exceptional opportunity for the City to not only add new households to the region but to add new jobs and create a new identity for employment in the City. COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-9 Planning Context The planning context of this Plan is also an important consideration to understand how and why the subsequent chapters of this planning document were created. While the City’s location in the regional and current market dynamics provide context to where and why certain characteristics are emphasized within this Plan, the Planning Context establishes the requirements of this planning effort that must be addressed and also describes who was involved at the local level in the creation of this Plan. The following sections will define the planning context of the following: 1. Regional context and requirements - Metropolitan Council 2. Local context and objectives guiding Plan development Regional context and requirements – Metropolitan Council Cities often wonder when, and why, they should prepare an update to their Comprehensive Plan. While cities are able to amend or update their Plans at any time, the Metropolitan Land Planning Act requires all cities and counties in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (seven- county) to adopt a Comprehensive Plan, and to update and amend those plans on a minimum of a decennial basis for consistency with the regional systems. The Plan update may address a broad spectrum of issues and opportunities important to the City, but at a minimum the Plan must be updated for conformance with the Metropolitan Council’s regional system plans that include t ransportation (highways and transit), water resources (wastewater services), airports, parks and open space. To clearly define how a City must establish conformance with the Metropolitan Council’s requirements the Metropolitan Council issues a System Statement to each community in advance of the decennial Plan update period. Within the System Statement, the Metropolitan Council outlines and details the key areas that Brooklyn Center must update for compliance with the regional system. The following information provides a summary of the System Statement requirements that were considered and planned for within subsequent sections of this Plan update. COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-10 Community Designations The Metropolitan council groups cities and communities with similar characteristics into Community Designations for the application of regional policies. The entire community of Brooklyn Center is designated as an Urban community. This designation acknowledges and recognizes that the City is fully developed but may include redevelopment opportunities, and has been primarily developed with a fairly compact development pattern. It is also a recognition of the City’s proximity to both Saint Paul and Minneapolis and is a nod to the dominant time period in which the community was developed. One of the primary objectives in establishing Community Designations, is to ensure that communities plan for development and corresponding infrastructure in a sustainable and fiscally responsible way that will support the objectives of the designation. (See Map 1-3. Community Designation). Map 1-3. Community Designation INTERSTATE 94 H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 63RD AVE N X E R X E S A V E N 69TH AVE N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 INTERSTATE 694 57TH AVE N B R O O K L Y N B L V D D U P O N T A V E N 58TH AVE N S H I N G L E C R E E K P K W Y H U M B O L D T A V E N J U N E A V E N B R Y A N T A V E N F R A N C E A V E N L Y N D A L E A V E N 65TH AVE N COUNTY ROAD 10 FREEWAY BLVD 53RD AVE N H A L I F A X A V E N 7 0 T H A V E N S B I 9 4 T O 5 3 R D A V E N N O B L E A V E N WB I94 TO BROOKLYN BLVDINTERSTATE 94 53RD AVE N H U M B O L D T A V E N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 F R A N C E A V E N H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 INTERSTATE 694 F R A N C E A V E N BROOKLYN CENTER MINNEAPOLIS CRYSTAL BROOKLYN PARK ROBBINSDALE F Community Designation Urban 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 Feet COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-11 More detail regarding the community’s roles and responsibilities as an Urban designated community can be found in Chapter 3: Land Use and Redevelopment. Some of the key highlights of the City’s role are as follows: • The City should plan for any redevelopment, or new development, to achieve average densities of no less than 10 dwellings per acre. • Targeted redevelopment should be considered at key transportation corridors, or where regional transit investments are known. • Focus should be placed on local infrastructure needs of current and future development in the community – including sidewalks, roadways, sewer, water and surface water management. Forecasted Growth To plan for the City’s future the Metropolitan Council provided forecasted population and household projections that the City is required to consider as it prepared this Plan update. As stated within Chapter 3, the City believes it may grow beyond what is identified within the 2015 System Statement given current redevelopment expectations but is generally within the range of what the Metropolitan Council has forecasted. As the City contemplates redevelopment it is important that the City considers the following: • Allow development that is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan, which includes revised household and population projections based on redevelopment plans. • Promote redevelopment of key areas that provide the greatest access to existing transportation and transit lines. • Consider redevelopment that incorporates sustainable and resilient infrastructure design standards to ensure adequate infrastructure is available to new areas. If the areas identified for change and growth are redeveloped there is the potential to add more than 2,200 new households to this area of the region. While this represents a small portion of the overall expected growth, it would be first time the City has added that number of households and population since it first experienced its development boom in the 1950s and 1960s. The expected change is why this Plan emphasizes thoughtful and integrated planning of the redevelopment areas to ensure that new developments are interconnected with existing neighborhoods and that as areas are reimagined that they are seamlessly integrated into the City’s existing fabric. COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-12 Local Planning Context & Objectives Guiding Plan Development In part, the City has prepared this Comprehensive Plan Update to fulfill the requirements of the Metropolitan Council; however, the City also viewed this process as an opportunity to further refine its goals and aspirations for the future of Brooklyn Center. 2040 Plan Update Objectives The following objectives were established to help guide the Plan update process: 1. Update the Comprehensive Plan to meet the Metropolitan Council’s requirements for compliance with the four regional systems, while tailoring the Plan to meet the City’s long-term goals and aspirations. 2. Simplify this Plan to more clearly define the City’s aspirations so that residents, stakeholders, developers and policy-makers understand the objectives of the community through this planning period. 3. Create dimension within the Land Use Plan through incorporation of new land use designations that are clear, concise, and more responsive. 4. Establish an appropriate mix of uses that balance market realities with the aspirations and vision of the community. 5. Create a Plan that is easy to use and understand. The Plan should be helpful to staff, residents, stakeholders and policy-makers. 6. Engage the public, commissions, staff and policy-makers throughout the process to help guide Plan development. COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-13 Engagement Process An important component of this Plan update process is to solicit public input to ensure that the Plan accurately reflects the goals and objectives of the residents and stakeholders. This public engagement process was specifically tailored to this Plan development and included: • Meeting the public where they were – this included booths at both Holly Sunday and Earle Brown Days to solicit feedback from a broad cross-section of residents and stakeholders of the community. • Regular Planning Commission Meetings – the Planning Commission held regular monthly work sessions (open to the public) to guide the plan development process. • Joint work sessions of the Planning Commission and City Council – The joint work sessions allowed for both bodies to work together to develop the contents of this Plan. • On-line public comment surveys to ‘check the plan’ – this included online surveys to ‘check’ the contents of the draft Plan to ensure it responds to the aspirations of the community through this planning period. The intent of the public engagement process was to create opportunities for meaningful feedback and to gain consensus on the direction for the future of Brooklyn Center over this planning period. COMMUNITY & PLANNING CONTEXT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1-14 Plan Development & Changes from the 2030 Plan This 2040 Plan is a re-write of the previously adopted Plan, however, it is still informed by previous planning studies which served as a foundation to this effort. Some of the key highlights of this Plan are as follows: • This Plan embraces transit, and introduces new land use designation that emphasizes compact and walkable redevelopment that capitalizes on the new Bus Rapid Transit C-Line which is planned to open in 2019. • The ‘center city’ was expanded to not only address redevelopment of the former Brookdale site, but to encompass a ‘central spine’ that bisects the community along highway 100. The expanded area of consideration leads to increased opportunities for larger scale redevelopment with a greater mix of uses. • Current market trends and projections were used to help inform the types of land use changes identified within this Plan. Integration of housing within the City’s redevelopment efforts is identified as a critical component to success. This Plan carefully balances market dynamics with the goals and aspirations of the community. This Plan identifies implementation strategies and steps to reinforce resilient, and sustainable redevelopment plans that focus on a more compact, connected system of transit, trails, and open spaces in City’s identified redevelopment areas. The Chapters that follow are the culmination of efforts of the Planning Commission, stakeholder and resident feedback, staff and the City Council. This Plan is intended to serve as a guide for the community’s land use, redevelopment, housing and infrastructure planning through this planning period. The City acknowledges that the community relies on this Plan to understand where and how things may change and evolve in Brooklyn Center over the next decade, and where things are projected to stay the same. This Plan is intended to clearly describe to potential developers where the City is interested in redevelopment, and how those areas can be reimagined to redefine the image of Brooklyn Center for future generations. While this Plan makes every effort to lay out a path forward for the next 20 years, it is also intended to be a living document that should be reviewed, updated, and changed when necessary. CHAPTER 2: Vision, Goals & Strategies INTERSTATE 94 H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 63RD AVE N X E R X E S A V E N 69TH AVE N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 INTERSTATE 694 57TH AVE N B R O O K L Y N B L V D D U P O N T A V E N 58TH AVE N S H I N G L E C R E E K P K W Y H U M B O L D T A V E N J U N E A V E N B R Y A N T A V E N F R A N C E A V E N L Y N D A L E A V E N 65TH AVE N COUNTY ROAD 10 FREEWAY BLVD 53RD AVE N H A L I F A X A V E N 7 0 T H A V E N SB HWY252 TO WB I94 S B I 9 4 T O 5 3 R D A V E N N O B L E A V E N WB I94 TO BROOKLYN BLVD 51ST AVE N INTERSTATE 94 53RD AVE N H U M B O L D T A V E N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 F R A N C E A V E N H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 INTERSTATE 694 F R A N C E A V E N BROOKLYN CENTER MINNEAPOLIS CRYSTAL BROOKLYN PARK ROBBINSDALE F01,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 FeetSize of Homesteaded Single Family Homes Finished Square Feet 0 - 1,019 1,019 - 1,196 1,196 - 1,462 1,462 - 1,948 1,948 - 3,323 Comprehensive Plan 2040 VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-1 INTRODUCTION Since the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted Brooklyn Center has experienced significant changes in nearly all aspects of the community. Once known as the “City with Brookdale Mall” the loss of the regional retail destination left a large area of underutilized and vacant land at the core of the community. Suddenly Brooklyn Center’s residents were left without a firm identity as the heart of the City no longer pulsed with the vibrancy it had for so many decades before. No one could have predicted how significantly and quickly retail trends would change, and how the rise of e-commerce and experience-based retail would result in less demand for physical bricks and mortar storefronts and large-scale malls. The swift change left Brooklyn Center in a state of flux, leaving a large area of the community ripe for redevelopment…but what would it become? The loss of the regional retail destination had a significant impact on Brooklyn Center, but it is not the only change happening in the community. Over the past decade the City has become the most diverse community in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Brooklyn Center’s location in the region has made it a highly desirable place for new families to locate, and the population is younger with more families and kids than in the county and neighboring cities. The City has remained one of the most affordable and accessible places to live in the metro area, despite skyrocketing real estate prices in the region. All of these factors impact the City. They play a role in how the community thinks about what types of retailers, offices, services, houses, transit, and parks, trails and open spaces are needed to support the current and changing demographics of the community. The evolving dynamics of Brooklyn Center reveal an opportunity for the City to plan for its future and to capitalize on its strengths. This Chapter is intended to serve as a guide for the City through this planning period. It includes a vision for the City’s future as adopted and established through previous planning efforts and is further refined and supported through a set of goals and strategies for each topic area contained within this Comprehensive Plan (Plan). Sprinkled throughout subsequent chapters of this Plan goals are restated in call-out boxes to correlate how specific sections support the goal statements as a reminder of the community’s aspirations. This Chapter serves as the roadmap for this planning period, and it is intended to help residents, stakeholders, business owners, and policy-makers bring the City’s plan to fruition. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-2 BROOKLYN CENTER VISION 2040 The City of Brooklyn Center’s policy makers and leadership have engaged in several visioning and strategic planning initiatives over the past few years. The various efforts resulted in the development of a Vision and Mission Statement for the community, as well as a set of short- term Strategic Priorities. Rather than recreate the wheel, this Plan process validated that the Vision and Mission Statements continue to reflect the aspirations of the community. The adopted Strategic Priorities correlate to various components of this Plan and are highlighted and integrated into the relevant section of this Chapter. The purpose of restating the Strategic Priorities, even though they may be short-term, is to show how they are supported and enhanced by the goals and strategies developed through this process. It became clear through various meetings and public engagement events that the City’s efforts to establish a Vision and Mission Statement were successful, and that these statements continue to reflect the aspirations of the community. The City’s adopted Vision and Mission statements are restated below and serve as guide for this Plan. Vision Statement “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.” Mission Statement “The mission of the City of Brooklyn Center is to ensure an attractive, clean, safe, and inclusive community that enhances the quality of life for all people and preserves the public trust.” VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-3 GOALS & STRATEGIES The Vision and Mission Statements provide the framework and high-level direction from which supporting goals, strategies and policies can be derived to help bring this Plan to fruition. Having a clear Vision and Mission Statement was invaluable to this planning process because it allowed the effort to focus on developing a set of core goals and strategies that would support the Vision for the City’s future. The City assigned the Planning Commission as the Plan’s primary working group, and the Planning Commission was responsible for establishing a set of goals and strategies from which subsequent chapters of this Plan were derived. The first step in establishing a set of draft goals was a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) exercise that required the Planning Commission to identify what specific characteristics and qualities of the community they hoped would either be addressed, maintained or enhanced. The Planning Commission was then asked to prioritize their SWOT exercise to determine which characteristics and qualities rose to the level of aspirations and goals for this Plan. The results of the SWOT and prioritization were then turned into goal statements using specific action-oriented works with a defined meaning. The draft goal statements became the foundation of the Planning Commission’s discussion that addressed topics such as Community Identity and Character, Land Use and Redevelopment, Housing, Transportation, and Infrastructure. The goal statements and themes became the foundation from which feedback and information were collected throughout the Plan planning process. These topics were used to structure and guide focused discussions with other city commissions, city staff, on-line surveys, and at public events. After collecting feedback through public engagement efforts and working with the Planning Commission and city staff, a set of supporting strategies were developed based on the input received. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-4 The following goals and strategies are a culmination and synthesis of information collected through the various efforts to engage the public, the Planning Commission, other city commissions, policy-makers and staff. This Chapter is the core of the Plan and establishes the priorities and initiatives the City has identified as essential during this planning period. Given the importance of this Chapter to the Plan, it is critical that definitions for certain terms and words are universally understood by the user of this Plan. For purposes of this document, the following definition of a goal and a strategy are provided: Goal A general statement of community aspirations and desired objectives indicating broad social, economic, or physical conditions to which the community officially agrees to try to achieve in various ways, one of which is the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Strategy An officially adopted course of action or position to implement the community goals. In addition to properly defining a “Goal” and a “Strategy”, the definition of the action word contained within the goal and strategy statements must also hold a common definition that assigns various roles, commitments, and responsibilities to the City. A glossary of these terms is found in Appendix B of this Plan. The ‘action’ words used in the following goal and strategy statements are assigned the following levels of financial commitment: No commitment of financial investment, staff resources & policy directives May include financial investment, staff resources & policy directives Commitment to financial investment (if needed), staff resources & policy directives Continue Endorse Reserve Recognize Promote Work Create Encourage Enhance Explore Maintain Identify Protect Provide Strengthen Support Sustain VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-5 The following goals and strategies are categorized by topic area, and generally correspond to the individual Chapters that are contained within this Plan. Preceding the goals and strategies, if applicable, are the City’s adopted short-term Strategic Priorities. While these statements are identified as ‘short-term’ in many cases the priority is relevant and applicable to the long-term goal and strategy statements. Each Chapter should support, build upon, and incorporate these goals and strategies into the Plan component and develop implementation steps that will help achieve the goals and strategies as identified. The intent of these statements is to provide a roadmap for development in the City; to be aspirational; and to create a framework for policy- makers, commissions, city staff, developers, landowners, businesses and residents. Intergovernmental & Community Relationship Goals Adopted Strategic Priority: Inclusive Community Engagement “In order to provide effective and appropriate services, we must clearly understand and respond to community needs.  We will consistently seek input from a broad range of stakeholders from the general public, non-profit, and for-profit sectors. Efforts to engage the community will be transparent, responsive, deliberately inclusive, and culturally sensitive.” Intergovernmental & Community Relationship Goal 1: Identify opportunities to improve communication and engagement with the community’s residents, business owners and stakeholders. Strategies • Recognize that the City’s demographics are changing quickly, and it is important to adapt and change engagement and communication methods on a regular basis to meet the needs of residents and business owners. • Work to maintain the City’s communication materials in a variety of platforms with various languages that match the cultural needs of the community. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-6 Intergovernmental & Community Relationship Goal 2: Strengthen opportunities to collaborate with adjacent municipalities, agencies and the County on planning, marketing, transportation and infrastructure initiatives that may impact the City. Strategies • Recognize the importance of the City’s participation within the region and the importance of planning across borders (i.e. regional transit and bikeway planning, economic development, access to job centers, etc.) • Encourage City staff to work with staff members in adjacent communities to identify opportunities to coordinate efforts that are mutually beneficial. Intergovernmental & Community Relationship Goal 3: Explore ways to collaborate with the school districts, non-profits and the for-profit sectors to engage the City’s youth so that they are invested in the community. Strategies • Strengthen the City’s relationship with the schools to better understand the needs of the youth in the community (i.e. better access to jobs, transit, bikeways, etc.) • Explore opportunities to involve the City’s youth on advisory boards, in planning initiatives and on other engagement events to encourage their participation and feedback to help shape the future of the City. • Create a consistent presence of the City and its available opportunities, services and facilities in local schools, community gathering spaces and areas where Brooklyn Center’s youth congregate. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-7 Land Use & Redevelopment Goals Adopted Strategic Priority: Targeted Redevelopment “Redeveloping properties to the highest value and best use will accomplish our goals regarding housing, job creation, and growth of the City’s tax base.  We will appropriately prepare sites and provide the necessary supporting infrastructure investments to guide redevelopment of publicly- and privately-owned properties.” Land Use & Redevelopment Goal 1: Support the Future Land Use Plan through the update or creation of relevant and market-based small area plans, redevelopment plans, and the zoning ordinance. Strategies • Identify and prioritize key redevelopment areas and develop a work plan and potential schedule/timeline for each area. • Provide staff and consultant resources to prepare a comprehensive update to the City’s zoning ordinance to support the Planned Land Uses. • Protect the Future Land Use Plan through development of clear, concise and descriptive policy documents and initiatives that support the City’s long-term vision. Land Use & Redevelopment Goal 2: Continue to support a proactive, integrated approach to redevelopment that clearly defines the City’s objectives for specific areas and sites within the community. Strategies • Strengthen the City’s vision for key redevelopment areas through preparation of master plans and small area studies to ensure thoughtful and responsive development. • Encourage developers, staff, and stakeholders to think-big and creatively about redevelopment to create an interesting, vibrant, and innovative city center and surrounding neighborhoods. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-8 • Support and encourage development concepts that incorporate flexibility for space and programming that could be used for start-ups, small companies, pop-ups, and local markets that provide opportunities to promote the City’s diverse residents. • Explore opportunities to increase the mix of uses on the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor, increasing densities, identifying key nodes for the concentration of commercial uses and providing opportunities for new housing types. Land Use & Redevelopment Goal 3: Strengthen opportunities for high-quality redevelopment through establishing clear planning and regulatory documents. Strategies • Provide clear ordinances that permit uses consistent with the City’s vision and minimize the number of uses required to obtain special or conditional use permits. • Create new zoning and overlay districts that are concise, directive and use graphics (pictures and/or diagrams) to explain the City’s requirements. • Explore opportunities to streamline the development process and utilize Brooklyn Center’s customer focus and nimble approach as a competitive advantage. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-9 Land Use & Redevelopment Goal 4: Enhance and maintain existing neighborhoods through proper land use designations and clear supportive zoning that makes reinvestment and rehabilitation easy for residents. Strategies • Create and maintain a cheat-sheet for residents that explains in plain language the permitting and regulatory process. Provide this in multiple languages. • Explore opportunities to engage and communicate with residents to learn about their needs and identify ways the City may help, either through education, information, or direct assistance. • Create a policy and ordinance that describes expectations for home- based businesses and establishes a permitting process to ensure compatibility with existing single-family uses. • Explore opportunities to utilize technology to make it easier and more convenient for residents to interact with the City. • Create zoning regulations that reflect the demands of the current single-family housing market. k k k 75th S a i n t A n t h o n y L o g a n 56th 58th 70th 76th A l d r i c h 6 6 t h 73rd 694 44th 694 61st L i l a c J o h n M a r t i n H a l i f a x Mumford Y o r k 4 0 t h B r o o k l y n B e a r d R a m p P a l m e r L a k e Parkway Freeway Q uail Summit 1 0 0 48t h Nash R a m p64th U n i t y 47th Ohenry R a m p 51st R a m p H a l i f a x 4 0 t h F r e m o n t 65th D r e w L e e M a j o r N o b l e F r a n c e R a m p 70th R a m p 53rd R a m p L a k e 1 0 0 1 0 0 R a m p 53rd T o l e d o 7 0 t h V e r a C r u z 54th R a m p W e l c o m e S c o t t B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r S h i n g l e C r e e k S h i n g l e C r e e k 94 94 71st X e n i a A b b o t t 47th Unity L i l a c R a m p R a m p O l i v e r J a m e s K n o x I r v i n g 49th 7 4 t h C a m d e n T o l e d o 4 t h 52nd 4 t h N o b l e 40th Wilshire K n o x R a m p 65th O r c h a r d M o r g a n 5 t h V e r a C r u z H u m b o l d t 42nd Thurber 2 5 2 Q u a i l 41st 44th U p t o n W a s h b u r n Y o r k F r a n c e 67th V i n c e n t 58th Z e n i t h B e a r d W i l l o w S a il o r A b b o t t R a m p Meadowwood K y l e Q u a i l 61st 70th 6 7 t h 46th 67th 52nd S h e r i d a n 39th A l d ri c h U n i t y M o r g a n 7 6 t h R u s s e l l 41st 67th S h i n g l e C r e e k Lakebreeze 58th 42nd 57th 63rd Oliver 4 0 t h 7 1 s t X e r x e s R i v e r d a l e Paul 60th Q u e e n U p t o n 55th R o b b i n s 4 1 s t 59th 73rd L e e 41st L i l a c 8 1 50th W a s h i n g t o n I n d i a n a B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r C h o w e n T w i n O a k 44 t h H u m b o l d t 10 L e e Fre mont 39th R a m p Grimes B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r 40th 39th F r e m o n t G r i m e s Orchard 40th 50th 74th 5 6 t h R a m p W e l c o m e 75th 57th R o b i n Ramp 69th E w i n g 57th 56th R a m p ScottScott Howe L a k e l a n d D r e w R a ilr o a d P e r r y 68th R e g e n t R a m p 59th 10 F r a n c e D u s h a r m e S c o t t C o l f a x 46th 5 5 t h N e w t o n Logan Wilshire E m e r s o n F r e m o n t 46th V e r a C r u z 57th 9 4 Eckberg P e n n 4 3 r d PalmerLake X e rx e s R e g e n t V e r a C r u z H a l i f a x 4 0 1 /2 Ele anor R a m p Ramp 4 5 t h F r e m o n t T o l e d o 73rd Q u a i l W ebber R e g e n t 69th H ills vie w Commodo re 6 7 t h 3 9 1 /2 D u p o n t R a m p B e a r d 71st Lakebreeze T o l e d o E w i n g R a m p V i n c e n t Ma dalyn 67th F r a n c e 59 1/2 Woo dbine Mildred 68th 4 9 1 /2 S h o r e s A l d r i c h Ramp 50th Ele anor 68th 60th 72nd B r y a n t D r e w 50th 61st G i r a r d V i o l e t 56th C a m d e n 51st 73rd 57th A d m i r a l A l d r i c h 73r d E m e r s o n 59th 39th 62nd Y o r k A l d r i c h 42nd 68th W e l c o m e L i l a c 66th Fa irv ie w 70th N o b l e G r i m e s S c o t t J u n e 44th Woodbine L a k e 40th W e s t R i v e r R i v e r d a l e 41st 52nd R a m p 4 t h 72nd 50th A b b o tt 43rd Q u a i l Urban 41st 65th Q u a i l 65th 45t h 41st W i l l o w 54th 41st 5 3 r d 64th 43rd 70th 47th 51st 8 1 Dowlin g 71st K y l e 68th W e l c o m e 62nd 70th 7 2 n d 72nd L a k e 46 1/2 57th 67th B r o o k v i e w 53rd 56th 72nd 45th 51st 72nd 52nd 46th 54th 68th A l d r i c h 52nd 61st 39th N e w t o n 42nd 40th 58 1/2 71st 60th 46th 60th H u m b o l d t R a m p F r e m o n t 66th 50th 64th 56th R a m p B e a r d I n d i a n a 38th D u p o n t 48th X e r x e s 38th H a l i f a x F r a n c e 10Ramp 74th S hin gle C re e k X e r x e s 39 1/2 L i l a c 4 2 1 /2 B r o o k l y n 38th R a m p E w i n g A b b o t t 4 3 r dToledo 65th C a m d e n Olive r 67th 40 1/2 R a m p Z e n i t h 47th 45th 46th 70th 66th U p t o n 42 1/2 C h o w e n R a m p G r i m e s M a j o r U n i t y A z e l i a 75th P e r r y S c o t t G r i m e s L a k e l a n d 7 0 t h A b b o t t R a m p Q u e e n Ald rich S h e r i d a n I m p e ri a l R a m p L a k e l a n d Brooklyn 74th M a j o r 6 5 t h Lakeside R u s s e l l W a s h b u r n P e n n O l i v e r OsseoRoadFrontage P a r k e r B r o o k l y n P e r r y 50th A d m i r a l D r e w X e n i a N o b l e O r c h a r d P e n nRussell Q uail P e r r y E w i n g 53rd 74th F r a n c e I n d i a n a T o l e d o T o l e d o D r e w T w i n L a k e U n i t y R a m p H u b b a rd R a m p V i c t o r y K y l e H u b b a r d S h orelin e 43rd 76th H u m b o l d t Ramp F a i r f i e l d U n i t y M a j o r 70th Robin B r y a n t 73rd 74th 74th 71st E m e r s o n P e r r y L o g a n R a m p 69th M a j o r B r y a n t C o l f a x X e r x e s D a l l a s Q u e e n 74th H u m b o l d t 7 3 r d P e r r y R a m p Ramp 73rd 69th 5 5 t h N o r t h p o r t T h o m a s R a m p B e a r d Bellv ue Ponds James 49th R a m p I n d i a n a 47th L i l a c R a m p I n d i a n a 73rd 7 1 s t 49th 74th 6 t h Irving J a m e s Brooklyn U n i t y 7 3 r d R a m p X e n i a A l d r i c h E r i c o n P e r r y R a ilr o a d Q u a i l Y o r k R a m p H alif a x 67th T o l e d o S h a r i A n n L e e N o b l e L a k e l a n d G i r a r d X e r x e s E w i n g S c o t t U p t o n P e r r y F r e m o n t P e r r y P e n n K n o x M i s s i s s i p p i K n o x 72nd R u s s e l l Q u a i l M a j o r S c o t t R e g e n t K a t h r e n e Angel i ne O l i v e r C o l f a x 6 t h A l d r i c h C o l f a x 4 t h K y l e J a m e s G r i m e s G i r a r d C h o w e n O r c h a r d O r c h a r d E m e r s o n U n i t y I r v i n g L o g a n Q u a i l H a l i f a x P e r r y A l d r i c h N e w t o n L y n d a l e A l d r i c h O l i v e r M o r g a n B r y a n t Winc hes ter K n o x X e r x e s 66th M o r g a n V i n c e n t E w i n g Q u a i l M a j o r L o g a n W a s h b u r n M a j o r N e w t o n X e r x e s T h o m a s S h e r i d a nDrew Q u a i l T o l e d o O r c h a r d G r e a t V i e w E m il i e H u m b o l d t R i v e r w o o d E w i n g C a m d e n R e g e n t C o l f a x J u n e C o l f a x R e g e n t X e nia 4 t h 48th B e a r d L a k e l a n d U n i t y L a k e s i d e L a k e C u r v e I r v i n g 5 4t h J o s e p h i n e W e l c o m e B e a r d A b b o t t 47thByron G r i m e s H u m b o l d t C r y s t a l L a k e D u p o n t L e e N o rt hw a y F r a n c e 45th R u s s e l l W a s h b u r n V i n c e n t U p t o n Q u e e n S h e r i d a n 53rd L a k e vie w T h o m a s P e n n F r e m o n t I s l e m o u n t Lakeland O l i v e r N e w t o n L o g a n M o r g a n M o r g a n K n o x J a m e s I r v i n g 6 6 t h E m e r s o n G i r a r d S o o 57th C h o w e n Bernard Corvallis 48th Poe P e n n U n i t y 56th Z e n i t hDrew U p t o n C h o w e n Burq uest S c o t t O r c h a r d R i v e r d a l e Boulder 62nd 46th Y o r k C a m d e n Lilac L akela n d G i r a r d G i r a r d J u d y 51st O s s e o Oak H a l i f a x R a m p P e r r y Q u a i l B r o o k l y n M a r l i n L e e Lawrence Northway G r i m e s E a r l e B r o w n R a m p Abbott D a l l a s Amy 72nd Woodbine 51st 6 3 r d 9 4 B r o o k l y n O r c h a r d J u n e I n d i a n a D r e w B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d F r o n t a g e P e r r y Q u a i l R e g e n t 1 s t H a l i f a x V i n c e n t C a m d e n 68th 4 t h E w i n g E m e r s o n R a m p L i l a c 74 1/2 R a m p R e g e n t N o b l e M o r g a n G i r a r d R a m p V e r a C r u z J a m e s L akela n d 3 7 t h L e e L y n d a l e L y n d a l e 67thRamp Joyce Janet D r e w E a s t L y n d a l e 62nd 66th Quarles J a m e s R a m p R a m p Winches ter R a m p R a m p 72nd R a m p Woodbine 9 4 T w i n L a k e R a m p P e a r s o n L i l a c V i c t o r y M e m o r i a l R am p 2 5 2 S c o t t Pa lme r T w i n Ryan T w i n C r y s t a l M i s s i s s i p p i T w i n Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park B r o o k l y n C e n t e r B r o o k l y n P a r k B r o o k l y n C e n t e r C r y s t a l B r o o k l y n C e n t e r F r i d l e y Brooklyn Center Minneapolis B r o o k l y n P a r k F r i d l e y C r y s t a l R o b b i n s d a l e F r i d l e y M i n n e a p o l i s R o b b i n s d a l e M i n n e a p o l i s 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 FeetF Land Use Design ation s 204 0 Planned Land Use LDR (3.01-5 DU/Ac.) MDR (5.01-15 DU/Ac.) HDR (15.01-31 DU/Ac.) C TOD (31.01-130 DU/Ac.) N-MU (15.01-31 DU/Ac.) C-MU (10.01-25 DU/Ac.) B-MU Industrial/Utility oo o Airport PSP/Institutional Parks, Recreation, Open Space RO W RR ROW k Planned C-Li ne Transit Stops 94 94 252 100 100 152 152 Potential Area of Change 1/4-mile VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-10 Land Use & Redevelopment Goal 5: Recognize that many areas in the community are aging and may require reinvestment, redevelopment, or reimagining and that all scales and sizes of opportunity have merit to further support the community’s future. Strategies • Explore opportunities to create neighborhood nodes that are integrated and support the needs of residents and encourage a more walkable community. • Identify opportunities and tools (that may include financial resources) that assist residents with regular maintenance, upkeep, and/or remodeling so that their homes meet their needs and are places they want to stay and contribute to a more stable neighborhood. • Continue to evaluate how redevelopment can further enhance and support the sustainability of individual properties, neighborhoods and the larger community. Land Use & Redevelopment Goal 6: Provide clear direction to developers, property owners, and residents about the City’s desires for each redevelopment area through this Plan, as well as small area studies, master plans and the zoning ordinance. Strategies • Support redevelopment initiatives through a coordinated Request for Proposal (RFP) process to solicit interest and responses from developers for city-owned properties. • Promote the City’s vision for each redevelopment area through various means including on-line, print, and media. • Explore opportunities to encourage redevelopment through site assembly, master planning, pre-development, and land preparation. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-11 Land Use & Redevelopment Goal 7: Explore opportunities to create unified branding, connections, and visual cues to reinforce Brooklyn Center’s identity and relationship to existing neighborhoods. Strategies • Create a city-wide beautification strategy that includes a process for creating community identity and pride through the use of public art. • Work to develop a comprehensive list of design guidelines for residents, developers and stakeholders that provide a menu of Brooklyn Center “branding’ elements that can be incorporated into new and existing developments and neighborhoods. • Strengthen the City’s commitment to its designation as a Tree City USA by incorporating more trees and landscaping at the City’s main gateways and entrances. • Encourage residents, developers, and other stakeholders to use city authorized branding elements in marketing materials, streetscape improvements, and design elements. • Identify key pedestrian, bikeway, auto and transit corridors that should incorporate consistent branding elements and landscape themes. • Promote Brooklyn Center’s diversity through the development of flexible spaces, opportunities for pop-ups and other small business incubators. Land Use & Redevelopment Goal 8: Enhance the City’s economic position in the region through easy to navigate processes and creative land use designations. Strategies • Explore ways to improve the City’s ordinances so that the entitlement process is clear and easy to navigate. • Identify opportunities throughout the region to promote the City’s redevelopment areas as a great place for new businesses to locate (i.e. DEED, Hennepin County Business Associations, Chamber of Commerce, etc.) VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-12 Housing & Neighborhood Goals Adopted Strategic Priority: Safe, Secure, and Stable Community “For residents and visitors to fully appreciate and enjoy a great quality of life, it is essential that all neighborhoods are safe, secure, and stable.  We will assure compliance with neighborhood condition and building safety standards, provide proactive and responsive public safety protection, wise stewardship of City resources and policies that promote safety, security, and a lasting stable environment.” Housing & Neighborhood Goal 1: Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and accessible housing options to all of Brooklyn Center’s residents. Strategies • Protect existing naturally occurring affordable housing options within the City through supportive land use designations and associated policies. • Explore opportunities within multi-family redevelopment areas to include market-rate and affordable housing options within each project. • Strengthen existing neighborhoods through focused efforts to assist with maintenance and preservation of the housing stock. • Continue to enforce the rental licensing program and update and refine applicable ordinances and processes to ensure the program supports the needs of local residents. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-13 Housing & Neighborhood Goal 2: Identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing with the City’s changing demographics. Strategies • Identify and inventory the City’s existing rental housing stock to understand the rental unit-mix and unit-type to determine where gaps in the supply exist. • Work to incorporate increased diversity of units within new redevelopment areas from micro-apartments to three- and four- bedroom units. • Encourage property owners to reinvest in existing properties to maintain owner-occupied and renter-occupied units to create a more sustainable and stable housing stock. • Strengthen outreach efforts to understand what housing needs exist for current and prospective Brooklyn Center residents. Housing & Neighborhood Goal 3: Explore opportunities to improve the City’s housing policies and ordinances to make them more responsive to current and future residents. Strategies • Identify and review existing housing policies to ensure that they support the needs of current Brooklyn Center residents. • Work with existing owners and renters to understand what challenges exist within current permitting and regulatory processes. • Enhance existing strategies and policies to better meet the needs of current and prospective residents. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-14 Housing & Neighborhood Goal 4: Maintain the existing housing stock in primarily single-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentive programs and enforcement. Strategies • Protect existing neighborhoods through the refinement of existing ordinances to ensure compatible uses are permitted, or conditionally permitted. • Work with existing homeowners and renters to understand current challenges within existing neighborhoods. • Endorse the update of existing ordinances and regulations to match and address the challenges identified by residents to make neighborhoods more accessible, stable and sustainable long-term Housing & Neighborhood Goal 5: Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas that promote safe, secure and economically diverse neighborhoods. Strategies • Recognize the importance of incorporating and integrating protected affordable housing in new projects. • Encourage developers to incorporate protected affordable housing units within projects through establishing incentives such as density bonuses or other tools. • Strengthen existing policies to promote the diversity of housing choices within a single project, and throughout all redevelopment areas. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-15 Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability Goals Adopted Strategic Priority: Enhanced Community Image “Our ability to attract and retain residents and businesses is influenced by the perception of the City. We will take specific actions to assure that Brooklyn Center is recognized by residents, businesses, stakeholders, and visitors as a high quality, attractive, and safe community.” Adopted Strategic Priority: Resident Economic Stability “The economic stability of residents is essential to vibrant neighborhoods and to retail, restaurant, and business growth.  We will lead by supporting collaborative efforts of education, business, and government sectors to improve income opportunities for residents.” Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability Goal 1: Promote Brooklyn Center as an exceptional place for businesses, visitors and residents, both existing and new, because of its locational advantage and accessibility within the region. Strategies • Continue to refine and enhance the City’s recent print and online rebranding efforts. • Strengthen the City’s identity through proactive communications that reach the larger region (e.g. develop marketing collateral to send to DEED, professional associations, press releases, etc.) • Support the development of a task force or working group of community stakeholders to provide on-going perspectives and feedback to improve and help guide the City’s marketing and branding initiatives. • Encourage further enhancement of the public realm through the development of a public art and beautification master plan with Forecast for Public Art that reflects the community, its residents and businesses. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-16 Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability Goal 2: Support the development of sustainable, resilient, and accessible neighborhoods in the city center that reinforce the City’s commitment to its diverse residents, neighborhoods, and businesses. Strategies • Promote redevelopment of the former regional retail center city site as a Transit Oriented Development site that plans for a mix of uses including diverse housing types. • Create a walkable and connected street, sidewalk and bikeway system throughout the city center that connects to surrounding neighborhoods. • Recognize the limitations of existing structures and land uses and allow for the reimagining and intensification of uses to further development of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) city center. • Encourage developers to incorporate innovative and sustainable site design elements that reintroduces and reestablishes green space in the city center and adjacent redevelopment areas. • Identify opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure into existing and redevelopment areas in all types of development. • Provide incentives for redevelopment that incorporates housing at all levels of affordability from affordable to high-end market rate units, within a single project when feasible. • Promote the city center as a community gathering space with pop-up shops, open air markets, and flexible space to support local businesses. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-17 Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability Goal 3: Explore meaningful ways to represent the community’s diversity through the City’s branding, marketing and visual communications. Strategies • Enhance City issued and sponsored communications by providing materials translated in multiple languages that are tailored to Brooklyn Center’s population. • Create a working group or task force with diverse representation to provide feedback and suggestions on major branding and marketing efforts. • Identify key marketing and branding initiatives, particularly of redevelopment areas, and engage Brooklyn Center’s residents and business owners on-line to solicit feedback early and often throughout development projects. Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability Goal 4: Encourage and promote reinvestment in the City’s infrastructure including roadways, streetscapes, trails and utilities to signal Brooklyn Center’s commitment to the long-term success of its residents and businesses. Strategies • Maintain the City’s existing infrastructure through appropriate budgeting through the City’s Capital Improvement Plan process. • Identity areas that could be revitalized through targeted infrastructure reinvestment and include relevant inventory and analysis in applicable small area plans, redevelopment studies, etc. • Work to develop a comprehensive wayfinding and signage system for bikeways and trails throughout the City. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-18 Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability Goal 5: Recognize the opportunity and value of Brooklyn Center’s changing demographics and entrepreneurial attitudes to create an identity that embraces diversity as part of the City’s future. Strategies • Work to understand the needs of Brooklyn Center’s population for office, commercial, restaurant, retail and multi-use spaces. • Identify opportunities within redevelopment areas that could fulfill the needs of Brooklyn Center’s entrepreneurs and small business owners. Parks, Trails, & Open Space Goals Parks, Trails, & Open Space Goal 1: Provide a park and recreation system that is based on the needs of the City’s residents and stakeholders. Strategies • Enhance and maintain a mix of facilities throughout the City’s park and recreation system that is accessible to all ages and abilities. • Identify gaps within the City’s system and plan for improvements to match resident and stakeholder needs. • Utilize the positive relationship between the City and Three Rivers Parks District to continue to improve the vibrant regional park and trail system. • Explore opportunities to partner with local school districts and the private sector to improve, and in some areas complete, the park and recreation system. • Support the continued use of citizen surveys and interviews to understand the effectiveness of existing facilities and, programs and system deficiencies. • Maintain the system through prioritizing the highest-priority improvements which are those that address health or safety concerns, reduce maintenance costs, or address overall system deficiencies. • Maintain and improve the system on a regular and continuous basis through the operating budget and the Capital Improvements Program to avoid deferred maintenance of the system. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-19 Parks, Trails, & Open Space Goal 2: Encourage residents and stakeholders to participate in the park and recreation system planning process. Strategies • Continue to utilize a City Council appointed citizen Park and Recreation Commission that advises the Council on the park system and environmental planning initiatives in the community. • Encourage neighborhood groups to participate in the planning of all major park improvements. Parks, Trails, & Open Space Goal 3: Explore ways to incorporate design and preservation standards into the City’s ordinances and policies to improve and maintain a high-quality system. Strategies • Continue to explore ways to incorporate and plan for innovative park and recreation development as the system is maintained or expanded. • Maintain a classification system for the parks, trails and open spaces in the community to match needs and programming with appropriate park typologies. • Continue to design system improvements that balance function and aesthetics with the conservation of natural resource areas. • Protect surface water resources in parks, such as wetlands, for habitat and wildlife corridors where appropriate. • Explore ways to re-vegetate the opens space areas owned by the City where active recreational improvements have not been planned. • Encourage creative park design to develop a dynamic and diverse system. • Identify ways to use park design as a neighborhood improvement theme, or as a way to complement redevelopment. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-20 Parks, Trails, & Open Space Goal 4: Support efforts to maximize the use and accessibility of the system by local residents. • Identify ways to improve access to, signage for, and information about Central Park to drive increased awareness about the facility. • Create a connected system through bicycle/pedestrian trails and a collector sidewalk system to ensure the accessibility of the City’s parks. Volunteers and service organizations in the community will be afforded opportunities for service in the development and maintenance of the park and recreation system. • Promote the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area and its park as an opportunity for further development and use in the community. • Provide an identification system of all park areas, facilities and programs that is consistent, functional and creative. • Identify locations to install signage, kiosks, and other forms of communication that establish an identity for the system and provides information about the system to the user. • There will be an ongoing information and education process to make residents knowledgeable about and aware of park and recreation facilities and programs. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-21 Transportation, Transit, Bikeways & Walkability Goals Adopted Strategic Priority: Key Transportation Investments “Proactively maintaining an efficient and effective infrastructure will meet the high level of community expectations.  We will plan for and invest in critical infrastructure improvements that enhance safety, improve life quality, and support opportunities for redevelopment, while sustaining the natural environment.”   Transportation, Transit, Bikeways & Walkability Goal 1: Provide a safe network of roadways, bikeways and pedestrian ways that connect residents in the City and to the larger region. Strategies • Continue to budget for needed improvements to the City’s transportation network through the Capital Improvement Plan process. • Support new roadway designs in redevelopment areas that incorporate bikeways and pedestrian ways, and that visually connect to transit stops and stations. • Work to understand the transportation needs of the City’s residents and match scheduled improvements to help fill identified gaps. • Create a plan to work with Metro Transit on a more balanced and equitable transit market area that matches the needs of residents. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-22 Transportation, Transit, Bikeways & Walkability Goal 2: Encourage residents to chose alternate transportation modes (other than automobile) by enhancing access to bikeways, transit, and pedestrian networks. Strategies • Enhance existing ordinances, and incorporate requirements into new zoning districts that make pedestrian and bike access more efficient (e.g. bike parking requirements, awnings, pedestrian shelters, etc.) • Work with Metro Transit to identity potential improvements to the transit station, bus stops and bus shelters that could improve the rider experience. • Explore ways to improve wayfinding through visual cues to make bike routes, walkways, and transit stops clearer to users. Transportation, Transit, Bikeways & Walkability Goal 3: Support the City’s commitment to creating a Complete Street Network in existing and redevelopment areas. Strategies • Identify opportunities to connect the existing bikeway and pedestrian network through redevelopment areas and a condition of development approval to incorporate prioritized connections. • Work to update necessary ordinances or policies within the City’s zoning ordinance and other official controls to support the development of a Complete Street Network. VISION, GOALS & STRATEGIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2-23 Infrastructure & Utilities Goals Infrastructure & Utilities Goal 1: Provide adequate infrastructure including sewer, water, and facilities to serve existing residents and redevelopment areas. Strategies • Support redevelopment consistent with the Future Land Use Plan, Transportation and Transit Plan so that infrastructure is appropriately sized and planned for based on anticipated development patterns. • Sustain current city staff’s efforts to plan for and study needed improvements, as well as staying current with best practices and innovation. Infrastructure & Utilities Goal 2: Maintain the level of city services to existing neighborhoods and plan for improvements through appropriate capital expenditures. Strategies • Work with existing neighborhoods and community liaisons to plan for any needed improvements and where applicable, incorporate such improvements in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. • Sustain development patterns consistent with the Future Land Use Plan to ensure appropriately designed and planned infrastructure. Infrastructure & Utilities Goal 3: Support opportunities to create resilience within the City’s infrastructure as redevelopment or reconstruction activities occur. Strategies • Explore and identify opportunities to incorporate best management practices or innovative practices in the city’s ordinances and policies to better respond to natural disasters and environmental degradation. • Strengthen existing infrastructure through incorporating innovative methods for system management and maintenance in conjunction with traditional engineering methodology. This page is blank. CHAPTER 3: Land Use & Redevelopment Comprehensive Plan 2040 LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-1 INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center is at a pivotal time in its history and is faced with the unique opportunity to reimagine and redefine its land use and development patterns for generations to come. For many decades the community’s land use and development was planned around a “core” retail area that served not only the local community but the greater region. Emanating out from the retail center were pockets of multi-family housing that transitioned quickly into single-family neighborhoods. Residents in those neighborhoods were offered the best of both worlds – they were connected to major freeways and highways with efficient routes to job centers - and once they were home they didn’t have to leave because every shop, restaurant or service they could ever need could be found in the bustling city center. Fast forward to the mid-2000s and change began. Slowly, or what may have felt rapid for some residents, the City’s “center” or “core” began to lose its share of the regional retail and service market place. As nearby communities increasingly welcomed new retailers, restaurants and service providers into their developing areas, Brooklyn Center began to see stores closing leading to the eventual end of the Brookdale Mall. While all of these changes were happening in the City’s “core” the change affected nearly 300-acres of the community, or nearly 6% of the City’s total land area. Exacerbating the loss of actual users and businesses was the concurrent loss of identity and image the community had established so many decades ago. This evolution in the City’s land use and development patterns affects the entire community, even if it the truly ‘vacant’ area is found only within its core. The impact can be seen in both multi-family and single-family neighborhoods, in the schools, parks, transportation, and public facilities. At its simplest level it was, and is, the ‘Center’ of the City. Residents, new and old, continue to identify the vacant and underutilized land in the City Center as an important area to ‘get right’, and to revitalize and reinvigorate. The success of this area will influence and impact the surrounding land uses, neighborhoods, and community and lead to a more sustainable and vibrant community long-term. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-2 2040 Land Use & Redevelopment Goals »Support the Future Land Use Plan through the update or creation of relevant and market-based small area plans, redevelopment plans, and the zoning ordinance. »Continue to support a proactive, integrated approach to redevelopment that clearly defines the City’s objectives for specific areas and sites within the community. »Strengthen opportunities for high-quality redevelopment through establishing clear planning and regulatory documents. »Enhance and maintain existing neighborhoods through proper land use designations and clear supportive zoning that makes reinvestment and rehabilitation easy for residents. »Recognize that many areas in the community are aging and may require reinvestment, redevelopment, or reimagining and that all scales and sizes of opportunity have merit to further support the community’s future. »Provide clear direction to developers, property owners, and residents about the City’s desires for each redevelopment area through this 2040 Plan, as well as small area studies, master plans and the zoning ordinance. * Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals & Strategies LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-3 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this Chapter is to establish and guide land use and redevelopment over this planning period. The intent is to create a clear, concise and responsive Future Land Use Plan that describes the City’s aspirations for the future. The specific details of zoning, small area plans, and other details are not contained within this Chapter but instead will be developed as implementation tools to bring this Plan to fruition. Though this Chapter does not describe individual properties or plans for specific areas, it clearly, and descriptively, defines the vision for each land use designation. This definition and policy will serve as the City’s guide or ‘brand’ for the future of its neighborhoods, redevelopment areas, business parks, offices, industrial areas, parks, trails and natural resource areas for the future. This Chapter was prepared with the help of the City’s residents, staff, commissions and policy-makers. It is a reflection and response to feedback and input heard throughout the Plan development process and should be thoughtfully considered and evaluated as redevelopment progresses throughout the community. In the following sections the existing land use, future land use and redevelopment focus areas are described, and corresponding maps are provided. Some of the more substantial changes in this Plan are discussed in subsequent sections to highlight the areas of this Plan that were intentionally updated to better reflect changes in Brooklyn Center, and in some cases to better respond to current and projected market conditions. As with any policy document this Chapter should be reviewed and contemplated often and should be thought of as a living document – it is important to use the Plan so it remains relevant. Changes in Land Use & Redevelopment Chapter from the 2030 Plan As a mostly-developed community much of the City’s existing land use pattern is anticipated to remain the same. The core of existing single-family neighborhoods will be maintained, with changes only projected to occur at specific neighborhood nodes or along edges, where the edges are adjacent to major roadways or other physical characteristics. However, though a large percentage of the City’s land is projected to remain largely unchanged, there are pockets of vacant, underdeveloped and redevelopment areas that are guided for change within this Plan (in a way similar to the 2030 Plan). The “Center City” was guided for change in the 2030 Plan, but this Plan contemplates a more diverse land use pattern and focus on housing in the redeveloping areas – which is different from what was contemplated in the last planning period. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-4 The following summary is provided to identify the substantive changes from the 2030 Plan, and to introduce new concepts: Rethinking the “Core” and Reorganizing Around Access The City has regularly studied and contemplated how to redevelop and reimagine its core hoping to bring back the vitality and vibrancy that once defined the community. Many studies and plans have been completed and those ideas and strategies will continue to be influential as the area redevelops. Building on previous efforts, this Plan introduces the idea of transit and accessibility as an overarching way to organize and guide land uses and redevelopment of the area. Though not a significant shift in thinking at the policy level, it does represent a subtle change in how new land uses and redevelopment might incorporate and respond to accessibility and transit as a central physical and design element in any development or redevelopment plan. Transit and accessibility has always been a consideration of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, but it has not served as a physical organizing feature of the Land Use Plan. Previous efforts simply addressed transit and mode choice such as walking or biking as part of its Transportation Chapter, but current trends suggest that transit and mode choice are one of the principal components of a desirable, amenity rich community. The City has the opportunity to capitalize on this trend given its current transit system and the availability of redevelopment land. The planned transit improvements in the community include the new C-Line Bus Rapid Transit that is scheduled to be operational in 2019, the potential D-Line BRT, coupled with the Opportunity Site, Shingle Creek and nearby redevelopment opportunities. This means the City can emphasize the importance of accessibility potentially resulting in a highly desirable new mixed-use neighborhood – right in the heart of the City. Emphasizing Competitiveness within the Region Through much of this planning process, residents, stakeholders, commissioners and policy makers repeatedly emphasized the desire to regain Brooklyn Center’s competitive edge in the market-place as a desirable and highly accessible community for residents and businesses alike. The desire to become a central player in the region once again and to be recognized as a great place to do business is supported through the City’s efforts within this Land Use Plan to be more flexible within its land use designations. This Chapter emphasizes an integrated land use and development approach to better match current expectations within the market-place for integrated, experience-based places where people can live, work, recreate, socialize and engage all within a compact walkable and interesting place. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-5 Future Land Use Plan – Land Use Designations are Consolidated This Plan consolidates the total number of Future Land Designations, which is intentional and purposeful in an effort to encourage more flexibility within the community. The Future Land Use Plan should be a guide that describes to the residents, business owners, developers and policy-makers the long-term goals and aspirations for land uses and development areas, rather than on a site-by-site basis. Site specific details should be contained in supporting, and consistent, documents such as Small Area Plans, Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and other official controls. This Plan should function at the level of detail that it should – to guide the City’s future land use and development. Future Land Use Plan – New Designations are Added Even though this Plan consolidates the land use designations, it also introduces three new land use designation concepts that are focused on creating mixed-use, vibrant spaces in the community. These new designations are primarily associated with areas planned for redevelopment in the community. The purpose of creating the mixed-use designations is to encourage a more diverse, integrated and interesting land use pattern in the community in all areas – from residential enclaves to industrial parks. Existing Land Use and Future Land Use are Separated Though it may seem minor, separating the Existing Land Use (ELU) from the Future Land Use Plan (FLU) is an important update to this Chapter. Creating this distinction allows the City to monitor and follow its progress over this planning period. The ELU is a snapshot in time, it describes how the City’s land is being used today. It’s not a judgment of what it should be, it’s what is actually happening. The FLU is a representation of what the City hopes for, or what it’s planning for in the future. Because the two maps, and uses, are so different it is important to separate them so that the City can see its progress over time. The ELU in all likelihood, should look more like the FLU in 10-years, and that is a strong visual representation of the success and implementation of this Plan. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-6 Forecasts As described in Chapter 1: Community & Planning Context the City is required to plan for its future land use pattern and development opportunities consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s projections and community designation which is provided for within the 2015 System Statement. The City’s Community Designation is “Urban,” and Thrive MSP 2040 identifies the following Community Role for orderly and efficient land use as: • Plan for forecasted population and household growth at average densities of at least 10 units per acre for new development and redevelopment. Target opportunities for more intensive development near regional transit investments at densities and in a manner articulated in the 2040 Transportation Policy Plan. • Identify areas for redevelopment, particularly areas that are well-served by transportation options and nearby amenities and that contribute to better proximity between jobs and housing. • In collaboration with other regional partners, lead major redevelopment efforts. • Lead detailed land use planning efforts around regional transit stations and other regional investments. • Plan for and program local infrastructure needs (for example, roads, sidewalks, sewer, water, and surface water), including those needed for future growth and to implement the local comprehensive plan. • Recognize opportunities for urban agriculture, and small-scale food production. The Metropolitan Council’s population, household and employment forecasts for the 2040 Plan as shown in the 2015 System Statement are provided in the following table: Table 3-1. Metropolitan Council Forecasts Forecast Year Population Households Employment 2010 30,104 10,756 11,001 2020 31,400 11,300 13,400 2030 33,000 12,300 14,200 2040 35,400 13,300 14,600 Source: 2015 Metropolitan Council System Statement for Brooklyn Center; Employment Forecasts Adjusted per Metropolitan Council May 2019 LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-7 As demonstrated in Table 3-1, the Metropolitan Council projects that the City will add nearly 2,000 new households to the community between 2020 and 2040. This is a significant increase in the number of households, an increase that has not occurred since many of its neighborhoods were initially developed between the 1950s to 1970s. The Metropolitan Council makes its projection based on several factors, but evaluates and considers characteristics such as proximity and location within the region, available land for development and/or redevelopment, current and expected market trends and proximity to transit and planned transit improvements. All of these factors considered collectively make Brooklyn Center a highly desirable place for people to want to locate and move to, provided new housing options become available. A key factor in this equation is the availability of land, and the City has a large, contiguous area of land available known as the “Center City” which is either vacant or underdeveloped which makes it a prime area for redevelopment. As shown and described in subsequent sections, the City is planning for the additional households to primarily located within these redevelopment areas, and if developed occurs at the densities projected and guided within this Plan, the City has the potential to add between 1,890 and 2,850 households by 2040. In the subsequent Future Land Use section of this Chapter specific areas are identified that are planned for and may be available for redevelopment in this planning period. Even though the City is supportive and planning for redevelopment it also possible that some of these areas will not redevelop within this planning period. Additionally, there are known development plans for a portion of the redevelopment areas that would result in an increase in households, but may fall short of the forecast. The calculations in the following sections demonstrate that the majority of forecasted growth is anticipated to occur within the major redevelopment areas guided primarily as Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Commercial Mixed-Use. Some commercial and retail development has occurred in these areas within the last 10-years, and those areas are not likely to redevelop within this planning period. Because of these conditions, the City believes there is likely a range of the number of potential households that could be added, which are generally consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s System Statement forecasts. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-8 EXISTING LAND USE Before the City can plan for its future, it must first understand how the existing land use and development pattern shapes the community. The City has diverse land uses but has a fairly organized land use pattern. The ‘core’ or ‘spine’ of the community west of Highway 100 was the retail core of the City and was once the home of Brookdale Mall, a regional indoor mall that served the northwest metropolitan area. After slow evolution, some new businesses and retailers have emerged, and some redevelopment activities continue to occur in the area. As shown on Map 3-1. Generalized Existing Land Use, these areas continue to be used for retail and service uses, but much of the land is now vacant or underutilized. Transitioning from the core, single-family neighborhoods dominate the residential landscape which are served by integrated public facilities, schools, and parks. Small pockets of multi- family housing can be found in nearly all areas of the community, with some concentration of higher-density found along major roadways surrounding commercial, light industrial and business areas. Generally, the City’s existing land use pattern is reflective of a suburban development pattern that was auto-centric and relied on the retail/service core for many decades. Understanding this pattern is an important part of the plan development process because it provides a foundation and baseline from which the City can plan for a more sustainable, accessible future – it helps to define the places to preserve and protect, and identify areas that have the opportunity to shape the community’s future. The Map 3-1 helps to visually describe where incompatible land uses may exist, and where patterns may benefit from interruption or new uses. Table 3-2 describes the acreages of existing uses and suggests what types of land uses may be deficient or needed over the next planning period. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-9 oooo oo oo 75th 48th L o g a n 1 0 0 47th 56th 58th H a l i f a x Wilshire 70th R a m p 76th A l d r i c h 6 6 t h 73rd T w i n L a k e 694694 61st L i l a c J o h n M a r t i n H a l i f a x Mumford Y o r k 4 0 t h B r o o k l y n B e a r d R a m p P a l m e r L a k e Parkway Freeway Q uail Summit W e s t R i v e r 1 0 0 48th Nash 38th R a m p64th 47th Ohenry R a m p 51st R a m p H a l i f a x 40th F r e m o n t 65th D r e w F r a n c e R a m p 70th R a m p 53rd Dowling R a m p Lake R a m p 53rd 56th 56th R a m p 7 0 t h 1 0 0 36th 57th 54th R a m p 58th S c o t t B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r S h i n g l e C r e e k Shingle Creek 94 94 71st A b b o t t 47th 4 t h Unity L i l a c 38th R a m p R a m p O l i v e r J a m e s K n o x I r v i n g 49th 7 4 t h Y a t e s 3 7 t h C a m d e n T o l e d o 4 t h 52nd 4 t h N o b l e 40th K n o x R a m p 65th 5 t h V e r a C r u z 42nd M a j o r Thurber 2 5 2 Q u a i l 41st 44th U p t o n W a s h b u r n Y o r k F r a n c e 67th V i n c e n t 58th Z e n i t h B e a r d W i l l o w S a il o r A b b o t t R a m p Meadowwood K y l e Q u a i l 61st 70th 67 t h 46th 67th 52nd S h e r i d a n 39th A l d ri c h U n i t y M o r g a n 7 6 t h R u s s e l l 41st 67th Lakeside S h i n g l e C r e e k Lakebreeze 58th 42nd 57th 63rd Oliver 40t h 7 1 s t X e r x e s Paul 60th Q u e e n U p t o n 55th R o b b i n s 4 1 s t Corvallis 59th 41st L i l a c 8 1 74th 50th B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r C h o w e n T w i n O a k 44 th H u m b o l d t 2 n d 10 L e e 3 r d R a m p Grimes B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r 39th F r e m o n t Orchard 40th 50th 74th 56 t h R a m p W e l c o m e 75th V e r a C r u z 57th X e n i a R o b i n Ramp 69th E w i n g 57th R a m p ScottScott R a m p Howe D r e w R a ilr o a d P e r r y R e g e n t 46th 37th R a mp 59th 10 F r a n c e 45th D u s h a r m e S c o t t C o l f a x 46th 3 9 t h 5 5 t h N e w t o n Logan Wilshire F r e m o n t 46th V e r a C r u z 57th 9 4 Eckberg P e n n 43 r d PalmerLake H u m b o l d t X e rx e s V e r a C r u z H a l i f a x Eleanor R a m p C o l f a x 4 5 t h F r e m o n t X e r x e s T o l e d o 73rd Q u a i l Webber R e g e n t Z e n i t h 69th Commodore 6 7 t h D u p o n t R a m p B e a r d 71st Lakebreeze T o l e d o E w i n g Ra m p V i n c e n t Madalyn X e n i a 67th F r a n c e 59 1/2 Woodbine W e l c o m e Mildred 68th 49 1/2 S h o r e s A l d r i c h Ramp 50th Eleanor 68th 60th 72nd B r y a n t D r e w 50th 61st G i r a r d Violet 56th C a m d e n 51st 73r d 57th R a m p A d m i r a l A l d r i c h73rd E m e r s o n 59th 39th 62nd Y o r k A l d r i c h 42nd 68th W e l c o m e L i l a c 66th Fairview 70th N o b l e G r i m e s S c o t t J u n e 44th Woodbine L a k e 40th W e s t R i v e r R i v e r d a l e 41st 37th 52nd 4 t h 72nd 50th 43rd 37th Q u a i l Urban 41st 65th Q u a i l 65th Dowling 45th 41st W i l l o w 54th 41st 53r d 64th 43rd 70th 47th 51st 8 1 71st K y l e 68th W e l c o m e 62nd 37th 70th 7 2 n d72nd L a k e 38th 46 1/2 67th B r o o k v i e w 53rd 56th 72nd 45th 51st 72nd 52nd 46th 54th 68th A l d r i c h 52nd 61st 39th N e w t o n 42nd 40th 58 1/2 71st 60th 46th 60th H u m b o l d t R a m p F r e m o n t 66th 50th 64th 56th R a m p B e a r d I n d i a n a D u p o n t Brooklyn 48th X e r x e s H a l i f a x F r a n c e 37th 10Ramp WestRiver Road 74th S hin gle Cre ek X e r x e s 39 1/2 L i l a c B r o o k l y n Ramp E w i n g A b b o t t 4 3 r dToledo C a m d e n 3 7 t h 4 0 t h 67th 40 1/2 J u n e R a m p Z e n i t h 36th 70th F r a n c e 66th 36th U p t o n 42 1/2 C h o w e n R a m p G r i m e s U n i t y 39th A z e l i a 75th P e r r y S c o t t G r i m e s L a k e l a n d 7 0 t h A b b o t t R a m p Q u e e n Aldrich S h e r i d a n Brooklyn R a m p L a k e l a n d 74th M a j o r 6 5 t h 43rd Lakeside R u s s e l l W a s h b u r n P e n n O l i v e r OsseoRoadFrontage P a r k e r D r e w B r o o kly n P e r r y 50th A d m i r a l D r e w W e l c o m e X e n i a N o b l e O r c h a r d P e n nRussell Quail P e r r y E w i n g 53rd X e n i a Shoreview 74th F r a n c e I n d i a n a T o l e d o S c o t t T o l e d o D r e w U n i t y R a m p M a j o r R a m p H u b b ard V i c t o r y K y l e H u b b a r d S h orelin e 76th H u m b o l d t Ramp U n i t y M a j o r 70th Robin B r y a n t 73rd 74th 74th 71st E m e r s o n P e r r y L o g a n R a m p R e g e n t 69th M a j o r B r y a n t C o l f a x X e r x e s D a l l a s S a i n t A n t h o n y Q u e e n 74th H u m b o l d t P e r r y 73rd 69th 55 th N o r t h p o r t T h o m a s F r a n c e R a m p B e a r d Y a t e s Bellvue Ponds James 49th Ramp L a k e l a n d I n d i a n a 47th L i l a c F r e m o n t R a m p I n d i a n a 73rd 7 1 s t 49th 74th IrvingJames U n i t y VillageCreek 7 3 r d X e n i a M o r g a n E m e r s o n N e w t o n E r i c o n P e r r y R a ilr o a d 65th S c o t t Q u a i l Y o r k R a m p H alif a x T o l e d o S h a r i A n n L e e N o b l e G i r a r d X e r x e s E w i n g S c o t t U p t o n P e r r y F r e m o n t P e r r y P e n n K n o x M i s s i s s i p p i K n o x 72nd 6 t h R u s s e l l Q u a i l M a j o r S c o t t R e g e n t K a t h r e n e Angeline O l i v e r C o l f a x 6 t h A l d r i c h C o l f a x 4 t h K y l e J a m e s G r i m e s G i r a r d C h o w e n O r c h a r d O r c h a r d E m e r s o n N o b l e U n i t y I r v i n g L o g a n L o g a n M a j o r Q u a i l H a l i f a x P e r r y A l d r i c h N e w t o n L e e L y n d a l e A l d r i c h A l d r i c h O l i v e r M o r g a n B r y a n t Winchester K n o x M a r s h a l l K n o x X e r x e s 66th M o r g a n V i n c e n t E w i n g Q u a i l O l i v e r M a j o r L o g a n W a s h b u r n M a j o r N e w t o n X e r x e s T h o m a s S h e r i d a n D r e w Q u a i l T o l e d o O r c h a r d G r e a t V i e w Em i l i e H u m b o l d t R i v e r w o o d E w i n g C a m d e n R e g e n t C o l f a x J u n e C o l f a x T o l e d o R e g e n t X e n i a 4 t h 48th B e a r d L a k e l a n d U n i t y La k e s i d e L a k e C u r v e I r v i n g 54 th W e l c o m e J o s e p h i n e B e a r d A b b o t t 47thByron G r i m e s H u m b o l d t C r y s t a l L a k e L e e N o rt h way F r a n c e 45th R u s s e l l W a s h b u r n V i n c e n t U p t o n Q u e e n S h e r i d a n 53rd L a k e vie w T h o m a s P e n n I s l e m o u n t Lakeland O l i v e r N e w t o n L o g a n M o r g a n M o r g a n K n o x J a m e s I r v i n g 6 6 t h G i r a r d S o o 37th 57th 73 r d C h o w e n Corvallis 48th Poe P e n n U n i t y 56th Z e n i t h D r e w U p t o n C h o w e n Burquest O r c h a r d R i v e r d a l e Boulder 62nd 46th Y o r k C a m d e n Lilac L a k ela n d G i r a r d G i r a r d J u d y I n d i a n a 51st O s s e o Oak H a l i f a x D r e w Ra mp P e r r y Q u a i l B r o o k l y n M a r l i n H a lif a x L a k ela n d L e e Lawrence Northway G r i m e s E a r l e B r o w n R a m p D a l l a s Amy 72nd Woodbine 51st 6 3 r d 94 B r o o k l y n O r c h a r d J u n e I n d i a n a B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d F r o n t a g e P e r r y Q u a i l R e g e n t H a l i f a x V i n c e n t C a m d e n 68th 4 t h E w i n g E m e r s o n R a m p L i l a c E a s t R i v e r 74 1/2 1 s t R e g e n t N o b l e R a m p R a m p M o r g a n G i r a r d R a m p V e r a C r u z J a m e s L e e B e a r d L y n d a l e L y n d a l e 67thRamp Joyce Janet D r e w E a s t L y n d a l e 62nd 66th Quarles J a m e s R a m p R a m p Winchester R a m p R a m p L a k ela n d 72nd R a m p Woodbine 9 4 T w i n L a k e R a m p P e a r s o n L i l a c V i c t o r y M e m o r i a l R a mp 2 5 2 S c o t t Palmer T w i n Ryan T w i n C r y s t a l M i s s i s s i p p i T w i n Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park B r o o k l y n C e n t e r B r o o k l y n P a r k B r o o k l y n C e n t e r C r y s t a l B r o o k l y n C e n t e r F r i d l e y Brooklyn Center Minneapolis B r o o k l y n P a r k F r i d l e y C r y s t a l R o b b i n s d a l e F r i d l e y M i n n e a p o l i s R o b b i n s d a l e M i n n e a p o l i s 0 1,700 3,400 5,100 6,800850 FeetF Existing Land Use ELU 2016 Generalized Land Use Single Family Detached Two or Three Family, Townhome Apartments Commercial Office Industrial and Utility Institutional ooo o Airport Park,Recreational, or Preserve Open Water Undeveloped Major Railway Major Highway 152 152 94 94 252 100 100 Map 3-1. Generalized Existing Land Use LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-10 Table 3-2. Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres % of Total Acres Single Family Residential 2,456.29 45.82% Two and Three Family or Townhome 160.06 2.99% Apartments 256.30 4.78% Commercial 391.20 7.30% Office 95.65 1.78% Industrial and Utility 285.51 5.33% Institutional 273.00 5.09% Airport 12.32 0.23% Park, Recreation or Preserve 609.86 11.38% Undeveloped 161.28 3.01% Major Highway (ROW)430.38 8.03% Major Railway 10.75 0.20% Open Water 218.15 4.07% TOTAL 5,360.75 100.00% Source: MnGEO, Metropolitan Council, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC Existing Land Use Definitions Single Family Residential: This land use designation identifies land that is primarily developed with detached single-family residential and accessory uses. This development pattern is generally found surrounding the retail/undeveloped core and business/light industrial spine. The use identifies existing neighborhoods that were developed in a fairly regular urban grid pattern mostly developed between the 1950s and 1970s. Two or Three Family Residential and Townhome: This land use designation identifies parcels throughout the community that are developed primarily with twin homes and double bungalows. This land use is found sprinkled throughout the community but is primarily integrated into the single-family land use designation. Townhome: This land use designation identifies land that was developed with attached single- family housing. Most areas developed with this land use are adjacent to public/semi-public and institutional land or serves as a transition from existing apartment or commercial uses. Apartments: Existing apartments are sprinkled throughout the community, but are primarily adjacent to major roadways and corridors, and commercial/business uses. The size of the apartment complex ranges in size from small-scale apartment buildings on the edges of the single-family neighborhoods to large-scale complexes. The apartments were primarily constructed from the 1960s to the 1980s. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-11 Commercial: The existing commercial uses are located throughout the community on major road corridors such as Brooklyn Boulevard, I-94 and Highway 252. Typical uses include small retailers, grocery, and auto sales. The most recent addition is Topgolf which is located at the I-94 and Highway 252 interchange and is scheduled to open in 2018. Office: This land use designation identifies existing office and professional buildings that are used for service based businesses such as attorneys, accountants, data processing, etc. Industrial and Utility: This land use designation identifies land that is used for light and heavier industrial uses as well as small pockets of utility uses that are owned by a private or public utility in the City. There are two pockets of industrial area one on the south end of the community where the SOO line railroad crosses, and the second on the north side of I-94 near the central core of the community. Institutional: The institutional and public/semi-public uses are parcels that are currently, or historically have been, used for religious institution, schools, city hall and other civic or municipal structures. These uses are spread throughout the community and are integrated in existing single-family neighborhoods, multi-family neighborhoods and commercial areas. Airport: The Airport land designation identifies a small parcel of land at the western edge of the City south of I-94 corridor that is part of the Crystal Airport. Parks, Recreation, or Preserve: This land use designation identifies all land that is publicly owned and used for active or passive recreational uses, or for natural areas. These areas are owned by the City, County, Regional agency or State. Airport: A portion of the Crystal Airport extends into the far southcentral-west corner of the community. The active runways and airport operations are located in the City of Crystal. Undeveloped: The undeveloped land use designation identifies land primarily within the City’s central core that are currently vacant. Major Railway: The railroad right-of-way is located west of Highway 280 and provides rail access to industrial properties in the City and to the adjacent industrial lands in the City of Minneapolis. Major Highway: The existing right-of-way includes state, county, and local roadways. Right-of- way is used for roadways, auto-traffic, transit and bike/trails. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-12 FUTURE LAND USE The City’s Future Land Use Plan is compilation of efforts of the City’s residents, various commissions, staff and policy makers. Using Map 3-1 Existing Land Use as a foundation, the Future Land Use Plan shown on Map 3-2 was created to guide and demonstrate the City’s aspirations for the future with respect to land use and development. The purpose of the FLU is to show through mapping, definitions and acreages how the City intends to create a dynamic, sustainable and integrated community long-term. This section focuses on the Future Land Use designations and definitions, and Map 3-2 to spatially show how the City is contemplated to grow and change and to breakdown the acres associated with each land use to create a balanced, and well-integrated land use pattern. Descriptions about new land use designations and areas of change can be found in subsequent sections of this Chapter. The Future Land Use Plan was developed with three major principles: • Create a Land Use Plan for the “central spine” (see Map 3-2) that encourages a diverse, and integrated, mix of uses that promotes transit and walkability. • Develop land use designations that are broad, but descriptive, to allow the market place to respond and provide the best solution to development and redevelopment efforts. • Protect and enhance existing neighborhoods with connected parks, open spaces, natural areas and integration of neighborhood-based services. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-13 Table 3-3 shows a breakdown of the proposed Future Land Uses in the community and identifies associated residential densities where applicable. The Land Use categories reflected on the Table correspond to the designations shown on Map 3-2. Table 3-3. 2040 Future Land Use Future Land Use Density 2020 Acres % of Total Acres 2030 Acres % of Total Acres 2040 Acres % of Total Acres Low Density Residential 3.01 – 5 DU/A 1,888.43 35.23%1,888.43 35.23%1,888.43 35.23% Medium Density Residential 5.01– 15 DU/A 126.22 2.35%126.22 2.35%126.22 2.35% High Density Residential 15.01 – 31 DU/A 212.20 3.96%212.20 3.96%212.20 3.96% Transit Orient Development (TOD)a 31.01 - 130 DU/A 25 0.47%70 1.31%200.43 3.74% Neighborhood Mixed-Usea 15.01-31 DU/A 50 0.93%75 1.40%92.59 1.73% Commercial Mixed Usea 10.01 – 25 DU/A 30 0.56%60 1.12%88.06 1.64% Commerciala NA 343.01 7.18%285.25 5.32%109.52 2.04% Business Mixed Use NA 50 0.93%150 2.80%269.15 5.02% Industrial/Utility NA 291.29 5.43%191.29 3.57%71.80 1.34% PSP/Institutional NA 215.10 4.01%215.10 4.01%215.10 4.01% Airport NA 12.16 0.23%12.16 0.23%12.16 0.23% Parks, Open Space, Recreation NA 410.37 7.66%410.37 7.66%410.37 7.66% Rail Road ROW NA 28.36 0.53%28.36 0.53%28.36 0.53% ROW NA 1255.32 23.42%1255.32 23.42%1255.32 23.42% Open Water NA 218.15 4.07%218.15 4.07%218.15 4.07% Wetland NA 162.90 3.04%162.90 3.04%162.90 3.04% TOTAL 5,360.75 100.00 Source: Hennepin County, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC aCommercial land use designation includes currently vacant or underutilized land in the Center City. The Existing Land Use provides breakdown of existing vacant parcels. Some commercial land within the TOD and Mixed Use designations is not anticipated to redevelop within this Planning Period, but is still reguided as TOD or Mixed Use to reflect the City’s vision for this area of the community when redevelopment opportunities emerge, even if post-2040. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-14 Map 3-2. Future Land Use 75th L o g a n 56th 58th 42nd 70th 76th A l d r i c h 6 6 t h 73rd 44th 46th 45th T w i n L a k e 694 694 61st L i l a c J o h n M a r t i n H a l i f a x Mumford Y o r k 4 0 t h B r o o k l y n B e a r d R a m p P a l m e r L a k e Parkway Freeway Q uail Summit W e s t R i v e r 1 0 0 4 8 t h Nash R a m p64th 47th Oh enry R a m p 51st R a m p H a l i f a x 4 0 t h F r e m o n t 65th D r e w F r a n c e R a m p 70th R a m p 53rd R a m p L a k e 1 0 0 1 0 0 R a m p 53rd Wilshire 7 0 t h 54th R a m p L e e M a j o r S c o t t N o b l e B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r S h i n g l e C r e e k S h i n g l e C re e k 94 94 71st A b b o t t 57th 47th Unity L i l a c M o r g a n H u m b o l d t R a m p R a m p T o l e d o O l i v e r J a m e s 7 4 t h V e r a C r u z K n o x I r v i n g 49th 7 4 t h R a m p 3 7 t h C a m d e n T o l e d o 4 t h 52nd 4 t h N o b l e 40th K n o x 65th 5 t h V e r a C r u z 42nd Thurber 2 5 2 Q u a i l 41st 44th U p t o n W a s h b u r n Y o r k R i v e r d a l e F r a n c e 67th V e r a C r u z V i n c e n t 58th Z e n i t h B e a r d W i l l o w Brooklyn S a il o r A b b o t t R a m p Meadowwood K y l e Q u a i l 61st 70th 6 7 t h 46th 67th 52nd S h e r i d a n 39th A ld ri c h U n i t y M o r g a n 7 6 t h R u s s e l l 41st 67th S h i n g l e C r e e k Lakebreeze 58th 57th 63rd Oliver 39th 40 t h 7 1 s t 40th X e r x e s Paul 60th Q u e e n U p t o n 55th R o b b i n s 4 1 s t 59th 41st L i l a c 50th W a s h i n g t o n I n d i a n a B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r C h o w e n 44th H u m b o l d t 10 L e e Fre mont 3 r d R a m p Grimes B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r F r e m o n t Orchard 40th 50th 74th 5 6 t h R a m p W e l c o m e 75th 57th R o b i n Ramp 69th E w i n g 57th 56th R a m p Scott Howe D r e w R a ilr o a d P e r r y 68th R e g e n t R am p 59th 10 F r a n c e D u s h a r m e S c o t t C o l f a x 46th 5 5 t h N e w t o n Logan Wilshire E m e r s o n F r e m o n t 46th V e r a C r u z 57th 9 4 Eckberg P e n n 4 3r d PalmerLake X e rx e s R e g e n t V e r a C r u z H a l i f a x 4 0 1 /2 Ele anor R a m p 4 5 t h F r e m o n t T o l e d o 73rd Q u a i l W ebber R e g e n t Z e n i t h 69th H ills vie w Commodo re 6 7 t h 3 9 1 /2 D u p o n t R a m p B e a r d 71st Lakebreeze T o l e d o E w i n g R a m p V i n c e n t Madalyn 67th F r a n c e 59 1/2 Woo dbine Mildred 68th 4 9 1 /2 S h o r e s A l d r i c h Ramp 50th Ele anor 68th 60th 72nd B r y a n t D r e w 50th 61st G i r a r d Violet 56th C a m d e n 51st 7 3 r d 57th A d m i r a l A l d r i c h 73r d E m e r s o n 59th 39th 62nd Y o r k 47th A l d r i c h 42nd 68th L i l a c 66th Fai rv ie w 70th N o b l e G r i m e s V e r a C r u z S c o t t J u n e 44th Woodbine L a k e 40th W e s t R i v e r R i v e r d a l e 41st 52nd R a m p 4 t h 72nd 50th 43rd Q u a i l Urban 41st 65th Q u a i l 65th 45t h 41st W i l l o w 54th 41st 5 3 r d 64th 43rd 70th 47th 51st 8 1 Dowling 71st K y l e 68th 62nd 70th 7 2 n d 72nd L a k e 46 1/2 67th B r o o k v i e w 53rd 56th 72nd 45th 51st 72nd 52nd 46th 68th A l d r i c h 52nd 61st 39th N e w t o n 42nd 40th 58 1/2 71st 38th 60th 46th 60th H u m b o l d t R a m p F r e m o n t 66th 50th 64th 56th R a m p B e a r d I n d i a n a 4 3 r d 38th D u p o n t 48th X e r x e s 38th H a l i f a x F r a n c e 10Ramp 74th S hin gle Cre e k X e r x e s 39 1/2 L i l a c 4 2 1 /2 B r o o k l y n Ramp E w i n g A b b o t t 4 3 r dToledo C a m d e n 67th 40 1/2 R a m p Z e n i t h 70th 66th U p t o n 42 1/2 C h o w e n R a m p G r i m e s M a j o r S a i n t A n t h o n y A z e l i a 75th P e r r y S c o t t G r i m e s L a k e l a n d 7 0 t h A b b o t t R a m p Q u e e n Aldrich S h e r i d a n I m p e rial R a m p L a k e l a n d Brooklyn 74th M a j o r 6 5 t h Lakeside R u s s e l l W a s h b u r n P e n n O l i v e r OsseoRoadFrontage P a r k e r B r o o kly n P e r r y 50th 45th A d m i r a l D r e w N o b l e O r c h a r d P e n n F a i r f i e l d R u s s e l l Quail W e l c o m e P e r r y E w i n g 53rd Shoreview 74th F r a n c e I n d i a n a T o l e d o S c o t t T o l e d o D r e w T w i n L a k e U n i t y R a m p H u b b a rd R a m p V i c t o r y K y l e H u b b a r d S h orelin e 76th H u m b o l d t Ramp U n i t y M a j o r 70th Robin B r y a n t 73rd 74th 74th 71st E m e r s o n P e r r y L o g a n R a m p 69th M a j o r B r y a n t C o l f a x X e r x e s D a l l a s Q u e e n 74th H u m b o l d t P e r r y R a m p Ramp 73rd 69th 55t h N o r t h p o r t T h o m a s R a m p B e a r d Bellv ue Ponds James 49th R a m p L a k e l a n d I n d i a n a 47th L i l a c R a m p I n d i a n a 73rd 7 1 s t 49th 74th IrvingJames U n i t y 7 3 r d E r i c o n P e r r y R a ilr o a d Q u a i l Y o r k R a m p 6 t h R a m p H alif a xRamp A l d r i c h 67th 68th T o l e d o S h a r i A n n L e e N o b l e L a k e l a n d G i r a r d X e r x e s E w i n g S c o t t U p t o n P e r r y F r e m o n t P e r r y P e n n K n o x M i s s i s s i p p i K n o x 72nd R u s s e l l Q u a i l M a j o r S c o t t R e g e n t K a t h r e n e Angeline O l i v e r C o l f a x 6 t h A l d r i c h C o l f a x 4 t h K y l e J a m e s G r i m e s G i r a r d C h o w e n O r c h a r d O r c h a r d E m e r s o n U n i t y I r v i n g L o g a n Q u a i l H a l i f a x P e r r y A l d r i c h N e w t o n L y n d a l e A l d r i c h O l i v e r M o r g a n B r y a n t Winchester K n o x X e r x e s 66th M o r g a n V i n c e n t E w i n g Q u a i l M a j o r L o g a n W a s h b u r n M a j o r N e w t o n X e r x e s T h o m a s S h e r i d a n D r e w Q u a i l T o l e d o O r c h a r d G r e a t V i e w E m il i e H u m b o l d t R i v e r w o o d E w i n g C a m d e n R e g e n t C o l f a x J u n e C o l f a x R e g e n t 4 t h 48th B e a r d U n i t y L ak e s i d e D u p o n t L a k e C u r v e I r v i n g 5 4t h J o s e p h i n e F r e m o n t B e a r d A b b o t t T w in O a k 47thByron G r i m e s H u m b o l d t E m e r s o n C r y s t a l L a k e L e e N ort h w a y F r a n c e 45th R u s s e l l W a s h b u r n V i n c e n t U p t o n Q u e e n S h e r i d a n 53rd L a k e vie w T h o m a s P e n n I s l e m o u n t Lakeland O l i v e r N e w t o n L o g a n M o r g a n M o r g a n K n o x J a m e s I r v i n g 6 6 t h G i r a r d S o o S c o t t 57th C h o w e n Bernard Corvallis 48th Poe P e n n U n i t y 56th Z e n i t hDrew U p t o n C h o w e n Burques t O r c h a r d R i v e r d a l e Boulder 62nd 46th Y o r k C a m d e n Lilac L akela n d G i r a r d G i r a r d J u d y 51st O s s e o Oak H a l i f a x R a m p P e r r y Q u a i l B r o o k l y n M a r l i n L e e Lawrence Northway G r i m e s E a r l e B r o w n R a m p Abbott D a l l a s Amy 72nd Woodbine 51st 6 3 r d 9 4 B r o o k l y n O r c h a r d J u n e I n d i a n a D r e w B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d F r o n t a g e P e r r y Q u a i l R e g e n t H a l i f a x V i n c e n t C a m d e n 1 s t 68th 4 t h E w i n g E m e r s o n R a m p L i l a c 74 1/2 R a m p R e g e n t N o b l e M a r s h a l l M o r g a n G i r a r d R a m p J a m e s L e e L y n d a l e L akela n d L y n d a l e 67thRamp Joyce Janet D r e w E a s t L y n d a l e 62nd 66th Quarles J a m e s R a m p R a m p Winches ter R a m p R a m p 72nd R a m p Woodbine 9 4 T w i n L a k e R a m p P e a r s o n L i l a c V i c t o r y M e m o r i a l R am p 2 5 2 S c o t t Palmer T w i n Ryan T w i n C r y s t a l M i s s i s s i p p i T w i n Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park B r o o k l y n C e n t e r B r o o k l y n P a r k B r o o k l y n C e n t e r C r y s t a l B r o o k l y n C e n t e r F r i d l e y Brooklyn Center Minneapolis B r o o k l y n P a r k F r i d l e y C r y s t a l R o b b i n s d a l e F r i d l e y M i n n e a p o l i s R o b b i n s d a l e M i n n e a p o l i s 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 FeetF Land Use Designations 2040 Planned Land Use LDR (3.01-5 DU/Ac.) MDR (5.0 1-15 DU/Ac.) HDR (15.01-31 DU/Ac.) C TOD (31.01-130 DU/Ac.) N-MU (1 5.01-31 DU/Ac.) C-MU (10.01-25 DU/Ac.) B-MU Industria l/Utility oooAirport PSP/Institutional Parks, Recreation, Open Space ROW RR ROW Broo kly n Blvd Overlay Distric t LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-15 Future Land Use Designation Definitions The following definitions are provided to describe the planned land uses in the City of Brooklyn Center. Many of the existing land uses in the community are planned to remain consistent through this planning period, with new designations focused in areas that are currently underutilized or vacant. The following definitions support and correspond to Map 3-2 Future Land Use Plan. Residential Designations Map Designation Residential Density Description Low Density Residential (LDR) 3.01 – 5 Dwelling Units per Acre This designation primarily identifies existing neighborhoods that are mostly developed with single-family detached and single-family attached uses and permitted accessory uses. Any redevelopment or development of LDR land is planned to be consistent with the designation and to be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods and uses. Medium Density Residential (MDR) 5.01-15 Dwelling Units per Acre Land designated as MDR is planned for densities between 5 and 15 dwelling units per acre. This land use designation is mostly developed with two-family, three-family, town home and small multi-family uses. Accessory uses, including but not limited to, small open spaces and park areas are located within proximity or within the land use designation. Any redevelopment or development of MDR land is planned to be consistent with the designation and compatible with surrounding and adjacent uses. High Density Residential (HDR) 15.01-31 Dwelling Units per Acre Land designated as HDR is planned for densities between 15 and 31 dwelling units per acre. This land use designation is mostly developed with townhomes, apartments, and condominiums. Accessory uses including, but not limited to, neighborhood amenities, parks and open spaces are a part of this designation. Future development or redevelopment of HDR land is planned to be consistent with this land use designation and compatible with surrounding and adjacent land uses. Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential High Density Residential LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-16 Mixed-Use Designations Map Designation Residential Density Description Transit Oriented Development (TOD) 31.01-130 Dwelling Units per Acre TOD is a new land use designation that is planned for a mix of residential, commercial, office and retail uses. Land is generally within a ½-mile of the Brooklyn Center Transit Station (Transit Station) is designated as TOD to capitalize on the proximity of redevelopment sites to the transit stops. The planned Bus Rapid Transit C-Line has two stops within the area designated as TOD (the Transit Station is last northerly stop) that will provide access to adjacent land uses with frequent, and efficient bus/transit services providing connections to the area and broader region. A minimum of 75% of the land within this designation is planned to be developed with high-density residential use and the remaining land developed with supporting retail, office and commercial uses. Redevelopment will focus on connecting to the Transit Station and C-Line stops, future D-Line stops, as well as creating a walkable, bikeable, vibrant core in the City. Neighborhood Mixed-Use (N-MU) 15.01-31 Dwelling Units per Acre The N-MU is a new land use designation that guides land surrounding key neighborhood intersections for a mix of residential, retail and commercial/office uses. This designation plans for the redevelopment of existing uses and assumes a minimum of 50% of land within this designation would be used for residential purposes, and the remaining area would be developed with neighborhood scale retail, service and commercial uses. Commercial Mixed-Use (C-MU) 10.01-25 Dwelling Units per Acre The C-MU is a new land use designation and guides land for a mix of commercial, office, retail, service and residential uses. This designation is guided for areas adjacent to the TOD and is planned to have a more significant proportion of the land use designated for commercial, office, retail, and service uses with supporting residential use. A minimum of 50% of the land use is planned for residential development at densities slightly lower than the adjacent TOD land use designation. This land use designation will focus on walkable and bikeable connections to adjacent TOD land uses and the Transit Station. Business Mixed-Use (B-MU)None The B-MU is a new land use designation and guides land for a mix of business, light industrial and supporting retail/service uses. This designation encourages redevelopment or development of commercial, office, general business and light industrial uses in coordination with supporting retail/commercial uses to encourage a more dynamic and connected experience for workers. This land use does not plan for residential uses but may include limited live-work opportunities as established through supporting official controls. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-17 Commercial, Business and Industrial Designations Map Designation Description Commercial (C) Planned commercial uses are generally located along the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor, on the frontage of I-94 and along Highway 252. Uses in these areas include hotels, restaurants, auto sales, and other small retail uses. Industrial and Utility (I/U) There are two areas planned for industrial uses located in the southwesterly corner of the City on the east and west side of Highway 100. Uses in this designation include manufacturing, storage, outdoor storage and other industrial uses. This land designation is not planned for expansion in this planning period. This designation also includes ares with existing or planned public or private utilities. Public/Semi-Public Designations Map Designation Description Public/Semi-Public and Institutional (PSP/Institutional) Land designated as I/SP is generally used for public or semi-public uses including schools, municipal and government uses, social and/or healthcare facilities excluding clinics, churches and other places of assembly. This land use designation also includes existing municipal utilities such as lift stations and pumphouses, as well as private utilities such as power substations and similar uses. There is no planned expansion of this land use, but it is acknowledged that an expansion of some of these uses may be necessary if and when redevelopment occurs throughout the City. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (PROS) Land designated as PROS is used for active and passive park uses, and natural preservation. Active park areas included playfields, athletic complexes, publicly owned golf courses, zoos and other similar uses. Passive park areas include nature areas, resource protection and buffer areas, trails, picnic areas, public fishing and similar uses. Natural preservation areas include the protection of important natural resources for environmental or aesthetic purposes. Railroad Right-of-Way (RR ROW) This land use designation identifies the SOO Line railroad in the southwestern corner of the City. The railroad is active and runs through the City’s existing industrial park. Right-of-Way (ROW) This land use designation identifies publicly dedicated land for vehicular, transit, bikeways, and/or pedestrian thoroughfares. The existing and planned right-of-way includes state, county and local roadways. Airport (AP) This land use designation identifies land used for public or private airport facilities, runways and ancillary airport uses. A small parcel of land in the central corner of the community is designate for this purpose and is adjacent to, and a part of, the Crystal airport. There is no planned expansion of this land use. Overlay Designation Map Designation Description Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay The Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay is a 1,200-foot (600-foot on each side of the centerline) corridor that calls attention to land adjacent to the roadway for special consideration at time of redevelopment. The designation functions as an overlay and parcels are designated with specific land uses. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-18 AREAS PLANNED FOR CHANGE REIMAGINE, REDEVELOP & REINVIGORATE Introduction/Description The 2030 Plan was prepared as the City’s central retail core was experiencing significant change and stress as businesses, retailers and restaurants were slowly going out of business. The 2030 Plan focused heavily on previous planning efforts including the Calthorpe Plan, the Opportunity Site Master Plan and small areas studies the City had undertaken in an effort to revitalize the City’s central core. These plans became the foundation for the 2030 Plan in many respects and were incorporated by reference within the Future Land Use Plan and the narrative contained within this Chapter. A decade has passed and while some of the changes contemplated in the 2030 Plan have come to fruition, many areas of underutilized and vacant land remain. Over the past ten years the City has proactively acquired property through its Economic Development Authority (EDA) and Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) in an effort to assemble a critical mass of land within the City’s core to allow for a large-scale redevelopment inducing project in heart of the community. This effort is on the verge of success as the City has entered into a due diligence phase with a master developer to begin the redevelopment efforts in its core. It is an exciting time in Brooklyn Center, and this Plan is intended to help guide the City as it progresses through redevelopment efforts over the next decade. The following sections highlight at a broad level the areas of the community anticipated and planned for change over the next 10 – 20 years. The intent is to describe the direction and aspirations of the community with respect to physical land use and development of these critical areas of the community so that residents, developers, business owners and policy-makers have a roadmap to help guide them through the development and redevelopment review process. Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and Physical Organization Central to the success of the City’s redevelopment efforts is the ability to re-focus and reimagine the areas surround the Transit Hub or Transit Station in the community. Today, the Transit Station is located adjacent to and within the area guided as Transit Oriented Development (TOD) on the Future Land Use Plan. As previously described, this is a new land use designation that was developed as part of this planning effort to be proactive and promote the accessibility of the community through its transit and multi-modal network. Increasingly, access of neighborhoods, housing, services, and experience-based retail by efficient and frequent LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-19 transit services is becoming a highly desirable and sought-after amenity within development and redevelopment areas. The City is perfectly positioned to capitalize on this amenity and advantage for two reasons: 1. The C-Line Bus Rapid Transit is scheduled to open in 2019 and its northern terminus is the Brooklyn Center Transit Station; and 2. The areas surrounding the Transit Station are prime for redevelopment and are guided for TOD and the future D-Line may also connect to the area in the future. These two conditions could not be more perfect, and the timing is optimal for the City to work with any developer on redevelopment that embraces, integrates and incorporates the Transit Station and C-Line stops into its development plan. To help facilitate that process the City created the TOD land use designation in this Plan. This is a significant departure from previous planning efforts that were silent on Transit and did not emphasize it as a way to organize redevelopment efforts. This Plan, and the TOD land use designation promote: • An introduction of high-density residential uses into the City’s core and purposefully locates it adjacent to the current Transit Station. • A TOD land use designation that is large enough, and encompasses enough acreage, to allow for consideration to move the Transit Station from its current location, if an agreement with Metro Transit Could be made. Currently the Transit Station is at the edge of the TOD area, but it could be more desirable if it were in the heart of the Opportunity Site and redevelopment areas. • Density preferred to start at 31.01 dwelling units per acre, up to a maximum of 130 dwelling units per acre. The City wants to encourage a vibrant, integrated mix of uses in this area which means that the City is willing to let the market help shape how the area is developed. Paramount to the success, regardless of density, is that the mix of uses includes more households of a variety of types, at various levels of affordability. • The land use designation envisions a high-quality, complete and connected network of pedestrian ways including sidewalks and trails. The area should be walkable, inviting and architecture must respond to and encourage a safe pedestrian environment that connects new residents with the transit hub, services and the City’s larger trail system. • Development in this area should encourage and create an experience for new residents. Amenities should be thoughtfully incorporated, and efficiencies and LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-20 adjacencies with current users should be explored. The City acknowledges that redevelopment will not happen overnight, so there should be thoughtful approaches to how new development can incorporate and integrate existing uses into redevelopment efforts to achieve incremental improvements. • The concept that if one user and area do better – than everyone does better. Within the TOD land use designation some areas of the Shingle Creek Crossing development have been redeveloped including a few national big-box sites and small strip retail within the last 10-years. These efforts have primarily continued to focus on an auto-centric typical suburban retail environment without much consideration of the potential to incorporate housing into a master plan. As a result of recent redevelopment efforts, it is unlikely that this entire area will redevelop within this planning period, but the City still believes that it is important to guide it for TOD so it is clear that as the area continues to evolve there is the potential to develop the area with a more compact and transit-minded development pattern. What is TOD? TOD, or transit-oriented development, means integrated urban places designed to bring people, activities, buildings, and public space together, with easy walking and cycling connection between them and near-excellent transit service to the rest of the city. It means inclusive access for all to local and citywide opportunities and resources by the most efficient and healthful combination of mobility modes, at the lowest financial and environmental cost, and with the highest resilience to disruptive events. Inclusive TOD is a necessary foundation for long-term sustainability, equity, shared prosperity, and civil peace in cities. - Institute for Transportation & Development Policy - Institute for Transportation & Development Policy LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-21 Focus on Integrated Uses The concept that a vibrant, dynamic City Center requires activity was explored and discussed in the 2030 Plan. However, the previous Plan focused on bringing in new retail, commercial and business users to the area without including a residential component. This Plan shifts the direction and expands the vision from the “center” to the “spine.” This slight shift results in planning for change along the central spine of the community, and an integral component of this Plan is the incorporation of new households into the Future Land Use Plan. The City has moved past the vision that its core is limited to only retail opportunities, and instead this Plan builds on previous efforts with key changes. First, the community is focused on a creating a walkable, transit connected, experience-based place that brings the City forward and offers new opportunities to existing and future residents. The idea that the community will thrive with a more integrated land use pattern is fully accepted, and promoted through this Plan. The areas that are planned for this type of change are guided within this Plan for Neighborhood Mixed-Use, Commercial Mixed-Use, Business Mixed-Use and/or are designated in the Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay District. The descriptions on the following pages provide additional detail about the planned changes, and vision for each designation. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-22 Neighborhood Nodes (N-MU) Though the City does not formally organize itself through neighborhoods, it is clear from this process that different areas or ‘neighborhoods’ have distinct qualities. Residents naturally look for retail and services in their immediate area and would choose to shop locally if options were available. This Plan identifies several key nodes available for redevelopment, many of which are located within the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor that could provide smaller-scale retail, restaurant and service amenities to their surrounding neighborhoods. The idea that existing neighborhood residents could walk or bike to the corner store to pick up dinner or visit a local restaurant or hair salon was widely embraced during this process. Residents repeatedly requested a plan for more local services, restaurants and retail opportunities in more neighborhood locations. This Plan introduces the concept by designated land for “Neighborhood Mixed-Use” where the focus is on integrating small-scale commercial and retail uses into the neighborhood fabric. 8/16/2018 173 MN-51 - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9465548,-93.1670987,3a,75y,41.86h,79.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxkmmyJHnZ3Z_hzBr85LGOQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 1/2 Image capture: Aug 2017 © 2018 Google Street View - Aug 2017 St Paul, Minnesota Google, Inc. 173 MN-51 8/16/2018 1544 Selby Ave - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9466221,-93.1654557,3a,75y,30.11h,94.51t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1seIz8302bE6_OfrPReH_Inw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DeIz8302bE6_…1/2 Image capture: Aug 2017 © 2018 Google Street View - Aug 2017 St Paul, Minnesota Google, Inc. 1544 Selby Ave 8/16/2018 1578 W Dayton Ave - Google Maps https://www.google.com/maps/@44.9473581,-93.1668192,3a,75y,199.44h,93.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s4lbpO_FmwVzMKxXUe5u9iw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 1/2 Image capture: Aug 2017 © 2018 Google Street View - Aug 2017 St Paul, Minnesota Google, Inc. 1578 W Dayton Ave Integrated Uses Vintage on Selby, Saint Paul photo source: Google 2018 LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-23 Vibrant Business Centers: Commercial Mixed-Use (C-MU) and Business Mixed-Use (B-MU) The Commercial Mixed-Use and Business Mixed Use land use designations focus more heavily on commercial, retail, office and light industrial uses while continuing to emphasize the concept of creating experiences for the users. The purpose is to promote and encourage businesses, commercial users, retailers, and in some cases households to plan for interconnected systems that result in a more active and vibrant center. Shifting away from the traditional office campus or big-box strip-mall concept, these designations encourage co-location and integration of users to find ways to create a more sustainable and resilient development pattern. Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor (Overlay) The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor extends from the City’s southern border to its northern border and has traditionally functioned as major thoroughfare with a mix of single-family residential commercial uses. The 2030 Plan identified this Corridor as a concern due to the mismatch in function from a local and regional perspective. The roadway functions regionally to connect areas north, and west with Minneapolis, and functions locally to provide access to single-family homes, as well as small retail and service users that line the Corridor. This conflict has become increasingly more difficult as traffic continues to grow. Due to these factors, the City, in collaboration with the County, are in the process of a major road reconstruction project along the Corridor after many years of study. This effort will result in a much-improved roadway condition for automobile traffic but will also be upgraded for pedestrians, bicyclist and transit users. These improvement to the road and transportation system will change the way the Corridor functions, but equally important is the need to evaluate the land use and development patterns along the Corridor. This Plan acknowledges that there is a mismatch between the roadway, both in its existing and ultimately improved condition, and the land uses that in the surrounding area. To address this issue, and to ensure further study as redevelopment efforts in the Corridor are contemplated, the Land Use Plan incorporates the “Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Overlay” which is purposefully general, but is meant to alert land owners, residents, developers and policy makers that this Corridor deserves and warrants additional study as development and redevelopment progresses. Specific site standards and objectives should be developed as part of the implementation of this Plan through zoning and official controls, and such efforts should consider the following objectives; • Redevelopment of properties with primary frontage on Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor should consolidate accesses onto the roadway and identify opportunities for consolidation to make sites more efficient. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-24 • Consideration should be given to create a set of design guidelines for the Corridor, to encourage a pedestrian scale at the street level. This should consider site design elements such as each building’s relationship with the street, architectural scale and massing, visual cues indicating pedestrian access points and crossing, vegetation, etc. • Properties along the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor that are within the overlay, but are without Corridor frontage may consider ‘joining’ a redevelopment effort with a property containing frontage, provided proper considerations are made for existing/adjacent street patterns and uses. ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS & EMPLOYMENT The City has experienced significant change in the past decade with respect to its changing demographics and land use pattern, but one thing that has not changed − is its exceptional accessibility and location within the region. As previously described, the City was once known as the northwest metro’s regional retail center with Brookdale Mall and numerous supporting retailers and service providers. As the landscape of retail shifted and changed, the City’s core economic engine fizzled out leaving a large contiguous area of vacant and underutilized land in the core of the City. This loss has been felt for over a decade as the City has studied, re-studied and studied again the opportunities for the area. After years of City acquisitions and land assembly, the City issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) in late 2017 to find a master developer to take on a portion of this prime redevelopment area. The City is confident, and excited, that this is just the first step in what is likely to be an exciting, albeit, long-term redevelopment process for this area. The opportunity to redevelop is finally becoming a reality as the City, like the region, has begun to recover from the economic downturn and housing bust of the late 2000s. Signs that the City is evolving are not only limited to its redevelopment area, in fact many of the City’s light-industrial and office spaces are experiencing new demand with new businesses and users that have decided to locate in Brooklyn Center. The following Table 3-4 identifies the 2040 land uses that are identified for places of new/ expected additional employment. For purposes of the calculations, the City used a Floor Area Ration and the SAC conversion for its estimates. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-25 Table 3-4. Employment Intensity by Land Use Future Land Use 2040 Acres Developed Area (FAR) % Commercial or Industrial 2040 S.F.SAC Rate Intensity Transit Orient Development (TOD)200.43 50%25%1,091,348 3,000 364 Neighborhood Mixed-Use 92.59 50%50%1,008,305 3,000 336 Commercial Mixed Use 88.06 50%50%958,943 3,000 319 Commercial (C)109.52 50%50%2,385,374 3,000 795 Business Mixed Use 269.15 50%100%5,861,981 4,500 1,303 TOTAL 3,117 STAGED REDEVELOPMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE The City acknowledges that redevelopment is likely to occur over time, and adequate infrastructure is available to serve the land use designations contemplated in this Chapter. As shown in Table 3-3, the City anticipates that approximately 180 acres will be redeveloped with a mix of uses over the next 10 years. The residential component within each of these mixed-use areas has a minimum density of 10 Dwelling Units per Acre, with the most density allocated to the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) designation which contemplates a minimum of 31.01 Dwelling Units per acre. The creation of the TOD designation is a direct response to the opening of the C-Line (and the future D-Line) and the land use designations specifically guide redevelopment within 1/4-mile of the planned station stops for the highest intensity. As demonstrated in Table 3-5 and 3-6 all redevelopment land east of Brooklyn Boulevard within 1/4-mile of the station is guided as TOD which requires a minimum of 31.01 dwelling units per acre, but the City anticipates density will be substantially higher in this designation. A small pocket of neighborhood commercial is guided on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard which is guided for a minimum of 15-dwelling units per acre. Map 3-3 shows the areas contemplated for redevelopment over the next 20-years correlated to the 1/4-mile station stop buffer. The acreages identified in Table 3-5 and 3-6 reflect how much of the land within each land use designation is anticipated to redevelop during this planning period. For example, the difference between the quantities shown in Table 3-6 are less than the gross acreages identified in Table 3-3. This represents an oversupply of land within the TOD land use designation. While the City does not expect all 200-acres to develop prior to 2040, the City wants to send a clear and direct message to any potential developer or land owner, that if redevelopment is contemplated in this planning period, that the City’s vision for these areas is to create a vibrant, accessible and diverse land use pattern in these areas. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-26 Table 3-5. Density of Residential Redevelopment within 1/4-Mile of C-Line Stations Future Land Use Density 2040 Acres 2040 Residential Acres HH 2040 Net Density Transit Orient Development (TOD)* 31.01-130 DU/A 44 33 1,023 Neighborhood Mixed-Use 15.01-31 DU/A 10 5 75 Medium Density Residential 5.01-15 2.5 2.5 13 TOTAL --38 1,098 28.9 Table 3-6. Anticipated Developable Acres and Residential Units by Decade Future Land Use 2019-2020 2021-2030 2031-2040 2019-2040 Est. Total Acresa Residential Acresa HH (Min) Est. Total Acresa Residential Acresa HH (Min) Est. Total Acresa Residential Acresa HH (Min)Total New HH Transit Orient Development 31.01-130 DU/A 12 9 279 48 36 1,116 22 17 527 1,922 Neighborhood Mixed-Use 15.01-31 DU/A 26 13 195 12 6 90 5 4 60 345 Commercial Mixed-Use 10.01-25 DU/A 16 8 80 14 7 70 14 10 100 250 Medium Density Residential 5.01-15 2.5 2.5 13 ------16 TOTAL 56.5 32.5 567 77 66 1,276 41 31 687 2,533 a Estimated Total Acres represents the acreage anticipated to redevelop within this Planning Period. As shown, the estimated redevelopment acreage accounts for approximately 50% +/- of the total 2040 guided acreage reflected in Table 3-3. Redevelopment may generally occur anywhere within the land use designation shown on Map 3-3. The guided land uses shown on Map 3-3 and described in Table 3-3 demonstrate an OVERSUPPLY of land for redevelopment based on the estimated market demand for residential units within this Planning Period. The City is open to redevelopment that occurs faster than what is estimated in Table 3-6, and it is therefore important to show through the Future Land Use Plan the ultimate vision for the central core of the City. It is also anticipated that many of the acres NOT included for redevelopment will largely remain in commercial use. LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-27 k k k 75th S a i n t A n t h o n y L o g a n 56th 58th 70th 76th A l d r i c h 6 6 t h 73rd 694 44th 694 61st L i l a c J o h n M a r t i n H a l i f a x Mumford Y o r k 4 0 t h B r o o k l y n B e a r d R a m p P a l m e r L a k e Parkway Freeway Q u ail Summit 1 0 0 48t h Nash R a m p64th U n i t y 47th Oh enry R a m p 51st R a m p H a l i f a x 4 0 t h F r e m o n t 65th D r e w L e e M a j o r N o b l e F r a n c e R a m p 70th R a m p 53rd R a m p L a k e 1 0 0 1 0 0 R a m p 53rd T o l e d o 7 0 t h V e r a C r u z 54th R a m p W e l c o m e S c o t t B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r S h i n g l e C r e e k S h i n gl e C r e e k 94 94 71st X e n i a A b b o t t 47th Unity L i l a c R a m p R a m p O l i v e r J a m e s K n o x I r v i n g 49th 7 4 t h C a m d e n T o l e d o 4 t h 52nd 4 t h N o b l e 40th Wilshire K n o x R a m p 65th O r c h a r d M o r g a n 5 t h V e r a C r u z H u m b o l d t 42nd Thurber 2 5 2 Q u a i l 41st 44th U p t o n W a s h b u r n Y o r k F r a n c e 67th V i n c e n t 58th Z e n i t h B e a r d W i l l o w S a il o r A b b o t t R a m p Meadowwood K y l e Q u a i l 61st 70th 67 t h 46th 67th 52nd S h e r i d a n 39th A l d ri c h U n i t y M o r g a n 7 6 t h R u s s e l l 41st 67th S h i n g l e C r e e k Lakebreeze 58th 42nd 57th 63rd Oliver 40 t h 7 1 s t X e r x e s R i v e r d a l e Paul 60th Q u e e n U p t o n 55th R o b b i n s 4 1 s t 59th 73rd L e e 41st L i l a c 8 1 50th W a s h i n g t o n I n d i a n a B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r C h o w e n T w i n O a k 44th H u m b o l d t 10 L e e Fremont 39th R a m p Grimes B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r 40th 39th F r e m o n t G r i m e s Orchard 40th 50th 74th 5 6 t h R a m p W e l c o m e 75th 57th R o b i n Ramp 69th E w i n g 57th 56th R a m p ScottScott Howe L a k e l a n d D r e w R a ilr o a d P e r r y 68th R e g e n t R am p 59th 10 F r a n c e D u s h a r m e S c o t t C o l f a x 46th 5 5 t h N e w t o n Logan Wilshire E m e r s o n F r e m o n t 46t h V e r a C r u z 57th 9 4 Eckberg P e n n 4 3r d PalmerLake X e rx e s R e g e n t V e r a C r u z H a l i f a x 4 0 1 /2 Ele anor R a m p Ramp 4 5 t h F r e m o n t T o l e d o 73rd Q u a i l W ebber R e g e n t 69th H ills vie w Commodore 6 7 t h 3 9 1 /2 D u p o n t R a m p B e a r d 71st Lakebreeze T o l e d o E w i n g R a m p V i n c e n t Madalyn 67th F r a n c e 59 1/2 Woodbine Mildred 68th 4 9 1 /2 S h o r e s A l d r i c h Ramp 50th Ele anor 68th 60th 72nd B r y a n t D r e w 50th 61st G i r a r d V i o l e t 56th C a m d e n 51st 73rd 57th A d m i r a l A l d r i c h 73rd E m e r s o n 59th 39th 62nd Y o r k A l d r i c h 42nd 68th W e l c o m e L i l a c 66th Fai rv ie w 70th N o b l e G r i m e s S c o t t J u n e 44th Woodbine L a k e 40th W e s t R i v e r R i v e r d a l e 41st 52nd R a m p 4 t h 72nd 50th A b b ott 43rd Q u a i l Urban 41st 65th Q u a i l 65th 45t h 41st W i l l o w 54th 41st 5 3 r d 64th 43rd 70th 47th 51st 8 1 Dowling 71st K y l e 68th W e l c o m e 62nd 70th 7 2 n d 72nd L a k e 46 1/2 57th 67th B r o o k v i e w 53rd 56th 72nd 45th 51st 72nd 52nd 46th 54th 68th A l d r i c h 52nd 61st 39th N e w t o n 42nd 40th 58 1/2 71st 60th 46th 60th H u m b o l d t R a m p F r e m o n t 66th 50th 64th 56th R a m p B e a r d I n d i a n a 38th D u p o n t 48th X e r x e s 38th H a l i f a x F r a n c e 10Ramp 74th S hin gle C re ek X e r x e s 39 1/2 L i l a c 4 2 1 /2 B r o o k l y n 38th R a m p E w i n g A b b o t t 4 3 r dToledo 65th C a m d e n Ol ive r 67th 40 1/2 R a m p Z e n i t h 47th 45th 46th 70th 66th U p t o n 42 1/2 C h o w e n R a m p G r i m e s M a j o r U n i t y A z e l i a 75th P e r r y S c o t t G r i m e s L a k e l a n d 7 0 t h A b b o t t R a m p Q u e e n Ald rich S h e r i d a n I m p e ri a l R a m p L a k e l a n d Brooklyn 74th M a j o r 6 5 t h Lakeside R u s s e l l W a s h b u r n P e n n O l i v e r OsseoRoadFrontage P a r k e r B r o o k l y n P e r r y 50th A d m i r a l D r e w X e n i a N o b l e O r c h a r d P e n nRussell Quail P e r r y E w i n g 53rd 74th F r a n c e I n d i a n a T o l e d o T o l e d o D r e w T w i n L a k e U n i t y R a m p H u b b a rd R a m p V i c t o r y K y l e H u b b a r d S h orelin e 43rd 76th H u m b o l d t Ramp F a i r f i e l d U n i t y M a j o r 70th Robin B r y a n t 73rd 74th 74th 71st E m e r s o n P e r r y L o g a n R a m p 69th M a j o r B r y a n t C o l f a x X e r x e s D a l l a s Q u e e n 74th H u m b o l d t 7 3 r d P e r r y R a m p Ramp 73rd 69th 5 5t h N o r t h p o r t T h o m a s R a m p B e a r d Bellvue Ponds James 49th R a m p I n d i a n a 47th L i l a c R a m p I n d i a n a 73rd 7 1 s t 49th 74th 6 t h Irving J a m e s Brooklyn U n i t y 7 3 r d R a m p X e n i a A l d r i c h E r i c o n P e r r y R a ilr o a d Q u a i l Y o r k R a m p H alif a x 67th T o l e d o S h a r i A n n L e e N o b l e L a k e l a n d G i r a r d X e r x e s E w i n g S c o t t U p t o n P e r r y F r e m o n t P e r r y P e n n K n o x M i s s i s s i p p i K n o x 72nd R u s s e l l Q u a i l M a j o r S c o t t R e g e n t K a t h r e n e Angeli ne O l i v e r C o l f a x 6 t h A l d r i c h C o l f a x 4 t h K y l e J a m e s G r i m e s G i r a r d C h o w e n O r c h a r d O r c h a r d E m e r s o n U n i t y I r v i n g L o g a n Q u a i l H a l i f a x P e r r y A l d r i c h N e w t o n L y n d a l e A l d r i c h O l i v e r M o r g a n B r y a n t Winchester K n o x X e r x e s 66th M o r g a n V i n c e n t E w i n g Q u a i l M a j o r L o g a n W a s h b u r n M a j o r N e w t o n X e r x e s T h o m a s S h e r i d a nDrew Q u a i l T o l e d o O r c h a r d G r e a t V i e w E m il i e H u m b o l d t R i v e r w o o d E w i n g C a m d e n R e g e n t C o l f a x J u n e C o l f a x R e g e n t X e nia 4 t h 48th B e a r d L a k e l a n d U n i t y L a k e s i d e L a k e C u r v e I r v i n g 54t h J o s e p h i n e W e l c o m e B e a r d A b b o t t 47thByron G r i m e s H u m b o l d t C r y s t a l L a k e D u p o n t L e e N o rt hw a y F r a n c e 45th R u s s e l l W a s h b u r n V i n c e n t U p t o n Q u e e n S h e r i d a n 53rd L a k e vie w T h o m a s P e n n F r e m o n t I s l e m o u n t Lakeland O l i v e r N e w t o n L o g a n M o r g a n M o r g a n K n o x J a m e s I r v i n g 6 6 t h E m e r s o n G i r a r d S o o 57th C h o w e n Bernard Corvallis 48th Poe P e n n U n i t y 56th Z e n i t hDrew U p t o n C h o w e n Burquest S c o t t O r c h a r d R i v e r d a l e Boulder 62nd 46th Y o r k C a m d e n Lilac L a kela n d G i r a r d G i r a r d J u d y 51st O s s e o Oak H a l i f a x R a m p P e r r y Q u a i l B r o o k l y n M a r l i n L e e Lawrence Northway G r i m e s E a r l e B r o w n R a m p Abbott D a l l a s Amy 72nd Woodbine 51st 6 3 r d 94 B r o o k l y n O r c h a r d J u n e I n d i a n a D r e w B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d F r o n t a g e P e r r y Q u a i l R e g e n t 1 s t H a l i f a x V i n c e n t C a m d e n 68th 4 t h E w i n g E m e r s o n R a m p L i l a c 74 1/2 R a m p R e g e n t N o b l e M o r g a n G i r a r d R a m p V e r a C r u z J a m e s L akela n d 3 7 t h L e e L y n d a l e L y n d a l e 67thRamp Joyce Janet D r e w E a s t L y n d a l e 62nd 66th Quarles J a m e s R a m p R a m p Winchester R a m p R a m p 72nd R a m p Woodbine 9 4 T w i n L a k e R a m p P e a r s o n L i l a c V i c t o r y M e m o r i a l R a m p 2 5 2 S c o t t Palmer T w i n Ryan T w i n C r y s t a l M i s s i s s i p p i T w i n Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park B r o o k l y n C e n t e r B r o o k l y n P a r k B r o o k l y n C e n t e r C r y s t a l B r o o k l y n C e n t e r F r i d l e y Brooklyn Center Minneapolis B r o o k l y n P a r k F r i d l e y C r y s t a l R o b b i n s d a l e F r i d l e y M i n n e a p o l i s R o b b i n s d a l e M i n n e a p o l i s 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 FeetF Land Use De sign ations 2040 Planned Land Use LDR (3.01-5 DU/Ac.) MDR (5.01-15 DU/Ac.) HDR (15.01-31 DU/Ac.) C TO D (31.01-130 DU/Ac.) N-MU (15.01-31 DU/Ac.) C-MU (10.01-25 DU/Ac.) B-MU Industrial/Util ity oo o Airport PSP/Institutional Parks, Recreation, Open Space ROW RR ROW k Planned C-Li ne Transi t Stops 94 94 252 100 100 152 152 Potential Area of Change 1/4-mile Map 3-3. Redevelopment Areas & 1/4-Mile C-Line Station Area LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3-28 SPECIAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Historic Sites The Earle Brown Farm is listed on the State Register of Historic Places as “Brooklyn Farm.” To protect this important piece of the Brooklyn Center’s history, the site and several of the buildings were preserved and re-purposed into the Earle Brown Conference Center. The Conference Center brings thousands of users to the City, who are able to enjoy a piece of the City’s history. The facility includes modern conference rooms, office towers and ample parking. Though many of the buildings have been re-purposed and preserved little of the farm’s original setting remains. A 1988 reconnaissance survey of potential National Register sites in Hennepin Count found a scattering of older farmhouse-style buildings primarily in the City’s southeast neighborhood dating back to pre-World War II. These homes are now surrounded by typical post-war tract housing stock. Aggregate Resources Per the information contained in the Minnesota Geologic Survey Information Circular 46 there are no known aggregate resources available in the City of Brooklyn Center. Solar Access Policies Since mandated in 1978, the City’s Comprehensive Plan has addressed solar policies and protection to ensure residents and properties have adequate solar access. Information regarding solar suitability and solar resource potential is contained within Chapter 8: Infrastructure & Utilities in this Plan. IMPLEMENTATION Given the community and the community leadership’s optimism and desire for Brooklyn Center to thrive, transit investments, along with recent trends in the interest to redevelop within first-ring suburbs, the City is well poised for positive opportunities to grow and incorporate new services and housing types. The initial implementation steps of this Chapter will be included within Chapter 9 of this Plan and then subsequently developed with updates to the City’s Ordinances. Additionally, the Mississippi River Critical Corridor Area plan is attached in Appendix A, which incorporates various aspects of this Chapter including the Future Land Use Plan. CHAPTER 4: Housing & Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan 2040 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-2 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-3 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. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-4 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-5 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. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-6 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-7 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. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-8 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. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-9 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. 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-10 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 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-11 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 86% of housing stock is more than 40 years old - Sources: US Census; SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-12 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. $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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-13 Map 4-1. Estimated Market Value of Owner-Occupied Housing 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. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-14 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. 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 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-15 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 approximately 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. A few key existing housing needs can be summarized as the following: • The need to protect the City’s existing NOAH properties, both owner and renter- occupied, and to maintain NOAH properties with high-quality living standards. • More rental units with larger square-footages and increasing number of bedrooms to meet the needs of the City’s residents that tend to be younger and/or include multi- generational households. • The City needs greater diversity within the existing housing stock to accommodate a wider market including the desire to incorporate market-rate product types that will supplement the City’s existing affordable housing product types. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-16 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-17 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 AMI Range Units 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 & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-18 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 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 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-19 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. • 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. New Housing Opportunities in this Planning Period Recognizing that the land use plan for Brooklyn Center identifies several key areas that are HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-20 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 Chapter 3, the market will play an important role in how much redevelopment occurs, but at this time the City is anticipating that a minimum of 1,276 new units that has the potential to address the affordable housing allocation will be brought to the market. Table 4-4. Future Land Use Densities and Projected Households Future Land Use Density (DU/A)2021-2030 Est. Acres 2021-2030 Acres Residential HH Transit Orient Development 31.01-130 DU/A 48 36 1,116 Neighborhood Mixed-Use 15.01-31 DU/A 12 6 90 Commercial Mixed Use 10.01 – 25 DU/A 14 7 70 TOTAL ----1,276 Source: Brooklyn Center, SHC 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-21 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. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-22 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 & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-23 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 and Demonstration Account (LCDA) 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-24 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% Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies and Tools Cont’d. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-25 Housing Goal Tool/ Resource/ Strategy Description Affordability Target 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% Homes within Reach The City will cooperate with Homes Within Reach, but will not imitate a Community Land Trust independently during this Planning Period. <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% Consolidated RFP Process - Minnesota Housing The City will support developer applications for the Consolidated RFP Process when a proposed redevelopment meets the City’s goals stated within this Plan, and will focus on redevelopment opportunities in the central core including TOD and Mixed-use areas. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies and Tools Cont’d. This page is intentionally blank. CHAPTER 5: Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability Comprehensive Plan 2040 Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-1 INTRODUCTION In previous Chapters of this Plan the City’s commitment to redefining, reimagining and redeveloping key areas of the community are described; but this commitment is hollow without the City’s vision to elevate Brooklyn Center to an economically competitive City within the greater region. Economic competitiveness in the context of this Plan is the City’s ability to compete effectively for economic development that creates jobs, brings and retains corporations, successfully incubates new businesses and services on a local, regional, national and international scale. It also refers to the City’s ability to attract jobs and employment that serves its residents, and emphasizes opportunities and access to education, job skills matching and an improved quality of life for all of its residents – the idea that if we do better, we all do better together. 2040 Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability Goals »Promote Brooklyn Center as an exceptional place for businesses, visitors and residents, both existing and new, because of its locational advantage and accessibility within the region. »Support the development of sustainable, resilient, and accessible neighborhoods in the city center that reinforce the City’s commitment to its diverse residents, neighborhoods, and businesses. »Explore meaningful ways to represent the community’s diversity through the City’s »Encourage and promote reinvestment in the City’s infrastructure including roadways, streetscapes, trails and utilities to signal Brooklyn Center’s commitment to the long-term success of its residents and businesses. branding, marketing and visual communications. »Recognize the opportunity and value of Brooklyn Center’s changing demographics and entrepreneurial attitudes to create an identity that embraces diversity as part of the City’s future. * Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals & Strategies Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-2 The vision that Brooklyn Center can and should compete on not only a regional scale, but on a national and international scale may seem daunting particularly if the City spends too much time looking in its rear-view mirror. However, in order to move forward it is important for the City to understand its past and present because it provides valuable context from which the City can prepare its guide and roadmap for the future. The purpose of this Chapter is to plan for economic development opportunities in the community that add refinement to Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment and Chapter 4: Housing & Neighborhood contained in this Plan. As described throughout this Plan, the City is at a pivotal time and is faced with enormous opportunity to change and shape its future. The City recognizes that by working directly with the businesses and the community, we can create and maintain a strong economy and provide opportunities for all to be successful. The City is focused on capitalizing on this opportunity and is actively seeking ways to embrace the changes occurring in the community to make Brooklyn Center a great place to live, work, recreate and do business. Repeatedly throughout this planning process the City’s residents, stakeholders and policy- makers emphasized the need to nurture, support and grow local business. There is a common belief that the community is filled with an entrepreneurial spirit, residents who want the opportunity to work in Brooklyn Center with others who are passionate about making the City a great place to build and grow a business. The City is committed to finding ways to provide accessible, affordable and supportive opportunities for businesses to excel and thrive in the community – from small pop-up markets and kiosks to full-scale professional office buildings. This Chapter is structured differently than others within this Plan because it is intended to serve an additional function beyond simply being a Chapter within this Plan. Instead this Chapter has enough background, socio-economic and existing conditions information to establish the context from which the aspirations and opportunities are derived to allow this Chapter to ‘standalone’ when needed – while still functioning as an integral and important part of this Plan. Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-3 EXISTING SOCIO-ECONOMIC SNAPSHOT OF RESIDENTS One of the components that affects the community’s ability to compete for economic development are the characteristics of the labor force available to new businesses and industries that may choose to relocate or grow in a region. Businesses need workers to prosper – and workers that have skills, education and characteristics that match their industry help make decisions to grow or locate in a community easier. The following information is a summary of more detailed information is contained in the Background Report Appendix C, with additional discussion about key characteristics that most directly impact the City’s economic development efforts. This information is a snapshot in time and should be used as a baseline – not as the future condition. For example, the City is expected to add more than 2,200 new households to the community over the next 20-years and those residents will add a new dynamic to the labor force that is not currently represented in the following data. Existing Labor Force Characteristics The following information was collected from a variety of resources including the US Census, DEED, ACS 2011 – 2016, the Metropolitan Council, Perkins+Will and SHC. More information regarding changes by decade and larger distribution trends can be found in the Background Report Appendix C. Age The age profile of the City plays an important role in economic development from the respect of what types of goods and services the population may demand, and also indicates the number of people that may be in the labor force now and in the future. As shown in Figure 5-1: Median Age 2000 – 2016, Brooklyn Center’s Median Age is well below that of Hennepin County and the metro area. Brooklyn Center is expected to add more than 2,200 new households over the next 20 years. - Sources: Metropolitan Council Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-4 Figure 5-1: Median Age 2000-2016 In addition to Brooklyn Center’s median age that is lower than that of Hennepin County and the 7-County metropolitan area, the City’s share of the population Under 5 and between 5 and 17 represents a higher distribution of this age cohort than that of the County and the 7-County metropolitan area. This means that the number of young people that are either just entering the labor force or that will enter the labor force in the next decade is a significant proportion of the City’s population. This has ramifications for the City’s economic development efforts and emphasizes the importance of the City proactively partnering with schools, post-secondary institutions and other job skills training efforts to make sure that young people’s skills are developed to match the needs of current and future employers. Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-5 Racial & Ethnic Composition Brooklyn Center is a diverse community and is one of the only communities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area with a majority-minority population. Additionally, the City’s population has the second highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the Twin Cities metropolitan area, with 21%, or 1 in 5 residents, born outside the United States. As shown in the Background Report, the City’s population is nearly 60% non-white, which is in contrast to Hennepin County (29.6%) and the 7-County Metro Area (25.2%). This difference means Brooklyn Center’s residents are more diverse and represent more racial/ethnic groups than the surrounding communities. When celebrated, this diversity is an opportunity to make the City a dynamic integrated community that can serve as a model for the greater region—a region that is expected to demographically evolve similarly to the Brooklyn Center over the next planning period. Throughout this planning process residents, stakeholders and policy-makers expressed their belief that the City’s diversity is a key differentiator in the region and that the opportunity to create a vibrant business community is inevitable as long as the right commitments and policies are put in place to foster economic development that benefits a range of business opportunities. While the diverse resident population offers an exceptional opportunity, it also represents a challenge to ensure the City is responsive, supportive and integrative of its efforts to meet the needs of the changing population. In 2017, the City of Brooklyn Center partnered with Everybody In to provide a comprehensive report on racial equality within the City. The report identified and confirmed some existing racial disparities in the City, which provides valuable insight into what types of changes the City could employ to create a more equitable community for the future of all Brooklyn Center residents. The City is committed to continuing efforts to evaluate 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. Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-6 Education Educational attainment is an important characteristic of the labor force and is one of the considerations a business or company evaluates when choosing to grow or locate within a community. Unlike age or racial/ethnic characteristics, educational attainment has the potential to be directly changed and influenced through improved policies and objectives. That is, you can’t change someone’s age, but you can change and improve the accessibility and availability of education and job skills training to the population. As of 2016, 82% of Brooklyn Center residents have graduated high school and of those residents approximately 20% have a bachelor or graduate/professional degree. While the majority of the population over the age of 25 has a high school diploma, the percent of the population that did not graduate from high school is more than that of Hennepin County and the 7-County metro area. (See Figure 5-2. Change in the Population without a High School Diploma 2000-2016). Figure 5-2. Change in the Population without a High School Diploma 2000-2016 The good news is that after a spike between 2000 and 2010 in residents without a High School Diploma, the trend line appears to be decreasing between 2010 and 2016. Even with the slight recovery, the City’s percentage of the population without a diploma is still more than 10% higher than that of the County and the 7-County Metro Area. One of the most important efforts the City has identified in this planning process is the need to identify ways to get the City’s youth involved and committed to education. 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 2000 2010 2016 Pe r c e n t o f P o p u l a t i o n (A g e 2 5 o r O l d e r ) BROOKLYN CENTER HENNEPIN COUNTY 7-COUNTY METRO AREA Sources: US Census; Metropolitan Council; Perkins+Will Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-7 Ensuring that the population has adequate educational opportunities and that education is accessible and attainable is a key component of the residents’ ability to obtain and maintain livable wage jobs. The City of Brooklyn Center has multiple post-secondary educational institutions within proximity to the City including North Hennepin Community College and Hennepin Technical College, the University of Minnesota and various private post-secondary universities and colleges located within Minneapolis and Saint Paul. While these campuses are not located in the City of Brooklyn Center, several are within 5-miles of the City and are accessible by car, transit and bikeways or trails. Income/Wages In 2016 the median household income was $46,400 which is a slight increase from the information contained within the Background Report from 2016 which identified median household income as $44,855. As shown in the Background Report, the City’s median household income is more than $20,000 less than that of Hennepin County and the 7-County Metropolitan Area. While there are many factors that contribute to why Brooklyn Center’s household incomes are less, it is most important to understand what it means for current residents. When household incomes are less it means that residents have less choice in meeting every day needs such as housing, goods, services and transportation. Additionally, residents likely have less disposable income to spend which directly affects businesses, particularly those in retail and commercial uses. Adding complexity to the evaluation is the number of residents in the City that are at or below the federal poverty level. In 2016 the poverty level was defined as $24,563 for a family of four, and generally a greater number of residents living in Brooklyn Center have incomes that place them below the poverty level and below 200% of the poverty level than in other neighboring cities. As shown in the Background Report, as of 2016 approximately 19.2% of Brooklyn Center residents had incomes below the poverty level, and over 44% were below 200% of the poverty level. Because of some of these statistics the City Council knew it was important to make efforts to try and reverse this trendline and to proactively identify ways to help the City’s residents gain greater economic stability. As part of this effort, in 2017 the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted strategic priorities for the City that focused on ways to improve the quality of life for the community. Given the high poverty rate relative to the region, the City Council identified Resident Economic Stability as one of the six strategic priorities. This priority, among other things, focuses on the creation and attraction of jobs with livable wages to the community. Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-8 Unemployment The Great Recession in the late 2000s significantly impacted the nation, and hit Brooklyn Center’s residents particularly hard where the unemployment rate rose to 9.7%. Since that time, the unemployment rate has gradually declined and in 2018 was around 3.6% (See Figure 5-3 Average Annual Unemployment for Brooklyn Center Residents). The City’s overall unemployment rate is similar to that of the region, which is currently hovering between 3.0 and 3.5%. The unemployment rates are slightly higher among minority populations, in particular the African American and Eastern African populations that according to a report released by DEED in January 2018 was approximately 7.5% across the State. This disparity highlights the need for more focused attention on education and job skills training to help lessen the gap across all populations. Figure 5-3. Average Annual Unemployment for Brooklyn Center Residents 6.7% 9.7%9.2%8.2%7.2%6.1% 4.8%4.6%4.3%4.1%3.6% 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Source: DEED Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-9 Where Residents Work and Commute Understanding where current residents work and who holds the existing jobs are important characteristics to consider when promoting Brooklyn Center’s economic competitiveness within the region. Given that Brooklyn Center shares a border with Minneapolis, it is not surprising that the City of Minneapolis is the top workplace for people who live in Brooklyn Center, in fact of the City’s workers more than 4 times as many workers work in Minneapolis than Brooklyn Center. Residents of Minneapolis are, in turn, the top employed within the City outnumbering Brooklyn Center residents by more than 500. These trends are important to understand and consider as new businesses evaluate and consider the City. Not only is there potential to capitalize on more local residents returning to the City for work, but because the City is so accessible within the region businesses have a labor pool that extends far beyond the City’s borders into cities such as Minneapolis, Saint Paul, Brooklyn Park and other surrounding suburbs. Top 5 Workplaces of People Who Live in Brooklyn Center Top 5 Residences of People Who Work in Brooklyn Center Minneapolis 3,348 Minneapolis 1,367 Saint Paul 889 Brooklyn Park 1,161 Brooklyn Center 826 Brooklyn Center 826 Brooklyn Park 813 Saint Paul 673 Plymouth 771 Maple Grove 456 As described in the Background Report, commute time to work is an important factor in considering where to work because it directly impacts the amount of time spent away from other activities. As of 2015, the median travel time to work of Brooklyn Center’s residents was approximately 22.6 minutes, which was slightly above Hennepin County (22.2 minutes) and slightly below the 7-County Metro Area (23.1 minutes). This demonstrates that Brooklyn Center is well positioned within the region, but also signals opportunities to further reduce how much time residents spend in their cars if more jobs were to become available in the community. Today, a significant portion of Brooklyn Center residents drive alone in their own personal vehicles to their place of work which can be costly, and can also increase stress. This represents an opportunity if the City increases the number of jobs in Brooklyn Center, and residents are well suited and matched to the jobs, then Brooklyn Center residents have the chance to choose an alternate mode of transportation such as transit, walking or biking to work. Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-10 PAST AND PRESENT INDUSTRY TRENDS IN BROOKLYN CENTER Since the Great Recession ended in the late 2000s, the City has experienced steady employment growth and as of 2017 has a total of 13,272 jobs which outpaces the most recent projections. To further understand how the jobs are distributed in the community the City prepared a Background Report in 2017 as part of this planning process. The following sections highlight the top four industries of the City’s past and present, which represents nearly 85% of the City’s jobs. This information provides valuable insight into the employment trends and types of jobs over the past 16-years and provides an indication of the types of jobs that the City may wish to target for future economic development. The information that follows is a compilation of information collected from staff, residents, businesses and stakeholders during this planning process as well as a synthesis of more detailed information contained in the Background Report Appendix C. Industry: Retail As described and introduced in Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment the City’s past economic identity is heavily attached to the retail industry. Though many residents, stakeholders and policy makers consider this industry to be one of the most significant contributors to jobs in the City, it accounted for approximately 17% of the jobs in the City with approximately 2,228 jobs. While this is not a small percentage of jobs, it does represent a decrease in jobs available from 2010 when nearly 23% of the City’s jobs were within the retail industry, and there were approximately 3,767 jobs. This shift in retail employment was an important consideration for the community because it so heavily relied on being a regional retail destination for so many decades. The following sections provide background and context for this retail shift, and describes some recent trends occurring in the City’s redevelopment areas. Brookdale Mall and its Surroundings For decades the City of Brooklyn Center’s economy was anchored by Brookdale Mall and surrounding retail uses. Brookdale Mall was one of the first regional indoor fully climate- controlled retail centers in the state and as a result attracted shoppers from the larger north metropolitan region. Brookdale was truly a regional attraction, and Brooklyn Center’s residents benefited not only from accesses to shopping and services but from a significant number of retail jobs that were available due to the presence of the Mall. The retail focus of the City’s economic engine was a double-edged sword because while there were many more jobs per capita when Brookdale Mall was in operation, the jobs were not high-wage jobs and many were not livable wages. Regardless, Brookdale Mall and adjacent Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-11 retail users remained the dominant economic driver in the City through the 1990s and did not experience dramatic changes until the mid-2000’s when Brookdale lost its first anchor. Once the first anchor closed, Brookdale Mall began its steady and eventual full decline that led to its closing the late 2000s. The closure aligned with the housing bust and Great Recession that had vast impact at the National scale, but it impacted Brooklyn Center in ways that no one could have predicted with far reaching implications throughout the community. Between 2000 and 2010 the City lost more than 2,200 retail jobs which is equivalent to nearly a 60% reduction in the number of retail jobs available in the community. (See Background Report Appendix C). The decline was not only impactful because it eliminated jobs from the City that many of its residents were employed in, but because it signaled a massive change in the retail industry on a larger regional and national scale that we are still learning about. Once Brookdale Mall closed adjacent supporting users also began to close leaving behind a large contiguous core of available land for redevelopment in the ‘center’ of the City. This mass exodus occurred as the City was preparing the previous 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and policy-makers were faced with the overwhelming task of figuring out what to do with this now large underutilized area of the community that was once defined the central area and character of the community. As a first step in redeveloping the area, the City and its Economic Development Authority proactively purchased properties as they became available to ensure that a comprehensive approach to redevelopment could be implemented. After many years of acquisitions and process, the City was able to redevelop portions of the land into what is now Shingle Creek Crossing. Shingle Creek Crossing is a new retail destination with predominantly nation retailers and is anchored by big box stores. This area continues to evolve with new retailers being brought online with HOM Furniture being the most recent addition to the area. The efforts to revitalize this area are working and some recovery of the jobs lost between 2000 and 2010 has occurred, with more than 700 new retail jobs added between 2010 and 2016. While the City does not expect to recover all the retail jobs lost during the Great Recession because of industry-wide retail changes, it does anticipate some additional growth over the planning period particularly in areas such as Shingle Creek Crossing. Key Corridors In addition to the core retail center in the City, there are several major roadway corridors that provide additional opportunities for retail and commercial service users. For example Brooklyn Boulevard is a high-volume roadway corridor that carries cars, pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users. The corridor is an important connection through the City and is dotted with small retail, institutional and residential uses. The corridor is identified within this Plan as an important neighborhood and community roadway connection and is guided for redevelopment as Brooklyn Boulevard is reconstructed over the next five years. Retail users such as fast food, convenience, Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-12 auto repair and car sales dot the corridor and the City only expects the strength of this corridor to continue and evolve. Additionally, the City is bisected by both Highway 100 and I-94/I-694 which leads to exceptional regional access particularly near key interchanges. An example of a recent redevelopment effort is Topgolf which opened in the Fall of 2018. Topgolf is expected to be a regional entertainment/service destination that provides patrons opportunities to meet, play, eat and enjoy a drink. As the City continues to change and evolve, the City anticipates that new demand and pressure for similar types of retail and service destinations will be most prevalent along major roadway corridors. Industry: Production, Distribution, and Repair Though many residents and policy-makers often point to retail as the most prevalent industry and job provider in the City, the Production, Distribution, and Repair (PDR) industry sector provides the most employment opportunities in the community. Like the Retail sector, the PDR industry sector was heavily impacted by the Great Recession and the City lost approximately 1,100 jobs between 2000 and 2016; however, even with that decline the PDR industry still provides the most jobs in the community and accounts for over 3,100 jobs in the City. The City recognizes this as an important industry to maintain in the community now and into the future. The Future Land Use Plan specifically identifies, supports and plans for land uses that will continue to promote and maintain light industrial uses and business, light manufacturing and other similar businesses. Most recently some of the City’s industrial and light industrial users have expanded, remodeled and reinvested and it is the City’s desire to continue to ensure policies and regulations support the businesses’ ability to stay in the community for the long-term. Industry: Educational and Medical Services Trailing slightly behind the PDR industry, the Educational and Medical Services (Eds/Meds) industry is booming across the region and is slowly beginning to accelerate its presence in the City. Most notably Medtronic recently remodeled and added to its facility sending a message to the community of its long-term commitment to stay and grow. While the industry experienced a large loss of jobs between 2005 and 2010, it has rebounded significantly between 2010 and 2016 adding back nearly all the jobs it lost in the economic downturn. This industry is projected to continue to grow and gain momentum in the region and the City is well positioned to capitalize on that trend given its proximity to major roadways, post- secondary institutions and availability of land. As shown in the Future Land Use Plan, the City Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-13 has guided significant land area that would be supportive of these uses and could be integrated at a small or large scale within many of the City’s mixed-use land designations. Industry: Knowledge (Consists of ‘knowledge-based’ industry sectors, such as Information, Finance and Professional Management) The number of jobs available in the knowledge industry has stayed relatively flat over the last 10-years with modest increases, but it remains an important industry in the City comprising nearly 19% of the City’s jobs. These jobs will continue to play an important role in the City and opportunities to expand these uses will be available within the redevelopment areas of the City. It is difficult to anticipate what or if any major ‘knowledge’ based businesses will choose to locate in the community, but with the quantity of land available in the redevelopment areas it is possible given the City’s desire to create compact, walkable and experience-based development. All of these characteristics are becoming more desirable amenities to all workers, but particularly with office-based workers. Industry: Hospitality and Tourism (Worth Noting) Though not one of the top four industries in the community, this Chapter would be remiss if it did not highlight the hospitality and tourism industry in the community. The City’s proximity to downtown Minneapolis and Saint Paul, coupled with its accessibility to major highways and freeways throughout the west metro make Brooklyn Center a great place for hotels, conference centers and other hospitality uses. While the City’s employment in this industry has seen some decline over the past 16-years, it has remained relatively flat over the past 5-years and there is no indication further loss of employment in this industry is anticipated. In fact, when the C-Line becomes operational it will make the City even more accessible to both the Minneapolis and Saint Paul downtown business districts, as well as the MSP International Airport. This area is well connected and includes the Earle Brown Conference and Event Center as well as several hotels all within reasonable distance of the transit station, and is also highly accessible by car with ample on-site parking. Though tourism and hospitality are constantly evolving, there is potential for this industry to expand and grow in the City given the current market dynamics and availability of land for redevelopment. Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-14 FUTURE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The existing socio-economic characteristics of the community coupled with the City’s past and present industry trends provide the baseline from which a plan for economic development can be refined. The City has several systems, policies and objectives in place to help guide and facilitate economic development, and this Plan is intended to assist the City, policy-makers and prospective businesses in making thoughtful and proactive plans that make the City a great place for residents – and a great place to do business. The following table is taken directly from the Metropolitan Council’s 2015 System Statement for the City of Brooklyn Center. It highlights that within the region, Brooklyn Center is projected to grow – grow its population, its households and its jobs. Table 5-1. Metropolitan Council Forecasts - 2015 System Statement Forecast Year Population Households Employment 2010 30,104 10,756 11,001 2020 31,400 11,300 13,000 2030 33,000 12,300 13,800 2040 35,400 13,300 14,600 Source: Metropolitan Council If employment increases then there will be new businesses that choose to locate in the City, and residents will have opportunities to open new shops and business, and existing businesses will hopefully prosper and expand. But equally as important, is the hope that existing and new residents are afforded opportunities to work in those jobs, and that the jobs have livable wages, are accessible and exceptional places to work. Presented throughout this Chapter, and throughout this Plan, is the City’s demand to help create a more equitable environment for all of the City’s residents – that residents of every age, ethnicity and background have access to education, job training, transportation and livable wage jobs. This is a tall order, but one that the City is committed to working towards through implementation of policies, programs and engaging in key partnerships to help bring this objective to fruition. The City is on its way to improved economic competitiveness and intends to capitalize on the current momentum. Recently Brooklyn Center has seen an increase in redevelopment interest in the community and it is anticipated that this trend will continue into the foreseeable future. As touched on in previous sections of this Chapter, 2018 saw several new businesses come to the community such as Topgolf, Fairfield Inn and Suites, HOM Furniture, and Bank of America, which are recently opened or under construction. Existing businesses are also expanding; both Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-15 Luther Auto Dealerships and Medtronic underwent multi-million-dollar expansions in 2018. Building permit valuation has been steadily rising over the past several years, and 2018 saw the highest investment in these terms since 2012. As the City meets with business owners, consistently the City’s affordable land costs, proximity to Minneapolis, and access to regional freeways are attributed to the reason for their investment in the community. The following sections highlight some of the tools, programs, and organizations available to help the City reach its objectives. Specific implementation strategies are not included, but instead can be found in Chapter 9: Implementation. This is deliberate because the implementation of this Chapter is so closely integrated with the other sections of this Plan and cannot be considered independently if they are to be successful. Economic Tools Economic Development Authority (EDA) The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) was established for the purposes of providing an impetus for economic development, increase employment opportunities, and to promote other public benefits as defined by the City. The EDA supports developments that would not otherwise occur if solely dependent on private investment in the near future. The EDA has the ability to purchase land for economic development purposes and to approve economic incentives, such as Tax Increment Financing, as defined later in this section. The City of Brooklyn Center utilizes or has the ability to utilize several financing tools to assist and support development and redevelopment consistent with the goals and strategies established by the City Council. The City has adopted a Business Subsidy Policy that outlines the conditions under which a project would receive subsidy. The City will evaluate this policy to ensure that it effectively prioritizes projects that forward the City’s goals as they relate to job creation, redevelopment, and housing. The EDA has the ability to implement the following incentives: • Tax Increment Financing The EDA can use Tax Increment Financing (TIF) and pooled TIF funds to cover eligible expenses related to redevelopment projects that have extraordinary costs that would make a project otherwise not feasible. TIF is used to catalyze redevelopment that the market may not yet be able to bear on its own. Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-16 • Tax Abatement Minnesota law authorizes political subdivisions to grant property tax abatements for economic development. Abatements may be either permanent forgiveness or temporary deferral of property tax obligations. Abatements can be used for a broad range of projects and purposes, if the City finds that public benefits exceed the costs of the abatement. Permitted use of abatements include: general economic development, public infrastructure construction, redevelopment of blighted areas, providing access to services for residents, deferring or phasing in a large property tax increase, stabilizing the tax base resulting from the updated utility valuation administrative rules, and providing relief for businesses who have disrupted access due to public transportation projects. • Revolving Loan Fund The City has a revolving loan fund that is intended to incentivize new businesses and existing business expansion. The City will seek out ways to increase the funding available in the program, as well as explore other programs that incentivize investment and job growth in the City. • Other Business Resources and Support The City partners with the Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers and Hennepin County to offer the Open to Business Program, which provides technical assistance to local businesses. The program provides unlimited consulting for prospective entrepreneurs in need of guidance to take their business from idea to operation. Existing businesses are also able to take advantage of Open to Business’s services as they expand or face operational challenges. Several local and regional organizations, including Neighborhood Development Center, Metropolitan Economic Development Association, African Career, Education and Resource, Inc. (ACER), and WomenVenture, provide additional technical assistance services in the City. Dedicated City Staff Support In addition to the various programs that the City offers, in 2018, the City created a new position, the Business and Workforce Development Specialist, tasked with provided support and services to the business community, including working with prospective businesses on site selection and relocation services. The position also provides direct project-related support and business engagement, such as one-on-one meetings with business owners, participation in the local Brooklyn Center Business Association, and reviewing City policies and regulations for opportunities to better support economic development. For businesses seeking State of Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-17 Minnesota financing via the Minnesota Investment Fund or the Job Creation Fund, the position facilitates the process, with the City serving as a conduit for contractual procedures and funds distribution. As it is a new position, the tools and resources continue to be developed and evolve. The position has been tasked with: • Developing a Business Retention and Expansion Program • Developing New Business Welcome Packets • Developing materials to educate businesses on property maintenance and nuisance ordinances • Seeking programs and partnerships to provide additional resources to new and existing businesses • Marketing EDA-owned property • Organizing the First Saturday Pop-up market to assist small local businesses with finding local customers Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-18 Partnerships Partnerships with other agencies and organizations bring additional resources to local businesses. Partnerships include two local Chambers of Commerce: North Hennepin Area Chamber of Commerce and Twin West Chamber of Commerce. Each Chamber of Commerce serves the business community with recurring programming, lobbying, networking, and advocacy. The Brooklyn Center Business Association represents local businesses and offers opportunities to share information and network. The Liberian Business Association provides similar culturally-specific support and connectedness. The State of Minnesota started offering workshops for small business owners and prospective entrepreneurs in 2017. Greater MSP provides global promotion of the region by staffing booths at tradeshows, publishing site selector magazines, and facilitating new business or relocation efforts. Hennepin County offers an Economic Gardening Program that provides mid-sized business owners with needed resources, mentoring, and knowledge to grow take their businesses to the next level. Minneapolis Northwest Tourism supports the hospitality industry and provides marketing and branding to the cities of Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, and Brooklyn Center. Workforce Development Tools Minnesota is experiencing a labor shortage, expected to continue over the next ten years. According to the Minnesota State Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), Minnesota businesses will add 205,000 jobs to the economy over the next decade and the labor force is projected to increase by only 68,400 workers. Today, the State’s online job board has 80,000 position openings and the State’s unemployment rate is around 3.7 percent. Expected Baby Boomer retirements will also have an impact. According to DEED, one in every five jobs in Minnesota is now held by workers who are within 10 years of—or already at — retirement age. Moreover, these pending retirements will impact industry sectors differently. For example, 30% of the transportation and warehousing sector is within this retirement-ready group, along with 28% of the educational services sector, and 24% of manufacturing. Connecting residents, particularly underserved residents, in the community with available jobs presents one opportunity to begin to address the current labor shortage, and to forward the City’s Resident Economic Stability goals. Barriers exist, however, in connecting those in our community that are unemployed or underemployed and these available jobs. High- demand living-wage jobs require some level of post-secondary education. Lack of educational attainment and social networks represent prominent barriers to those in the community that are unemployed or underemployed. Community Image, Economic Competitiveness & Stability City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5-19 The City of Brooklyn Center is proactively exploring solutions to support the local workforce. The City continues to build partnerships with secondary and post-secondary educational institutions and organizations including Hennepin Technical College, North Hennepin Community College, Hennepin-Carver Workforce Board, and the Hennepin North Workforce Center. Brooklyn Center also participated in the Hennepin County Workforce Leadership Council, which assembled leaders from the public and private sectors and philanthropic community to compare strategies and collaborate on creating industry-specific career pipelines. The City also continues to support workforce development efforts by the North Hennepin Area Chamber of Commerce and TwinWest Chamber of Commerce. Finally, since 2014 the City has partnered with the City of Brooklyn Park and the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth on the BrookLynk program. BrookLynk’s mission is to “coordinate partnerships that prepare employers to engage the next generation of workers and to connect young people in the cities of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park facing barriers to employment with the skills, experience, and professional social networks needed to develop their pathway to college and career.” Since December 2017, BrookLynk is housed in the Economic Development and Housing Division of Brooklyn Park’s Community Development Department in partnership with the City of Brooklyn Center and with support from the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth and program funding partners. This page is intentionally blank. CHAPTER 6: Parks, Trails & Open Space Comprehensive Plan 2040 PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-1 INTRODUCTION As a first-ring suburb and fully-developed City, Brooklyn Center benefits from a well- established park and trail system. Natural features in the community, including the Mississippi River, Single Creek, Palmer Lake, and Upper and Middle Twin Lakes, provide premier natural areas, open space, and amenities for popular urban recreation. A 21-mile trail system extends the recreational opportunities and connects residential neighborhoods with parks and other destinations. Parks and trails are a valued asset to community. High interest and participation from residents continues to justify the ongoing maintenance, management, and investment needed for high- quality recreation, trail use, and park facilities in the City. To thoughtfully plan for the parks and trails system, it is important to understand the changing characteristics of the City’s park and trail users, keep current on the existing system’s conditions, and identify gaps and opportunities for new parks, trails, or facilities that will benefit the City. The purpose of this Chapter will review these features and context and provide recommendations for Brooklyn Center’s parks and trails system through 2040. 2040 Parks, Trails & Open Space Goals »Provide a park and recreation system that is based on the needs of the City’s residents and stakeholders. »Encourage residents and stakeholders to participate in the park and recreation system planning process. »Explore ways to incorporate design and preservation standards into the City’s ordinances and policies to improve and maintain a high- quality system. »Support efforts to maximize the use and accessibility of the system by local residents. * Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals & Strategies PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-2 Growth and Demographics The forecasted population in the community is expected to rise by approximately 2,250 households by 2040, which will alter the demands and needs from the City’s parks and trails system. Changing land use and redevelopment impacts areas of natural features and open space. Some redevelopment may enhance and improve the quality of those features, such as Shingle Creek which has been identified as having impaired waters. Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment of this Plan discusses the anticipated changes in land use and related demographics of the community. Parks are indicated on Map 3-2. Future Land Use. Association of Recreation Type and Age A critical component to consider when planning for the future of parks and trails in Brooklyn Center is the socio-economic and demographic trends that will impact the types of improvements, development, and programming within the system that will best serve the community for generations to come. A high-quality parks and trails system provides for recreation and enjoyment of the outdoors with facilities and activities that appeal to all age groups. It is important to offer a diverse mix and to understand that some park activities are generally associated with specific age groups. Active recreation facilities, such as soccer fields and playgrounds, are typically used by younger people and children while passive recreation facilities, such as picnicking, walking, or fishing, are generally associated with adults and older people. The Background Report, contained in Appendix C, describes the City’s current demographic and socio-economic trends. Since 2010, the number of households with children in both single-parent and married couple households has been growing significantly. The percentage of households with children is now approaching 40%, which is well above the rate in Hennepin County and the metro area in general. The trend among households without children is conversely on the decline. The population is generally getting younger, likely due to a relatively homogeneous and affordable housing stock dominated by single-family residential uses. As the City’s residential make-up changes, it will be essential to understand who is moving into the community and what the target market of redevelopment is so the parks and trails system can expand and grow to meet needs of future residents. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-3 THE EXISTING PARK SYSTEM Brooklyn Center currently hosts 24 developed local parks, one regional park, and a municipal golf course, providing a variety of recreational opportunities for all segments of the population. In addition, considerable undeveloped public open space is held in the Twin Lakes area and along the Mississippi River. Recreation and leisure opportunities range from passive pursuits such as sitting, walking, picnicking, fishing, and enjoying music to more active pastimes such as organized sports, pick-up athletic games, bicycling, running, and in-line skating. Many of the City parks are adjacent to schools or other open space. Popular Centennial Park is adjacent to the Community Center and Civic Center and functions as a central hub for recreation amenities in the City. Parks are generally distributed evenly throughout all areas of the City, and the variety of recreational facilities available enable the park system to provide recreation access to all residents. There is excellent coordination of programs and facilities between parks and schools, and between parks, City and county facilities. The trail system links parks, schools, and other activity centers. Park and Open Space Classifications The City’s parks are classified according to a functional hierarchy that suggests the types of facilities and development that are appropriate to each park. However, specific improvements are individually tailored to each park based on neighborhood desires, historical presence of certain types of facilities, proximity to other uses, and resources available. The various types of parks are sited and designed to serve different needs and populations of residents. It is a policy of the City to locate at least one park in each neighborhood that is safely accessible to pedestrians—especially children—within a reasonable walking distance of approximately one-quarter to one-half mile. At the other end of the spectrum, one or two larger parks in the City aim to meet organized sports and specialized and community-wide recreation. The following classification system has been developed by City staff based on national standards. It is similar to the system the City has used for park and recreation planning for the past twenty years. However, the classification of parks within the system has been changed in order to make better use of park resources, meet neighborhood needs, and address issues of demographic and social change. This classification also incorporates regional parks, which are not specifically managed by the City but should be considered for coordinated access and related park and facility development. Map 6-1 illustrates the City’s park locations and classifications. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-4 Map 6-1. Existing Parks and Classifications 5 - 3 5 - 3 Source: City of Brooklyn Center 2030 Comprehensive Plan PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-5 The Brooklyn Center park system is therefore divided into the following broad categories, each described in more depth to follow: 1. Regional Parks 2. Neighborhood Parks 3. Community Destination Parks 4. Special Use Parks and Open Spaces Regional Parks Regional parks in the Twin Cities metropolitan area usually contain a diverse mix of nature- based resources, are typically 200-500 acres in size, and accommodate a variety of outdoor recreation activities. These parks are often owned and managed by larger parks districts or counties but coordination with local municipalities and local park systems is important to the success of the broader metro area park systems. The North Mississippi Regional Park (Regional Park) is the only regional park within Brooklyn Center city boundaries and is managed by the Three Rivers Parks District; most of the property is also owned by Three Rivers Park District. It is located east of the I-94/TH 252 alignment, extending along the west bank of the Mississippi River from the City’s south boundary at 53rd Avenue north to the I-694 crossing. The primary access to the Regional Park is at 57th Avenue where a park drive leads north and a trailhead and wayfinding structures mark the park’s main feature: the corridor for the Mississippi River Trail (MRT)—a dually-designated state and regional trail—which runs north/south through the park adjacent to the Mississippi River. The trail’s regional naming designation, provided by Three Rivers Park District, is West Mississippi River Regional Trail (WMRRT) More information about the MRT/WMRRT follows later in this Chapter. Other amenities in the Regional Park include a picnic area, fishing pier, and parking. The park offers spectacular views of the Mississippi River and opportunities for watching wildlife. Trails connect with Webber Parkway and commuter routes into downtown Minneapolis. The park is adjacent to the North Mississippi Regional Park owned and operated by the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board just south of the City, seamlessly extending the recreational use of both jurisdiction’s regional parks. Map 6-2 shows the Regional Park Map developed by Three Rivers Park District. In addition, the Metropolitan Council provides information shown in Map 6-3 with relation to the provision of regional parks and trail accommodation in Brooklyn Center. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-6 Map 6-2. Map of North Mississippi Regional Park Source: Three Rivers Park District 1,000 Feet Coon Rapids Dam Regional Park by local trails - approx. 5.7 miles M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r PARK ENTRANCE 694 94 94 57TH AVE N 53RD AVE N South of 53rd Ave No is operated by Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board. Follow the West Mississippi Regional Trail south or drive to 49th Ave No to Kroening Interpretive Center, Wading Pool, Play Area and other amenities. 252 LEGEND: fishing pier parking picnic area water body park boundary rest area/bench paved hike, bike, leashed dog trail Updated: 2/9/2018 drinking water toilet NORTH MISSISSIPPI REGIONAL PARK threeriversparks.org PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-7 Map 6-3. Regional Parks and Trails Source: Metropolitan Council Page -37 |2015 SYSTEM STATEMENT –BROOKLYN CENTER REGIONAL PARKS Figure 2. Regional Parks System Facilities in and adjacent to Brooklyn Center PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-8 Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood Parks include the following three types: 1) Play Lot; 2) Playground; 3) Playfield. Play Lot Play lots are the smallest unit of the park system both in terms of size and area that they serve. The primary function of a play lot is to provide play facilities for pre-school children who are not conveniently served by larger parks or playgrounds. It may contain play equipment, sandboxes, paved areas for wheeled toys, walking and bike trails, and seating areas. • Service Area: The sub-neighborhood level of 500 to 2,000 persons within a ¼ mile radius • Desirable Size: .25 to 2 acres • Acres per person: No set standard; desirable in higher-density areas. • Site Characteristics: Should be located so that children do not have to cross major streets and include (or be combined with) an adult seating or gathering area; can be combined with a school. Playground Parks designed for use by children from pre-school to age 12. Often coincides with the service area for an elementary school and may adjoin and complement the school facility if intended to serve the same age group. Facilities and programs of a neighborhood playground should be designed to meet the particular requirements of each individual neighborhood. May include a larger play area with equipment for older children; an area for free play and organized games; minimum maintenance ball diamond, multi-purpose hard surface courts; walking and bike trails, pleasure skating rinks, and seating areas. Some parks may contain portable restrooms. • Service Area: A population of up to 4,000 with a ¼ to ½ mile radius. • Desirable Size: 5 to 10 acres. • Acres per 1,000 pop.: 2.0 • Site Characteristics: Geographically centered in neighborhood with safe walking and bike access. Suited for intense development. Helpful if located adjacent to a school. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-9 Playfield Larger parks designed to provide recreation opportunities for all ages. They may contain all the features of playgrounds, with groomed ball facilities suitable for adult play. Hockey and pleasure skating rinks are lighted. May include portable restrooms and sheltered picnic areas. • Service Area: Neighborhood-wide; serves entire population with special emphasis on organized adult sports, ideally within a 1½ to 2 miles biking distance. • Desirable Size: 20 acres or more. • Acres per 1,000 pop.: 1.0 to 2.0 • Site Characteristics: Direct access from all parts of the neighborhood or quadrant. Level terrain with few water bodies or other environmental constraints. Easily accessible by large numbers of vehicles. Physically separate from homes so as to minimize light and noise problems. Community Destination Parks Relatively large parks serving as a recreational focus for a neighborhood of the City. Community Destination Parks are noted for having a wide variety of leisure and recreational options and are fully accessible to persons of all abilities. Lighted areas for evening play are provided. Daytime recreational programming and playground supervision are provided in the summer months. Heated, enclosed park shelter buildings provide for recreational spaces and warming houses. Community Destination Parks are intended to include costlier types of facilities, and each has a distinct identity or theme. Central Park is the flagship park of the system, with substantial improvements that serve the entire community. Evergreen Park focuses on team sports; Kylawn/ Arboretum Park builds on its nature areas of the Arboretum and the Preserve; West Palmer Park is seen as a prime family picnic and outings area; and Grandview Park’s focus is on youth and winter recreation. • Service Area: A neighborhood or quadrant of the City • Desirable Size: 25 acres or more. • Acres per 1,000 pop.: 5.0 • Site Characteristics: Easily accessible from all parts of neighborhood or quadrant. Should be located on collector or arterial streets to provide adequate access for residents and should be well-buffered from adjacent residential areas. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-10 Special Use Parks and Open Space Special use parks and open spaces are areas providing specialized or single-purpose recreational or leisure activities. These parks generally do not provide extensive permanent facilities but may provide nature interpretation, trail and greenway corridors, and/or walking or biking paths. Trails or greenways should connect with other components of the recreation system, schools, community facilities, or neighborhoods. Existing Parks Inventory Existing parks are well-dispersed through the City of Brooklyn Center. Table 6-1. illustrates the location and classification of each park in the City’s system. In addition to parks, the City’s maintains several areas of open space, including the 65-acre Centerbrook Municipal Golf Course, Greenways along Shingle Creek Parkway, 69th Avenue, and 53rd Avenue, and several properties serving as natural areas around Twin Lakes. Parks Management Management of the local park system is the responsibility of the City’s Community Activities, Recreation, and Services (CARS) department. Bi-yearly citizen surveys help inform the CARS department on changing interests and requests from area residents related to programming, facilities, and park use. Input from these surveys is used to identify and prioritize projects in the Capital Improvements Program (CIP), see vww D. Also informing parks use, development, and management is the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission which meets monthly and advises the City Council on parks and recreation issues in Brooklyn Center. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-11 Table 6-1. Inventory of Park Amenities Source: City of Brooklyn Center PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-12 BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN TRAIL SYSTEM The City’s current bicycle and pedestrian trail system consists of a mix of sidewalks, paved off- street trails, and some on-road bicycle lanes. Connection between neighborhoods and parks, residents and city destinations, and local and regional facilities continues as a priority for the development of the system. Three regional trails extend through the City further providing connection within the community and to broader regional trail networks beyond. Map 6-4 illustrates the City’s extensive trail network. Regional Trails Three regional trails provide a backbone of trail system within and through the City. Local connection to these regional trails provides opportunity for extensive multi-modal transportation for area residents. These trails tend to be paved road-separated facilities; most are under the jurisdiction of Three Rivers Parks District with some portions managed by the City. The three regional trails include: 1) Shingle Creek Regional Trail, 2) Twin Lakes Regional Trail, and the MRT/WMRRT. Map 6-5 illustrates the regional trails in the City. Shingle Creek Regional Trail The City’s bicycle and pedestrian trail system is anchored by the Shingle Creek Regional Trail, an off-street separated trail which runs from the north to the south City limits along Shingle Creek. For much of its length, separate trails are provided for bicyclists and pedestrians. The north end of the trail circles Palmer Lake, and a portion of this trail section is maintained by the City. Beyond Brooklyn Center, the regional trail travels from Minneapolis in the south to Brooklyn Park in the north and connects to the Above the Falls Regional Park, Victory Memorial Parkway Regional Trail, Twin Lakes Regional Trail and Rush Creek Regional Trail. Twin Lakes Regional Trail This regional trail travels through Brooklyn Center and Robbinsdale as it connects the MRT/ WMRRT, Shingle Creek Regional Trail, and Crystal Lake Regional Trail. Its alignment utilizes a combination of paved road-separated trail and sidewalk. The City of Brooklyn Center’s Pedestrian Bicycle and Trail Plan identifies proposed improvements to the trail to eventually complete a connection between the Crystal Lake Regional Trail and MRT/WMRRT. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-13 Map 6-4. Brooklyn Center Trails Source: City of Brooklyn Center, updated by SHC To Mississippi Gateway Regional Park Mississippi River Trail (MRT) / West Mississippi River Regional Trail (WMRRT) PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-14 Map 6-5. Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN), Brooklyn Center Source: Metropolitan Council, updated by SHC PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-15 Map 6-6. Twin Lakes Regional Trail Improvements Source: Brooklyn Center Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan, 2014. Updated by SHC. Pedestrian & Bicycle PlanBROOKLYNCENTER City of Figure 10 - Twin Lakes Regional Trail and Proposed Improvements GRAPHIC SCALE 0 0.25 0.5 MILES Legend Existing Twin Lakes Regional Trail Proposed Twin Lakes Regional Trail Regional Trail N(Source: Three Rivers Park District) 24 Pedestrian & Bicycle PlanBROOKLYNCENTER City of Figure 10 - Twin Lakes Regional Trail and Proposed Improvements GRAPHIC SCALE 0 0.25 0.5 MILES Legend Existing Twin Lakes Regional Trail Proposed Twin Lakes Regional Trail Regional Trail N(Source: Three Rivers Park District) 24 Pedestrian & Bicycle PlanBROOKLYNCENTER City of Figure 10 - Twin Lakes Regional Trail and Proposed Improvements GRAPHIC SCALE 0 0.25 0.5 MILES Legend Existing Twin Lakes Regional Trail Proposed Twin Lakes Regional Trail Regional Trail N(Source: Three Rivers Park District) 24 PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-16 Mississippi River Trail and West Mississippi River Regional Trail The Mississippi River Trail (MRT) / West Mississippi River Regional Trail (WMRRT) through Brooklyn Center is just a small segment of the roughly 600-mile long trail that travels through the state adjacent or near to the Mississippi River, beginning at the headwaters in Itasca State Park. A portion of the trail in Brooklyn Center is complete as a paved road-separated trail located within the North Mississippi Regional Park. This segment—from 53rd Avenue to the I-694 crossing—is owned and managed by Three Rivers Park District. A trailhead marker and wayfinding information is located next to the MRT at 57th Avenue in the regional park. Map 5-7 shows the route of the MRT in Brooklyn Center and Fridley, provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The trail portion managed by Three Rivers Park District currently travels east at I-694 to the east side of the river, connecting with the segment in Fridley. It is the intent and goal of the MRT and City to extend the trail along the west side of the river north in the corridor now known as the West Mississippi River Regional Trail (WMRRT). A short gap in the off-road facility currently exists between I-694 and 66th Avenue. While this segment is signed with MRT markers, trail users must travel within the road or sidewalk along Willow Lane. At 66th Avenue, a paved off-road trail travels north again; this segment is managed by the City. A regional trail search corridor for the West Mississippi River Regional Trail is included in the 2040 Regional Parks Policy Plan to travel through Dayton, Champlin, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center as it connects Crow River Regional Trail Search Corridor, Elm Creek Park Reserve, Rush Creek Regional Trail, Mississippi Gateway Regional Park, Twin Lakes Regional Trail and North Mississippi Regional Park. A master plan for the WMRRT was adopted in May 2018. The trail route celebrates the Mississippi River’s significance within Hennepin County, traveling approximately 20 miles adjacent to or near the river through northeastern Hennepin County. It connects the communities of Dayton, Champlin, Brooklyn Park, and Brooklyn Center—with the confluence of the Crow/Mississippi Rivers and the Minneapolis Grand Rounds as bookends to the trail alignment. The West Mississippi River Regional Trail will link Coon Rapids Dam and North Mississippi regional parks, and the Rush Creek, Medicine Lake and Twin Lakes regional trails. Map 6-8 is excerpted from the regional trail master plan and illustrates the MRT/WMRRT alignment through Brooklyn Center. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-17 Map 6-7. MRT through Brooklyn Center and Fridley (MnDOT) /. ¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ [¡ [¡[¡[¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡[¡ [¡ [¡ [¡ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! S h i n g l e C r e e k R e g i o n a l T r a i l §¨¦94 §¨¦69 4 §¨¦69 4 ¬«47 ¬«25 2 ¬«65 ¬«10 0 ")1 ")35 ")10 2 ")57 ")6 ")4 ")2 ")10 ")10 4 ")8 ")10 2 W i l l o w L a M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r R e g i o n a l T r a i l An o k a R i v e r f r o n t R e g i o n a l P a r k No r t h M i s s i s s i p p i R e g i o n a l P a r k Fr i d l e y Br o o k l y n C e n t e r Br o o k l y n P a r k Co l u m b i a H e i g h t s Mi n n e a p o l i s Hi l l t o p M i s s i s s i p p i N a t i o n a l R i v e r R e c r e a t i o n A r e a Mo o r e , W e s t Lo c k e Sa n d y Pa l m e r Mo o r e , E a s t M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r 7 t h S t N E M a i n S t N E D u p o n t A v e E R i v e r R d 44 t h A v e N E 7 3 r d A v e 6 9 t h A v e C e n t r a l A v e N E 3 r d S t N E N e w t o n A v e H u m b o l d t A v e B r y a n t A v e M i s s i s s i p p i S t N E 5 2 n d A v e N 5 4 t h A v e 5 t h S t N E 45 t h A v e N E 5 9 t h A v e 5 1 s t A v e N 53 r d A v e N 5 8 t h A v e 43 r d A v e N E W i l l o w L a 50 t h A v e N E K n o x A v e W R i v e r R d W e s t R i v e r R d 6 t h S t N E L y n d a l e A v e N 6 1 s t A v e N E 5 0 t h A v e N 6 7 t h A v e 5 1 s t A v e N E G i r a r d A v e 6 t h S t N 5 7 t h A v e L o g a n A v e C S A H 5 7 F r e e w a y B l v d M a t t e r h o r n D r N E R i c e C r e e k T e r N E Colfax Ave M e a d o w W o o d D r 6 3 r d A v e N E 7 3 r d A v e N E 6 0 t h A v e I r v i n g A v e M o n r o e S t N E S h i n g l e C r e e k P k w y 7 9 t h A v e O l i v e r A v e 6 2 n d A v e 8 0 t h A v e J a m e s A v e 4 t h S t N E 2 n d S t N E M o r g a n A v e 5 3 r d A v e N E 46 t h A v e N E W M o o r e L a k e D r S u g a r l o af T r 4 7 t h A v e N E A b l e S t N E L y n d a l e A v e H i l l w i n d R d N E L a r a m i e T r G u n f l i n t T r 5 5 t h A v e B r y a n t A v e N H o r i z o n A v e N E 6 8 t h A v e N E 4 t h S t S u n k i s t B l v d Mississippi La P e a r s o n P k w y F i l l m o r e S t N E P i e r c e T e r N E 2 n d 1 / 2 S t N E L y n d e D r N E 6 5 t h A v e 5 4 t h A v e N E B r o o k l y n D r P e n n A v e N X e r x e s A v e C a m d e n A v e F r e m o n t A v e L i n c o l n T e r N E 7 0 t h A v e E L y n d a l e A v e N 6 4 t h A v e N L i l a c D r T y l e r S t N E M e d r o n i c P k w y N E S u m m i t D r J o h n M a r t i n D r 6 6 t h A v e N E M a r s h a l l S t N E B r o o k v i e w D r N E H i c k o r y D r N E 4 6 t h 1 /2 A v e N E Wo o d b i n e L a A m y L a S t a r l i t e B l v d N E 7 4 t h A v e 8 1 s t A v e 6 3 r d L a 5 8 t h A v e N E P i e r c e S t N E A l d r i c h A v e M c L e o d S t N E 6 0 t h A v e N E R i v e r d a l e R d F a i r f i e l d R d 4 4 t h 1 /2 A v e N E I n d u s t r i a l B l v d N E 5 t h S t 43 r d 1 / 2 A v e N E 7 2 n d A v e N E 4 2 n d 1 /2 A v e N E 8 0 t h C t W o o d y L a N E R u s s e l l A v e 6 9 t h A v e N E R e g i s D r N E 7 1 s t A v e N E 7 8 t h A v e 7 5 t h A v e S e r v i c e R d O v e r t o n D r N E J o h n s o n S t N E V i n c e n t A v e Emerson Ave 5 2 n d A v e N E 7 3 r d C t 6 7 t h A v e N E L y r i c L a N E H i c k o r y S t N E B u c h a n a n S t N E 62 n d W a y N E B r o o k d a l e D r 6 6 t h A v e F r e e m o n t A v e 7 7 t h W a y 6 3 r d W a y N E C o m m e r c e C i r E N o r t o n A v e N E 5 6 t h A v e N E C o m m e r c e C i r W P a n o r a m a R d N E J a c k s o n S t N E A n n a A v e N E A s h t o n A v e N E 7 1 s t 1 /2 W a y N E James Cir 4 8 t h A v e N E H a r t m a n C i r S a t e l l i t e L a N E A l d r i c h C i r G i r a r d C t 4 5 t h 1 /2 A v e N E L o g a n P k w y N E 5 9 t h A v e N E R i v e r s E d g e W a y N E 7 4 t h A v e L o g a n A v e H u m b o l d t A v e E R i v e r R d 3 r d S t N E N L i l a c D r I r v i n g A v e 48 t h A v e N E 6 t h S t N E 2 n d S t N E Bryan t Ave 4 7 t h A v e N E J a m e s A v e S h i n g l e C r e e k P kw y C a m d e n A v e 5 0 t h A v e N B r y a nt A v e J a c k s o n S t N E 5 7 t h A v e 6 8 t h A v e N E 6 7 t h A v e 5 t h S t N E A l d r i c h A v e 7 0 t h A v e 6 5 t h A v e 6 9 t h A v e N E 5 7 t h A v e C o l f a x A v e 0 0. 2 5 0 . 5 M i l e s MR T I n f o o n M N D O T W e b s i t e : h t t p : / / w w w . d o t . s t a t e . m n . u s / b i k e / m r t / i n d e x . h t m l Al t e r n a t i v e F o r m a t : h t t p : / / w w w . d o t . s t a t e . m n . u s / b i k e / a d a . h t m l Di s c l a i m e r : h t t p : / / w w w . d o t . s t a t e . m n . u s / i n f o r m a t i o n / d i s c l a i m e r . h t m l ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! ! ! !!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !!!!!!!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! !! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ! ! ! ! !!!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! %&f ( !"b $ %&h ( !"b $ !"`$ %&d ( %&c (!"`$ %&d ( %&c ( %&e ( Me t r o Sa i n t P a u l Da y t o n Ro s e m o u n t Mi n n e a p o l i s Ra m s e y El k R i v e r Co t t a g e G r o v e Br o o k l y n P a r k Co o n R a p i d s Fr i d l e y I. G . H . Ha s t i n g s An o k a Ch a m p l i n Me n d o t a H e i g h t s Br o o k l y n C e n t e r Ne w p o r t S. S . P Co a t e s 9 876 5 4 1 2 3 11 20 22 12 10 1615 21 13 19 18 17 14 µ Me t r o M a p I n s e t 7 Br o o k l y n C e n t e r / F r i d l e y Mi s s i s s i p p i R i v e r T r a i l B i k e w a y U. S . B i c y c l e R o u t e ( U S B R ) 4 5 Ma r c h 2 0 1 5 De t a i l s o n M R T R o u t e : MR T R o u t e o n R o a d !! ! ! ! ! ! MR T R o u t e o n E x i s t i n g T r a i l s MR T R o u t e o n E x i s t i n g R o a d s w i t h L i m i t a t i o n s (s h o u l d e r w i d t h , s i g h t l i n e s , s u r f a c e ) Ex i s t i n g R e c r e a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s : Fi s h i n g O p p o r t u n i t i e s Wa t e r A c c e s s S i t e [¡/. Ci t i e s Op e n W a t e r US H i g h w a y s St a t e H i g h w a y s Co u n t y R o a d s In t e r s t a t e H i g h w a y s !§¨¦90 Ot h e r R o a d s £¤61 ¬«43 ")55 Ra i l r o a d Ba s e m a p F e a t u r e s : Ex i s t i n g F e d e r a l , S t a t e a n d R e g i o n a l B i k e a b l e T r a i l s Na t i o n a l W i l d l i f e R e f u g e Fe d e r a l a n d S t a t e F o r e s t s St a t e a n d R e g i o n a l P a r k s Mi s s i s s i p p i N a t i o n a l R i v e r a n d R e c r e a t i o n A r e a ( M N R R A ) Ma j o r R o a d w i t h 4 ' + B i k e a b l e S h o u l d e r s Source: MnDOT PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-18 Map 6-8. West Mississippi River Regional Trail (WMRRT) Alignment Three Rivers Park District38 SEGMENT D | BROOKLYN CENTER This 2.7 mile WMRRT segment consists of existing and planned subsegments (Maps 33 & 34 and Table 12). The WMRRT makes its final terminus point at North Mississippi Regional Park, south of I-694. Opportunity for river touchpoints north of I-694 are minimal, with sweeping river vistas available as the WMRRT reaches North Mississippi Regional Park, a narrow regional park located between I-94 and the river. Further regional trail connections are made to the Twin Lakes Regional Trail and Minneapolis Grand Rounds park and trail network. The character of the trail is generally defined by its physical location - a narrow strip between Highway 252 and I-94, and the Mississippi River. Highway 252 is undergoing a MnDOT study to improve safety and mobility between 610 and I-694. Additional highway corridor goals include providing connectivity, pedestrian accommodations, access to transit services and maintaining existing infrastructure investments. As a recommendation of the WMRRT Master Plan, off-street trail to replace or improve the existing trail must be accommodated for in future plans. Map 34: Segment D | Brooklyn Center Overview Source: Three Rivers Park District Table 12: Segment D | Brooklyn Center Subsegments Source: Three Rivers Park District D SEGMENT D #Municipality Status Length Notes Acquisition & Construction D1 Brooklyn Center Existing 0.91 Minor updates & maintenance $48,000 D2 Future construction 0.35 Minor updates & maintenance $676,000 D3 Existing 0.11 Minor updates & maintenance $86,000 D4 Existing 1.31 Minor updates & maintenance $486,000 Subtotal 2.7 miles $1,296,000 Map 33: Segment D | Brooklyn Center Context Source: Three Rivers Park District Three Rivers Park District38 SEGMENT D | BROOKLYN CENTERThis 2.7 mile WMRRT segment consists of existing and planned subsegments (Maps 33 & 34 and Table 12). The WMRRT makes its final terminus point at North Mississippi Regional Park, south of I-694. Opportunity for river touchpoints north of I-694 are minimal, with sweeping river vistas available as the WMRRT reaches North Mississippi Regional Park, a narrow regional park located between I-94 and the river. Further regional trail connections are made to the Twin Lakes Regional Trail and Minneapolis Grand Rounds park and trail network.The character of the trail is generally defined by its physical location - a narrow strip between Highway 252 and I-94, and the Mississippi River.Highway 252 is undergoing a MnDOT study to improve safety and mobility between 610 and I-694. Additional highway corridor goals include providing connectivity, pedestrian accommodations, access to transit services and maintaining existing infrastructure investments. As a recommendation of the WMRRT Master Plan, off-street trail to replace or improve the existing trail must be accommodated for in future plans. Map 34: Segment D | Brooklyn Center OverviewSource: Three Rivers Park District Table 12: Segment D | Brooklyn Center Subsegments Source: Three Rivers Park District D SEGMENT D #Municipality Status Length Notes Acquisition & Construction D1 Brooklyn Center Existing 0.91 Minor updates & maintenance $48,000 D2 Future construction 0.35 Minor updates & maintenance $676,000 D3 Existing 0.11 Minor updates & maintenance $86,000 D4 Existing 1.31 Minor updates & maintenance $486,000 Subtotal 2.7 miles $1,296,000 Map 33: Segment D | Brooklyn Center Context Source: Three Rivers Park District Source: Draft West Mississippi River Regional Trail Master Plan, Three Rivers Park District PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-19 City Trail Network Beyond the largely north/south alignments of the City’s regional trails, the City manages east/ west trails to link trails providing a connected network. East-west links include the 69th Avenue greenway, the Freeway Boulevard/65th Avenue trail; and the 53rd Avenue greenway. Sidewalks and other neighborhood trails complete the finer grain of the network and local trail system. Map 6-9 illustrates existing trails in Brooklyn Center along with potential alignments of proposed connections. Map 6-9. Brooklyn Center Pedestrian & Bicycle Trail Network (City) Source: Brooklyn Center Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan, 2014 Updated by SHC Pedestrian & Bicycle PlanBROOKLYNCENTER City of Figure 7 - Existing and Planned Trail & Sidewalk Network GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1800 3600 FEET Legend Existing Regional Trails Planned Regional Trails Local Trails Planned Local Trails Sidewalks Railroad Parks City Boundary Mississippi River Trail * Mississippi River Trail (Planned) * Shingle Creek Regional Trail Twin Lakes Regional Trail Twin Lakes Regional Trail (Planned) N M S T M T * Multiple Jurisdictions 18 Pedestrian & Bicycle PlanBROOKLYNCENTER City of Figure 7 - Existing and Planned Trail & Sidewalk Network GRAPHIC SCALE 0 1800 3600 FEET Legend Existing Regional Trails Planned Regional Trails Local Trails Planned Local Trails Sidewalks Railroad Parks City Boundary Mississippi River Trail * Mississippi River Trail (Planned) * Shingle Creek Regional Trail Twin Lakes Regional Trail Twin Lakes Regional Trail (Planned) N M S T M T * Multiple Jurisdictions 18 MRT / WMRRT (Planned)* MRT / WMRRT* PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-20 Trail Issues In 2014, the City conducted a thorough study of its pedestrian and bicycle system. The Brooklyn Center Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan is the resulting document that addresses the issues, gaps, and needs of the existing system. Through study and public engagement, the document identifies gaps in the City’s sidewalk, trail, and crossings systems for pedestrian and bicyclists. Map 6-10 is taken from the study and highlights the locations of gaps identified in the study process. The document also identifies other public needs for pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure, including requests for improved lighting, availability of bicycle racks, wider trails, better- maintained trail surfaces, winter snow removal, and added security. Information about ongoing management and implementation of identified projects is contained in the pedestrian and bicycle plan. Map 6-10. Brooklyn Center Pedestrian & Bicycle Trail Network Gaps Pedestrian & Bicycle PlanBROOKLYNCENTER City of Diffi cult Crossing Area Trail Gap Sidewalk Gap Trail Connection Search Area Figure 15 - Public Input on System Challenges Legend GRAPHIC SCALE 0 2,000 4,000 FEETN Identifi ed Issues Existing Regional Trails Planned Regional Trails Local Trail Planned Local Trail Sidewalks Railroad Tracks Parks City Boundary Existing Grade-Separated Pedestrian Crossing 42 Pedestrian & Bicycle PlanBROOKLYNCENTER City of Diffi cult Crossing Area Trail Gap Sidewalk Gap Trail Connection Search Area Figure 15 - Public Input on System Challenges Legend GRAPHIC SCALE 0 2,000 4,000 FEETN Identifi ed Issues Existing Regional Trails Planned Regional Trails Local Trail Planned Local Trail Sidewalks Railroad Tracks Parks City Boundary Existing Grade-Separated Pedestrian Crossing 42 Pedestrian & Bicycle PlanBROOKLYNCENTER City of Diffi cult Crossing Area Trail Gap Sidewalk Gap Trail Connection Search Area Figure 15 - Public Input on System Challenges Legend GRAPHIC SCALE 0 2,000 4,000 FEETN Identifi ed Issues Existing Regional Trails Planned Regional Trails Local Trail Planned Local Trail Sidewalks Railroad Tracks Parks City Boundary Existing Grade-Separated Pedestrian Crossing 42 Source: Brooklyn Center Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan, 2014 Updated by SHC This gap has been closed with the completion of the Twin Lakes Regional Trail since map publication in 2014. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-21 PARKS & TRAILS – NEEDS, GOALS & POLICIES Identifying Needs In an effort stay current with the needs of a changing community, the City conducts a citizen survey to assess what residents want to see changed or improved with the area’s parks and recreation. These surveys are conducted every other year. Results influence projects the City includes in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for parks. Examples of projects include conversion of baseball fields to soccer fields, addition of nature trails, or replacement of playground equipment. The last survey was completed in 2017. Primary desires expressed in this survey include the addition of a splash pad, dog park, and indoor walking facility to the system. Goals and Policies In Chapter 2: Vision, Goals & Strategies of this Plan outlines the goals for parks and trails in Brooklyn Center. The City’s primary goal is to provide a robust system of parks and recreation that serves the diverse needs of community residents. Parks and trails are important amenities to the quality of life within a community, and focus on their development, enhancement, and integration with changing community environments is critical for the City’s future. Community input and engagement is a key piece of this focus. IMPLEMENTATION In Brooklyn Center, the City’s public parks and recreation are the responsibility of the Public Works department and under the direction of the Park & Recreation Commission. Together these groups manage the planning and development of a Parks and Trails System that addresses the ongoing management, maintenance, budgeting, programming and resourcing for parks and trails. Projects and improvements for the system should be updated regularly, respond to resident needs, and accommodate changing community demographics so all residents benefit from access to outdoor recreation and natural areas. Further detail about implementation is included in Chapter 9 of this Plan. PARKS, TRAILS & OPEN SPACE City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6-22 Capital Improvements Park improvements included in the City’s CIP address the construction of trails, shelters, playground equipment, athletic field lighting and other facilities that enhance the general park aesthetics and attract park usage by providing recreational facilities that meet community needs. Funding of capital improvements to parks and trails comes from a combination of sources including public utility funds, special assessments, and capital projects funds. Until recently, capital improvements to parks followed a roughly 20-year cycle. In 1960 and in 1980, the citizens of Brooklyn Center approved bond referendums for financing the development and improvement of park facilities. This included acquiring land, installing new playgrounds, developing ball fields, tennis courts and other facilities. Following these improvements, for a time no formal plan was put in place for a systematic update. Following up on the City’s practice of programming for street reconstruction 15 years into the future, the City recently began developing a 15-year capital improvement program (CIP) for parks. The current CIP includes the following park and trail projects planned for implementation in the year listed. Further details can be found in the CIP Tables in Appendix D. • Centennial Park Tennis Courts Resurfacing, Basketball Court Project - 2018 • Bridge Rehabilitation (4 Bridges) - 2018 • Park Playground Equipment Replacement – 2019 through 2021 • Brooklyn Boulevard City Entrance Signs Rehabilitation - 2020 • West River Road, Arboretum, Freeway, Palmer Lake and Northport Trails Reconstruction – 2022 • Evergreen Park Scoreboard Improvements - 2023 • Centennial Park Softball Field Improvements - 2024 • Park Name Sign Replacement - 2025 • Hockey Rink Rehabilitation/Replacements - 2026 • Irrigation Systems Rehabilitation/Replacements - 2026 • Softball/Baseball Fence Replacement - 2027 • 69th Avenue Trail Reconstruction – 2027 • 69th Avenue Landscape Rehabilitation - 2027 • Park Trail and Parking Lot Lighting Improvements - 2028 • Park Bleacher Replacement - 2031 • Park Bleacher Replacement - 2032 CHAPTER 7: Transportation & Transit Comprehensive Plan 2040 TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-1 Transportation, Transit, Bikeways & Walkability Goals »Provide a safe network of roadways, bikeways and pedestrian ways that connect residents in the City and to the larger region. »Encourage residents to chose alternate transportation modes (other than automobile) by enhancing access to bikeways, transit, and pedestrian networks. »Support the City’s commitment to creating a Complete Street Network in existing and redevelopment areas. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Chapter is to define and describe the City’s transportation system and how it supports residents and businesses within the community. The efficiency of the transportation system is an important consideration of any community because it moves people, goods and services into and out of a Brooklyn Center. This planning effort offers opportunities to evaluate the system for improvements and to continue to maintain the system in a way that will support its residents and businesses today and into the future. The following sections of this Chapter describe existing and planned roadways, traffic projections, and potential right-of-way needs, as well as existing and planned improvements to the transit and bikeway systems. Finally, heavy freight, rail and air systems are all addressed with varying levels of detail based on the role of the system today and the anticipated role in the future. This Chapter will examine ways to upgrade or maintain the existing transportation system, including transit, bicycling and walking, in order to accommodate changes in the City’s Future Land Use Plan described and shown in Chapter 3. While much of the information contained within this Chapter is simply an update from the City’s previous 2030 Plan, there are some changes in the City’s redevelopment areas and surrounding region that have the potential to impact the community’s transportation system. This Chapter is intended to provide an update, but also to identify opportunities to improve and support the City’s transportation system through 2040. This Chapter will function as a guide to: • Identify the City’s existing and proposed multi-modal transportation network; • Identify major investments to meet transportation needs; and • Support the City’s land use goals and objectives as detailed within this Plan. * Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals & Strategies TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-2 STREET AND ROADWAY SYSTEM The City’s roadways play a significant role in the transportation system providing residents access within the community as well as the greater region. Brooklyn Center is a fully developed suburb with a well-established roadway network. No new major roads are planned as part of this Transportation Chapter, and the City plans to maintain its current functional classification of roadways. The City’s existing system of streets and roadways is depicted in Map 7-1.Today, there are existing bus transit options available, but the majority of residents and business owners continue to heavily rely on personal vehicles and the roadway system to move goods, people and access services in the community. The following sections identify the existing roadway system and describe future growth and planned improvements to the roadways. Functional Classification System Functional classification is a tool used in transportation planning and traffic engineering to categorize streets by the type of transportation service they provide and the roadway’s relationship to surrounding land uses. A functional classification system establishes a hierarchy of roads that collects and distributes traffic from neighborhoods to the metropolitan highway system as efficiently as possible given topography and other physical constraints of the area. Functional classification also describes the role each roadway should perform before determining street widths, speed limits, intersection control or other design features. Functional classification ensures that non-transportation factors such as land use, development, and redevelopment are taken into account in the planning and design of streets and highways. Principal Arterial Principal Arterials are the highest roadway classification and in Brooklyn Center are considered part of the metropolitan highway system. These roads are intended to connect metropolitan centers with one another and connect major business concentrations, important transportation terminals, and large institutional facilities. Brooklyn Center is crossed by several of the region’s Principal Arterials, including I-94, I-694, TH 100, and TH 252. Some Principal Arterials are classified as “freeways” and designed with high capacity, grade-separated interchanges. “Other Principal Arterials” may be designed with high capacity, controlled, at-grade intersections rather than interchanges, such as TH 252 between 73rd Avenue North and I-94 within Brooklyn Center. All Principal Arterials are under MnDOT’s jurisdiction. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-3 Map 7-1. Existing Street and Roadway System Map 7-3. Traffic Lanes & Existing Roadways 75th H a l i f a x 70th D u p o n t 76th A l d r i c h 6 6 t h 73rd 2 5 2 T w i n L a k e 44th 2 5 2 S c o tt 61st L i l a c R a m p 5 5 t h 63rd H a l i f a x Mumford Freeway 8 1 Y o r k B r o o k l y n B e a r d X e r x e s P a l m e r L a k e Parkway B r o o k l y n Ra mp Q uail Ramp 65th R a m p 1 0 0 R a m p 48th 10 Nash 65th 64th R a m p U n i t y 47th Ohenry 51st R a m p H a l i fax R a m p D r e w F r a n c e 70th Lake 53rd R a m p B r o o k l y n 53rd 56th 1 0 0 JohnM artin L a k eland 7 0 t h 57th 94 49th 53rd 73rd 54th 57th R a m p F r e m o n t S c o t t 67th B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r 94 58th Unity L i l a c R a m p 43rd 6 6 t h O l i v e r J a m e s 74th M o r g a n L o g a n R a m p K n o x N e w t o n I r v i n g 49th W i n g a r d 74th 68th 7 4 t h Y o r k C a m d e n T o l e d o Angeline 694 4 t h 52nd N o b l e R a m p 45 1 /2 K n o x 5 t h V e r a C r u z Thurber Y a t e s O r c h a r d 68th Q u a i l 44th U p t o n 67th F r a n c e V e r a C r u z V e r a C r u z V i n c e n t 58th W i l l o w D r e w 58th F r e m o n t 8 1 H a l i f a x Indi a n a S a il o r 7 5 t h Q u a i l K y l e 45th 52nd Q u a i l 61st Brooklyn U n i t y 70th 67 t h 67th A l d ri c h 7 4 t h 7 6 t h L a w r e n c e R u s s e l l Lakeside S h i n g l e C r e e k Oliver 7 1 s t X e r x e s Paul 60th 48th 50th N o r t h p o r t Corvallis 58th 73rd L i l a c I n d i a na B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r C h o w e n 44th H u m b o l d t 10 E w i n g L e e Grimes 56thOrchard 5 6 t h56th 50th 74th W e s t R i v e r Ramp 69th 75th W a s h b u r n 57th R o b i n E w i n g 56th R a m p Howe R a m p 68th L o g a n P e r r y D r e w Ramp F r a n c e D u s h a r m e S c o t t C o l f a x 5 5 t h L o g a n 55th 4 6 th Bernard Wilshire F r e m o n t V e r a C r u z 57th R a m p PalmerLake Q u a i l Eckberg R a m p 48th 6 6 t h Eleanor R a m p W ebber R a m p C o l f a x Fairview F r e m o n t X e r x e s Q u a i l R a m p 69th D u p o n t R a m p Commodore 6 7 t h 69th F r a n c e 71st G i r a r d R a m p B e a r d Lakebreeze V i n c e n t 49 1/2 X e n i a 52nd 59 1/2 Woodbine W e l c o m e 68th S h o r e s A l d r i c h Ra mp 56t h 58th W e s t B r o a d w a y Eleanor 68th R a m p 72ndB r y a n t D r e w 52nd 61s t G i r a r d V i o l e t R a m p C a m d e n W e l c o m e L i l a c 73rd Ramp A d m i r a l A l d r i c h73rd E m e r s o n 62nd Y o r k A l d r i c h 50th 52nd 51st L a k e 68th 66th Fairview 70th N o b l e G r imes S c o t t J u n e 44th Woodbine W e s t R i v e r R i v e r d a l e R a m p R a m p 4 t h 72nd 50th Q u a i l A dmira l U r ban 46th 65th R a m p W i l l o w 60th 60th 53r d 64th 70th 47th 54th 71st K y l e W e l c o m e 45th 70th 72nd 72nd 69th 46 1/2 B r o o k v i e w 71st 64th 72nd 45th 56th 51st 72nd VictoryMemorial 61st 46th 54th 59th A l d r i c h 46th 51s t 47th 50th 71st 60th 57th 62nd H u m b o l d t 50th 75th 59th 56th B e a r d I n d i a n a H a l i f a x F r a n c e S c o t t 59th S hin gle C re e k L i l a c 1 0 0 67th E w i n g A b b o t t T o l e d o G r i m e s C a m d e n T w i n L a k e R a m pZenith 47th 45th F r a n c e 46th 70th 66th N e w t o n M a j o r U p t o n C h o w e n G r i m e s 75th U n i t y R a m p A z e l i a 69th L a k e l a n d 7 0 t h R a m p G r i m e s Q u e e n Aldrich R a mp Im perial M a j o r 6 5 t h L y n d a l e R u s s e l l W a s h b u r n O l i v e r P e n n Osseo Road Frontage Y o r k D r e w Z e n i t h P e r r y 50th A b b o t t Q u a i l A d m ir a l R a m p W e l c o m e O l i v e r R u s s e l l N o b l e P e n n E w i n g 53rd F r a n c e I n d i a n a 74th Ramp T o l e d o S c o t t T o l e d o D r e w S u m m i t R a m p R a m p K y l e L a k e l a n d M a j o r 3 7 t h P e r r y U n i t y H u m b o l d t 70th P e r r y B e a r d M o r g a n 73rd 74th 74th 71st P e n n L o g a n X e r x e s R e g e n t E m e r s o n B r y a n t C o l f a x D a l l a s O r c h a r d L a k e l a n d Q u e e n Bro okly n H u m b o l d t P e r r y Q u e e n 55 th N o r t h p o r t T h o m a s B e a r d L a k e l a n d R a m p Po n d s 49th Bellvue I n d i a n a Jame s R a m p L i l a c 47th S h i n g l e Cr e ek I r v i n g 7 1 s t I n d i a n a H u m b o l d t 73rd J a m e s K n o x L o g a n 74th M o r g a n N e w t o n O l i v e rT w in O a k I r v i n g J a m e s Q u e e n P e n n S h e r i d a n T h o m a s U p t o n Ericon V i n c e n t W a s h b u r n X e r x e s 65th G r i m e s Lakebreeze O r c h a r d N e w t o n 67th 68th S h ari A n n T o l e d o L e e N o b l e V e r a C r u z X e r x e s E w i n g U p t o n K a t h r e n e 72n d P e r r y P e n n C o l f a x K n o x M i s s i s s i p p i H u m b o l d t K n o x R u s s e l l Q u a i l M a j o r S c o t t J a m e s R e g e n t K n o x I r v i n g Angel ine O l i v e r 6 t h 4 t h K y l e G r i m e s A l d r i c h C h o w e n Y a t e s O r c h a r d R e g e n t H a l i f a x A l d r i c h M a j o r A l d r i c h 94 B r y a n t R i v e r w o o dWinchester 66th M o r g a nVincent E w i n g F r e m o n t L o g a n M a j o r N e w t o nXerxes S h e r i d a n T h o m a sWashburn U p t o n D r e w X e n i a T o l e d o O r c h a r d G r e a t V i e w E w i n g C a m d e n R e g e n t J u n e C o l f a x 48th L a k e l a n d B e a r d U n i t y I r v i n g F r a n c e 54th W e l c o m e A b b o t t 47th L e e Northway M o r g a n 45th 53rd R a m p 57th 48th Corvallis Poe P e n n 73rd U nity 56th Z e n i t h O r c h a r d U p t o n C h o w en Burquest R i v e r d a l e C a m d e n 46th Boulder 62nd 10 Y o r k Lilac Meadowwood G i r a r d J u d y G i r a r d 51st H a l i f a x D r e w O s s e o Oak P e r r y Q u a i l B r o o k l y n M a r l i n Lawr e n c e L e e G r i m e s Ra m p E a r l e B r o w n D a l l a s 51st 6 3 r d Amy 72nd Woodbine O r c h a r d I n d i a n a J u n e P e r r y Q u a i l R e g e n t H a l i f a x V i n c e n t C a m d e n E w i n g 68th 4 t h E m e r s o n R a m p L i l a c 74 1/2 R e g e n t N o b l e M o r g a n Ramp G i r a r d V e r a C r u z J a m e s L e e L y n d a l e L y n d a l e 67th D r e w Ramp Joyce Janet E a s t L y n d a l e 62nd 66th Quarles J a m e s 66th R a m pRamp Winchester R a m p R a m p 72nd R a m p Woodbine 9 4 T w i n L a k e R a m p P e a r s o n L i l a c 9 4 S h i n g l e C r e e k S c o t t 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles F Function Classification Principal Arterial A-Minor Augmentor A-Minor Reliever Major Collector Minor Collector I-94 2-U 2-U 2-U 2-U 2-U 2-U 2-U 2-U 2 Lane Undivided 2-U 2-U 2-D 2 Lane Divided (median with left turn lane) 2-D 2-D 3 3 Lane (center turn lane) 3 3 3 4-U 4 Lane Undivided 4-U 4-U 4-U4-U 4-D 4 Lane Divided 4-D 4-D 4-D 4-D 4-D 4-D 4-D 5 5 5 4-D 5 5 Lanes or More Source: MNGEO, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC DRAFT: 1/9/2019 TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-4 A-Minor Arterial A-Minor Arterials are intended to connect important locations within the city, have access to/ from the metropolitan highway system (Principal Arterials), and between important locations outside the city. These arterials are also intended to carry short to medium trips that would otherwise use the regional system. The Metropolitan Council, working cooperatively with MnDOT, Counties, and Cities, defined a network of A-Minor Arterials that are intended to either relieve traffic on the Principal Arterials or serve as substitutes for Principal Arterials. In Brooklyn Center, there are two roads classified as A-Minor arterials: • Brooklyn Boulevard (County Road 152) • Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) west of TH 100 The A-Minor arterials are subdivided into relievers, expanders, connectors, and augmenters. The Metropolitan Council classifies Brooklyn Boulevard as a reliever and Bass Lake Road as an augmenter. Relievers provide direct relief and support for congested Principal Arterials. They provide relief for long trips and accommodate medium length trips. Augmenters, literally, augment the capacity of Principal Arterials by serving higher-density areas and long-range trips. Both of the A-Minor Arterials are under the jurisdiction of Hennepin County. Urban Collectors Collector roadways are designed to serve shorter trips that occur entirely within the city and collect/distribute traffic from neighborhoods and commercial/industrial areas to the arterial system. Brooklyn Center has identified an extensive network of collector roads that links neighborhoods with each other, with neighboring cities, with the City Center, and with the regional highway system. Currently two of the collector roadways are under Hennepin County’s jurisdiction: • 69th Avenue North west of Brooklyn Boulevard • Humboldt Avenue/57th Avenue North located just east of TH 100 The remaining collector roadways are under the City’s jurisdiction. Map 7-1 shows it as part of the collector system. Local Streets Local streets connect blocks and land parcels and primarily function to provide access to adjacent properties. Local streets can also serve as important components of bicycle and pedestrian circulation systems. In most cases, local streets will connect to other local streets and collectors, although in some cases they may connect to minor arterials. All other streets within the City are classified as local streets. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-5 Table 7-1 lists the Functional Classifications of the primary roadway network in Brooklyn Center and the number of lanes for each roadway. Table 7-1. Street Classifications in Brooklyn Center Functional Classification Managing Jurisdiction Sub-class Lanes PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS I-94 State Freeway 6+ I-94/I-694 State Freeway 6+ TH 252 State Expressway 6 TH 100 State Freeway 4 A-MINOR ARTERIALS Brooklyn Boulevard (CSAH 152)County Reliever 4/5 58th Avenue/CR 10 County Augmenter 3/4 COLLECTORS 69th Avenue N (CR 130)County 2 69th Avenue N (east of B. Blvd.)City 4/2 Humboldt Ave N/57th Ave N (CR 57)County 4/2 Humboldt Ave N (north of I-94/694)City 4/2 57th Ave N (east of Humboldt Ave N)City 4 Noble Ave N City City 2 France Ave N (2 segments)City 2 June Ave N (58th Ave to 63rd Ave N)City 2 Halifax Ave/Eckberg Dr/France Avenue/ 50thAve/Azelia Ave/Lakebreeze Avenue City 2 55th Ave N/56th Ave N (Xerxes Ave to CSAH 152)City 4 53rd Ave N/Brooklyn Blvd frontage (France Ave to 55th Ave N) City 2 John Martin Drive City City 4 Earle Brown Drive (John Martin Drive to Summit Drive)City 4 Summit Drive City 4 59th Ave N/Logan Ave N (Dupont Ave N to 53rd)City 2 Lyndale Ave N City 2 67th Ave N (Humboldt to Dupont Ave N)City 2 63rd Ave N (west of Xerxes)City 4/2 Shingle Creek Parkway City 4 Xerxes Ave N City 4/2 Freeway Boulevard (65th-66th Ave N)City 2-5 Dupont Ave N City 2 73rd Ave N (east of Humboldt)City 2 53rd Ave N (east of Penn)City 2 51st Ave N (east of Brooklyn Blvd.)City 2 TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-6 Traffic Counts and Patterns The most recent (2017) traffic counts are provided by MnDOT and are shown in Map 7-2, and heavy commercial ADT is illustrated in Map 7-3. The forecasts are generally lower than the previous 2030 forecasts. This is a trend that has been observed across the metropolitan region. In general, it is a combination of lower growth expectations; the “dip” in travel that occurred during the recession, and the “new” travel behavior that indicates people do not travel by individual cars as much as they used to. Although changes in the current traffic pattern and volumes are expected, the anticipated land uses compared to the 2030 Plan are more residential than previously planned. As a result, the projections have been updated to reflect this planned land use change which is described in subsequent sections of this Chapter. Existing Roadway Capacity and Deficiencies The existing and forecast traffic volumes are compared to the size and capacity of each roadway in order to determine where capacity problems exist or are expected to occur in the future. Map 7-1 shows the number of lanes and general configuration of the City’s major roadways in order to help identify potential capacity problems. Roadway capacity problems arise when the roadway cannot efficiently handle the traffic using it, particularly at intersections. Efficient traffic movement is described in terms of “level of service” (LOS) which – according to MnDOT –“is a qualitative measure of the effect of traffic flow factors, such as speed and travel time, interruption, freedom to maneuver, driver comfort and convenience, and indirectly, safety and operating costs”. LOS is typically characterized using the letters “A” through “F”, illustrated in Table 7-2. Level “A” indicates a condition of free traffic flow with little to no restriction in speed or maneuverability. Level “F” indicates forced-flow operation at low speed with many stoppages. Table 7-2. Typical Daily Roadway Capacities by Facility Type Facility Type Daily Capacity (Vehicles per day) LOS E Facility Type Daily Capacity (Vehicles per day) LOS E Two-lane collector/local 10,000 Six-lane divided (expressway)54,000 Two-lane arterial 12,000 Four-lane unmetered freeway 74,000 Three-lane (two-way left-turn lane) collector/arterial 18,000 Four-lane metered freeway 85,000 Four-lane collector 20,000 Six-lane unmetered freeway 111,000 Four-lane undivided arterial 27,000 Six-lane metered freeway 127,000 Five-lane collector 28,000 Eight-lane unmetered freeway 150,000 Five-lane arterial 34,000 Eight-lane metered freeway 184,000 TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-7 Map 7-2. 2017 Traffic Counts 75th L o g a n 56th 58th H a l i f a x 70th 76th A l d r i c h 6 6 t h T w i n L a k e 694694 61st L i l a c 55 t h J o h n M a r t i n H a l i f a x Mumford Y o r k B r o o k l y n B e a r d P a l m e r L a k e Freeway Q uail S u m m it 1 0 0 N a s h R a m p 9 4 64th Ohenry 51st H a l i f a x 1 0 0 65th D r e w F r a n c e 70th 53rd R a m p 7 0 t h A b b o t t 4 5 t h 54th R a m p S c o t t Sh i n g l e C r e e k S h i n g l e C r e e k 94 94 71st J a m e s 47th Unity L i l a c O l i v e r K n o x I r v i n g 49th 7 4 t h R a m p 7 5 t h C a m d e n T o l e d o 52nd 4 t h N o b l e K n o x R a m p 5 t h Thurber 2 5 2 O r c h a r d Q u a i l U p t o n W a s h b u r n 6 6 t h Y o r k F r a n c e 67th V i n c e n t 58th 45th Z e n i t h B e a r d W i l l o w A b b o t t S a il o r Meadowwood K y l e Q u a i l 61st 70th 67 t h 46th 67th 52nd S h e r i d a n Morgan A l d ri c h U n i t y L e e 7 6 t h R u s s e l l 67th S h i n g l e C r e e k Lakebreeze 58th 57th 63rd Oliver 7 1 s t X e r x e s Paul 60th Q u e e n U p t o n 55th 59th 73rd L e e L i l a c 8 1 50th B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r C h o w e n H u m b o l d t 10 L e e Fremont R a m p F r e m o n t Orchard 74th 5 6 t h R a m p 75th 57th Fremont Ramp 69th E w i n g 57th 56th R a m p R e g e n t Howe P e r r y D r e w Ra mp 59th 10 F r a n c e D u s h a r m e S c o t t C o l f a x 46th Logan F r e m o n t 46 t h V e r a C r u z Eckberg P e n n PalmerLake X e rx e s R e g e n t Eleanor R a m p 4 5 t h F r e m o n t T o l e d o 73rd Q u a i l R e g e n t 69th U n i t y Commodore 6 7 t h R a m p B e a r d 71st T o l e d o R a m p V i n c e n t 67th F r a n c e 59 1/2 Woodbine W e l c o m e 68th 49 1/2 Ramp 50th Eleanor 68th 60th 72nd B r y a n t D r e w 50th G i r a r d Violet 56th C a m d e n 51st 73 r d 57th A d m i r a l A l d r i c h 73rd 76th E m e r s o n 59th 62nd Y o r k A l d r i c h U n i t y 68th W e l c o m e 66th Fair vi ew 70th N o b l e G r i m e s S c o t t J u n e W e s t R i v e r 52nd R a m p 50th A b b ott Q u a i l Urban 65th Q u a i l W i l l o w 54th53rd 64th 70th 51st 71st K y l e 68th 62nd 70th 7 2 n d L a k e 46 1/2 67th B r o o k v i e w 53rd 56th 72nd 51st 72nd 46th 68th A l d r i c h 52nd 61st N e w t o n Lake 58 1/2 71st 60th 46th 60th H u m b o l d t C o l f a x R a m p 66th 50th 75th 64th 56th R a m p B e a r d D u p o n t 48th X e r x e s H a l i f a x F r a n c e 10Ramp 74th H u m b o l d t S hin gle Cre e k X e r x e s L i l a c B r o o k l y n Ramp E w i n g A b b o t t 7 6 t h T o l e d o C a m d e n Oliver 67th T w i n L a k e R a m p Z e n i t h 70th M o r g a n R a m p G r i m e s U n i t y A z e l i a 7 5 t h 75th 7 0 t h A b b o t t B r o o k d a l e Q u e e n X e r x e s Aldrich Brooklyn Im perial 7 4 t h M a j o r 6 5 t h L y n d a l e W a s h b u r n O l i v e r R i v e r d a l e OsseoRoadFrontage D r e w B r o o kly n P e r r y 50th 45th A d m i r a l D r e w N o b l e P e n n R u s s e l l Quail E w i n g 53rd 74th F r a n c e I n d i a n a T o l e d o S c o t t T o l e d o D r e w T w i n L a k e U n i t y R a m p K y l e 76th 76th H u m b o l d t M a j o r 70th A l d ri c h 73rd 74th 74th 71st P e r r y L o g a n Ra m p S c ott 69th B r y a n t C o l f a x X e r x e s D a l l a s Q u e e n 74th H u m b o l d t P e r r y R a m p Ramp 73rd 69th 55 th N o r t h p o r t T h o m a s R a m p B e a r d Ponds James 49th R a mp 47th R a m p I n d i a n a 73rd 49th 74th Irving J a m e s 7 3 r d E r i c o n Q u a i l 76th Ramp T o l e d o S h a r i A n n L e e N o b l e G i r a r d X e r x e s E w i n g U p t o n P e r r y F r e m o n t P e r r y P e n n K n o x M i s s i s s i p p i K n o x 72nd R u s s e l l Q u a i l M a j o r S c o t t R e g e n t K a t h r e n e Angel ine O l i v e r C o l f a x 6 t h A l d r i c h C o l f a x 4 t h K y l e J a m e s G r i m e s C h o w e n O r c h a r d E m e r s o n I r v i n g L o g a n H a l i f a x A l d r i c h N e w t o n A l d r i c h O l i v e r M o r g a n B r y a n t Winchester K n o x 66th M o r g a n V i n c e n t E w i n g M a j o r L o g a n W a s h b u r n M a j o r N e w t o n X e r x e s T h o m a s S h e r i d a n D r e w Q u a i l O r c h a r d G r e a t V i e w R i v e r w o o d E w i n g C a m d e n R e g e n t C o l f a x R e g e n t 48th L a k e C u r v e I r v i n g 54th W e l c o m e 47th L e e N orth wa y 45th 53rd 6 6 t h 57th Bernard Corvallis 48th Poe P e n n U n i t y 56th C h o w e n Burquest O r c h a r d Boulder 46th 62nd Y o r k C a m d e n Lilac G i r a r d G i r a r d F r e m o n t J u d y D u p o n t 51st O sseo Oak H a l i f a x R a m p P e r r y Q u a i l E m e r s o n M a r l i n L e e Lawrence Northway E a r l e B r o w n 7 5 t h Abbott 6 3 r d D a l l a s Amy 72nd Woodbine 51st 94 B r o o k l y n O r c h a r d H a l i f a x J u n e I n d i a n a D r e w P e r r y Q u a i l V i n c e n t 1 0 0 C a m d e n 68th 4 t h E w i n g E m e r s o n R a m p J a m e s L i l a c 74 1/2 R e g e n t N o b l e 9 4 R a m p M o r g a n G i r a r d R a m p V e r a C r u z J a m e s W e l c o m e R a m p Humboldt L e e L y n d a l e 67thRamp Joyce Janet D r e w E a s t L y n d a l e 62nd 66th QuarlesWinchester R a m p 72nd R a m p Woodbine T w i n L a k e R a m p P e a r s o n L i l a c Ramp 2 5 2 S c o t t Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park B r o o k l y n C e n t e r B r o o k l y n P a r k B r o o k l y n C e n t e r C r y s t a l B r o o k l y n C e n t e r F r i d l e y B r o o k l y n P a r k F r i d l e y F r i d l e y M i n n e a p o l i s 620 8 7 0 16000 4 0 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 0 9 5 0 0 3250 8 1 0 0 1600 2250 3 4 5 0 4700 370 91 50 2 3 5 3 7 0 1200 7200 1 4 5 0 3 1 0 0 1900 7 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 1 6 3 0 0 6 6 0 0 8 9 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 9 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 4 5 0 0 2 8 5 0 0 16200 9200 4 9 5 1 5 0 0 1400 3700 5 2 0 0 5 4 0 0 6 8 0 0 53003500 7200 3400 4100 3350 3 1 0 0 7900 1 1 0 0 7500 950 7 9 0 0 1 2 5 0 11500 7 3 0 1 2 5 0 0 11500 8 6 0 415 20100 7300 18300 3 9 5 0 4600 1 1 0 011600 2950 3300 1 2 5 0 161000 720 1700 3950 2400 2 2 3 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1850 2 6 5 0 1600 1450 3650 3 7 0 0 51008800 7 2 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 5000 7000 5400 8 8 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 5 0 7 4 0 3 6 5 0 3 2 0 0 3 1 5 0 1 2 5 0 9 0 0 0 1300 6 1 0 0 4200 8 5 0 0950 5500 1 4 9 0 0 3 8 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 1 4 5 0 4350 9500 6 9 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 9 6 0 0 9 5 0 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 115000 1 0 7 00 134000 7 5 0 0 0 128000 4 9 0 0 4 9 0 0 2 4 5 4 2 0 0 1 9 5 0 6300 8 2 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 6 0 0 3 1 0 0 3 8 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles F Function Classification Principal Arterial A-Minor Augmentor A-Minor Reliever Major Collector Minor Collector Source: MNGEO, MNDOT, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC DRAFT: 1/9/2019 Map 7-2. 2017 Traffic Counts TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-8 The method used to determine roadway capacity deficiency divides the existing average annual daily traffic (AADT) by the acceptable daily capacity for the specific roadway type, a measure known as the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio. The acceptable design capacity is estimated based on the number of lanes, roadway type, functional classification, and traffic peaking characteristics (Table 7-2). The deficiency analysis defines “capacity deficiency” roadway segments as those with a V/C ratio above 1.0, which signifies that a segment of road has observed volumes or forecasts which exceed its design capacity. Roadway segments with a V/C ratio between 0.85 and 1.0 are designated “near capacity” as listed in Table 7-3. A roadway with a V/C ratio of 0.85 means that on an average day, 85 percent of the road’s design capacity is utilized. There are no known barriers in Brooklyn Center to freight movement due to weight-restricted roads or bridges, clearance limitations or unprotected crossings. The City of Minneapolis has restricted weight to 3 tons on the south side of 53rd Avenue west of Humboldt Avenue. Table 7-3. Existing Capacity Deficiencies Route Segment Volume Roadway Design Capacity V/C Ratio Approaching capacity (Volumes Meet or Exceed 85% of Design Capacity TH 100 France Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard 75,000 85,000 0.88 69th Avenue Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Boulevard 9,500 10,000 0.95 Over Capacity (Volumes Meet or Exceed Design Capacity) TH 252 I-694 to 65th Avenue 67,000 54,000 1.24 65th Avenue to 70th Ave 60,000 54,000 1.11 TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-9 Map 7-3. Freight ADT and System Map oo o oooo BROOKLYN PARK BROOKLYN CENTER BROOKLYN CENTER MINNEAPOLI S R O B B I N S D A L E M I N N E A P O L I S R O B B I N S D A L E C R Y S T A L 11000 3 0 5 0 1 3 0 0 5 0 0 0 4 6 0 0 2 5 5 0 4 9 5 0 2 4 5 0 6500 6500 2 9 5 0 7000 1 5 5 0 5 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 Feet F Legend HCAADT Traffic Volumes Railroad Land Use Designations 2040 Planned Land Use C TOD (31.01-130 DU/Ac.) N-MU (15.01-31 DU/Ac.) C-MU (10.01-25 DU/Ac.) B-MU Industrial/Utility oooAirport ROW RR ROW Generalized commercial/industrial nodes TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-10 Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ) For purposes of regional transportation planning, the Metropolitan Council divides the region into Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). Map 7-5 shows the Metropolitan Council’s TAZ boundaries and Hennepin County’s further subdivision of these zones. Regional population, households, and employment forecasts are allocated to the TAZs as a means of forecasting traffic volumes. These forecasts are shown on Table 7-4. Because Brooklyn Center is a fully developed community, the trips generated within the TAZs are not expected to change significantly during this planning period, with the exception of the identified redevelopment areas shown and described in Chapter 3 of this Plan. Map 7-5. Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ)Map 7-4. Transportation Analysis Zones 74t h 63r d Wilshire 58th Woodbine 49th 56th N e w t o n S h i n g l e C r e e k 694 O r c h a r d L i l a c 1 0 0 60t h B ro o kly n J o h n M a r t i n Mumford 10 65th Nash 94 73rd 64th Ohenry O s s e o 69th 70 t h 57th 53rd 4 5 1 /2 67th Ramp 71st W i n g a r d T o l e d o Angeline K n o x 5 t hThurber 75th S h o r e s 44 1/2 Y o r k 77th V e r a C r u z Z e n i t h Meadowwood A b b o t t S a il o r Q u a i l 45th 61st 52nd R u s s e l l Paul 66th L e e Lawr ence Howe Victory Mem orial Bernard Brookdale Eckberg 51s t 48th 8 1 Fairview Winchester R e g e n t E s t a t e L a k e l a n d S h e r i d a n 6 t h Commodore F r a n c e 62nd 59 1/2 49 1/2 50th Eleanor 68th Violet 46th C a m d e n A d m i r a l 59th F a i r f i e l d J u n e 54th 46 1/2 Urban 58 1/2 L a k e S i e r r a 76th H a l i f a x 47th E w i n g L a k e v i e w M i s s i s s i p p i C h o w e n A z e l i a N o r t h p o r t I m p e ria l Lakeside A l d r i c h Bellvue K y l e Ericon P e r r y M o r g a n C o l f a x 55 t h Corvallis P e n n I r v i n g K a t h r e n e V i n c e n t W a s h b u r n T h o m a s G r e a t V i e w R i v e r w o o d R i v e r d a l e Burquest Boulder J u d y Oak M a r l i n Amy D a l l a s 74 1/2 E a s t L y n d a l e Joyce Janet Quarles 72nd D u p o n t 2 5 2 W e s t R i v e r F r e e w a y P a l m e r L a k e Parkway Summit U n it y N o b l e F r e m o n t L y n d a l e M a j o r H u m b o l d t T w i n L a k e B e a r d E m e r s o n U p t o n B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r Northway W e l c o m e L o g a n G i r a r d X e r x e s O l i v e r I n d i a n a J a m e s W i l l o w B r o o k v i e w Q u e e n B r y a n tXenia B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d F r o n t a g e G r i m e s D r e w Poe E a r l e Brown P e a r s o n S c o t t 4 t h Brookly n Center Brookly n P ark B r o o k l y n C e n t e r B r o o k l y n P a r k B r o o k l y n C e n t e r C r y s t a l B r o o k l y n C e n t e r F r i d l e y Brooklyn C enter Minneapolis B r o o k l y n P a r k F r i d l e y Crys tal Robbinsdale F r i d l e y M i n n e a p o l i s 10 77 10 78 10 841085 1086 10 87 10 881089 10 90 10 91 1092 10 93 1094 10 95 10 96 10 97 1098 1099 1100 11 01 11 02 11 03 1104 1105 1106 11 07 1108 11 09 111 0 1111 1173 1174 11 75 1176 11781179 26 9 27 0 281 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Mile s FSource: MNGEO, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC DRAFT: 1/9/2019 Map 7-4. Transportation Analysis Zones 74t h 63rd Wilshire 58th Woodbine 49th 56th N e w t o n S h i n g l e C r e e k 694 O r c h a r d L i l a c 1 0 0 60th B ro o kly n J o h n M a r t i n Mumford 10 65th Nash 94 73rd 64th Ohenry O s s e o 69th 7 0 t h 57th 53rd 45 1 /2 67th Ramp 71s t W i n g a r d T o l e d o Angeline K n o x 5 t hThurber 75th S h o r e s 44 1/2 Y o r k 77th V e r a C r u z Z e n i t h Meadowwood A b b o t t S a il o r Q u a i l 45th 61st 52nd R u s s e l l Paul 66th L e e Lawr ence Howe Victory Memorial Bernard Brookdale Eckberg 51st 48th 8 1 Fairview Winchester R e g e n t E s t a t e L a k e l a n d S h e r i d a n 6 t h Commodore F r a n c e 62nd 59 1/2 49 1/2 50th Eleanor 68th Violet 46th C a m d e n A d m i r a l 59th F a i r f i e l d J u n e 54th 46 1/2 Urban 58 1/2 L a k e S i e r r a 76th H a l i f a x 47th E w i n g L a k e v i e w M i s s i s s i p p i C h o w e n A z e l i a N o r t h p o r t I m p e ria l Lakeside A l d r i c h Bellv ue K y l e Ericon P e r r y M o r g a n C o l f a x 55 t h Corvallis P e n n I r v i n g K a t h r e n e V i n c e n t W a s h b u r n T h o m a s G r e a t V i e w R i v e r w o o d R i v e r d a l e Burquest Boulder J u d y Oak M a r l i n Amy D a l l a s 74 1/2 E a s t L y n d a l e Joyce Janet Quarles 72nd D u p o n t 2 5 2 W e s t R i v e r F r e e w a y P a l m e r L a k e Parkway Summit U n it y N o b l e F r e m o n t L y n d a l e M a j o r H u m b o l d t T w i n L a k e B e a r d E m e r s o n U p t o n B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r Northway W e l c o m e L o g a n G i r a r d X e r x e s O l i v e r I n d i a n a J a m e s W i l l o w B r o o k v i e w Q u e e n B r y a n tXenia B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d F r o n t a g e G r i m e s D r e w Poe E a r l e Brown P e a r s o n S c o t t 4 t h Brook lyn C enter Brook lyn Park B r o o k l y n C e n t e r B r o o k l y n P a r k B r o o k l y n C e n t e r C r y s t a l B r o o k l y n C e n t e r F r i d l e y Brook ly n C enter Minneapolis B r o o k l y n P a r k F r i d l e y Crystal Robbinsda le F r i d l e y M i n n e a p o l i s 1077 1078 10841085 1086 1087 10881089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 10 99 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 11 05 11 06 1107 11 08 1109 1110 1111 1173 1174 1175 1176 11781179 269 270 281 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles FSource: MNGEO, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC DRAFT: 1/9/2019 Source: MNGEO, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC 1/9/2019 TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-11 Ta b l e 7 - 4 . P o p u l a t i o n , H o u s e h o l d s , & E m p l o y m e n t G r o w t h b y T A Z PO P H H RE T A I L EM P L O Y NO N - R E T A I L EM P L O Y TO T A L EM P L O Y PO P H H RE T A I L EM P L O Y NO N - R E T A I L EM P L O Y TO T A L EM P L O Y PO P H H RE T A I L EM P L O Y NO N - R E T A I L EM P L O Y TO T A L EM P L O Y 1 10 7 7 3, 5 1 7 1, 6 3 7 22 6 30 4 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 3, 5 1 7 1, 6 3 7 22 6 30 4 53 0 2 10 8 8 1, 6 0 4 55 1 49 18 9 23 8 58 20 0 0 0 1, 6 6 2 57 1 49 18 9 23 8 3 10 8 9 90 5 32 5 8 12 0 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 90 5 32 5 8 12 0 12 8 4 10 9 0 1, 2 0 5 48 9 26 5 71 7 98 2 0 0 0 0 0 1, 2 0 5 48 9 26 5 71 7 98 2 5 10 9 1 94 7 35 1 0 19 19 0 0 0 0 0 94 7 35 1 0 19 19 6 10 9 2 79 6 30 0 28 5 2, 9 6 4 3, 2 4 9 40 15 -7 25 6 24 9 83 6 31 5 27 8 3, 2 2 0 3, 4 9 8 7 10 9 3 1, 3 3 1 45 3 0 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 1, 3 3 1 45 3 0 17 17 8 10 9 4 26 3 11 0 0 10 4 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 26 3 11 0 0 10 4 10 4 9 10 9 4 1, 1 0 0 21 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1, 1 0 0 21 0 0 3 3 10 10 9 5 69 0 30 0 3 6 9 35 16 0 0 0 72 5 31 6 3 6 9 11 10 9 5 1, 3 8 0 32 0 0 15 3 15 3 99 44 0 0 0 1, 4 7 9 36 4 0 15 3 15 3 12 10 9 6 60 0 11 3 30 60 90 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 11 3 30 60 90 13 10 9 6 20 0 86 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 86 0 7 7 14 10 9 7 79 4 30 5 30 67 97 0 0 0 0 0 79 4 30 5 30 67 97 16 10 9 8 95 0 41 4 0 35 35 0 0 0 0 0 95 0 41 4 0 35 35 17 10 9 8 11 5 50 0 0 0 69 31 0 0 0 18 4 81 0 0 0 18 10 9 8 77 0 33 6 0 30 30 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 33 6 0 30 30 19 10 9 9 82 0 31 5 23 75 98 65 25 0 0 0 88 5 34 0 23 75 98 20 10 9 9 78 0 29 6 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 78 0 29 6 0 10 10 21 10 9 9 96 0 37 5 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 96 0 37 5 0 10 10 22 11 0 0 43 0 24 6 0 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 24 6 0 10 10 23 11 0 0 79 0 29 0 0 81 81 59 26 0 0 0 84 9 31 6 0 81 81 24 11 0 1 21 6 20 5 67 1 2, 0 9 2 2, 7 6 3 23 7 10 1 -1 6 18 1 16 5 45 3 30 6 65 5 2, 2 7 3 2, 9 2 8 25 11 0 2 1, 4 7 5 55 5 11 63 4 64 5 27 7 12 3 0 0 0 1, 7 5 2 67 8 11 63 4 64 5 26 11 0 3 1, 1 1 6 36 4 14 5 24 6 39 1 14 1 63 0 0 0 1, 2 5 7 42 7 14 5 24 6 39 1 27 11 0 4 96 1 31 4 14 48 4 49 8 28 0 12 4 0 0 0 1, 2 4 1 43 8 14 48 4 49 8 28 11 0 5 0 0 96 2 34 0 1, 3 0 2 46 3 17 3 -9 21 5 20 6 46 3 17 3 95 3 55 5 1, 5 0 8 29 11 0 6 2, 5 2 1 1, 0 3 7 13 3 81 1 94 4 0 0 20 5 20 2 40 7 2, 5 2 1 1, 0 3 7 33 8 1, 0 1 3 1, 3 5 1 30 11 0 9 2, 7 0 0 95 7 91 21 5 30 6 34 15 0 0 0 2, 7 3 4 97 2 91 21 5 30 6 31 11 1 0 2, 4 5 6 77 4 1 68 69 0 0 0 0 0 2, 4 5 6 77 4 1 68 69 32 11 7 4 1, 1 5 0 44 7 4 37 7 38 1 0 0 14 0 23 5 37 5 1, 1 5 0 44 7 14 4 61 2 75 6 33 , 5 4 2 1 2 , 5 2 5 2 , 9 5 1 1 0 , 2 4 8 1 3 , 1 9 9 1 , 8 5 8 7 7 6 3 1 3 1 , 0 8 9 1 , 4 0 2 3 5 , 4 0 0 1 3 , 3 0 1 3 , 2 6 4 1 1 , 3 3 7 1 4 , 6 0 1 Br o o k l y n Ce n t e r TA Z Me t Co u n c i l TA Z 20 1 4 20 3 0 20 4 0 TO T A L TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-12 Future Land Use and Allocation of Growth As described in Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment, the City’s vision for redevelopment and growth in this planning period focuses on a multi-modal, transit-oriented core with a mix of residential, business and retail use. The Future Land Use plan describes three new mixed-use land use designations, and includes a new Transit Oriented Development land use. The intent is to create a walkable, vibrant core that revitalizes this currently underdeveloped area of the community. With respect to the planned growth in the community, the Mixed-Use and TOD areas will accommodate nearly all of the City’s planned growth in this planning period. Table 7-5. Density Ranges of Planned Land Uses Land Use Designation Density Transit Oriented Development (TOD)31+ Dwelling Units per Acre Neighborhood Mixed-Use (N-MU)15-31 Dwelling Units per Acre Commercial Mixed-Use (C-MU)10- 25 Dwelling Units per Acre This Plan will influence the access and operations of the local and regional roadways system. With growth and redevelopment anticipated, Brooklyn Center has the opportunity to capitalize on its location and establish a highly-accessible community with residential and business mixes supported by multi-modal transportation. 2040 Traffic Volumes The City of Brooklyn Center engaged SRF Consulting Group to prepare a 2040 Traffic Model consistent with the projected growth identified in Chapter 3 of this Plan. As demonstrated by the 2040 projections some traffic volume increases are anticipated particularly on the road network surrounding the redevelopment areas, or the ‘central spine’ of the community where there is the most potential for increased intensity of users including mixed-uses, residential and businesses. Capacity and Safety Issues In Brooklyn Center’s 2030 Plan, congestion and capacity issues were primarily experienced on the principal and minor arterial roadways, with peak hours causing most concern for backups on and off the regional highway system. The traffic forecasts indicated that the demand on these regional facilities continues to increase and worsening congestion continues. However, some recent and planned improvements to both Brooklyn Boulevard and TH 252 are expected to alleviate some of this congestion and provide safer and better access to the City’s redevelopment areas. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-13 Map 7-5. 2040 Traffic Model Projections 75th L o g a n 56th 58th H a l i f a x 70th 76th A l d r i c h 6 6 t h T w i n L a k e 694 Y o r k 694 R a m p 61s t L i l a c 55 t h J o h n M a r t i n H a l i f a x Mumford Y o r k B r o o k l y n B e a r d P a l m e r L a k e Parkway Freeway Q uail Summit 1 0 0 48 t h Nash R a m p 9 4 64th Ohenry R a m p 51s t R a m p H a l i f a x 1 0 0 65th D r e w F r a n c e R a m p 70t h 53rd 7 5 t h R a m p 53rd 70 t h A b b o t t 45t h 54th R a m p S c o t t B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r S h i n g l e C r e e k Shingle Creek B e a r d 94 94 71st J a m e s 47t h Unity L i l a c R a m p O l i v e r K n o x I r v i n g 49th 7 4 t h R a m p 7 5 t h C a m d e n T o l e d o 4 t h 52nd 4 t h N o b l e 45 1 /2 K n o x R a m p 65th 5 t h V e r a C r u z Thurber 2 5 2 Q u a i l U p t o n W a s h b u r n 6 6 t h Y o r k F r a n c e 67t h V i n c e n t 58th 45t h Z e n i t h B e a r d W i l l o w A b b o t t S a il o r Meadowwood K y l e Q u a i l 61st 70th 67 t h 46th 67th 52nd S h e r i d a n Morgan A l d ri c h U n i t y L e e M o r g a n 7 6 t h R u s s e l l 67t h Lakeside 58th 57th 63r d Oliver 7 1 s t X e r x e s Paul 60th Q u e e n U p t o n 55th 59th 73r d 4 8 t h L e e 50th B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r C h o w e n H u m b o l d t L e e Frem ont R a m p F r e m o n t Orchard 50th 74th 56 t h 75t h Frem ont Ramp 69th 57th 56th R a m p Howe 47th P e r r y D r e w 46th Ramp 59t h 10 F r a n c e D u s h a r m e S c o t t 55 t h N e w t o n Logan Wilshire 46t h V e r a C r u z Eckberg 54th PalmerLake X e rx e s Eleanor R a m p 4 5 t h F r e m o n t X e r x e s T o l e d o 73r d Q u a i l M a j o r R e g e n t 69th U n i t y H ills vie w Commodore R a m p B e a r d 71s t T o l e d o V i n c e n t 67th F r a n c e 59 1/2 Woodbine W e l c o m e 49 1/2 S h o r e s Ramp 50th Eleanor 68th 60t h 72nd B r y a n t D r e w 50t h 61s t G i r a r d Violet R a m p 56th C a m d e n 51s t 73 r d 57th A d m i r a l A l d r i c h 73r d 76th E m e r s o n 59th 62nd Y o r k A l d r i c h U n i t y 68t h W e l c o m e L i l a c 66th Fai rvi e w 70th N o b l e G r i m e s S c o t t J u n e W e s t R i v e r 52nd 4 t h50th A b b ott Q u a i l Urban 65th Q u a i l 65th W i l l o w 54th53rd 64th 70th 47t h 51s t 8 1 71s t K y l e 68th 62nd 70th 7 2 n d72nd L a k e 46 1/2 67th 53r d 56th 72nd 51st 72nd 52nd 46th 68th A l d r i c h 52nd 61s t N e w t o n Lake 58 1/2 71st 60th 46t h 60th H u m b o l d t C o l f a x R a m p 66th 50t h 75th 64th 56th B e a r d D u p o n t 48th X e r x e s H a l i f a x F r a n c e 10 74th H u m b o l d t S hin gle C re e k X e r x e s L i l a c B r o o k l y n Ramp E w i n g A b b o t t 7 6 t h T o l e d o C a m d e n Oliver 67 t h L a k e v i e w R a m p Z e n i t h 45th 70th M o r g a n 66th C h o w e n U n i t y A z e l i a 7 5 t h 75th G r i m e s 7 0 t h A b b o t t B r o o k d a l e Q u e e n X e r x e s Aldrich Brooklyn Brooklyn I m p e ri a l 74th M a j o r 6 5 t h L y n d a l e Lakeside W a s h b u r n O l i v e r R i v e r d a l e D r e w B r o o k l y n P e r r y 50th 45t h A d m i r a l D r e w N o b l e P e n n R u s s e l l Quail P e r r y E w i n g 53r d 74th F r a n c e I n d i a n a T o l e d o S c o t t T o l e d o D r e w U n i t y R a m p R a m p K y l e 76 t h 76th M a j o r 70t h A l d r i c h 73r d 74th 74th 71st P e r r y L o g a n R a m p R e g e n t S c o tt 69th B r y a n t C o l f a x X e r x e s D a l l a s Q u e e n 74th H u m b o l d t P e r r y R a m p 73rd 69th 55 t h N o r t h p o r t T h o m a s R a m p B e a r d Bellv ue Ponds James 49th R a m p L a k e l a n d 47th L i l a c R a m p I n d i a n a 73rd 7 1 s t 49th 74th Irving J a m e s 7 3 r d E r i c o n P e r r y 76th Ramp R a m p T o l e d o S h a r i A n n L e e N o b l e G i r a r d X e r x e s E w i n g U p t o n P e r r y F r e m o n t P e r r y P e n n K n o x M i s s i s s i p p i K n o x 72nd R u s s e l l Q u a i l M a j o r S c o t t R e g e n t K a t h r e n e Ang e lin e O l i v e r C o l f a x 6 t h A l d r i c h C o l f a x 4 t h K y l e J a m e s G r i m e s O r c h a r d E m e r s o n I r v i n g L o g a n H a l i f a x A l d r i c h N e w t o n A l d r i c h O l i v e r M o r g a n B r y a n t Winches ter K n o x 66t h M o r g a n V i n c e n t M a j o r L o g a n W a s h b u r n M a j o r N e w t o nXerxes T h o m a s S h e r i d a n D r e w Q u a i l T o l e d o O r c h a r d G r e a t V i e w E w i n g C a m d e n R e g e n t J u n e C o l f a x R e g e n t 48th L a k e l a n d U n i t y La k e s i d e L a k e C u r v e I r v i n g 54 t h W e l c o m e L e e N o rth w a y 45th 53r d M o r g a n 6 6 t h 57th Corvallis 48th Poe P e n n U n i t y 56th U p t o n C h o w e n Burquest O r c h a r d Boulder 46t h 62nd Y o r k C a m d e n Lilac G i r a r d G i r a r d F r e m o n t J u d y D u p o n t 51st O s s e o Oak H a l i f a x R a m p P e r r y Q u a i l E m e r s o n M a r l i n L e e Lawrence Northway G r i m e s E a r l e B r o w n 7 5 t h R a m p Abbott 6 3 r d Amy 72nd Woodbine 51s t 94 B r o o k l y n O r c h a r d H a l i f a x J u n e I n d i a n a D r e w B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d F r o n t a g e P e r r y Q u a i l R e g e n t V i n c e n t 1 0 0 C a m d e n 68th 4 t h E w i n g E m e r s o n R a m p J a m e s L i l a c 74 1/2 R e g e n t N o b l e 9 4 R a m p M o r g a n G i r a r d R a m p V e r a C r u z J a m e s W e l c o m e R a m p Humboldt L e e L y n d a l e L y n d a l e 67th Ramp Joyce Janet D r e w E a s t L y n d a l e 62nd 66th Quarles R a m p Winches ter R a m p R a m p 72nd R a m p Woodbine T w i n L a k e R a m p P e a r s o n L i l a c R a mp 2 5 2 S c o t t Brook ly n C enter Brook ly n P ark B r o o k l y n C e n t e r B r o o k l y n P a r k B r o o k l y n C e n t e r C r y s t a l Brooklyn Ce nter Minne apolis B r o o k l y n P a r k F r i d l e y Crystal Robbinsdale 26000 17100 3600 1200 1300 2500 134000 3500 125000 8000 1000 5900 9300 4600 1500 1840021000 30000 15000083004200 120001800 8000 10200 13001600 25000 910011800 4400 45005800 7100 10000 76000 9900 7900 1900 1400 4000 7700 13900 5100 3700 34000 3900 18600 5400 4600 3600 1600 176000 71000 4800 3300 7200 3300 5200 9000 5800 9600 4000 1800 76000 1400 25000 82000 4000 25000 44 000 69000 9800 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles F Fun ction al Classi ficati on Principal A rterial A-Minor Augmentor A-Minor Reliever Major C ollector Minor C ollector 2040 Traffic Projections XXX Source: MNGEO, City of Brooklyn Center, SRF, SHC DRAFT: 1/9/2019 Map 7-6. 2040 Traffic Volume Projections TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-14 To determine the roadway system capacity deficiencies based on the 2040 AADT forecasts the same methodology was used as in the existing conditions. The forecast model and volume-to- capacity analysis was conducted to determine volumes and assess congestion. The analysis based on the 2040 traffic model is reflected in Table 7-6 below. Table 7-6 Year 2040 Capacity Deficiencies Route Segment Volume Roadway Design Capacity V/C Ratio Approaching capacity (Volumes Meet or Exceed 85% of Design Capacity I-694 TH 252 to East River Road 176,000 184,000 0.96 TH 100 France Avenue to Brooklyn Blvd 82,000 85,000 0.96 Summit Drive to I-694 76,000 85,000 0.89 France Avenue 47th Avenue to TH 100 9,900 10,000 0.99 Over Capacity (Volumes Meet or Exceed Design Capacity) TH 252 I-694 to 65th Avenue 76,000 54,000 1.41 65th Avenue to 70th Ave 68,000 54,000 1.26 69th Avenue Zane Avenue to Brooklyn Blvd 10,200 10,000 1.02 Brooklyn Boulevard Brooklyn Boulevard was highlighted as a major concern with respect to capacity and safety within the 2030 Plan. In response the City, in coordination with Hennepin County, in 2013 the City commissioned the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study which defined a vision and future roadway concept for the corridor which would improve transportation for all modes; established a cohesive streetscape design to encourage pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users; and attract and retain businesses. Brooklyn Center and Hennepin County are currently working on an approximately 1.4-mile full reconstruction and streetscape improvement of the roadway that extends from 49th Avenue and Bass Lake Road. The improvements are anticipated to improve auto, transit, bike and pedestrian movements within this corridor. A similar project is programmed for Brooklyn Boulevard from Bass Lake Road to I-694 in 2021. These projects are critical to positioning the corridor and adjacent land uses for redevelopment as designated within the Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay shown on the Future Land Use Plan. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-15 MN 252 / I-94 Along the City’s eastern border, I-94 and TH 252 continue to be studied by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for potential improvements and lane conversions. In 2016 Brooklyn Center commissioned the TH 252 Corridor Study to establish a long term vision for TH 252 to address safety, congestion and neighborhood connectivity issues on TH 252. The goal of the study was to identify the short and long term improvements on TH 252 that should be implemented within Brooklyn Center to accomplish the long term vision. MnDOT and Hennepin County continue to work with the cities of Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, and Minneapolis on appropriate improvements including entrance and exit ramp locations and lane conversions. Planned improvements for this corridor are identified in the Metropolitan Council’s 2040 Transportation Policy Plan (2040 TPP). As part of the Regional Mobility project on MN 252 and I-94, the 2040 TPP identifies freeway conversion of MN 252 and the addition of MnPASS from 610 to Dowling along I-94 (see Map 7-7) in the 2022-2027 Timeframe. These improvements are shown in both Tier I as part of the Current Revenue Scenario and Tier II as part of the Increased Revenue Scenario for Regional Mobility investment. Map 7-7. MnPASS System under Current Revenue Scenario near Brooklyn Center 2040 TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL | October 2018 UPDATE Chapter 5: Highway Direction & Plan| Page 5.43 Figure 5-14: MnPASS System under Current Revenue Scenario 2040 TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN | METROPOLITAN COUNCIL | October 2018 UPDATE Chapter 5: Highway Direction & Plan| Page 5.43 Figure 5-14: MnPASS System under Current Revenue Scenario Source: MnDOT 2040 TPP TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-16 IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT Travel Demand Management Travel Demand Management (TDM) is a set of techniques to reduce peak period vehicle trips by 1) shifting travelers from driving alone into shared ride arrangements, such as ridesharing or transit, or 2) by encouraging alternative work arrangements, such as flextime and telecommuting that remove trips from the peak travel times. In this metropolitan area and throughout the nation our ability to build our way out of growing congestion and environmental problems is severely limited by the cost of roads and the environmental and social impacts of new and expanded roads. Brooklyn Center’s road system allows for very little expansion if any, due to constrained rights-of-way and established land uses. Therefore, the City supports travel demand management as a way to alleviate increasing traffic congestion. TDM techniques are best implemented through a partnership of cities, regional and state agencies, and employers to encourage travelers to change their behavior through incentives, enhanced services and high occupancy facilities. For example, employers can provide subsidized transit passes, allow staggered work hours to allow travel outside of peak hours, and encourage telecommuting. The state and region provide transit service and facilities such as high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, metered ramps and meter bypasses to allow faster travel times for ride-sharers and transit users. These types of improvements are important for supporting drivers who choose alternatives to driving alone. As a developed City, Brooklyn Center has limited options for adding lanes and facilities to existing arterials and roadways. Increasing implementation of TDM techniques will fall to partnerships with transit services and employer-based incentives for rideshare, flextime, and telecommuting. In redevelopment areas, future transit facilities and their integration with the broader transportation system within the City will be likely offer prime opportunities for enhancing multi-modal travel and TDM. Planned Improvements to the Regional Highway System There are no Principal Arterials or interchanges within Brooklyn Center identified for improvements in the 2040 TPP. The most recent MnDOT highway project within the City was paving a portion of I-94, which was scheduled for completion in 2018. While a project is not identified in the 2040 TPP, a project to covert TH 252 to a freeway, add capacity and add MnPASS lanes on TH 252 and I-94 was funded by the state legislature in 2023 through the Corridors of Commerce funding program. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-17 Although not shown in the 2040 TPP, as previously noted, the TH 252 corridor continues to be studied and MnDOT is working collaboratively with the City of Brooklyn Center and the City of Brooklyn Park on potential future improvements in this corridor. Currently, MnDOT is exploring the potential conversion to a 6-lane grade-separated freeway with exit and entrance ramps from I-694 to TH 610 and is seeking input on locations and configurations of entrance and exit ramps from key stakeholders. Planned Improvements to the Local and County Roadway System To manage and plan for regular street maintenance and management the City has adopted the Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Plan which is implemented through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Plan identifies and plans for the systematic management and maintenance of the City’s roadways, and utility infrastructure and basis the improvements on the lifecycle of the infrastructure within a particular area or neighborhood. This Plan will continue to be updated and incorporated as part of the CIP efforts each year. Access Management Access to the regional highway system in the City of Brooklyn Center is primarily expected to remain the same through this planning period. Interstates I-94 and I-694 have access only at existing interchanges. These interchange locations are set, and the City does not expect these locations to change. Access to TH 100 was altered with improvements about a decade ago, however, certain movements between I-94 and TH 100 are left with challenges. Eastbound I-94 to southbound TH 100, and northbound 100 to west bound I-94 still require use of local streets to make these movements. The local streets impacted include Brooklyn Boulevard, Shingle Creek Parkway and 65th Avenue. Access to TH 252 continues to be studied by MnDOT in coordination with Brooklyn Center. While a project is not identified in the 2040 TPP, a project to covert TH 252 to a freeway, add capacity and add MnPASS lanes on TH 252 and I-94 was funded by the state legislature in 2023 through the Corridors of Commerce funding program. Recent Corridor Studies Access to the minor arterial system, including Brooklyn Boulevard and Bass Lake Road, requires ongoing management to maintain the capacity and safety of these roadways. The Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study and the proposed Brooklyn Boulevard corridor overlay land use designation will impact the number of access improvements along this roadway and will be further evaluated and explored as part of the City’s zoning ordinance update process to implement this Plan. Hennepin County has guidelines for desirable access spacing on minor arterials and although it may not be possible to achieve the desired spacing with the current land use and development patterns on Bass Lake Road, the City will strive to consolidate access and match Hennepin County guidelines with future development opportunities where possible. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-18 TRANSIT The City of Brooklyn Center is currently well-served by local transit routes operating mostly on minor arterial and collector roadways. Several express routes also provide ridership to downtown via I-94 and TH 252. Map 7-8 illustrates the existing transit routes in Brooklyn Center. To service these routes, the City has several locations of park and ride lots: 1) at Brooklyn Boulevard, south of I-694, 2) on the west side of TH 252 at 73rd Avenue, and 3) at 65th Avenue and TH 252. Additionally, the Brooklyn Center Transit Station is a transit hub at Bass Lake Road (County Road 10) and Northway Drive providing local connections and opportunities to transfer between intersecting routes. The express routes in Brooklyn Center benefit from utilizing existing bus-only shoulders along I-94 and TH 252, bringing transit riders primarily in and out of Minneapolis. There are currently no new dedicated bus-only shoulder lanes proposed within the City in the 2040 TPP. There are also no corridors identified for the addition of MnPASS lanes in Brooklyn Center that would encourage ridesharing on these principal arterials. Currently there are no dedicated busways in Brooklyn Center, but the addition of this type of transit facility is underway with the construction of the C-Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operated by Metro Transit. The C-Line will offer frequent bus service on dedicated bus lanes beginning in 2019. BRT service will run between the Brooklyn Center Transit Station and downtown Minneapolis via Brooklyn Boulevard and Xerxes Avenue within Brooklyn Center, and south via Penn Avenue and Olson Memorial Parkway. The C-Line will also offer connections to the Blue Line and Green Line of Light Rail Transit (LRT) service in Minneapolis. Map 7-10 illustrates the future C-Line BRT. The D-Line BRT is also in early design stages of planning and will also provide increased connectivity to residents if constructed. Transit Market Area Research by the Metropolitan Council shows that three key factors greatly influence transit use in the metropolitan area: 1) density (population and employment); 2) interconnectedness of the local street system; and 3) the number of cars owned by residents. Based on these key factors, the Metropolitan Council defines five “Transit Market Areas” that indicate the likely cost effectiveness of various types of transit service investments. For example, high density in Market Area I contributes to high ridership which makes it more cost effective for transit investment. The Metropolitan Council’s 2040 TPP identifies the five transit markets in the metropolitan area and describes the related service characteristics and performance guidelines appropriate in each market. A portion of Brooklyn Center – largely along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor – TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-19 Map 7-8. Transit Market Areas INTERSTATE 94 H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 63RD AVE N X E R X E S A V E N 69TH AVE N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 INTERSTATE 694 57TH AVE N B R O O K L Y N B L V D D U P O N T A V E N 58TH AVE N S H I N G L E C R E E K P K W Y H U M B O L D T A V E N J U N E A V E N B R Y A N T A V E N F R A N C E A V E N L Y N D A L E A V E N 65TH AVE N COUNTY ROAD 10 FREEWAY BLVD 53RD AVE N H A L I F A X A V E N 7 0 T H A V E N SB HWY252 TO WB I94 S B I 9 4 T O 5 3 R D A V E N N O B L E A V E N WB I94 TO BROOKLYN BLVD 51ST AVE N INTERSTATE 94 53RD AVE N H U M B O L D T A V E N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 F R A N C E A V E N H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 INTERSTATE 694 F R A N C E A V E N BROOKLYN CENTER MINNEAPOLIS CRYSTAL BROOKLYN PARK ROBBINSDALE F 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 FeetMarket Area Transit Market Area II Transit Market Area III Source: MNGEO, Metropolitan Council, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC DRAFT: 1/9/2019 Map 7-8. Transit Market Areas TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-20 !. k k k k BROOKLYN PARK BROOKLYN CENTER 7 5 t h 6 3 r d J a m e s 7 3 r d W e s t R i v e r T w i n L a k e Y o r k 1 0 5 6 t h 5 4 t h 6 9 4 7 1 s t 9 4 L i l a c 4 9 t h T o l e d o 4 7 t h 4 t h K n o x O r c h a r d T h u r b e r 2 5 2 5 8 t h Q u a i l 6 7 t h 5 8 t h 1 0 Q u a i l K y l e Q u a i l 6 7 t h 6 9 t h U n i t y S h i n g l e C r e e k 7 3 r d V e r a C r u z 5 0 t h N o r t h p o r t L i l a c H u m b o l d t 5 5 t h L e e F r e m o n t 6 9 t h N o b l e 5 6 t h H o w e L o g a n B r y a n t F r a n c e P e n n 7 0 t h H u m b o l d t F r e m o n t R e g e n t 6 5 t h 6 t h F r a n c e 6 2 n d 6 7 t h 6 5 t h L i l a c B e a r d 6 8 t h 6 1 s t 7 3 r d V i o l e t L e e C a m d e n W e l c o m e 7 3 r d A d m i r a l E m e r s o n 5 9 t h A l d r i c h 7 1 s t S c o t t W o o d b i n e 4 t h J a m e s Q u a i l U r b a n 6 1 s t W i l l o w L e e 5 3 r d 5 1 s t 7 1 s t K y l e L a k e 6 9 t h 4 6 1 / 2 6 3 r d 5 1 s t 6 1 s t A l d r i c h 6 1 s t 6 1 s t 6 1 s t 5 1 s t 7 1 s t 5 1 s t 5 1 s t 6 5 t h 9 4 7 0 t h 5 1 s t 5 1 s t 5 1 s t L o g a n 5 9 t h O l i v e r 6 1 s t E w i n g A b b o t t T o l e d o G r i m e s 6 7 t h 9 4 Z e n i t h 4 7 t h 4 6 t h 6 6 t h 6 8 t h N e w t o n 5 1 s t 4 9 t h D r e w 5 7 t h 1 0 0 7 5 t h U n i t y A z e l i a 5 1 s t 7 0 t h 5 0 t h J a m e s F r a n c e A l d r i c h 5 9 t h 7 4 t h 7 3 r d M a j o r 6 5 t h O l i v e r 6 2 n d 5 3 r d Y o r k D r e w 5 0 t h 5 0 t h B e l l v u e N o b l e P e n n 4 6 t h P e r r y 5 3 r d 7 4 t h S c o t t M u m f o r d N o b l e 6 2 n d D r e w U n i t y 7 2 n d P a l m e r L a k e 9 4 J o h n M a r t i n K y l e 7 4 t h 7 4 t h M a j o r 7 0 t h P e r r y 6 4 t h 7 3 r d 7 4 t h 6 1 s t 7 4 t h 7 1 s t P e n n 4 9 t h K n o x M a j o r D a l l a s N a s h L o g a n 6 7 t h 7 4 t h P e r r y C o l f a x 7 3 r d P e n n O l i v e r B r y a n t L o g a n 5 5 t h A b b o t t 4 9 t h J a m e s 4 7 t h L i l a c O h e n r y Q u e e n S u m m i t E w i n g 7 1 s t I n d i a n a 7 3 r d D r e w B r o o k l y n 7 3 r d 7 4 t h 7 4 t h B e a r d A b b o t t X e r x e s Q u a i l I r v i n g 7 3 r d E r i c o n O l i v e r P e r r y 7 2 n d Q u a i l R a m p 6 7 t h 6 8 t h S h a r i A n n B r y a n t T o l e d o C o l f a x L e e N o b l e L e e G i r a r d P e r r y E w i n g F r a n c e 6 t h U p t o n 7 2 n d P e r r y P e n n K n o x K n o x D u p o n t A l d r i c h R u s s e l l Q u a i l M a j o r S c o t t B r y a n t J a m e s J a m e s R e g e n t G i r a r d K n o x I r v i n g I r v i n g B r y a n t A n g e l i n e C o l f a x O l i v e r C o l f a x 6 t h G i r a r d M o r g a n 6 9 t h A l d r i c h C o l f a x 4 t h A l d r i c h K y l e K y l e A l d r i c h B r y a n t J a m e s D u p o n t Q u a i l G r i m e s A l d r i c h R e g e n t J u n e D u p o n t D u p o n t B r y a n t C o l f a x S c o t t L e e I r v i n g L o g a n A l d r i c h R e g e n t B r y a n t H a l i f a x A l d r i c h 6 t h M a j o r A l d r i c h N e w t o n D u p o n t P e r r y C o l f a x A l d r i c h B r y a n t I r v i n g G r i m e s P e n n O l i v e r C o l f a x 9 4 C o l f a x Z e n i t h K n o x L o g a n B r y a n t M o r g a n B r y a n t Q u e e n L o g a n D u p o n t K n o x R e g e n t C o l f a x B r y a n t G i r a r d D u p o n t J a m e s 6 6 t h K n o x M o r g a n V i n c e n t E w i n g J a m e s L o g a n R u s s e l l A l d r i c h G i r a r d K n o x B r y a n t K n o x D u p o n t L o g a n D u p o n t O l i v e r M a j o r Q u e e n D u p o n t N e w t o n M o r g a n J a m e s P e n n X e r x e s B r y a n t I r v i n g J a m e s R u s s e l l L o g a n P e r r y T h o m a s Q u e e n I r v i n g V i n c e n t O l i v e r V i n c e n t P e n n U p t o n G i r a r d Q u a i l R e g e n t P e r r y D r e w L o g a n Q u e e n Q u a i l 6 t h N e w t o n J a m e s T o l e d o O r c h a r d X e r x e s G i r a r d K n o x T h o m a s R u s s e l l G i r a r d I r v i n g G i r a r d U p t o n R e g e n t V i n c e n t D u p o n t F r a n c e Q u a i l G i r a r d 5 t h Z e n i t h H a l i f a x D u p o n t E w i n g 1 0 0 C a m d e n R e g e n t E w i n g D r e w E w i n g A l d r i c h J u n e C o l f a x B r y a n t C o l f a x D r e w R e g e n t H a l i f a x 4 8 t h C o l f a x L a k e l a n d U n i t y B r y a n t I r v i n g 5 4 t h 9 4 B e a r d 4 7 t h A b b o t t B y r o n Z e n i t h 2 5 2 L e e Y o r k V i n c e n t B r y a n t N o r t h w a y 5 3 r d M o r g a n O l i v e r 6 6 t h 5 1 s t H a l i f a x 5 7 t h F a i r v i e w 5 0 t h B r o o k l y n 4 8 t h B e r n a r d C o r v a l l i s P o e U n i t y P e n n 1 0 2 5 2 5 6 t h U p t o n X e r x e s B u r q u e s t D u p o n t D a l l a s R i v e r d a l e E m e r s o n N a s h C a m d e n 4 6 t h H u m b o l d t B o u l d e r 6 2 n d 1 0 0 1 0 5 4 t h Y o r k 9 4 W e l c o m e 5 2 n d B e r n a r d Lila c G r i m e s 9 4 G i r a r d J u d y G i r a r d 5 1 s t E l e a n o r H a l i f a x B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r O s s e o O a k X e r x e s 5 3 r d P e r r y Q u a i l W i l l o w M a r l i n L e e D a l l a s 5 1 s t 6 3 r d I r v i n g A m y 7 2 n d W o o d b i n e O r c h a r d R a m p J u n e I n d i a n a K y l e 6 3 r d A z e l i a 9 4 P e r r y 9 4 W a s h b u r n J u n e Q u a i l R e g e n t V i n c e n t 5 0 t h W i n c h e s t e r 9 4 C a m d e n C a m d e n E w i n g 6 8 t h 4 t h E m e r s o n G i r a r d R a m p W e s t R i v e r L i l a c R a m p 6 6 t h H a l i f a x 7 4 1 / 2 D u p o n t 9 4 R e g e n t N o b l e O h e n r y 9 4 R a m p M o r g a n G r i m e s G i r a r d H u m b o l d t R a m p V e r a C r u z J a m e s W e l c o m e K y l e L e e P e r r y D u p o n t C a m d e n L y n d a l e 6 3 r d D u p o n t G i r a r d B r y a n t H u m b o l d t C o l f a x C o l f a x 9 4 L y n d a l e 6 7 t h D r e w J o y c e J a n e t E a s t L y n d a l e 6 2 n d 6 4 t h 6 6 t h M o r g a n Q u a r l e s N e w t o n 6 4 t h 6 6 t h 6 5 t h R a m p R a m p 2 5 2 2 5 2 W i n c h e s t e r 6 5 t h R a m p R a m p 7 2 n d R a m p W o o d b i n e T w i n L a k e R a m p P e a r s o n L i l a c 2 5 2 P a r k w a y R a m p R a m p 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 2 5 2 F r e e w a y E a r l e B r o w n S c o t t 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 FeetF Legend k Park and Ride !.Transit Centers Transit Routes Express Urban Local Suburban Local Map 7-9. Existing Transit Routes 722 Route Number 22 22 22 722 721 717 723 767 760 767 722 22 762 722 763 763 765 766 768 5 19 22 717 724 761 724 723 760 767 724 761 761 5 22 724 Ruter Transit Garage* TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-21 Map 7-7. Planned Transit Routes/Improvements k k k k k !.!C !C !C 75th Crystal Airport 74 t h 63r d 56th 58th Woodbine 70th S c o t t 76th A l d r i c h 56th 6 6 t h 73rd N e w t o n 44th 45th S h i n g l e C r e e k 47th B r o o kly n O r c h a r d S c o t t 61s t 5 5 t h B ro o kly n Jo h n M a r t i n H a l i f a x Mumford X e r x e s 59th R a m p Quail 10 67t h 10 Ramp 1 0 0 58th R a m p 10 Nash 73r d 94 65th 64th U n i t y 47th 48th Ohenry 51s t R a m p F r a n c e W e s t B r o a d w a y R a m p 70th Lake 53rd R a m p 53rd 56th O sseo 74th 69th 69th X e r x e s 69th 70 t h 57th B r o o k l y n 45th 53r d 57th F r e m o n t 67th 48th 94 71s t 65th F r a n c e J a m e s K n o x I r v i n g 49t h 7 4th T o l e d o 44t h 52nd Angelin e K n o x 5 t h Thurber O r c h a r d S h o r e s Q u a i l Lakebreeze U p t o n W a s h b u r n 44 1/2 Y o r k V i n c e n t V e r a C r u z Z e n i t h W i ll o w F r a n c e D r e w S a il o r A b b o t t Q u a i l 61st 67 t h 67th 52nd 52nd R u s s e l l 67th S h i n g l e C r e e k 57th B r o o k l y n 60th Perry 7 1 s t J a m e s N o r t h p o r t 59th 73rd 58th 75th 46t h L e e 4 t h C h o w e n 44 t h L e e 57th D r e w 74th 5 6 t h 75th R a m p W e l c o m e Lawrenc e E w i n g 69th 67th Howe S hin gle Creek A ld ri c h D u s h a r m e B r y a n t C o l f a x 66th L o g an Bernard 4 6th Q u a i l Eckberg 54th 51s t X erxes 48th R a m p T o l e d o Q u a i l R a m p Fairview F r e m o n t U n i t y Winchester R e g e n t 6 9th L a k e l a n d S h e r i d a n 6 t h 67 t h F r a n c e 62nd 68th 49 1/2 S c o t tEleanor 68th 50th G i r a r d 64th Vio l e t 46th 61s t C a m d e n 51s t A d m i r a l 73 rd 56th 59th Y o r k 47t h A l d r i c h E m e r s o n 76th 73 r d 52nd 70th V e r a C r u z J u n e 54th 44th 64th Q u a i l 50th 60th L i l a c O r c h a r d 70th 53r d 47t h 71s t 70th 7 2 n d 46 1/2 Urban 61s t K y l e A l d r i c h 50th 71st 60th C o l f a x L a k e 56th 75th 7 5 th R a m p H u m b o l dt L o g a n H a l i f a x WestRiverRoad 47th 74th X e r x e s Brooklyn A b b o t t E w i n g Oliver M a j o r Z e n i t h Ramp 66th M a j o r N e w t o n U p t o n G r i m e s C h o w e n A z e l i a R a m p A b b o t t 74th 65th R a m p Aldrich N o r t h p o r t I m p erial M a j o r 6 5 t h 74t h Lak eside R u s s e l l H u m b o l d t P e n n D r e w 50th A d m i r al A l d r i c h P e n n N o b l e E w i n g P e r r y 53r d 74th T o l e d o R e g e n t T o l e d o D r e w Tw i n L a k e K y l e Ericon 76th 70t h M a j o r R obi n P e r r y M o r g a n 73r d 74th 74th 71st P e r r y Q u e e n 74th P e r r y 73r d R a m p B e a r d R a m p I n d i a n a 47th P o nd s 73r d 73r d 7 1 s t 7 3 rd P e r r y Q u a i l Corvallis O r c h a r d 48th 67th T o l e d o E w i n g A b b o t t P e r r y C o l f a x K n o x Q u a i l M a j o r S c o t t R e g e n t P e n n I r v i n g 72nd O l i v e r 4 t h An ge lin e K y l e C h o w e n O r c h a r d K a t h r e ne Winches ter 66th M o r g a n V i n c e n t B e a r d E w i n g L o g a n W a s h b u r n N e w t o n T h o m a s M a j o r M a j o r T o l e d o O r c h a r d J a m e s G r e a t V i e w E w i n g C a m d e n C o l f a x R e g e n t U n i t y La k ela n d I r v i n g 54th W e l c o m e N o rthway 53r d 45th M o r g a n 6 6 t h R i v e r d a l e L i l a c 57th 48th 56th U p t o n O r c h a r d F r e m o n t Boulder 46t h 62nd Y o r k E m e r s o n Lilac C a m d e n G i r a r d G i r a r d J u d y 51st Oak B r o o k l y n M a r l i n G r i m e s Amy 72nd Woodbine D a l l a s Abbott 51st 6 3 r d 94 Q u a i l R e g e n t V i n c e n t C a m d e n 68th E m e r s o n 74 1/2 N o b l e M o r g a n E a s t L y n d a l e G i r a r d J a m e s V e r a C r u z L e e 67th Joyce Janet D r e w 62nd Quarles Ramp R a m p 72nd Woodbine R a m p R a m p L o g a n H a l i f a x D u p o n t 2 5 2 W e s t R i v e r W e s t R i v e r S hi ng l e C r e ek 2 5 2 Freeway B r o o k l y n B e a r d P a l m e r L a k e P arkw a y Ramp Summit R e g e n t R a m p H a li fa x V e r a C r u z D r e w F r a n c e F r a n c e 6 6 t h N o b l e L i l a c F r e m o n t R a m p H u m b o l d t X e r x e s RampRam p L y n d a l e R a m p R a m p R u s s e l l Vic tory Memorial V e r a C r u z H u m b o l d t H a l i f a x T w i n L a k e B e a r d K y l e E m e r s o n U p t o n V e r a C r u z L i l a c C a m d e nBrookdaleCenter Northway N o b l e Pe r r y L o g a n F r e m o n t P e n n Q u a i l C o l f a x C o l f a x G i r a r d G i r a r d Ra mp R a m p X e r x e s O l i v e r I n d i a n a U n i t y W e l c o m e J a m e s J a m e s W i l l o w B r o o k v i e w W e l c o m e I r v i n g Irving E w i n g R a m p H a l i f a x Q u e e n P e r r y B r y a n t B r y a n t X e n i a Q uail R a m p R a m p Ram p B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d F r o n t a g e D a l l a s L y n d a l e J a mes X e r x e s Z e n i t h N o b l e L e e L y n d a l e U p t o n S h ari A nn K n o x K n o x G r i m e s G r i m e s D r e w J u n e Byron Poe D r e w L e e E a r l e B r o w n Ramp J u n e I n d i a n a 9 4 9 4 H a l i f a x B roo k d a l e R a m p P e a r s o n L i l a c S c o t t S c o t t R a m p P e r r y 4 t h Brook lyn C enter Brooklyn P ark B r o o k l y n C e n t e r B r o o k l y n P a r k B r o o k l y n C e n t e r C r y s t a l B r o o k l y n C e n t e r F r i d l e y Brook ly n C enter Minne apolis B r o o k l y n P a r k F r i d l e y F r i d l e y M i n n e a p o l i s R o b b i n s d a l e M i n n e a p o l i s 8 5 2 767 760 721 761 5 19 7 1 7 762 8 5 4 7 2 3 7 6 8 7 6 6 7 6 5 8 8 7 8 6 5 8 5 0 783782 781 780 7 6 3 801 722 2 2 724 785 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Mile s F Transit Routes Lo ca l Expres s !C Pla nn e d C -L in e Tra ns it St op s Pla nn e d C -L in e B RT R ou te !.Tr an sit Ce n ter s k Park an d Ri de Source: MNGEO, Metropolitan Council, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC DRAFT: 1/9/2019 Map 7-10. Planned Transit Routes / Improvements 722 Route Number 22 22 22 722 721 717 723 767 760 767 722 22 762 722 763 763 765 766 768 5 19 22 717 724 761 724 723 760 767 724 761 761 5 22 724 Ruter Transit Garage* TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-22 is within Transit Market Area II, defined as an area with “high to moderately high population and employment densities and typically has a traditional street grid comparable to Market Area I. Much of Market Area II is also categorized as an Urban Center and it can support many of the same types of fixed-route transit as Market Area I, although usually at lower frequencies or shorter service spans”. In Brooklyn Center this Market Area has transit service including regular-route local, all-day express, small vehicle circulators, special needs paratransit (ADA, seniors), and ridesharing. Metro Mobility serves the paratransit needs of the City, and Transit Link operates dial-a-ride services. The rest of Brooklyn Center falls within the Transit Market Area III. The Metropolitan Council defines this as having “moderate density but tends to have a less traditional street grid that can limit the effectiveness of transit. It is typically Urban with large portions of Suburban and Suburban Edge communities. Transit service in this area is primarily commuter express bus service with some fixed-route local service providing basic coverage. General public dial- a-ride services are available where fixed-route service is not viable”. This description seems somewhat inconsistent with the City’s development pattern in the areas designated as Transit Market Area III. This is particularly true in the eastern half of the City where residential neighborhoods were developed primarily in an urban grid and densities are relatively consistent with the Minneapolis neighborhoods adjacent to the City’s southern border. This discrepancy is important to the City because the designated Transit Market Area is correlated to the types of transit investment and frequency of lines planned and maintained within the area. Some of the City’s lowest median household incomes are in neighborhoods designated as Transit Market Area III, and their current transit options are limited to express routes that may not meet their needs. The City would like to work with the Metropolitan Council to explore how transit services might better match the community’s needs in the future and look for ways to improve connections and access for all of the City’s residents. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-23 Transit Oriented Development The growth areas identified in Brooklyn Center offer a significant opportunity for implementing transit-oriented development (TOD) in the community. This type of development relies on close proximity to a transit station with regular and frequent service to bring people to and from its destinations. TOD typically includes vibrant public spaces and is pedestrian scale with an active mix of residential and commercial uses. TOD provides Brooklyn Center the opportunity to revitalize its underutilized properties with increased housing and economic development. The redevelopment close to the existing Brooklyn Center Transit Station is best suited for TOD implementation, especially with the addition of the C-Line BRT, and possible future D-Line BRT. Connections with other transit modes and trails can also bolster TOD along the Brooklyn Boulevard corridor. Transit Plan The most significant plan for transit in Brooklyn Center is the implementation of the C-Line BRT. With its connections to existing and future LRT and regular direct service to downtown Minneapolis, the BRT will provide the anticipated increase in transit demand for future residents in the City. With service terminating at the Brooklyn Center Transit Station, BRT will provide service in close proximity to Brooklyn Center’s primary redevelopment areas where increased higher-density residential and increased employment is expected to be located. (See Map 7-10 for Planned C-Line). It is also possible within this planning period that the D-Line BRT will be constructed, offering additional regional connections with the Transit Center. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-24 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SYSTEM Although Brooklyn Center primarily developed in the suburban boom of auto-centric development, changes in the regional economy, City’s demographics, and personal attitudes of residents’ influence demand for comfortable, safe, and accessible bicycle and pedestrian system within the City. The desire for bicycle-friendly and walkable neighborhoods is on the rise and has been expressed by Brooklyn Center’s residents. To address these needs, the City took initiative to develop and adopt a policy for Complete Streets in 2013 to return focus on pedestrian-oriented streets and bicycle accommodation. Another step in these efforts was completed in 2014 with the adoption of the City of Brooklyn Center Pedestrian & Bicycle Plan that addresses maintenance and development of an integrated city-wide bicycle and pedestrian system. This plan recognizes that several jurisdictions and organizations manage and implement the bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the City but focuses on the importance of managing these facilities as an integrated and cohesive system. The system includes sidewalks, trails, and on-road facilities—managed by the City, Three-Rivers Park District, and Hennepin County—effectively linking its parks, schools, commercial areas, civic buildings, and transit services. As shown on Map 7-11, sidewalks provide pedestrian access along most minor arterial and collector streets and along an interconnected system of local streets. Map 7-12 illustrates the existing bicycle and pedestrian system – along with proposed connections – as it was mapped in 2014. Existing Conditions / Barriers / Gaps / Challenges As described and discussed in the Brooklyn Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2014), the City utilizes a system of various facilities to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic and connections to key destinations in the community. These facilities currently include a combination of sidewalks, trails, on-road bicycle lanes, regional trails, and county bikeways. Management of these facilities is shared between the City, Hennepin County, and Three Rivers Parks District. The 2014 Plan attempts to look at the various facilities under multiple jurisdictions as a complete system by identifying barriers, gaps, and challenges hat impeded the cohesive function of the broader system. In the 2014 plan, system challenges were identified through a number of efforts including staff review, community surveys, and through planning studies from the various jurisdictions. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-25 Map 7-9. Existing Sidewalks 57th 75th L o g a n 56th 58th H a l i f a x 70th O l i v e r 76thBrooklyn A l d r i c h 6 6 t h T w i n L a k e 694 45th 694 V e r a C r u z 61s t L i l a c J o h n M a r t i n H a l i f a x Mumford Y o r k B r o o k l y n B e a r d R a m p P a l m e r L a k e Parkway Freeway Q uail Summit 1 0 0 48 t h Nash R a m p 9 4 64th Ohenry R a m p 51st R a m p H a l i f a x 2 5 2 F r a n c e 65th D r e w Wilshire F r a n c e R a m p 70th 53rd 7 5 t h R a m p 1 0 0 53r d 1 0 0 70 t h 54th R a m p S c o t t B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r S h i n g l e C r e e k Shingle Creek 94 94 71st 47t h Unity L i l a c X e r x e s R a m p N e w t o n I r v i n g J a m e s K n o x 49th 7 4 t h R a m p 7 5 t h Y o r k C a m d e n T o l e d o 4 t h 52nd 4 t h N o b l e 45 1 /2 K n o x R a m p 65th 5 t h V e r a C r u z 2 5 2 Q u a i l U p t o n W a s h b u r n Y o r k F r a n c e 67th V i n c e n t 58t h Z e n i t h B e a r d W i l l o w A b b o t t S a il o r Meadowwood K y l e Q u a i l 61st 70th 67 t h 46th 67th 52nd S h e r i d a n Morgan A l d ri c h U n i t y L e e M o r g a n 7 6 t h R u s s e l l 67th Lak eside S h i n g l e C r e e k 46th Lakebreeze 58th 57th 63rd Oliver 47th 7 1 s t X e r x e s Paul 60th Q u e e n 45th U p t o n 55th 59th 73r d L e e L i l a c 8 1 50th B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r C h o w e n H u m b o l d t 10 L e e Frem ont R a m p B r o o k d a l e C e n t e r F r e m o n t Orchard L a k e l a n d 74th 56 t h R a m p W e l c o m e 75th 57th Frem ont Ramp 69th E w i n g 57th 56th R a m p R e g e n t R a m p Howe P e r r y D r e w R a mp 59th 10 F r a n c e D u s h a r m e S c o t t C o l f a x 46th A l d r i c h 55 t h N e w t o n Logan Wilshire F r e m o n t 46t h V e r a C r u z Eckberg P e n n PalmerLake X e rx e s Eleanor R a m p Ramp 4 5 t h F r e m o n t X e r x e s Q u a i l Victory Memorial R e g e n t 69th U n i t y Commodore 6 7 t h R a m p B e a r d 71s t T o l e d o R a m p V i n c e n t X e n i a 67th F r a n c e 59 1/2 Woodbine W e l c o m e 68th 49 1/2 S h o r e s A l d r i c h Ramp 50th Eleanor 68th 60th 72nd B r y a n t D r e w 50th 61s t G i r a r d Violet R a m p 56th C a m d e n 51s t 73rd 57th A d m i r a l A l d r i c h 73r d E m e r s o n 59th 62nd Y o r k A l d r i c h 73r d 68t h W e l c o m e L i l a c 66th Fa irview 70th N o b l e G r i m e s S c o t t J u n e Woodbine W e s t R i v e r R i v e r d a l e 52nd R a m p 4 t h 72nd 50th A b b ott Q u a i l Urban 65th Q u a i l 65th W i l l o w 54th53rd 64th 70th 47t h 51s t 8 1 76th 71s t K y l e 68th W e l c o m e 62nd 70th 7 2 n d72nd L a k e 46 1/2 67th B r o o k v i e w 53r d 56th 72nd 51s t 72nd 52nd 46th 54th 68t h A l d r i c h 52nd 61s t Lake 58 1/2 71s t 60th 46t h 60th H u m b o l d t C o l f a x R a m p F r e m o n t 66th 50t h 64th 56t h R a m p B e a r d S hin gle Cre ek D u p o n t 48th X e r x e s H a l i f a x F r a n c e 10Ramp West RiverRoad 74th X e r x e s L i l a c Ramp E w i n g A b b o t t 7 6 t h T o l e d o C a m d e n Ol iver 67t h L a k e v i e w R a m p Z e n i t h 70th 66th M o r g a n C h o w e n G r i m e s U n i t y A z e l i a 7 5 t h 75th Ramp G r i m e s 7 0 t h A b b o t t B r o o k d a l e Q u e e n Aldrich Brooklyn I m p e ri a l R a m p 74t h M a j o r 6 5 t h L y n d a l e Lakeside W a s h b u r n 45th O l i v e r R i v e r d a l e OsseoRoadFrontage D r e w B r o o kly n P e r r y F r e m o n t 50th H u m b o l d t I r v i n g 45th A d m i r a l D r e w O r c h a r d X e n i a N o b l e P e n n R u s s e l l Quail P e r r y E w i n g 53r d 74th F r a n c e R a m p I n d i a n a T o l e d o S c o t t T o l e d o D r e w U n i t y R a m p R a m p K y l e 76 t h 76th H u m b o l d t M a j o r 70th A l d r i c h 73r d 74th 74th VillageCreek B r o o k d a l e 71st P e r r y L o g a n R a m p 69th M a j o r B r y a n t C o l f a x X e r x e s D a l l a s Q u e e n 74th H u m b o l d t S c o tt P e r r y R a m p 65th Ramp 73r d 69th 55 t h N o r t h p o r t T h o m a s R a m p B e a r d Bellv ue Ponds James 49th P e r r y R a m p L a k e l a n d I n d i a n a 47th L i l a c R a m p I n d i a n a 73r d 7 1 s t 49th 74th IrvingJames 7 3 r d E r i c o n P e r r y Q u a i l 76th R a m p T o l e d o S h a r i A n n L e e N o b l e G i r a r d X e r x e s E w i n g U p t o n P e r r y F r e m o n t P e r r y P e n n K n o x M i s s i s s i p p i K n o x 72nd R u s s e l l Q u a i l M a j o r S c o t t R e g e n t K a t h r e n e An g e lin e O l i v e r C o l f a x 6 t h A l d r i c h C o l f a x 4 t h K y l e J a m e s G r i m e s C h o w e n O r c h a r d E m e r s o n I r v i n g L o g a n H a l i f a x A l d r i c h N e w t o n A l d r i c h O l i v e r M o r g a n B r y a n t Winches ter K n o x 66t h M o r g a n V i n c e n t E w i n g M a j o r L o g a n W a s h b u r n M a j o r N e w t o n X e r x e s T h o m a s S h e r i d a n D r e w Q u a i l T o l e d o O r c h a r d G r e a t V i e w H u m b o l d t R i v e r w o o d E w i n g C a m d e n R e g e n t J u n e C o l f a x R e g e n t X e n i a 48th B e a r d L a k e l a n d U n i t y La k e s i d e L a k e C u r v e I r v i n g 54 t h W e l c o m e 73 r d 47thByron L e e N o rth w a y 45th 53r d M o r g a n 6 6 t h Z e n i t h 57t h Bernard Corvallis 48th Poe P e n n U n i t y 56th U p t o n C h o w e n Burquest O r c h a r d Boulder 46t h 62nd Y o r k Lilac G i r a r d G i r a r d J u d y D u p o n t 51st O s s e o Oak H a l i f a x H a l i f a x R a m p P e r r y Q u a i l E m e r s o n B r o o k l y n M a r l i n L e e Lawrence Northway G r i m e s E a r l e B r o w n 7 5 t h Abbott 6 3 r d D a l l a s Amy 72nd Woodbine 51s t 94 B r o o k l y n O r c h a r d J u n e I n d i a n a D r e w B r o o k l y n B o u l e v a r d F r o n t a g e P e r r y Q u a i l R e g e n t V i n c e n t C a m d e n 68th 4 t h E w i n g E m e r s o n R a m p L i l a c 74 1/2 R a m p R e g e n t R a m p N o b l e J a m e s 9 4 M o r g a n G i r a r d R a m p B r o o k l y n V e r a C r u z J a m e s Humboldt L e e L y n d a l e L y n d a l e 67thRamp Joyce Janet D r e w E a s t L y n d a l e 62nd 66th Quarles R a m p Winches ter R a m p R a m p 72nd R a m p Woodbine T w i n L a k e R a m p P e a r s o n L i l a c R a mp S c o t t Brook ly n C enter Brook ly n P ark B r o o k l y n C e n t e r B r o o k l y n P a r k B r o o k l y n C e n t e r C r y s t a l B r o o k l y n C e n t e r F r i d l e y Brookly n C enter Minne apolis B r o o k l y n P a r k F r i d l e y F r i d l e y M i n n e a p o l i s 0 0.5 1 1.5 20.25 Miles F Co un ty an d State Tra ils & Bik ewa ys Off Street Trails Re gio nal Tr ail s State Trails Hennepin County Bikeway System Bikeway Off-Street Bikeway On-Street Source: MNGEO, Metropolitan Council, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC DRAFT: 1/9/2019 Map 7-11. Existing Sidewalks TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-26 Map 7-10. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian System (2014)Map 7-12. Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian System (2014) Source: Brooklyn Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2014 Tw i n L a k e s Re g i o n a l T r a i l se g m e n t h a s be e n c o m p l e t e d si n c e 2 0 1 4 ma p p i n g . MR T / W e s t M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r R e g i o n a l T r a i l * MR T / W e s t M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Re g i o n a l T r a i l ( p l a n n e d ) * TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-27Map 7-13. Gaps and Challenges in the System M a p 7 - 1 1 . G a p s a n d C h a l l e n g e s i n t h e S y s t e m Twin Lakes Regional Trail segment has been completed since 2014 mapping. Source: Brooklyn Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2014 Studies also included information from completed “safe routes to school” planning completed jointly by the City and school districts. Information collected about system challenges was sorted into eight categories: 1. System Gaps 2. Crossings 3. Wayfinding 4. Infrastructure Condition and Maintenance 5. Security 6. Education/Enforcement 7. Equipment 8. Other Detailed information about challenged related to each of the eight categories can be found in the 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Map 7-13 illustrates the challenges currently identified in the system. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-28 Plan for Bicycle and Pedestrian System The City of Brooklyn Center continues to work with other jurisdictions to manage and develop the system of facilities and corridors that contribute to the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian System. From the system challenges analysis, recommendations to improve the system are identified in the 2014 Plan and outline an overall vision for pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the community, providing broad recommendations for activities and practices that will encourage the long-term use of the system and a healthy lifestyle. The future of trail and sidewalk network in the City should follow direction in the 2014 Plan that reflects the input of residents and study participants to encourage connection along with opportunities for recreation and commuting/transport. The proposed vision for the trail and sidewalk network: • Creates linkages to existing and planned recreational facilities • Creates linkages to schools from residential areas • Creates linkages to community destinations (city hall, community center, mall, etc.) • Creates linkages along transit lines and to transit facilities (bus stops, park and rides, etc.) • Eliminates gaps in the existing network • Provides parallel/separated facilities on higher-volume and/or higher-speed roadways Map 7-14 illustrates the proposed sidewalk and trail system as envisioned in the 2040 Plan. On-Road Bicycle Facilities will broaden the multi-modal connections in the City. The 2040 Plan did not identify recommendations for specific implementation of on-road bicycle lanes or shoulders, but recommended study of specific corridors for appropriateness of future implementation. Opportunities as part of reconstruction or redevelopment projects was also recommended for exploration of on-road bicycle accommodation. Corridors for potential study/consideration include: • County Road 10 (58th Ave/Bass Lake Road): between western city limits and Xerxes Ave N • County Road 57 (Humboldt Avenue): from 57th Avenue to the southern city limits • County Road 130 (69th Ave): between western city limits and County Road 152 (Brooklyn Blvd) • 69th Avenue: between County Road 152 (Brooklyn Blvd) and West River Road • Shingle Creek Parkway: from 69th Avenue to Xerxes Ave N • West River Road: from northern city limits to I-694 crossing • Xerxes Ave North: from Shingle Creek Parkway to County Road 10 (Bass Lake Road) TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-29 Map 7-14. Existing and Proposed Sidewalk and Trail System Map 7-12. Existing and Proposed Sidewalk and Trail System Source: Brooklyn Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2014 Tw i n L a k e s Re g i o n a l T r a i l se g m e n t h a s be e n c o m p l e t e d si n c e 2 0 1 4 ma p p i n g . MR T / W e s t M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r R e g i o n a l T r a i l * MR T / W e s t M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r Re g i o n a l T r a i l ( p l a n n e d ) * TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-30 The 2014 Plan also recommends improvements at street crossings and signalized intersection, locations for improved wayfinding, improved maintenance, and specific policies, partnerships, and practices that will enhance the overall system. Map 7-15 illustrates the proposed recommendations system-wide. More descriptive information can be found in the 2014 Plan. Safe Routes to School MnDOT’s Safe Routes to School program funds grants each year for improving safe options for student to walk and bike to school. This program can directly influence bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the City that benefit both students and all City residents with planning and infrastructure implementation. The City should continue to access the Safe Routes to School program and work with MnDOT to utilize available benefits. Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) As demonstrated in the previous sections, the City has been planning proactively to develop an interconnected bicycle and pedestrian network that serves not only the City’s residents, but the larger region. Fortunately, many of the City’s planning efforts support and are consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) objectives that are focused on connecting regional and sub-regional job centers with bikeways offer people commuter mode choice. As shown on Map 7-16, some opportunities remain particularly along the Brooklyn Boulevard and the Mississippi River corridors to improve connections. SPECIAL TRAFFIC SITUATIONS Brooklyn Center is not located in one of the four special traffic situation areas: downtown Minneapolis, downtown Saint Paul, University of Minnesota, and Airport South / Mall of America in Bloomington. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-31 Map 7-13. Long-Term Bicycle and Pedestrian PlanMap 7-15. Long-Term Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Source: Brooklyn Center Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 2014 Tw i n L a k e s Re g i o n a l T r a i l se g m e n t h a s be e n c o m p l e t e d si n c e 2 0 1 4 ma p p i n g . TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-32 Map 7-14. Regional Bicycle Transportation Network ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½ ¾¾½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾¾½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾¾½ ¾¾½¾¾½ ¾¾½¾¾½ ¾¾½ ¾¾½¾¾½ ¾¾½ ¾¾½ ¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾¾½ ¾¾½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ !. INTERSTATE 94 H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 63RD AVE N X E R X E S A V E N 69TH AVE N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 INTERSTATE 694 57TH AVE N B R O O K L Y N B L V D D U P O N T A V E N 58TH AVE N S H I N G L E C R E E K P K W Y H U M B O L D T A V E N J U N E A V E N B R Y A N T A V E N F R A N C E A V E N L Y N D A L E A V E N 65TH AVE N COUNTY ROAD 10 FREEWAY BLVD 53RD AVE N H A L I F A X A V E N 7 0 T H A V E N SB HW Y252 TO WB I94 S B I 9 4 T O 5 3 R D A V E N N O B L E A V E N WB I94 TO BROOKLYN BLVD 51ST AVE N INTERSTATE 94 53RD AVE N H U M B O L D T A V E N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 F R A N C E A V E N H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 INTERSTATE 694 F R A N C E A V E N BROOKLYN CENTER MINNEAPOLIS CRYSTAL BROOKLYN PARK ROBBINSDALE F 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 FeetRBTN !.RBTNDestinations ¾¾½RBTN Alignments <all other values> RBTN Corridor Planning Tier 1 Tier 2 Source: MNGEO, Metropolitan Council, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC DRAFT: 1/9/2019 Map 7-16. Regional Bicycle Transportation Network Map 7-14. Regional Bicycle Transportation Network ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½ ¾¾½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾¾½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾¾½ ¾¾½¾¾½ ¾¾½¾¾½ ¾¾½ ¾¾½¾¾½ ¾¾½ ¾¾½ ¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½¾¾½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾¾½ ¾¾½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ ¾ ¾ ½ !. INTERSTATE 94 H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 63RD AVE N X E R X E S A V E N 69TH AVE N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 INTERSTATE 694 57TH AVE N B R O O K L Y N B L V D D U P O N T A V E N 58TH AVE N S H I N G L E C R E E K P K W Y H U M B O L D T A V E N J U N E A V E N B R Y A N T A V E N F R A N C E A V E N L Y N D A L E A V E N 65TH AVE N COUNTY ROAD 10 FREEWAY BLVD 53RD AVE N H A L I F A X A V E N 7 0 T H A V E N SB HWY252 TO W B I94 S B I 9 4 T O 5 3 R D A V E N N O B L E A V E N WB I94 TO BROOKLYN BLVD 51ST AVE N INTERSTATE 94 53RD AVE N H U M B O L D T A V E N H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 F R A N C E A V E N H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 INTERSTATE 694 F R A N C E A V E N BROOKLYN CENTER MINNEAPOLIS CRYSTAL BROOKLYN PARK ROBBINSDALE F 0 1,600 3,200 4,800 6,400800 FeetRBTN !.RBTNDestinations ¾¾½RBTN Alignments <all other values> RBTN Corridor Planning Tier 1 Tier 2 Source: MNGEO, Metropolitan Council, City of Brooklyn Center, SHC DRAFT: 1/9/2019 MINNEAPOLIS TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-33 AVIATION PLAN While the City does not directly host an airport, Crystal Airport is located adjacent to the Brooklyn Center’s west border south of 63rd Avenue and is therefore within the influence area of this airport. Crystal Airport is a designated reliever airport for the Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) Airport. Airspace over Brooklyn Center is also used by aircraft operating from Metropolitan Area airports and other airports. A small portion of the Crystal Airport is located within Brooklyn Center, largely within the Shingle Creek floodway; the land is controlled by the City’s floodplain zoning and not suitable for development. Brooklyn Center is a member (with Crystal and Brooklyn Park) of the joint Airport Zoning Board, which functions under a joint power agreement to regulate land use around the airport. In the early 1980s, the Zoning Board adopted airport zoning regulations which apply to each of the member cities. The airport zones are shown on the Brooklyn Center zoning map, but the text of the regulations has not been incorporated into the City’s zoning ordinance. Airspace zones are imaginary surfaces around the airport into which no structure or tree is permitted. The imaginary surfaces include approach surfaces, primary surfaces, horizontal surfaces and conical surfaces. Land use safety zones are established to control land uses near public airports for the safety of airport users and persons in the vicinity of airports. There are three safety zones: A, B and C. Safety zone A extends outward from the end of the runway for a distance equal to two-thirds of the length of the existing or planned runway. No buildings, transmission lines, or uses that would cause an assembly of persons are permitted. In Brooklyn Center, this area is partially airport-owned open space and partially in single-family residential use. Safety zone B extends outward from safety zone A, a distance equal to one-third the existing or planned runway length. It covers an additional single-family residential area. Safety zone C contains all land within an arc drawn with a 6,000-foot radius from the ends of all runways, excluding the areas in zones A and B. Uses are only subject to general restrictions regarding interference with electronic communications, airport lighting and the impairment of visibility in the vicinity of the airport. In Brooklyn Center, this zone extends as far as Brooklyn Boulevard, encompassing a wide range of land uses. Structures which are 150 feet or higher above ground level and within approximately two miles of the airport may be considered hazards to air navigation. Brooklyn Center has no existing structures of this height, does not permit such structures under its zoning ordinance, and has no plans to permit such structures in the future. Any applicant who proposes to construct such a structure shall notify the city, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration at least 30 days in advance as required by law (MCAR 8800.1200 TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7-34 Subpart 3 and FAA form 7460-8). The FAA recommends that proposed structures be reviewed if they are located within two miles of the airfield and within five miles of a runway approach corridor. The Metropolitan Airports Commission recommends that any proposed structure within these parameters which may exceed 50-feet should be reviewed by the FAA, Mn/DOT Aeronautics and the Metropolitan Airports Commission. Map 7-17 illustrates the location of the Crystal Airport, its runways, and safety zones for the area. Map 7-15. Crystal Airport Location and Air Safety Zones Map 7-17. Crystal Airport Location and Air Safety Zones CHAPTER 8: Infrastructure & Utilities Comprehensive Plan 2040 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-1 2040 Infrastructure & Utilities Goals »Provide adequate infrastructure including sewer, water, and facilities to serve existing residents and redevelopment areas. »Maintain the level of city services to existing neighborhoods and plan for improvements through appropriate capital expenditures. »Support opportunities to create resilience within the City’s infrastructure as redevelopment or reconstruction activities occur. INTRODUCTION This chapter of the City of Brooklyn Center 2040 Comprehensive Plan addresses utilities infrastructure including stormwater management, water supply, and wastewater (sanitary sewer) systems and other utilities in the City. It is consistent with the Metropolitan Council’s Thrive MSP 2040 planning and 2040 Water Resources Policy Plan. This Plan chapter primarily intends to highlight the ongoing management and operations the City uses to ensure quality water service to its residents and to assist the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) with continued operation of the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS) for wastewater collection and treatment. * Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals and Strategies INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-2 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT The City of Brooklyn Center adopts a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) to help the City in conserving, protecting, and maintaining the quality of its surface waters, ground water, and natural resources in relation to stormwater runoff. The SWMP is a local management plan that meets the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103B.235, Minnesota Rules 8410, the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions’ Third Generation Watershed Management Plan (dated April 11, 2013, as amended May 10, 2018), and Minnesota Statute 103B.201 states that the purposes of the water management programs are to: • Protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems; • Minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems; • Identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality; • Establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management; • Prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; • Promote groundwater recharge; • Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and • Secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater. The Brooklyn Center Surface Water Management Plan addresses these purposes. Brooklyn Center is within two watershed districts: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission (WMWMC), as shown in Figure 8-1. The SWMP addresses the rules and regulations put forth by the SCWMC and the WMWMC. Surface water in Brooklyn Center generally drains into Shingle Creek which eventually drains into the Mississippi River. Areas on the east side of the City drain directly into the Mississippi River while areas in the south west side of the City drain to one of the Twin Lakes or Ryan Lake. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-3 Figure 8-1. Surface Water Resources INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-4 Surface Water Management Responsibilities and Agreements The City of Brooklyn Center is party to two separate joint powers agreements related to surface water management: 1. With the cities of Brooklyn Park, Crystal, Maple Grove, Minneapolis, New Hope, Osseo, Plymouth, and Robbinsdale establishing the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC). 2. With the cities of Brooklyn Park, Champlin, Maple Grove, and Osseo establishing the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission (WMWMC). The City also has an agreement with both the SCWMC and WMWMC establishing the watersheds as the Local Government Unit (LGU) for administering WCA within the City. Upon approval of this SWMP by the two watersheds with jurisdiction over the City, it is the City’s intent to maintain its current permitting powers through its Permit for Land Disturbing Activities. Currently, neither the SCWMC nor the WMWMC issue permits, so no impact to these organizations would occur. The watersheds would continue in their role as project review agencies. The City of Brooklyn Center is responsible for construction, maintenance, and operation of the City’s stormwater management systems (i.e., ponds, BMPs, mechanical structures, sump, etc.). INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-5 Figure 8-2. Surface Water & Groundwater Interaction INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-6 SWMP Plan Summary The current Brooklyn Center Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) plans and guides for stormwater activities in the City for the next 10 years (2018-2027). An update of the plan will be needed in 2027, and periodic amendments will likely occur in the intervening years to keep the plan current with changing watershed district and Metropolitan Council requirements. The SWMP is divided into six sections: • Section 1 - Executive Summary provides background information and summarizes the plan contents. • Section 2 - Land and Water Resource Inventory presents information about the topography, geology, groundwater, soils, land use, public utilities, surface waters, hydrologic system and data, and the drainage system. • Section 3 - Agency Cooperation outlines other governmental controls and programs that affect stormwater management. • Section 4 - Assessment of Issues presents the City’s water management related problems and issues. • Section 5 - Goals and Policies outlines the City’s goals and policies pertaining to water management. • Section 6 - Implementation Program presents the implementation program for the City of Brooklyn Center, which includes defining responsibilities, prioritizing, and listing the program elements. Section 6 of the SWMP plan presents the implementation program for the City of Brooklyn Center, which includes defining responsibilities, prioritizing, and listing the program elements. Table 6.1 of the SWMP outlines the projects, programs, studies, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) activities that have been identified as a priority to address water resource needs and problem areas within the City. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-7 Table 8-1. Projected Annual Water Demand - WSP Brooklyn Center 15 Use the water use trend information discussed above to complete Table 7 with projected annual demand for the next ten years. Communities in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area must also include projections for 2030 and 2040 as part of their local comprehensive planning. Projected demand should be consistent with trends evident in the historical data in Table 2, as discussed above. Projected demand should also reflect state demographer population projections and/or other planning projections. Table 7. Projected annual water demand Year Projected Total Population Projected Population Served Projected Total Per Capita Water Demand (GPCD) Projected Average Daily Demand (MGD) Projected Maximum Daily Demand (MGD) 2016 31231 31201 97.3 3.0 7.3 2017 31077 31047 96.8 3.0 7.2 2018 31254 31224 96.3 3.0 7.2 2019 31431 31401 95.8 3.0 7.2 2020 31400 31370 95.4 3.0 7.2 2021 31785 31755 94.9 3.0 7.2 2022 31962 31932 94.4 3.0 7.2 2023 32139 32109 93.9 3.0 7.2 2024 32316 32286 93.5 3.0 7.2 2025 32492 32462 93.0 3.0 7.2 2030 33000 32970 92.5 3.1 7.3 2040 35400 35370 92.1 3.3 7.8 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.08.09.010.0 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Variation in Average Day and Max Day Demands Average Daily Demand (MGD)Max. Daily Demand (MGD)Ratio of Max/Ave WATER SUPPLY The City of Brooklyn Center supplies its residents with water from its local municipal system owned and operated by the City and sourced from public water supply wells. The City maintains an updated Water Supply Plan (WSP) to manage the system. The goal of the WSP is to help the City: 1) implement long term water sustainability and conservation measures; and 2) develop critical emergency preparedness measures. It also fulfills requirements under Minnesota Statute 473.859 to complete a local comprehensive plan. The current WSP plans for water supply between 2016-2018, and will continue to updated on a bi-annual basis to maintain the City’s water supply quality. It includes Projected average daily water consumption and peak daily water consumption through the planning period 2040, as shown in Table 8-1. These projects are expected to remain the largely the same as current levels, and the City does not anticipate the need for a new water supply sources before 2040. The WSP also outlines the current emergency water supply agreement with Brooklyn Park. The City is currently updating its WSP, and will incorporate any necessary revisions or updates based on the assumptions and information contained within this Plan. As part of the implementation of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the City will update its Water Appropriations Permit with the MnDNR based on the adopted Future Land Use plan contained in Chapter 3. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-8 SANITARY WASTEWATER SYSTEM All areas within the City are served by the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS). The system collects wastewater within the City’s borders and isolated areas outside City limits and conveys it out of the City to the MDS. There are no above ground or subsurface sewage treatment systems located within City limits. The flow within the system is predominately produced within City limits and there are no intercommunity service agreements with an adjoining community after December 31, 2008. In addition, no new sanitary system connections are anticipated within the planning period. Brooklyn Center’s sanitary sewer service areas are shown in Map 8-3, and the full system is shown in Map 8-4. The system is divided into 4 sanitary sewer metered districts: M221, M100, M112, and M110. Growth Forecasts The following Table 8-2 (also Table 3-1 from Chapter 3 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan) was utilized for sewer system capacity review. Table 8-3 shows this information related to Households and Jobs for each metered area. Table 8-2. Metropolitan Council Forecasts Forecast Year Population Households Employment 2010 30,104 10,756 11,001 2020 31,400 11,300 13,000 2030 33,000 12,300 13,800 2040 35,400 13,300 14,600 Table 8-3. Brooklyn Center Sanitary Sewer Forecasts by Metered Area Sewered District 2020 2030 2040 Est. Units Est. Jobs Avg Flow (MGD) Est. Units Est. Jobs Avg Flow (MGD) Est. Units Est. Jobs Avg Flow (MGD) M100 1,210 1,392 0.224 6310 7079 0.227 1259 1382 0.230 M110 4,103 4,720 0.760 4160 4667 0.765 4209 4,621 0.769 M112 5,798 6,670 1.074 6716 7535 1.235 7635 8,381 1.395 M221 189 218 0.035 190 214 0.035 197 216 0.036 TOTALS 11,300 13,000 2.093 12,300 13,800 2.262 13,300 14,600 2.43 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-9 Map 8-3. MCES Sanitary Sewer Meter Service Areas - Brooklyn Center INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-10 "C ` "C ` ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä No 4 No . 6 No . 7 No . 1 No . 8 No . 3 No . 5 No . 9 No . 2 No . 1 0 ME T E R 1 1 0 ME T E R 1 1 2 5 Th i s m a p w a s c r e a t e d u s i n g S a m b a t e k ’ s G e o g r a p h i c In f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m s ( G I S ) , i t i s a c o m p i l a t i o n o f in f o r m a t i o n a n d d a t a f r o m v a r i o u s s o u r c e s . T h i s ma p i s n o t a s u r v e y e d o r l e g a l l y r e c o r d e d m a p an d i s i n t e n d e d t o b e u s e d a s a r e f e r e n c e . Sa m b a t e k i s n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a n y i n a c c u r a c i e s co n t a i n e d h e r e i n . S a m b a t e k P r o j e c t 2 1 3 2 1 SO U R C E : C i t y o f B r o o k l y n C e n t e r , H e n n e p i n C o u n t y , M CE S , E s r i 0 1 , 9 0 0 3 , 8 0 0 5 , 7 0 0 7 , 6 0 0 95 0 Fe e t Un k n o w n 6 I n c h 8 I n c h 9 I n c h 10 I n c h 12 I n c h 15 I n c h 18 I n c h 21 I n c h 24 I n c h 27 I n c h ³ä Co m m e r c i a l L S ³ä Ci t y L i f t S t a t i o n "C ` MC E S M e t e r s Fo r c e m a i n MC E S I n t e r c e p t o r s Fo r c e m a i n Gr a v i t y Me t e r s h e d M1 0 0 M 1 1 0 M 1 1 2 M2 2 1 Un a d j u s t e d I n f l o w Ex i s t i n g S a n i t a r y S e w e r Sy s t e m Fi g u r e 1 Ci t y o f B r o o k l y n C e n t e r Map 8-4. Existing Sanitary Sewer System - Brooklyn Center Source: Sambatek, 2019 P I P E 2 0 9 3 P I P E 1 8 5 3 P I P E 1 9 0 8 INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-11 System Flows and Capacity An analysis of existing wastewater flows was completed in order to create an analytical model of the sanitary sewer collection system and determine appropriate capacity for future conditions. Wastewater flows were generated as a unit flow (gal/acre/day) for specific land use types and applied to the model per parcel. For this study, the estimated 2015 housing structure, as shown in Table 8-4 with a total count of 10,996 households, was used to develop and model flow inputs per residential housing unit type. Table 8-4. Housing Types, 2000-2015 System flows were therefore estimated for current (2018) conditions as well as 2040 projected land uses. The estimated average wastewater flow from each sanitary sewer district is summa- rized in Table 8-5. Capacity and Peak Flows for sewer lines over 12 inches is in Table 8-6. Table 8-5. City of Brooklyn Center Design Flows Meter Collection Area Existing Land Use 2040 Land Use 2017 Metropolitan Council Meters (MGD) Average Flow (MGD) Peak Flow (MGD) Average Flow (MGD) Peak Flow (MGD) M100 0.224 0.858 0.230 0.879 N/A M110 0.760 2.784 0.769 2.820 0.89 M112 1.074 4.134 1.395 5.417 1.29 M221 0.035 0.139 0.036 0.143 N/A Source: Metropolitan Council Table 8-6. Capacity and Existing/2040 Peak Flows for 12”+ Lines Pipe Field ID Pipe Capacity (gravity) (MGD) Existing Peak Flow (MGD) 2040 Peak Flow (MGD) 2093 8.192 7.456 7.825 1908 0.817 0.633 0.631 1853 1.19 0.029 0.029 Source: Sambetek, 2019 Page 5 4.0. GROWTH PROJECTIONS Table 3 below shows the historical and future population data for the City from the 2015 Metropolitan Council System Statement. For this study, the estimated 2015 housing structure in Table 4, with a total count of 10,996 households, was used to develop and model flow inputs per residential housing unit type. Table 3: Metropolitan Council Forecasts Forecast Year Population Households Employment 2010 30,104 10,756 11,001 2020 31,400 11,300 13,000 2030 33,000 12,300 13,800 2040 35,400 13,300 14,600 Source: 2015 Metropolitan Council System Statement for Brooklyn Center Table 4: Housing Structure Type 2000-2015 Source: US Census, 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5.0. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM 5.1. General All areas within the City are served by the Metropolitan Disposal System (MDS). The City’s sanitary sewer system, shown in Figure 1, collects wastewater within the City’s borders and isolated areas outside the City and conveys it out of the City to the MDS. There are no above ground or subsurface sewage treatment systems located within City limits. The flow within the system is produced predominately within City limits and there are no intercommunity service agreements with an adjoining community after December 31, 2008. 5.2. Wastewater Flows An analysis of existing wastewater flows was completed in order to create an analytical model of the sanitary sewer collection system. These wastewater flows were generated as a unit flow (gal/acre/day) for specific land use types and applied to the model per parcel. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-12 Existing Wastewater Unit Flows Estimated wastewater flows from the existing sewer system are based on several different estimation methods using the following data: • Winter water usage data (December 2017-March 2018) • Lift station pump down tests (August 28-August 31, 2018) • Lift station run times (December 2017-March 2018) • MCES flow meter readings (2016-2018) • Top water users and volumes (2015-2016) Water sales data, supplied by the City, included the volume of winter water supplied to three (3) categories (e.g. Residential, Commercial, and Institutional). Winter water usage (December through March) is typically assumed to be the base annual wastewater flow because it excludes lawn watering demand from the other seasons. Table 8-7 summarizes the winter water sales data for the three generalized land use categories for the analysis year 2017-2018. Table 8-7. Brooklyn Center Winter Water Flow Land Use Type Winter Water Sales 2017-2018 (gal)(gal / day) Total Residential 200,473,688 1,656,807 Total Commercial 42,529,976 351,487 Total Institutional 10,311,708 85,221 TOTAL 253,315,371 2,093,516 Source: Sambatek, City of Brooklyn Center Table 8-8 shows the estimated wastewater flows that calculated using the methods described above. It should be noted that medium density residential (MDR), based on the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan MDR density description of 10-15 unit/acre and the total residential winter water demand of 151 gal/day/unit, would typically have a unit flow of around 1,500- 2,250 gal/acre/day. The MDR flow shown in Table 8-8 is less than this range because the greenspace and buffer areas surrounding individual units was included in the total acreage of each MDR land use type. A typical value in the range above should be used for any future development modeling. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-13 Table 8-8. Estimated Existing System Unit Flow Rates Existing Land Use Designation Flow (gal / day) Area (acres) Unit Flow (gal / acre / day) Single-Family Residential (LDR)1,168,625 1,869 625 2 or 3 Family Residential and Townhouse Residential (MDR) 29,984 127 237* Multi-Family (HDR)458,199 251 1,827 Total Commercial 351,487 672 523 Total Institutional 85,221 211 404 *A unit flow of 1,500-2,250 gal/acre/day should be used for any future development calculations. Source: Sambatek 2040 Wastewater Unit Flows The 2040 wastewater flows were determined using the existing unit flows from Table 8-8 in combination with the 2040 land use plan included Chapter 3 of this Plan. For similar land use types, the existing system unit flows were used for the 2040 model. Table 8-9 lists estimated unit flows for 2040 land use designations. Table 8-9. Estimated 2040 System Unit Flow Rates 2040 Land Use Designation Flow (gal / day) Area (acres) Unit Flow (gal / acre / day) Low Density Residential (LDR)1,181,189 1,889 625 Medium Density Residential (MDR)29,248 124 237* High Density Residential (HDR)387,686 212 1827 Transit Oriented Development 325,204 200 1,623 Neighborhood Mixed Use 71,033 93 767 Commercial Mixed Use 92,604 88 1,052 Total Commercial 235,623 451 523 Total Institutional 86,850 215 404 *A unit flow of 1,500-2,250 gal/acre/day should be used for any future development calculations. Source: Sambatek Source: City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, MCES, ESRI INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-14 Lift Station Pump Capacities The City of Brooklyn Center currently has ten (10) lift stations that are in service and operated by the City’s utility services, illustrated in Map 8-4, and one (1) additional commercially-owned lifted station. For modeling accuracy, lift station pump down tests were performed in August, 2018 by Sambatek, Inc. with the help of City staff to verify the capacity of each of the ten (10) City owned lift stations. Table 8-10 below shows the field-determined capacity of pumps at each lift station. Because the Lift Station 2 wet well is irregularly shaped, pump flow verification was not possible without a meter. Pump capacity for Lift Station 2 was based on flow meter testing conducted in 1992. In addition, access to the commercially-owned lift station was not provided and pump capacity was assumed based off of record drawing information. Lift station pump down testing results conducted in August 2018 can be obtained from the City. Table 8-10. 2018 Lift Station Pump Capacities Lift Station Dimensions (ft)Pump 1 Capacity (GPM) Pump 2 Capacity (GPM) Pump 3 Capacity (GPM) 1 30 x 15 3102 3141 3197 2*17.5 x 10 2250 1935 1950 3 6 424 455 None 4 6 251 228 None 5 6 95 212 None 6 8 392 387 429 7 6 99 115 None 8 6 272 326 None 9 8 1116 1098 None 10 6 263 293 None Commercial**5 220 220 None * Information based on field test in 1992. ** Information based on plans in 2011. Lift station run times indicate all existing lift stations have adequate capacity to convey existing peak wastewater flows as shown in Table 8-11. Peak day flows were determined by multiplying the maximum day run times by the pump flow capacity. Flows shown in Table 8-11 are represented by daily flow rates. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-15 Table 8-11. 2018 Lift Station Pump Capacities Lift Station Average Day Winter Water Flow Dec 2017 - Mar 2018 Peak Day Water Flow Jan 2016 - Oct2018 Estimated Lift Station Capacity Flow Percentage of Capacity (%)gal / day gal / day gal / min gal / day 1 1,268,192 2,553,797 4,673 6,728,400 38% 2*915,409 2,241,548 2,918 4,201,200 53% 3 35,774 137,501 424 610,560 23% 4 26,081 81,698 228 328,320 25% 5 2,762 7,236 95 136,800 5% 6 245,451 574,690 583 839,520 68% 7 5,638 27,618 99 142,560 19% 8 94,407 189,508 272 391,680 48% 9 104,839 232,524 1,098 1,581,120 15% 10 22,455 73,390 263 378,720 19% * Lift station pump capacity assumed from record drawings. Sanitary Sewer System Capacity The sanitary sewer system capacity analysis was completed by modeling the existing sewer system using SewerCAD software (SewerCAD CONNECT Edition). A SewerCAD model was developed for the existing and 2040 sanitary sewer system based on the City’s geographic information system (GIS) data and available record drawings. Average day wastewater flows (Table 8-10 and Table 8-11) were inputted into the models based on manholes nearest parcel within the City. The average flow model was then adjusted for peak flows, to account for inflow and infiltration by applying the Metropolitan Council standard peaking factors to the average daily flow in the pipes. Modeling results indicate the existing and 2040 sanitary sewer system’s infrastructure, including gravity mains, lift stations, and force mains, have adequate capacity to serve current and future system flows. To review model accuracy, available Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) meter readings were compared to model results. Table 8-12 compares the existing and 2040 modeled flows to average winter water MCES metered flows between 2017-2018 for each of the four (4) metersheds (e.g.M100, M221, M112, M110). INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-16 Table 8-12. City of Brooklyn Center Design Flows MCES Metershed Collection Area* (%) Existing 2040 2017 Avg MCES Meter (MGD) Modeled Average Flow (MDG) Modeled Peak Flow * (MGD) Modeled Average Flow (MDG) Modeled Peak Flow * (MGD) M100 10.5%0.41 1.03 0.41 1.05 N/A M110 32.9%0.75 2.73 0.78 2.83 0.93 M112 55.0%1.13 4.23 1.46 5.52 1.27 M221 1.6%0.04 0.15 0.04 0.16 N/A *Collection area excludes land use types that do not supply wastewater to Brooklyn Center’s sanitary sewer collection system (e.g. parks, open water, wetland, railway, undeveloped land, and right-of-way). The model indicates that system capacity is capable of serving existing and 2040 sewer flow rates. Model results are illustrated in Map 8-5 and Map 8-6. If redevelopment includes sanitary collection system modifications, revaluation of existing facilities is recommended. Similarly, all proposed structures connecting to the sanitary sewer system within Brooklyn Park are required to apply for a building permit and follow the requirements of City Ordinance Chapter 4 – Public Utility and Service Districts. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-17 "C` "C`³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä METER 112 METER 110 No. 2 No. 9 No. 5 No. 3 No. 8 No. 1 No. 7 No. 6 No 4 No. 10 NOTES: 1. PERCENT CAPACITY IS CALCULATED USING MANNING’S EQUATION FOR OPEN CHANNEL FLOW DIVIDED BY THE PROJECTED PEAK FLOW IN THE PIPE. AS GRAVITY MAINS REACH CAPACITY FULL, THE PIPE WILL BECOME PRESSURIZED AND FLOW WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE UNDER PRESSURE CONDITIONS. NO SERVICE FLOODING RISK CAUSED BY OVERCAPACITY PIPES DURING PEAK FLOW CONDITIONS IS ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM. This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. Sambatek Project 21321 SOURCE: City of Brooklyn Center, Esri % Capacity Under 95% 95 - 100% Over 100% Force Mains ³ä Lift Stations ³ä Commercial LS "C`Meters 5 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200650 Feet City of Brooklyn Center Existing Peak Day FlowPipe Capacity Figure 4 "C` "C`³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä METER 112 METER 110 No. 2 No. 9 No. 5 No. 3 No. 8 No. 1 No. 7 No. 6 No 4 No. 10 NOTES: 1. PERCENT CAPACITY IS CALCULATED USING MANNING’S EQUATION FOR OPEN CHANNEL FLOW DIVIDED BY THE PROJECTED PEAK FLOW IN THE PIPE. AS GRAVITY MAINS REACH CAPACITY FULL, THE PIPE WILL BECOME PRESSURIZED AND FLOW WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE UNDER PRESSURE CONDITIONS. NO SERVICE FLOODING RISK CAUSED BY OVERCAPACITY PIPES DURING PEAK FLOW CONDITIONS IS ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM. This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. Sambatek Project 21321 SOURCE: City of Brooklyn Center, Esri % Capacity Under 95% 95 - 100% Over 100% Force Mains ³ä Lift Stations ³ä Commercial LS "C`Meters 5 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200650 Feet City of Brooklyn Center Existing Peak Day FlowPipe Capacity Figure 4 "C` "C`³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä METER 112 METER 110 No. 2 No. 9 No. 5 No. 3 No. 8 No. 1 No. 7 No. 6 No 4 No. 10 NOTES: 1. PERCENT CAPACITY IS CALCULATED USING MANNING’S EQUATION FOR OPEN CHANNEL FLOW DIVIDED BY THE PROJECTED PEAK FLOW IN THE PIPE. AS GRAVITY MAINS REACH CAPACITY FULL, THE PIPE WILL BECOME PRESSURIZED AND FLOW WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE UNDER PRESSURE CONDITIONS. NO SERVICE FLOODING RISK CAUSED BY OVERCAPACITY PIPES DURING PEAK FLOW CONDITIONS IS ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM. This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. Sambatek Project 21321 SOURCE: City of Brooklyn Center, Esri % Capacity Under 95% 95 - 100% Over 100% Force Mains ³ä Lift Stations ³ä Commercial LS "C`Meters 5 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200650 Feet City of Brooklyn Center Existing Peak Day FlowPipe Capacity Figure 4 Map 8-5. Existing Peak Day Flow Pipe Capacity INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-18 "C` "C`³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä METER 112 METER 110 No. 2 No. 9 No. 5 No. 3 No. 8 No. 1 No. 7 No. 6 No 4 No. 10 NOTES: 1. PERCENT CAPACITY IS CALCULATED USING MANNING’S EQUATION FOR OPEN CHANNEL FLOW DIVIDED BY THE PROJECTED PEAK FLOW IN THE PIPE. AS GRAVITY MAINS REACH CAPACITY FULL, THE PIPE WILL BECOME PRESSURIZED AND FLOW WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE UNDER PRESSURE CONDITIONS. NO SERVICE FLOODING RISK CAUSED BY OVERCAPACITY PIPES DURING PEAK FLOW CONDITIONS IS ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM. 2040 Peak Day FlowPipe Capacity Figure 5 This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. Sambatek Project 21321 SOURCE: City of Brooklyn Center, Esri % Capacity Under 95% 95 - 100% Over 100% Force Mains ³ä Lift Stations ³ä Commercial LS "C`Meters 5 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200650 Feet City of Brooklyn Center "C` "C`³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä METER 112 METER 110 No. 2 No. 9 No. 5 No. 3 No. 8 No. 1 No. 7 No. 6 No 4 No. 10 NOTES: 1. PERCENT CAPACITY IS CALCULATED USING MANNING’S EQUATION FOR OPEN CHANNEL FLOW DIVIDED BY THE PROJECTED PEAK FLOW IN THE PIPE. AS GRAVITY MAINS REACH CAPACITY FULL, THE PIPE WILL BECOME PRESSURIZED AND FLOW WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE UNDER PRESSURE CONDITIONS. NO SERVICE FLOODING RISK CAUSED BY OVERCAPACITY PIPES DURING PEAK FLOW CONDITIONS IS ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM. 2040 Peak Day FlowPipe Capacity Figure 5 This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. Sambatek Project 21321 SOURCE: City of Brooklyn Center, Esri % Capacity Under 95% 95 - 100% Over 100% Force Mains ³ä Lift Stations ³ä Commercial LS "C`Meters 5 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200650 Feet City of Brooklyn Center "C` "C`³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä³ä ³ä ³ä ³ä³ä METER 112 METER 110 No. 2 No. 9 No. 5 No. 3 No. 8 No. 1 No. 7 No. 6 No 4 No. 10 NOTES: 1. PERCENT CAPACITY IS CALCULATED USING MANNING’S EQUATION FOR OPEN CHANNEL FLOW DIVIDED BY THE PROJECTED PEAK FLOW IN THE PIPE. AS GRAVITY MAINS REACH CAPACITY FULL, THE PIPE WILL BECOME PRESSURIZED AND FLOW WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE UNDER PRESSURE CONDITIONS. NO SERVICE FLOODING RISK CAUSED BY OVERCAPACITY PIPES DURING PEAK FLOW CONDITIONS IS ANTICIPATED WITHIN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM. 2040 Peak Day FlowPipe Capacity Figure 5 This map was created using Sambatek’s Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various sources. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Sambatek is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. Sambatek Project 21321 SOURCE: City of Brooklyn Center, Esri % Capacity Under 95% 95 - 100% Over 100% Force Mains ³ä Lift Stations ³ä Commercial LS "C`Meters 5 0 1,300 2,600 3,900 5,200650 Feet City of Brooklyn Center Map 8-6. 2040 Peak Day Flow Pipe Capacity INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-19 Inflow and Infiltration Infiltration is water in the sanitary sewer system that enters through defects in the sewer pipes, joints, manholes, and service laterals, or by deliberate connection of building foundation drains. Water thatenters the sewer system from cross connections with storm sewer, sump pumps, roof drains, or manhole covers is considered inflow. Water from inflow and infiltration (I/I) can consume available capacity in the wastewater collection system and increase the hydraulic load on the treatment facility. In extreme cases, the added hydraulic load can cause bypasses or overflows of raw wastewater. This extra hydraulic load also necessitates larger capacity collection and treatment components, which results in increased capital, operation and maintenance, and replacement costs. Therefore, it is imperative that I/I be reduced whenever it is cost effective to do so. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) defines excessive I/I as I/I that causes the peak hourly flow to exceed the value determined by multiplying the average flow by the value of the peak to average ratio used by MCES to design interceptors and pump stations. Table 8-12 illustrates that from 2017 to 2018, the City’s peaking factors, measured at meters M110 and M112, are shown to be below the MCES standard peaking factors. Further analysis of each of the lift stations, in Table 8-13, indicates that the peaking factor at the lift stations is below MCES standard peaking factor. With review of the results from Tables 8-12 and 8-13, the City of Brooklyn Center is determined to have no excessive I/I per the MCES definition. However, I/I to some degree exists in virtually all municipal collection systems. Over 90% of the city’s housing stock 1970 or pre-1970 era (see Table 4-1). None of the services has been individually evaluated for I/I except on an as-need basis. The City continues to improve and/ or rehabilitate the sanitary sewer infrastructure with right-of-way reconstruction projects by replacing or lining existing clay sewer piping, replacing or coating existing manholes, and replacing existing manhole covers with sealed lids. Results of infrastructure improvement procedures in the City show decreased I/I over time. Using historic lift station run time and precipitation data, the City currently experiences an average increase in flows of 200,000 GPD for events under 2 inches and 265,000 GPD to 300,000 GPD for events in excess of 2 inches. Before the City began replacing clay pipe mainlines and sealing manhole covers, peaking ranged between 500,000 GPD and 1,800,000 GPD increase in flows for events in excess of 2 inches. This is an approximately 75% decrease in averaged I/I flows for larger rain events. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-20 Table 8-13. Metershed Inflow and Infiltration Analysis MCES Metershed Collection Area* (%) 2017-2018 Winter Avg MCES Meter (MGD) 2016-2018 Max MCES Meter (MGD) Calculated Peaking Factor MCES Standard Peaking Factor Excessive I/I Present M110 32.9%0.81 1.64 2.03 3.2 NO M112 55.0%1.23 1.85 1.50 3.0 NO Source: Brooklyn Center Sanitary Sewer Analysis Report, (Sambatek 2019) Table 8-14. Calculated Peaking Factors for Lift Stations Lift Station Average Day Winter Water Flow Dec 2017 - Mar 2018 Peak Day Water Flow Jan 2016 - Oct2018 Calculated Peaking Factor MCES Standard Peaking Factor Excessive I/I Present gal / day gal / day 1 1,268,192 2,553,797 4,673 6,728,400 NO 2*915,409 2,241,548 2,918 4,201,200 NO 3 35,774 137,501 424 610,560 NO 4 26,081 81,698 228 328,320 NO 5 2,762 7,236 95 136,800 NO 6 245,451 574,690 583 839,520 NO 7 5,638 27,618 99 142,560 NO 8 94,407 189,508 272 391,680 NO 9 104,839 232,524 1,098 1,581,120 NO 10 22,455 73,390 263 378,720 NO * Lift station pump capacity assumed from record drawings. Source: Brooklyn Center Sanitary Sewer Analysis Report, (Sambatek 2019) Table 8-15. Metershed Inflow and Infiltration Estimates MCES Metershed 2018 Winter (Dry) Avg MCES Meter (MGD) 2018 Non-Winter (Wet) Avg MCES Meter (MGD) Estimated I/I Avg (MGD) M110 25.05 25.81 0.76 M112 37.8 38.7 0.9 TOTAL AVG 31.43 32.26 0.83 Source: MCES, 2018 The EPA Guide for Estimating Infiltration and Inflow (June 2014) was used to estimate the proportion of I/I contribution in the City’s wastewater system. Monthly average flow data were obtained from the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) customer portal for 2018 (See Table 8-15). It was determined that the wet monthly average flow (March-October) was 32.26 MGD, and that the dry monthly average flow (November-February) was 31.43 MGD. Therefore on average monthly, it is estimated that I/I contributes roughly 0.83 MGD (approximately 3% over base flows). INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-21 Goals for I/I Management The City of Brooklyn Center will continue its efforts to eliminate excess I/I with the following goals for system management: • Replace sewer linings • Repair cracks and joints in public system • Monitor sump pump drainage • Educate property owners about reducing I/I • Implement residential monitoring program for private sewer line maintenance Brooklyn Center will also work cooperatively with other agencies and property owners to educate residents and businesses about the importance of reducing I/I and promote ongoing maintenance of infrastructure on private property. It is particularly important to inspect and repair damaged sewer service lines connected to the MDS and replace older clay pipes that are beyond their useful life. The City will continue to implment system improvements as outlined in the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) found in Appendix D of this Plan which includes costs for remediating I/I. (Note sanitary sewer mainline and service replacement.) Policies and Regulations for I/I Brooklyn Center regulates against inflow and infiltration to the sanitary system from surface water sources. City Ordinance Section 4-303. states “No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any storm water, surface water, ground water, roof run-off, subsurface drainage, cooling water, or un polluted industrial process waters to any sanitary sewer.” The City also regulated disconnection from the sanitary sewer in City Ordinance Section 4-304, where Subdivision 2 states “No sanitary service lineb etween the sewer main and the waste system of any dwelling or other building shall be disconnected until a licensed plumber has obtained a disconnection permit from the planning and inspection department.” The City will continue to monitor compliance with this ordinance through its permitting processes. Chapter 4 of the Brooklyn Center City Code is included for reference in Appendix G. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-22 SOLAR RESOURCES Solar resources are a growing opportunity for communities like Brooklyn Center to make use of renewable resources, increase sustainable energy use, and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. With future redevelopment potential in the City, the addition of caputuring solar energy use should be considered. Gross and Rooftop Solar Resource Calculations The gross solar potential and gross solar rooftop potential are expressed in megawatt hours per year (Mwh/yr), and these estimates are based on the solar map for your community. These values represent gross totals; in other words, they are not intended to demonstrate the amount of solar likely to develop within the City. Instead, the calculations estimate the total potential resource before removing areas unsuitable for solar development or factors related to solar energy efficiency. The gross solar generation potential and the gross solar rooftop generation potential for Brooklyn Center are estimates of how much electricity could be generated using existing technology and assumptions on the efficiency of conversion. The conversion efficiency of 10% is based on benchmarking analyses for converting the Solar Suitability Map data to actual production, and solar industry standards used for site-level solar assessment. Table 8-6 summarizes the solar generation potential for the City. Table 8-16. Gross and Rooftop Solar Potential for Brooklyn Center Gross Potential (Mwh/yr) Rooftop Potential (Mwh/yr) Gross Generation Potential (Mwh/yr)1 Rooftop Generation Potential (Mwh/yr)1 11,541,682 1,406,373 1,154,168 140,637 1 In general, a conservative assumption for panel generation is to use 10% efficiency for conversion of total insolation into electric generation. These solar resource calculations provide an approximation of each community’s solar resource. This baseline information can provide the opportunity for a more extensive, community-specific analysis of solar development potential for both solar gardens and rooftop or accessory use installations. For most communities, the rooftop generation potential is equivalent to between 30% and 60% of the community’s total electric energy consumption. The rooftop generation potential does not consider ownership, financial barriers, or building-specific structural limitations. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-23 Solar Goals 1. Balance between the benefits of urban forests and the benefits of enabling solar development. 2. Create local community solar garden opportunities for residents and businesses who have limited onsite solar resources or do not own land or buildings. 3. Redevelopment projects will evaluate on-site solar resources and incorporate solar development into designs. Solar Policies & Strategies 1. City encourages development of distributed solar energy systems that are in keeping with the community’s character and use community solar resources. 2. City supports the development of zero net energy buildings and use of local renewable and energy efficiency resources. 3. City sets a local renewable energy standard to meet 10% of community-wide electric energy use with on-site renewable energy. 4. Become certified as a “solar-ready” community under the Department of Energy’s SolSmart program. 5. Enable and promote PACE financing for local energy efficiency and solar energy projects on private buildings. INFRASTRUCTURE & UTILITIES City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8-24 Map 8-7. Gross Solar Potential - Brooklyn Center Source: Univeristy of Minnesota U-Spatial Statewide Solar Raster 0 0.5 1 miles CHAPTER 9: Implementation Comprehensive Plan 2040 IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2 IMPLEMENTATION 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 Chapter are specific to the individual Chapters in this Plan, 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 strong 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, and prices (affordable and market) rate into redevelopment to expand the choices available to new and existing residents. IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-2 • We need to establish clear standards and regulations for areas designated or identified for redevelopment. It is important to consider massing, setbacks, relationships 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 the 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. The transit ‘hub’ will likely become busier as the C-Line (and eventually the D-Line) opens, and it is important for the City to partner with Metro Transit to plan for and 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 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 in Appendix D to this Plan. Fiscal Devices, Public Programs and Timeline to Implement Major Zoning Update In addition to the City’s allocated department and general funding sources, the City intends to utilize a variety of fiscal devices and tools to implement this Plan. Some of the components of this Plan are longer-term initiatives and therefore it is unknown exactly how the efforts will be financed; however, generally the City will likely use similar methods and techniques in the future as planned with its short-term initiatives identified in the following sections. Fiscal Devices & Public Programs The City intends to use the following fiscal devices and public programs to implement this Plan. The City has identified the Zoning Ordinance update and overhaul as the most immediate short-term initative to accomplish as part of its official controls update. Concurrently, and subsequently, to the Zoning Ordinance update the City is actively working on a redevelopment initative with a developer partner that was selected through an RFP process. A summary of fiscal devices and programs related to each initiative is provided on the following page. It should be noted that these funding sources and tools are intended to be used on these two large short-term initiatives, and that future long-term initiatives would likely utilize similar tools, but the list is not exhaustive because new tools may enter the market and the City would explore available resources provided they support the vision, goals and strategies identified in this Plan. IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-4 Zoning Ordinance Update The following funding sources have been identified to support the Zoning Ordinance update: • 2019 City Budget allocated $160,000 for implementation of this Plan, specifically related to zoning and master planning. • Acquired a $60,000 grant that will be used towards creating TOD zoning district to support the future Land Use Plan contained in Chapter 3. • Applied for a $50,000 grant from Hennepin County through their Corridor Initiative program for the creation of the Brooklyn Boulevard Overlay District. Key Milestones: - New zoning code and related ordinances (Shoreland, MRCCA, Platting, Sign) by July 2020 - Creation of new TOD and mixed-use zoning districts by July 2020 Redevelopment Funding Sources The following funding sources have been identified to support the redevelopment efforts: • Public-private partnership with selected developer for the Opportunity Site. Preliminary development agreement stipulates that the developer will reimburse the City for planning work on the EDA-owned portion of the site. This agreement allows for an additional $50,000 of master planning work on the site. • Plan to apply for LCA-TOD pre-development funds to assist with master planning work on the Opportunity Site. Key Milestones: - Brooklyn Boulevard redevelopment framework by May 2020 Other Funding Sources and Initiatives The Zoning Ordinance update, Master Planning and Redevelopment initiatives are the most significant components of this Plan. A few other initiatives of the City with respect to funding implementation of this Plan include the following: • City is in the process of creating a public subsidy policy and it should be adopted by mid-2019. • City will explore creating a housing coordinator position as part of the 2020 budgeting process for 2021. • The City will work to identify a funding source, and will conduct a housing study in 2020. IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-5 Current Zoning Map & Districts As referenced, the existing zoning ordinance and map will be amended and updated through this process. The following map and summary of each zoning district is provided. Adopted Zoning Districts Residence R1 One Family Residence R2 Two Family Residence R3 Multiple Family Residence (Townhouse/Garden Apartment) R4 Multiple Family Residence (1-1/2 and 2 Story) R5 Multiple Family Residence (2 1/2 and 3 Story) R6 Multiple Family Residence (4 and 5 Story) R7 Multiple Family Residence (6 Stories or More) Commerce C1 Service/Office C1A Service/Office (Allows for Transient Lodging) C2 Commerce Industry I1 Industrial Park I2 General Industry Open Space O1 Public Open Space Reserved O2 Public and Private Open Space Reserved o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ooooooo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o LOCAL STREETINDEX ADMIRAL LANEADMIRAL PLACEALDRICH COURTALDRICH DRIVE N.AMY LANEAZELIA AVE. 4-B,C4-B1-F5-F1-E7-B 53RD AVE N 54TH AVE N 55TH AVE N 56TH AVE N 57TH AVE N 58TH AVE N 59TH AVE N 60TH AVE N 61ST AVE N 62ND AVE N 63RD AVE N 64TH AVE N 65TH AVE N 66TH AVE N 67TH AVE N 68TH AVE N 69TH AVE N 70TH AVE N 71ST AVE N 72ND AVE N 73RD AVE N W I L L O W L A N E R I V E R D A L E A V E N 2 0 0 D A L L A S A V E N 3 0 0W. R I V E R R O A D M T H 2 5 2 5 T H A V E N 6 0 0 C A M D E N A V E N 7 0 0 A L D R I C H A V E 8 0 0 B R Y A N T A V E N 9 0 0COLFAX A V E N 1 0 0 0 D U P O N T A V E N 1 1 0 0 E M E R S O N A V E N 1 2 0 0 F R E M O N T A V E N 1 3 0 0 G I R A R D A V E N 1 4 0 0 H U M B O L D T A V E N 1 5 0 0 I R V I N G A V E N 1 6 0 0 J A M E S A V E N 1 7 0 0 K N O X A V E N 1 8 0 0 L O G A N A V E N 1 9 0 0 M O R G A N A V E N 2 0 0 0 N E W T O N A V E N 2 1 0 0 O L I V E R A V E N 2 2 0 0 P E N N A V E N 2 3 0 0 Q U E E N A V E N 2 4 0 0 R U S S E L L A V E N 2 5 0 0 S H E R I D A N A V E N T H O M A S A V E N U P T O N A V E N 2 7 0 0 V I N C E N T A V E N 2 8 0 0 W A S H B U R N A V E N 2 9 0 0 X E R X E S A V E N 3 0 0 0 Y O R K A V E N 3 1 0 0 Z E N I T H A V E N 3 2 0 0 A B B O T T A V E N 3 3 0 0 B E A R D A V E N 3 4 0 0 C H O W E N A V E N 3 5 0 0 D R E W A V E N 3 6 0 0 E W I N G A V E N 3 7 0 0 F R A N C E A V E N 3 8 0 0 G R I M E S A V E N 4 0 0 0 H A L I F A X A V E N 4 1 0 0 I N D I A N A A V E N 4 2 0 0 J U N E A V E N 4 3 0 0 K Y L E A V E N 4 4 0 0 L E E A V E N 4 5 0 0 M A J O R A V E N 4 6 0 0 N O B L E A V E N 4 7 0 0 O R C H A R D A V E N 4 8 0 0 P E R R Y A V E N 4 9 0 0 Q U A I L A V E N 5 0 0 0 R E G E N T A V E N 5 1 0 0 S C O T T A V E N 5 2 0 0 T O L E D O A V E N 5 3 0 0 U N I T Y A V E N 5 4 0 0 V E R A C R U Z A V E N 5 5 0 0 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 A B C D E F G BOULDER LANEBROOKLYN BOULEVARDBROOKLYN DRIVEBROOKLYN PLACEBROOKVIEW DRIVEBURQUEST LANECAMDEN COURTCAMDEN DRIVECOMMODORE DRIVEDALLAS ROADDUSHARME DRIVEEARLE BROWN DRIVEEAST TWIN LAKE BLVD.ECKBERG DRIVEELEANOR LANEEMERSON LANEERICON DRIVEEWING LANEFRANCE PLACEFREEWAY BOULEVARDFREMONT PLACEGREAT VIEW AVE.GRIMES PLACEHALIFAX DRIVEHALIFAX PLACEHILLSVIEW ROADHOWE LANEHUMBOLDT PLACEIRVING LANEJAMES CIRCLEJANET LANEJOHN MARTIN DRIVEJOYCE LANEJUDY LANEKATHRENE DRIVELAKEBREEZE AVE.LAKE CURVE LANELAKESIDE AVE.LAKESIDE PLACELAKEVIEW AVE.LAWRENCE ROADLILAC DRIVEMARLIN DRIVEMUMFORD ROADNASH ROADNOBLE LANORTHPORT DRIVENORTHWAY DRIVEOAK STREETO'HENRY ROADOLIVER CIRCLEORCHARD LANEOSSEO ROAD 5300-5800PALMER LAKE CIRCLEPALMER LAKE DRIVEPAUL DRIVEPEARSON DRIVEPERRY COURT - EAST/WESTPERRY PLACEPOE ROADPONDS DRIVE N.QUAIL CIRCLE - EAST/WESTQUARLES ROAD SAILOR LANESHINGLE CREEK PARKWAYSHORES DRIVESUMMIT DRIVETHURBER ROADTWIN LAKE AVE.URBAN AVE.VIOLET AVE.WILLOW LANEWINCHESTER LANEWINGARD LANEWINGARD PLACEWOODBINE LANEXERXES PLACEYORK PLACE4TH STREET5TH STREET53RD PLACE58 1/2 AVE.59 1/2 AVE.63RD LANE67TH LANE68TH LANE69TH LANE70TH CIRCLE71ST CIRCLE72ND CIRCLE 3-A1-A,6-C3-D1-A5-D,E5-B3-G2-G4-C1-G7-C3,4-E5,6-B5-B3-A1-F5-D,E3-C4-B2-D,E2-F6-B2-B3-B4-B5-E2-A2-E1-E3-E3-B4-D,E3-B5-E3-B7-B4-B7-B6-B7-B3-C6-C,3-F3-B3-C,D3-C,D2-A,B4,5-C4-D6-B3-C,D1-F2-A5-C1-C1-C3-A4-B1-A1-A3-C1-A1-A2-C 5-C2E-4D4-B3,4-E2-C7-B1-C1-C1,3-G2-A,B1-A1-A1-B,C,F2-D 2-C5-G2-G5-C4-C4-B3-F2-D,F2-D,F2-D1-A1-A1-A BELLVUE LA G-5 RIVERDALE ROAD 1-G2-GRIVERWOOD LANE I S L A N D S O F P E A C E P A R K (A N O K A C O U N T Y ) WEST FIRESTATION HENNEPIN CO.LIBRARY &GOVERNMENT SERVICE CENTER P A L M E R L A K E P R E S E R V E A R E A U .S . P O S T O F F I C E WATERTOWERNo. 2 EVERGREENPARK LAKESIDE PARK(TRIANGLE PARK) EVERGREENELEMENTARYSCHOOL R I V E R D A L E P A R KEAST PALMERLAKE PARK WEST PALMERLAKE PARK PALMER LAKEELEMENTARYSCHOOL WILLOW LANE PARK A R B O R E T U M O R C H A R D L A N E P A R K ODYSSEYCHARTERSCHOOL M O U N D C E M E T E R Y FREEWAYPARK GARDEN CITYELEMENTARYSCHOOL MARLINPARK WATERTOWERNo.1 EAST FIRESTATION FIREHOUSEPARKBROOKLYN CENTER HIGH SCHOOL EARLEBROWN ELEMENTARYSCHOOL B E L L V U E P A R K CENTENNIALPARK CityHall CENTERBROOKGOLFCOURSE WATERTOWERNo. 3 KYLAWNPARK NORTHPORTELEMENTARYSCHOOL NORTHPORTPARK HAPPY HOLLOWPARK EARLE BROWNHERITAGE CENTER GRANDVIEWPARK LIONSPARK N O R T H M I S S I S S I P P I R E G I O N A L P A R K CAHLANDERPARK WANGSTADPARK POLICESTATION TWIN LAKEPARK GARDENCITYPARK PALMER LAKEPARK CommunityCenter AIRPORT SAFETY ZONE - B AIRPORT SAFETY ZONE - A A I R P O R T S A F E T Y H O R I Z O N T A L Z O N E - C R3 R3 R3 C1 PUD/C2 R3 R5 C1 R4 C1 PUD/C2 PUD/C2 R4 C2 R5 C2 R3 R5 PUD/R1 R4 R4 R4 R6 R3 R5 PUD/C2 PUD/R3 R5 C2 C2R3 R5 R5 R3 C2 C2 C1A C1A C2 C2 C2 C2 I1 PUD/I1 I1 PUD/I1 PUD/I1 I1 R5PUD/I1 R3 PUD/I1 R5 I1 O1 R3 I1 I1C1 I1 O1 I1 R5I1 I1 PUD/I1 C2 PUD/C1A C1 C1PUD/C2 C2R4 C2 R5 C1 R5 C1 C1/R5/R4 PUD/C2C2R3 R3 C2C1 PUD-MIXEDR5/R6 O1 R5 I2 O2I2 I2 R4 PUD/I1I2I2 R4R4 I2 I2 I2 C1R4 I2 I2 PUD/R1O1 PUD-MIXEDR2/R3 R5 R5 R5 C2 R7 C1A R4R4 R5 C2 C1 R4 R3 R4 O1 R4 R4C1 C1 R4R4PUD/C2C2 R4C2 C2 R3 C2 R4 C2 C2C2 PUD/C2 R5C1AR5 R3 C1 R4C1 C1 C2 C1 C2 C2 R3 C2 C1 O1 C2 R5 C2 C1 R7 O1 R5 C2 C2 PUDMIXED C2 C1A C2 C1A C2 R5PUD/R1 PUD/C1 PUD/C2 R3 PUD/R1 O1 C2 C2 PUD/C2 PUD/C2 PUD/C2 PUD/C2PUD/C2 R5 R5 R3 PUD-MIXEDC2/I-1 R4 CRYSTALAIRPORT S H I N G L E C R E E K CREEK PALMER LAKE MIDDLE TWIN LAKE UPPER TWIN LAKE M I S S I S S I P P I R I V E R M I S S I S S I P P I R I V E R S H I N G L E RYAN LAKE S HIN G LE C REEK 63RD AVE B R O O K L Y N B L V D B R O O K L Y N B L V D B R O O K L Y N D R OHENRY RD MUMFORD RD 64TH AVE 65THAVE NASH RD 60TH AVE 59TH AVE S H I N G L E C R E E K P K W Y J O H N M A R T I N D R H A L I F A X A V E 55TH AVE SUMMITDR L I L A C D R 69TH AVE 56TH AVE S H O R E S D R Z E N I T H A V E SHINGLECREEKPKWY F R A N C E A V E X E R X E S A V E 65TH AVE D R E W A V E 67TH AVE 53RD AVE NORTHWAYDR 69TH AVE 70TH AVE 53RD AVE 66TH AVE I R V I N G P L 73RD AVE 58TH AVE 68TH AVE H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 T O L E D O A V E INTERSTATE 694 65TH AVE K N O X A V E THURBER RD 67TH AVE 67TH AVE WING A R D P L 58TH PL 53RD AVE U N I T Y A V E W I L L O W L N 58TH AVE 69TH AVE 52ND AVE 55TH AVE U P T O N A V EYORK A V E S A I L O R L N Z E N I T H A V E 71ST AV E 67THLN B R O O K L Y N B LV D 50TH AVE 67TH LN N O R T H P O R T D R 56TH AVE F R A N C E A V E N O B L E A V E OLIVERCIR 71ST AVE F R E M O N T P L 68TH AVE A L D RIC H C T D R E W A V E C H O W E N A V E PAUL DR G R I M E S P L 68TH LN P E R R Y P L S C O T T A V E L I L A C DR 57TH AVE 56TH AVE F R A N C E D R 55THAVE B R Y A N T A V E 57TH AVE 66TH AVE E W I N G A V E 68TH AVE A L D R I C H A V E COUNTY ROAD 10 E M E R S O N A V E 56THAVE C O L F A X A V E F R E M O N T A V E HOWE LN ECKBERG DR 62ND AVE 67TH L N H I G H W A Y 1 0 0 L I L A C D R G I R A R D A V E B R O O K L Y N B L V D F R E M O N T A V E 70TH AVE WINCHESTER LN 71ST AVE 68TH LN 70TH AVE 65THAVE 62ND AVE B E A R D A V E PALMERLAKE CIR FRONTAGE RD M O R G A N A V E WOODBINE LN 6 8THL N 57THAVE 68TH AVE 72ND AVE COMMODORE DR 64TH AVE 61ST AVE 61ST AVE 69 T H LN S C O T T A V E 59 1/2AVE ELEANOR LN 70TH AVE 68THAVE 70TH AVE C A M D E N A V E L E E A V E V I N C E N T A V E 73RD AVE 51ST AVE VIOLETAVE D R E W A V E 67TH AVE 65TH AVE 64TH AVE S C O T T A V E HUMBOLDT PL URBAN AVE 72ND AVE H A L I F A X DR 58 1/2AVE 71ST AVE 7 2 N D AVE WOODBINE LN 72NDAVE G I R A R D A V E 61ST AVE 59TH AVE 56TH AVE 54TH AVE 61ST AVE O R C H A R D A V E 49TH AVE ADMIRAL LN 60TH AVE 50TH AVE V E R A C R U Z A V E E M E R S O N A V E 70TH AVE 66THAVE 71STAVE 56THAVE 72ND AVE 70THAVE 51STAVE 72NDAVENEWTON A V E X E R X E S A V E 47TH AVE 53RD PL L O G A N A V E F R A N C E P L A B B O T T A V E A L D R I C H A V E Z E N I T H A V E I R V I N G A V E L A K E S I D E P L T W I N L A K E A V E B R O O K V I E W DR A L D R I C H A V E 70TH AVE INTERSTATE 694 G R I M E S A V E G R I M E S A V E A B B O T T A V E N O R T H P O R T D R 67TH AVE BROO K L Y N PL 7 0TH C IR M A J O R A V E LAKESIDE AVE D R E W A V E P E N N A V E D R E W A V E R E G E N T A V E 70TH AVE ERICON DR M O R G A N A V E LAKE BREEZE AVE C A M D E N A V E 64TH AVE Q U A I L A V E 71ST CIR W I N G A R D LN L I L A C D R C O L F A X A V E I N D I A N A A V E 55TH AVE X E R X E S PL J A M E S A V E 68TH AVE 67TH AVE N O B L E L N 48TH AVE Q U A I L A V E T O L E D O A V E E W I N G A V E O R C H A R D L N P E R R Y A V E R E G E N T A V E S C O T T A V E B R Y A N T A V E J A M E S A V E K A T H R E N E DR H U M B O L D T A V E N O B L E A V E K Y L E A V E C H O W E N A V E C A M D E N A V E I N T E R S T A T E 9 4 M A J O R A V E B R Y A N T A V E M A J O R A V E N E W T O N A V E D R E W A V E WINCHESTER LN E W I N G A V E C O L F A X A V E M A J O R A V E G R E A T V I E W A V E O R C H A R D A V E C A M D E N A V E I N D I A N A A V E 72ND CIR L Y N D A L E A V E 5 T H S T R E G E N T A V E R I V E R W O O D L N E W I N G A V E C A M D E N D R 54TH AVE R I V E R D A L E R D NORTHWAY DR 57TH AVE POE RD P E N N A V E BURQUEST LN BOULDER LN LILAC DR 63RD L N G I R A R D A V E G I R A R D A V E J U D Y L N FRANCE PL L E E A V E WOODBINE LN 72ND AVE BASS LAKE RD IRVING LN AMY LN I N D I A N A A V E J U N E A V E P E R R Y A V E Q U A I L A V E R E G E N T A V E L I L A C D R LAWRENCE RD M O R G A N A V E J A M E S A V E JANET LN 67TH AVE JOYCE LN D R E W A V E 62ND AVE QUARLESRD 72NDAVE 66TH AVE WOODBINELN B E A R D A V E F R A N C E A V E P A L M E R L A K E D R FREEWAYBLVD L I L A C D R UNI TY A V E U N I T Y A V E N O B L E A V E L I L A C D R H U M B O L D T A V E X E R X E S A V E K Y L E A V E V I N C E N T A V E INTERSTATE94 W A S H B U R N A V E A B B O T T A V E Q U E E N A V E Q U E E N A V E B E A R D A V E B E A R D A V E 71ST AVE G R I M E S A V E G R I M E S A V E H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 H I G H W A Y 2 5 2 T W I N L A K E B L V D T W I N L A K E B L V D T O L E D O A V E 66TH AVE N O B L E A V E I N T E R S T A T E 9 4 C A M D E N A V E C A M D E N A V E H A L I F A X A V E F R A N C E A V E L O G A N A V E X E R X E S A V E X E R X E S A V E X E R X E S A V E X E R X E S A V E O L I V E R A V E B R Y A N T A V E I N D I A N A A V E I N D I A N A A V E J U N E A V E W I L LO W L N ADMIRAL LN D U P O N T A V E H U M B O L D T A V E C O L F A X A V E C O L F A X A V E F R A N C E A V E F R E M O N T A V E L A K E V I E W A V E E W I N G AVE E W I N G A V E B R O O K L Y N B L V D L N E W I N G A V E H A L I F A X P L A Z E L I A A V E M A J O R A V E W E S T R I V E R R D W E S T R I V E R R D P E R R Y A V E P E A R S O N D R A D M I R A L P L YORKPL O L I V E R A V E P ERRY C T H U M B O L D T A V E Q U A I LCIR R U S S E L L A V E E M E R S O N A V E P E R R Y A V E B R Y A N T A V E B R Y A N T A V E L Y N D A L E A V E J A M E S C I R JAMES CIR P ONDS D R P O NDS DR B E A R D A V E L E E A V E I R V I N G A V E I R V I N G A V E L A K E C U R V E L N K N O X A V E A L D R I C H A V E A L D R I C H D R SH I N G L E CRE EK CR O SS I N G INTERSTATE 94 L I L A C D R O R C H A R D A V E M A R L I N D R E A R L E B R O W N D R EARLE BROWN DR E M E R S O N A V E 51ST AVE Q U A I L A V E PARKWAY C IR PARKW AY CIR BELLVUE LN 66TH AVE 62ND AVE OAK ST 4 T H S T E M E R S O N A V E F R E M O N T A V E G I R A R D A V EHUMBOLDT A V E D U P O N T A V E D U P O N T A V E L O G A N A V E K N O X A V E J A M E S A V E Brooklyn Center Zoning Map 0 0.5 10.25 Miles This Zoning Map reflects council-approved zoning changes up to its effective date of September 5, 2015. The zoning designations shown onthis map must be interpreted by the City's Zoning Code and policies. These zoning designations are subject to changeas part of the City's ongoing planning process. / o o o Airport Safety Zones (refer to Minn. Rules 8800.2400) Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area Boundary Line Private Roads ZONING DISTRICTS R1 One Family Residence R2 Two Family Residence R3 Multiple Family Residence R4 Multiple Family Residence R5 Multiple Family Residence R6 Multiple Family Residence R7 Multiple Family Residence C1 Service/Office C1A Sevice/Office C2 Commerce I-1 Industrial Park I-2 General Industry O1 Public Open Space O2 Public & Private Open Space C1/R5/R4 Office/Service & MultipleFamily Residence PUD/R1 Planned Unit Development/One Family Res. PUD/R3 Planned UnitDevelopment/Multi-Family PUD/C1 Planned UnitDevelopment/Office-Service PUD/C1A Planned UnitDevelopment/Office-Service PUD/C2 Planned UnitDevelopment/Commerce PUD/I1 Planned UnitDevelopment/Industrial Park PUD-MIXED Central Commerce Overlay District ZONING DISTRICT NOTES ALL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES EXTEND TO THE CENTERLINE OF STREETS 842 846859816820856 856 100 YEAR FLOOD ELEVATIONS AT SELECTED LOCATIONS WATERWAY LOCATION ELEVATION (FT. NGVD) SHINGLE CREEK MISSISSIPPI RIVER TWIN LAKESRYAN LAKE AT 53RD AVE N ..........................AT 69TH AVE N ........................... AT BROOKLYN BLVD .................AT 53RD AVE N ..........................AT 73RD AVE N ..........................SHORELINE ................................SHORELINE ................................ NOTE: SEE FEMA/FIA FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY DATED SEPT. 2004 AND FLOODWAY MAPS AND FIRM MAPS DATED SEPT 2004 FOR DETAILED INFORMATION ON FLOODWAY LIMITS AND PROFILES I-1 - INDUSTRIAL PARKI-2 - GENERAL INDUSTRY INDUSTRIAL RESIDENTIALR1 - ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE (One Family Dwellings)R2 - TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE (One and Two-Family Dwellings) R3 - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (Townhouse/Garden Apts./CondosR4 - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (1-1/2 & 2-Story Dwellings)R5 - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (2-1/2 & 3 Story Dwellings)R6 - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (4 or 5 Story Dwellings) R7 - MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (6+ Story Dwellings) COMMERCIAL C1 - SERVICE / OFFICE (Min. 1-ac. lots/3-story max.) C1A - SERVICE / OFFICE (Min. 1-ac. lots/No Height Limitations)C2 - COMMERCE OPEN SPACE O1 - PUBLIC OPEN SPACE O2 - PUBLIC AND PRIVATE OPEN SPACE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT The underlying zoning is designated afterthe "PUD/___" (e.g. "PUD/C2" equalsPlanned Unit Development/Commerce) (Refer to City Code Sect. 35-2240 for allowable uses and prohibited uses) CC - CENTRAL COMMERCE OVERLAY This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is tobe used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to preparethis map is error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purposerequiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepanciesare found please contact (763) 569-3335. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2013),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees todefend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties whicharise out of the user's access or use of data provided. Document Path: L:\Users\ComDev\Zoning\Zoning Map 2015.mxd IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-6 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 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 the 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. IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-7 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. 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.) IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-8 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. 5. The City will participate as an active partner in any redevelopment effort that includes City financial participation 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 the 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 innovative landscape products, localized surface water management and other low impact development techniques. IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-9 e. The ordinance will require development that incorporates best practices for creating transit oriented places, including density minimums, parking maximums, pedestrian-oriented design, and must accommodate a mix of uses. CHAPTER 4: HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD 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 townhomes, row homes, etc., versus standard multi-family apartments and condominium development. IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-10 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. 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. IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-11 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. CHAPTER 5: COMMUNITY IMAGE, ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS & STABILITY 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 grow in the City b. New businesses to locate in the community c. A mix of land uses that reflect current market needs and desires IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-12 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. 9. The City will create a Business Retention and 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 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, to home ownership opportunities, financial literacy and wealth creation, and job pathways training. IMPLEMENTATION City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-13 CHAPTER 6: PARKS, TRAILS & 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. 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-14 CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-15 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 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9-16 APPENDIX A: 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 A 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. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D oran M. Cote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works BY:M ike A lbers, P.E., C ity Engineer S U B J E C T:Res olu,on A ccep,ng Work Performed and A uthoriz ing F inal Payment, I mprovement P roject No. 2016-06, F reeway Boulevard Mill and O verlay (East of Xerxes Avenue) S treet I mprovements B ackground: O n S eptember 12, 2016, the C ity Council aw arded I mprovement P roject No. 2016-06 to C.S . M cCros s an Construc,on, I nc., of Maple G rove, Minnes ota for cons truc,on of the F reeway Boulevard M ill and O verlay (Eas t of Xerxes Avenue) S treet I mprovements. C .S . McC rossan C ons truc,on, I nc. has succes s fully completed the cons truc,on w ork and is reques ,ng final payment for the project. B udget I ssues: The original contract amount w ith C.S . M cCros s an C ons truc,on, I nc. for the pr oject improvements w as $472,151.75. The City C ouncil authorized C hange O rder No. 1 in the amount of $81,182.00 on November 14, 2016 which increased the C ontract amount to be $553,333.75. T he total value of wor k cer ,fied for final payment is $5 2 2 ,542.6 5 . T he total project cos t including con,ngencies /adminis tr a,on/engineer ing /legal is $635,996.10 and was completed 17.0 per cent under budget in the amount of $130,6 3 7 .65. T he aEached res olu,on provides a summary of the final amended cos ts and funding s ources for the project. S trategic Priories and Values: Key Transporta,on I nvestments AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Res olu,on 1/6/2020 Resolu,on LeEer Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IMPROVEMENT NO. 2016-06, FREEWAY BOULEVARD MILL AND OVERLAY (EAST OF XERXES) STREET IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, pursuant to a written contract signed with the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, C.S. McCrossan Construction Inc. of Maple Grove, Minnesota has completed the following improvements in accordance with said contract: Improvement Project No. 2016-06, Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay (East of Xerxes Avenue) Street Improvements 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. 2016-06, Freeway Boulevard Mill and Overlay (East of Xerxes Avenue) Street Improvements, taking the contractor’s receipt in full. The total amount to be paid for said improvements under said contract shall be $522,542.65. 2. The estimated project costs and revenues are hereby amended as follows: COSTS As Awarded+CO1 As Final Contract (Award+Change Order 1) $ 553,333.75 $ 522,542.65 Lighting $ 37,800.00 $ 62,470.20 Contingency $ 76,400.00 $ 0.00 Subtotal Construction Cost $ 667,533.75 $ 585,012.85 Admin/Legal/Engr. $ 99,100.00 $ 50,983.25 Total Estimated Project Cost $ 766,633.75 $ 635,996.10 RESOLUTION NO. _______________ REVENUES As Awarded+CO1 As Final Street Assessment $ 300,139.60 $ 300,139.60 Sanitary Sewer Utility $ 9,475.00 $ 6,373.77 Water Utility Fund $ 9,890.00 $ 9,118.77 Storm Drainage Utility Fund $ 28,075.00 $ 20,335.31 Street Light Utility $ 50,000.00 $ 66,191.97 Municipal State Aid (MSA) Fund $ 368,739.15 $ 233,521.68 Miscellaneous $ 315.00 $ 315.00 Total Estimated Revenue $ 766,633.75 $ 635,996.10 January 13, 2020 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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H : BY:D oran M C ote, P ublic Works D irector S U B J E C T:Receive Environmental S us tainability Report B ackground: At the A ugust 26, 2019 City Council mee0ng, C ouncil Member Butler requested that the City Council address the City ’s impact on the environment at an upcoming Work S ession and cons ider things the City can do by s tar0ng small, like elimina0 ng plas0 c bags and s tr aws at City H all. The City Council agreed to add this item to the Work S ession A genda. I t s hould be noted that one of the C ity C ouncil’s S trategic G oals from 2009 was “Res pond to increas ed awareness and interest in envir onmental s us tainability and green community issues .” A copy of that goal and the G oal D es ired O utcomes is a:ached for reference. A ls o a:ached is a report that prov ides an overv iew of Brooklyn C enter 's pas t and current ac0vi0es and programs that demons tr ate the C ity ’s cons cience s tewardship of the envir onment. I t's purpose is to outline the many programs and ini0a0ves w ithin the city and to us e this as a basis to con0nue and improv e on the goal of increased env ironmental sustainability. This report w as first pres ented to the City C ouncil in 2014. I t has been updated to include addi0onal environmental ini0a0ves the City is currently par0cipa0ng in. The goal of hav ing the C ity C ouncil receive this report now, is not to gener ate dis cus s ion but rather to shi> the focus from past and current ac0vi0es and address prospec0ve efforts tow ard sustainability at a future Work S es s ion, tenta0vely scheduled for January 27, 2019. B udget I ssues: There are no budgetary issues to cons ider w ith this ac0on. S trategic Priories and Values: Resident Economic S tability AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip0on U pload D ate Type 2009 S trategic G oals 1/8/2020 Backup M aterial Environmental S us tainability Report 1/8/2020 Backup M aterial M E M O R A N D U M DATE: October 28, 2019 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Doran M. Cote, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Environmental Sustainability Report This Environmental Sustainability Report was assembled to document Brooklyn Center’s current effort directed toward environmental sustainability. “Environmental Sustainability - The maintenance of the factors and practices that contribute to the quality of environment on a long-term basis.” Sustainability has many definitions but the basic principles and concepts remain constant: balancing a growing economy, protection for the environment, and social responsibility. Together these lead to an improved quality of life for everyone as well as future generations. This extensive, yet not all encompassing, list on the following pages are activities that are taking place in Brooklyn Center within various departments which meet these goals towards environmental sustainability. The activities are grouped together in various areas of sustainability. Some sustainable practices stem from mandated activities required for state rules, laws, permits (i.e. – watershed partnerships, wellhead protection). Other practices provide cost savings for the City’s budget (i.e. energy efficient vehicle purchase, equipment replacement), while some are a product of the City’s active and ongoing role as a positive participant in the community. Water Quality • Watershed Partnerships - The City of Brooklyn Center partners with both the Shingle Cheek Watershed Management Commission (SCWMC) and the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission (WMWMC) to protect waters of the State. The City reviews projects for the Watershed for water quantity and water quality protection. The City also partners with the SCWMC and WMWMC on projects within the City and looks for ways to maximize water quality and quantity improvements while using funds efficiently. In addition, this partnership provides educational opportunities for the residents of Brooklyn Center on protecting water quality. • Storm Sewer Water Quality Facilities - The City of Brooklyn Center maintains 40 mechanical/settling structures and 39 storm ponds which help to improve water quality. Water quality improvements are constructed as a part of each yearly reconstruction project. The City conducts yearly inspections and maintenance to ensure these facilities continue to perform as designed. • Erosion Control, Post-Construction, Illicit Discharge Ordinance - The City has Erosion Control, Post- Construction and Illicit Discharge Ordinances as a part of City Code to protect water quality and to reduce water volume. In addition, the City inspects construction sites to ensure water quality is being protected. The City also has a program to ensure that private water quality facilities are maintained. • Private Rain Gardens - In 2007 and since 2009, as a part of the yearly construction project, the City promotes rain garden installation where possible on residential property. Installation costs are paid from project funds, but following the installation residents take over and provide maintenance of the rain gardens. • Public Rain Gardens - The City installed and now maintains several public rain gardens, including multiple rain gardens on Dupont Avenue and County Road 10, one located in Riverdale park, one located on City property along June Avenue, and multiple rain gardens installed along Kylawn Park as part of the annual 2014 reconstruction project. Living pavement (Grasscrete) was installed in Evergreen Park in 2017 as part of the reconstruction project. • Street Sweeping - The City performs street sweeping operations four times a year and other times as needed to keep sediment, sand, trash and leaves out of the storm system. This helps protect the local and state water bodies. • Chloride Reduction - As part of the Shingle Creek Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), the City takes many steps to reduce the amount of salt used on City streets, including yearly salt application training for public works personnel. The City calibrates all salt distributor equipment prior to snow and ice control operations each fall, reducing salt use on the City streets. • Salt Brine – The use of salt brine tanks on the snow removal fleet improves ice and snow removal practices. Using a pre-wetting salt brine solution with our road salt has helped decrease the amount of salt use during ice control operations, reducing costs to the City and environmental impacts over other salt dispersal methods. In 2019 the Shingle Creek Watershed approved a $50,000 grant to assist the City in installing a brine mixing system. • Shingle Creek Restoration - The City has partnered and completed several projects restoring the shoreline of Shingle Creek. • Great Shingle Creek Cleanup - For 17 years, the City has organized and managed the yearly volunteer clean-up event including clean-up of parks, trails, streets and other green spaces areas. • Water Resources Projects – Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as raingardens, living pavement (Grasscrete), permeable pavement and concrete are considered and included in street reconstruction and parking lot improvement projects. Other projects to improve water quality included carp removal in Twin Lake, annual pond dredging, and winter in-lake aeriation. Resource Conservation • Water Conservation rates - Minnesota Statutes required public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 people in the metropolitan area to implement and use a water conservation rate structure by January 1, 2010, in order to promote and encourage water conservation. In response, the City adopted an “increasing block rate” structure with a rate schedule that increases the charge per unit of water after certain thresholds of consumption are reached. • Water Conservation Rebate Program – In 2019 the City initiated a new Water Conservation Rebate Program designed to encourage residents and businesses to upgrade older, inefficient appliances and plumbing fixtures with more efficient equipment. • Hennepin Recycling Group - Brooklyn Center partners with the Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) to provide recycling for Brooklyn Center residents. This single sort recycling is practical and simple for residents, while having only one recycling contractor is better for the environment by reducing the number of trips by trucks in the City. The HRG manages recycling and waste disposal contracts at all City facilities. HRG also offers oil recycling to residents and holds a Special Material Drop Off Day at the Brooklyn Park Operations & Maintenance Facility. Residents also have use of a yard waste and tree branch drop off site. • Parks Recycling – In 2014, the City initiated recycling in City Parks. Parks is diverting nearly twice as much recycling now as it has in years past. • Electronic billing and payment methods for Utility Billing - Residents can elect to receive E-bills or pay their bills online, providing the City savings on paper costs, postage costs, etc. • Paperless Departments - Most departments are working with more digital files and using less paper in their daily work activities. Departments utilizing programs like Laserfiche have reduced the need for paper copies. Dual monitors at work stations have also reduced the need for printing hard copies. • Online services through the City’s website are available to reduce paperwork. ePermits allow certain permits online for construction projects, sign up for recreation programs, data practice requests allowed online/through email, requests for service online through Notify Me, City Documents can be accessed online such as maps, Council and Commission meeting agendas and documents, and more. • Grease Recycling at Earle Brown Heritage Center - Used grease from the kitchens at the Earle Brown Heritage Center is recycled. • Carpet Recycling at Earle Brown Heritage Center - Old carpet is recycled when removed and any newly installed carpet is made from recycled materials. • Recycling at Earle Brown Heritage Center - A cardboard, paper, plastic and aluminum recycling program is in place. All cardboard is flattened and run through the packer in preparation for recycling. • Toner and Ink Recycling – The City’s toner and ink recycling program eliminates disposal of plastic cartridges into landfills. • Paper Towels - The Earle Brown Heritage Center uses paper towels made with 95% recycled paper. • Trim Trax program/Second Harvest Heartland - Trim Trax is a program in place to reduce food scraps and trimmings. The Earle Brown Heritage Center partners with Second Harvest Heartland for which they donate large volumes of leftover food products. • Water Treatment Plant – The water filtration process requires the filter media to be backwashed with air and water. The backwash water is pumped to settling tanks where the solids settle out and 90% of the backwash water is reclaimed and retreated. • Leak Detection – The City performs leak detection on the water distribution system to determine if there are leaks in the system wasting water. • Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) Reduction – Street reconstruction projects routinely include replacement of or lining sanitary sewer lines thus reducing I/I. Reducing I/I means the City does not have to pay to treat otherwise clear water. Reducing I/I region-wide means the need for treatment expansion is reduced. Natural Resource Preservation • Tree City and Arbor Day Events - The Tree City USA program is a national program that provides the framework for community forestry management for cities and towns across America. Communities achieve Tree City USA status by meeting four core standards of sound urban forestry management: maintaining a tree board or department, having a community tree ordinance, spending at least $2 per capita on urban forestry, and celebrating Arbor Day. The City has been awarded this designation for the past 27 years for its stewardship. • Green Yard Workshop - The City supports the Green Yard Workshop offered by Metro Blooms. This workshop provides residents with information on environmentally sound gardening practices that can also help protect water quality. • Adopt a Park, Flower Garden, Rain Garden or Bus Shelter – The City promotes volunteer opportunities for groups to adopt a park, street, flower garden or rain garden for clean-up. The City also provides volunteer opportunities for storm drain stenciling. • Wellhead Protection Plan – The Wellhead Protection Plan is intended to promote activities that protect the aquifer from which the City’s drinking water supply is drawn and increase public awareness of the Wellhead Protection Program and groundwater issues. Energy Conservation • Water Treatment Plant - Sustainable architectural features included natural daylighting throughout including the filter room, low maintenance poured-in-place and precast concrete structure and wall panels, building insulation which surpasses the current energy code, a Tier 4 Interim Diesel generator that qualifies for Xcel Energy's Tier 2 Off-peak program for energy rebates, and LED lighting both interior and exterior. Rain gardens and low maintenance landscaping were important features included in the site design. • LED Lighting Opportunity Site – Thirty-seven (37) existing light poles in the Earle Brown/ Opportunity site that had reached the end of their lifespan where replaced with Light Emitting Diode (LED) lights. • Residential Street Lighting – Xcel Energy has replaced 846 High Pressure Sodium (HPS) street lights with LED lights. All new or upgraded lighting in residential street reconstruction projects since 2018 are LED as well. • Parks Lighting - The City has replaced incandescent parking lot lights at Palmer Lake East, Palmer Lake West and Orchard Lane Park with LED lighting. Park shelters have also been converted to LED. • Traffic Signals – All of the red, yellow and green indications on City owned and maintained traffic signals have been converted to LED indications. Signal luminaires are also converted to LED as the HPS expire. • Energy efficient vehicle purchase - In the past the City fleet has operated a number of E-85 Flex-fuel vehicles. In 2019 the City purchased two hybrid squad cars. The hybrids cost $3,000 each more than traditional squads but the fuel savings in the first year alone will offset those additional costs. The diesel vehicles use a blend (B-5) of diesel and biodiesel. The City is also transitioning to Tier-4 diesel engines as available in fleet upgrades. Tier-4 engines are the cleanest diesel burning engines on the market. • Lighting Efficiency Project – Lighting at the Public Works Maintenance Facility was upgraded to more efficient lighting as part of a federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, saving about 40% in energy cost. • Xcel Energy Peak Shaving – The Public Works Maintenance Facility and Water Treatment Plant participate in Xcel Energy’s Peak Shaving Program whereby during peak electrical demands these facilities are switched to backup generation for power reducing our demand on the energy grid. • Community Center Performance Improvements Contract –Facility improvements were completed at the Community Center that will substantially generate energy savings from the improvements. • Variable frequency drives on large capacity water pumps – Seven (7) variable frequency drives (VFDs) were placed on the City well pumps, improving efficiency. In addition, an energy demand study was conducted and the wells were adjusted to run more on off peak times. Three (3) other wells will be upgraded to include VFDs. • Variable Frequency Drives at the Earle Brown Heritage Center – VFDs were added to chiller pumps and two Air Handling units, leading to energy savings and control performance. • Light Replacement at the Earle Brown Heritage Center - Lights were replaced with LED and other energy efficient lighting. • “Lights Off” Program - Earle Brown Heritage Center staff members attentively turn off meeting room lights when not in use and overnight. • Boiler/ Chiller replacement at Earle Brown Heritage Center - In 2010, 2 boilers were placed, improving the heating system efficiency from 60% to 86%. In addition the chiller was replaced, increasing energy efficiency from 6.3 to 10.3. • Facilities Maintenance – The City utilizes a centralized, electronic direct digital control program that includes time schedules, set-points, controllers, logic, timers, trend logs, and occupancy sensors to control the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems for public facilities. Facilities maintenance also incorporates Vending Miser which is an energy efficiency product for use with vending machines, snack machines, and coolers. • Transportation – The City has installed bike racks at public facilities, transit stops and park and rides to encourage non-motorized transportation. Traffic signals have been optimized to reduce idling. The City also actively participated in the planning for the Metro Transit C-Line and D-Line and is participating in the implementation of the electric bus serviced transit routes. Healthy Living • Green Step City – Minnesota Green Step Cities is an action-oriented voluntary program offering cities a cost-effective, step-wise path to implement sustainable development best practices. The program is governed by a public-private partnership of state agencies and non-governmental organizations and is led by the MPCA. Partners include Urban Land Institute, League of Minnesota Cities, Clean Energy Resource Teams, Division of Energy Resources, Minnesota Department of Commerce, Great Plains Institute, and the Izaak Walton League. Brooklyn Center is a Level 2 Green Step City. Efforts are underway to promote Brooklyn Center to a Level 3 Green Step City. • Complete Street Policy - Adopted in 2013, the City has a Complete Streets Policy. The Complete Street Policy encourages the integration of physical activity into daily routines through activities such as biking, walking and/or taking transit. Such activities promote active living which has the following benefits: improves physical and mental health, decreases risk of chronic disease, reduces medical costs associated with chronic disease, reduces transportation costs, reduces pollution and improves air quality, builds safer, stronger communities, and generally increases quality of life. • Partnership with Active Living Hennepin County -The City, together with other cities and Hennepin County, participates in Active Living programs to promote and improve the health of its citizens by taking active steps to increase healthy eating and active living within its jurisdiction. Currently the City is partnering with ALHC on a grant to close the gap on health disparities in areas in the community, focusing on both poverty and persons of color. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan, and Safe Routes to School Study – The City has completed two studies to encourage and improve pedestrian and bike opportunities within the City. • Brooklyn Boulevard Study – In 2014 the City adopted the Brooklyn Boulevard Corridor Study. This corridor study provides guidance for future transportation, redevelopment, and streetscaping improvements along Brooklyn Boulevard. The study included a review of the following: land uses, redevelopment opportunities, traffic and transit needs, complete streets components, access management, safety, and a discussion of environmental documentation options. As part of the study process, recommendations for the following were developed: future corridor vision; future land use map, open space and redevelopment concepts; future corridor concepts that include roadway geometrics improvements, transit services and facilities, access locations, trails, and concepts for landscaping, streetscaping, lighting and water quality improvements. Phase I improvements are currently underway and Phase II is programmed for 2021. • Community Gardens - The City operates a community garden with 18 plots available for residents to rent, reducing dependence on food that requires more resources to produce and distribute. • Chicken and Beekeeping – In 2018 the City Council adopted ordinances that allow for the keeping of bees and chickens. • Sustainable Food Product Ordering at Earle Brown Heritage Center - The Earle Brown Heritage Center purchases locally grown vegetables through BIX, a local produce supplier. They also purchase trans-fat free items, hormone-free beef, cage-free eggs, hormone free milk, hormone-free chicken, and sustainable seafood. • In-House Herb Garden at Earle Brown Heritage Center - The Earle Brown Heritage Center has an in- house herb garden for kitchen staff use. Land Use and Development • Land Use Plan – In 2019 the City Council adopted a new land use plan with the Comprehensive Plan. The new land use plan includes a new designation of Transit Oriented Development (TOD). TOD is planned for a mix of residential, commercial, office and retail uses. Land is generally within a ½-mile of the Brooklyn Center Transit Station (Transit Station) is designated as TOD to capitalize on the proximity of redevelopment sites to the transit stops. The planned Bus Rapid Transit C-Line has two stops within the area designated as TOD (the Transit Station is last northerly stop) that will provide access to adjacent land uses with frequent and efficient bus/transit services providing connections to the area and broader region. A minimum of 75% of the land within this designation is planned to be developed with high-density residential use and the remaining land developed with supporting retail, office and commercial uses. Redevelopment will focus on connecting to the Transit Station and C-Line stops, future D-Line stops, as well as creating a walkable, bikeable, vibrant core in the City. • Travel Demand Management - In September 2015 City adopted a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Policy. Travel demand management is an application of strategies and policies to reduce travel demand or to redistribute this demand in space, time or to more efficient modes. A travel demand management approach to transportation also has the potential to deliver better environmental outcomes, improved public health, stronger neighborhoods and a more prosperous and livable Brooklyn Center. Recognizing that development size and land use type directly affect traffic generation, the City has developed two levels of TDM plans; Tier 1 and Tier 2. Tier 1 plans apply to larger developments and Tier 2 plans apply to smaller developments A Tier 1 TDM plan consists of a study, plan and agreement. A Tier 2 plan includes similar TDM plan strategies that the property owner agrees to implement to reduce peak single occupant vehicle trip generation. The Tier 1 TDM plan will require an annual report, while the Tier 2 TDM plan is a good faith effort by the applicant. Housing Programs and Resources • Partnership with Center for Energy and the Environment (CEE) – Owners and occupants of residential properties have access to reduced Home Energy Squad Enhanced visits from CEE through a buy-down program with the City. The visits include an energy audit, cost and energy saving improvements installed during the visit, and access to low interest loans for larger home energy saving improvements that may be identified during the visit. • Interest Rate Buy-down – The City utilizes TIF 3 Housing Funds to buy down interest rates for low and moderate-income home owners interested in making improvements to their homes. Energy saving improvements such as window replacements, insulation improvements, and new HVAC and mechanical systems are eligible uses of funds. • Construction Consultation Services – Through CEE, homeowners can receive a free in-home consultation from a certified construction consultant who will provide advice on home improvements, hiring a contractor, the permitting process, or any other aspect of a home improvement project. • Neighborhood Stabilization Program Rehabilitated or Renovated Houses - Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP) renovated houses are brought up to MN Green Building requirements which include insulation requirements, high efficiency furnaces, direct vent water heaters, low VOC carpet and paint, no carpeting in basements, energy efficient windows, and air ventilation systems. In addition, the homes also are tested for lead, radon, asbestos, and air blower testing and any deficiencies are corrected. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:J im G lasoe, D irector of C ommunity A c(vi(es, Recrea(on & S ervices S U B J E C T:Res olu(on Expressing Recogni(on and A pprecia(on of Bruce (D oc) Miller for O ver 18 Years of D edicated S ervice to the C ity O f Brooklyn C enter B ackground: Bruce (D oc) M iller has res igned from his posi(on of Earle Brow n H eritage C enter M aintenance C us todian a5er mor e than eighteen years of s erv ice to E B H C and the C ity of Brooklyn C enter. Bruce began his employment w ith the City of Brooklyn Center on February 15, 2 0 0 1 and stepped dow n on D ecember 13, 2019. Bruce’s efforts provided for the efficient opera(on of the Earle Brown H eritage C enter facili(es for the dura(on of his employment. I t is highly fi?ng that, upon recommenda(on from the C ity M anager, the C ity C ouncil recognize Bruce’s 18 years of s ervice and his contribu(ons to the Earle Brow n H eritage Center, the City of Brooklyn Center and to the community. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community I mage AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip(on U pload D ate Type Res olu(on 1/8/2020 Resolu(on LeBer Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF Bruce (Doc) Miller FOR OVER 18 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER. WHEREAS, Bruce began his employment with the City of Brooklyn Center as the Earle Brown Heritage Center Maintenance Custodian on February 15, 2001, and; WHEREAS, Bruce has resigned on December 13, 2019, with more than 18 years of dedicated service to the City of Brooklyn Center and its citizens; and WHEREAS, Bruce has consistently provided the City of Brooklyn Center and its residents with exemplary service; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center wishes to recognize the dedication and professionalism Bruce has displayed in discharging his duties; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center recognizes the positive impact Bruce (Doc) Miller has made on the City and its citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, upon recommendation by the City Manager, that the dedicated public service of Bruce (Doc) Miller is duly recognized and appreciated by the City of Brooklyn Center. January 13, 2020 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 adoption. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:A n O rdinance A mending C hapter 23 and 35 of the C ity C ode of O rdinances Regarding Entertainment Licens ing and Uses - 2nd Reading B ackground: At the A ugust 26, 2019, C ity C ouncil Work ses s ion, the City Council was pres ented a concept of amending the P ublic D ance O rdinance and licens e into a Entertainment L icense and O rdinance. The public dance ordinance is outdated and doesn't addres s modern day entertainment. A ddi7onally, the proposed Entertainment O rdinance could address an7social behaviors that might be associated with es tablishments that cater to nigh9me entertainment. The C ity C ouncil w as recep7ve to the proposed concept. O n O ctober 28, 2019, during the C ity C ouncil Work ses s ion, the City Council was pres ented a dra; Entertainment O rdinance. The dra; ordinance was a informed by par7cipa7on of many staff members of different departments. The propos ed ordinance amendment implements regulatory condi7ons for thes e establis hments . F rom that dra; document, the City A=orney cra;ed the ordinance amendment that is before you this evening. At the w ork s ession there w ere concerns regarding the police call condi7on. That language has been removed and replaced w ith s ecurity condi7ons . S tandard language for renewal, licens e revoca7on s us pension, or non-renew al, and penalty have been added as w ell. O n November 25, 2019, the C ity C ouncil w as presented the first reading of O rdinance 2019-14; an amendment to C hapter 23 and 35 regarding entertainment licensing and uses . The ordinance had been modified to reflect the City Council's concerns regarding police calls in the 23-306. L icense Condi7ons s ubs ec7on G sec7on of the ordinance. This is now 7tled S ecurity and provides guidelines for the bus iness ow ners to implement. For Chapter 35, Zoning C ode C 2 Commerce D istrict, the Permi=ed Uses and S pecial U s es have been amended as well to correlate with the new Entertainment O rdinance. S taff met w ith bus iness owners and review ed the prior Entertainment O rdinance. At that 7me, no concerns w ere expres s ed. City s taff believes by focusing on par7cular behaviors through the Entertainment O rdinance, may mi7gate or prevent thes e behaviors and assist busines s es with succes s ful opera7ons . The public hearing no7ce was publis hed in the S un Pos t and no7fica7ons w ere sent to the current P ublic D ance licens e holders. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues with this item. AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip7on U pload D ate Type Excerpt from A ugus t 26 Work S es s ion 11/21/2019 Backup M aterial Excerpt from O ctober 28 S tudy S ession & Work S es s ion 11/21/2019 Backup M aterial Excerpt from November 25 C ouncil mee7ng 12/16/2019 Backup M aterial O rdinance 1/6/2020 O rdinance powerpoint 1/7/2020 P resenta7on Res olu7on 1/6/2020 Resolu7on Le=er 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. 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. EXCERT FROM NOVEMBER 25, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 10a. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 AND 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AND USES – 1ST READING City Clerk Barb Suciu reviewed the proposed Ordinance amendment, which would change the public dance ordinance into an entertainment ordinance. The amendment would eliminate the dual license process, make the process more user-friendly, and curb negative behaviors. The City Council has been supportive of this concept. Ms. Suciu stated the City Council had expressed concern regarding a section referring to police calls. That section has been amended to read, “Licensee shall provide private security to prevent disorderly conduct or place undue burden upon police resources.” Ms. Suciu stated City staff contacted local business owners to receive feedback and comments, and they were generally receptive to the changes. City Staff recommends City Council approval of the 1 st reading of Chapters 23 and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances regarding entertainment licenses and schedule the 2 nd public hearing for January 13, 2020. Councilmember Ryan asked whether the complaints will still be logged as police calls or complaints, allowing the City Council to hold a hearing, which could lead to termination of the entertainment license. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist stated it is a three-step process, and violation of either one of the general conditions or specific conditions will result in a notice sent to the business owner. He added there two subsequent notices would be allowed, each within six months of the other, after which a meeting would be scheduled. If there is another violation within six months, the matter will be referred to the City Council for deliberation and potential suspension. Mayor Elliott asked whether different types of businesses are treated differently. Police Chief Tim Gannon stated businesses are treated for the actions they have created and the calls that are generated. He stressed the fact that the vital factor is the types of calls that are being received. Mayor Elliott asked what type of police action is required when there is a police call at Walmart, and whether there is a mitigation plan in place. Chief Gannon stated there is an Officer on contract at Walmart, and they are a cooperative and willing partner with the City. Chief Elliott stated the reason for this ordinance amendment is to separate business functions between restaurant and entertainment, to make the process easier and allow businesses to continue doing food service and liquor service. This process provides a clear direction about how to be successful in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Gilchrist requested the following language amendment in Section 23-308: -replace “in the year in which it was issued” with “in the year for which it was issued.” Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2019-14 Amending Chapter 23 and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Entertainment Licensing and Uses – 1st Reading. Motion passed unanimously. 1 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of January, 2020, 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. 2019-14 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. Barb Suciu City Clerk Date of Publication: December 19, 2019 1/7/2020 1 Ordinance Amending Chapters 23 and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Entertainment Licensing and Uses City Council Meeting Barb Suciu, City Clerk, 1/13/2020 Request of Action Tonight is the second reading and public hearing for an  ordinance amending Chapters 23 and 35 of the City  Code of Ordinances Regarding Entertainment Licensing  and Uses 22 2 1/7/2020 2 History •Restaurants  seeking live entertainment as part  of their business plan currently require  a Public  Dance License and a Special Use Permit.  Adopting the new ordinance eliminates the  dual license process. Strategically, this  ordinance is more business friendly and  possibly curbs associated negative behaviors. 32 2 Policy Background •At the August 26, 2019, work session staff presented the concept of  amending the Public Dance Ordinance into a more robust Entertainment  Ordinance. •Amending the public dance ordinance would allow the staff to address  negative behaviors that may be associated with establishments that cater to  nighttime entertainment in an effective way. •A robust entertainment ordinance is a more comprehensive approach to  regulating the negative behaviors instead of regulating operational hours of  nighttime entertainment establishments.  •The City Council was supportive of this concept.  42 2 1/7/2020 3 Policy Background •At  the October 28, 2019, work session staff presented a draft  Entertainment Ordinance. This ordinance implements regulatory  conditions for  establishments that would hold an entertainment  license.  •A concern from the Council was the condition for maintaining  the entertainment license regarding police calls.  New Language •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.   52 2 Policy Background •Chapter 35 of the Zoning Code regarding C2 Commerce District has  amendments for Permitted Uses and Special Uses.  •The ordinance amendment eliminates the provision of live  entertainment as a permitted use; and •Eliminates eating establishments offering live entertainment from  special uses.  •Essentially, the amendment eliminates the provisions related to live  entertainment from the C2 Commerce District.  •All establishments seeking to have live entertainment would need an  Entertainment license. 62 2 1/7/2020 4 Policy Background •Staff believe by focusing on behaviors, particularly  negative behaviors that may result in public  disturbances or disruption and not focusing on the type  of establishments or its operations, the City  may mitigate or prevent negative behaviors and assist  businesses with operating successfully. 72 2 Preventative Measures •Staff met with business owners on October 1 to  receive their feedback on the proposed ordinance. •Creation of the Entertainment Ordinance •Security Measures •Progressive Violation notice process •Second Notice: Development of Mitigation Plan 82 2 1/7/2020 5 Preventive Measures •Published December 19, 2020 •Letters mailed to the existing  Public Dance  Permit  holders •Proposed effective date: February 22, 2020 92 2 Request of Action •Open Public Hearing •Take  Public Input •Close Public Hearing •Approve the second reading of an Ordinance Amending  Chapters 23 and Chapter 35 of the City Code of  Ordinances Regarding Entertainment Licensing and Uses. •Approve the resolution allowing for a summary  publication of the ordinance amendment. 102 2 1/7/2020 6 Questions? 112 2 Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HENNEPIN COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. _______ RESOLUTION APPROVING SUMMARY PUBLICATION FOR ORDINANCE 2019-10 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center has adopted the above referenced ordinance concerning a Charter Amendment; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, subdivision 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances or those containing maps or charts; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent of Ordinance 2019-14. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: the following summary of Ordinance 2019-14 shall be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance. SUMMARY PUBLICATION Ordinance 2019-14 An Ordinance Amending Brooklyn Center City Code, Chapters 23 and 35, Sections on January 13, 2020. Removing the public dance ordinance in its entirety and establishing an entertainment ordinance for business that hold three or more entertainment events within a calendar year. Establishing conditions for the entertainment license that include: Code Compliance, Legal Compliance; Permitting Occupancy (overcrowding), Building Standards, Parking Limitations, Security, and Noise or Sound. Establishing a series of notices of noncompliance with the above reference conditions. Renewal of the license will be annually and the license period will be January 1 through December 31. The ordinance amendment eliminates eating establishments within Chapter 35-322; C2 Commerce District; Permitted Uses and Special Uses. A full version of the ordinance amendment will available on the City’s website and paper copies are available at City Hall. January 13, 2020 __________________ 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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector BY:G inny M cI ntosh, City P lanner / Zoning A dminis trator S U B J E C T:Res olu/on to A pprove P lanning C ommis s ion A pplica/on No. 2019-018, Re-is s uance of a S pecial U s e Permit at 6440 J ames C ircle North B ackground: Tashitaa Tufaa and M ike B rady (the “A pplicants”) are r eques /ng considera/on of the re-is s uance of a S pecial U s e Permit for the pr oper ty located at 6440 J ames C ir cle N orth (the “S ubj ect P roperty ”). The S ubject P roperty was formerly home to the A M F Earle Brown L anes , which closed in 2015. The building and site s ubs equently sat vacant un/l 2 0 1 7 , when Tas hitaa Tufaa purchas ed the S ubject P r oper ty. Tashitaa Tufaa s ubmiCed an applica/on for s ite and building plan and S pecial Use Permit approv al that was review ed by the P lanning C ommis s ion on M ar ch 15, 2 0 1 8 and C ity Council on March 2 6 , 2018, and res ulted in unanimous approvals for both the s ite and building plan and S pecial U s e Permit. S ec/on 35-220 (S pecial U se Permits) notes that, “when a S pecial U s e Permit has been issued pursuant to the prov is ions of this or dinance, such permit shall expire w ithout fur ther ac/on by the P lanning Commission or the C ity C ouncil unles s the applicant or his as s ignee or s ucces s or commences w or k up on the S ubj ect P r oper ty w ithin one y ear of the date the S pecial U s e Permit is gr anted, or unless before the expira/on of the one year per iod the applicant s hall apply for an extens ion thereof by filling out and s ubmiFng to the S ecr etary of the P lanning C ommis s ion a “S pecial Use Permit ” applica/on reques /ng such extens ion and paying an addi/onal fee in an amount set forth by the C ity C ouncil res olu/on.” A lthough City S taff was in communica/on w ith the A pplicant regarding the or iginal S pecial U s e Per mit, the A pplicant w as not in the pos i/on to commence with cons truc/on or reques t an extens ion prior to the March 2 6 , 2 0 1 9 expira/on. S ince the expira/on of the S pecial Use Permit, M r. B rady indicated that Brady Real E s tate D evelopment, I nc. has s ince been retained by Mr. Tufaa to move the proj ect forward. S ince the original S pecial U s e Permit was is s ued, M r. Tufaa has completed s ignificant clean-up and demoli/on wor k to the interior of the building on the S ubject P roperty. A ddi/onally, M r. Tufaa has proceeded w ith obtaining three bids for cons truc/on of the event center, and met w ith a financial ins /tu/on to addr es s project funding. A lthough the site and building plan w as approved and does not require a new rev iew (as there are no altera/ons propos ed to the plans previously approved), the us e cannot be implemented on the S ubject P roperty un/l the A pplicant receiv es approval for the re-issuance of a S pecial Us e Permit to oper ate the proposed event center, restaurant, and bar. F ull cons idera/on was given under a duly no/ced public hearing and mail no/fica/ons were s ent to s urrounding property owners in accordance with the public hearing requirements . N o comments w ere received prior to the public hearing nor w ere comments receiv ed from the public at the public hearing. A pplicants Tashitaa Tufaa and Mike Brady w er e pres ent to addres s ques /ons from the P lanning Commission, of which included inquir ies on the /meline for development of the S ubject P roperty, and how this project would /e into the proposed redevelopment of 1601 J ames C ircle North. Following clos e of the public hearing, the P lanning Commission unanimous ly (6 -0 ) recommended approval of the reques ted re-issuance of the S pecial Use Permit. ACached for your review are copies of the P lanning Commission S taff Report and exhibits dated D ecember 12, 2019, and a draH copy of the Council resolu/on. B udget I ssues: No issues to cons ider at this /me. S trategic Priories and Values: Targeted Redevelopment AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip/on U pload D ate Type Res olu/on-D is pos i/on of P lanning Commission A pplica/on No. 2019-018 S ubmiCed by Tashitaa Tufaa and M ike Brady for Re-I ssuance of a S pecial Use Permit to C onvert a Former Bow ling A lley and Restaurant into an Event Center in the C 2 (C ommerce) D is trict 1/6/2020 Resolu/on LeCer P C S taff Report and Exhibits - 6440 Jame Circle North - S U P Re- issuance 1/6/2020 Backup M aterial Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2019-018 SUBMITTED BY TASHITAA TUFAA AND MIKE BRADY FOR RE-ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT A FORMER BOWLING ALLEY AND RESTAURANT INTO AN EVENT CENTER IN THE C2 (COMMERCE) DISTRICT (LOCATED AT 6440 JAMES CIRCLE NORTH) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2019-018, submitted by Tashitaa Tufaa and Mike Brady (“the Applicants”) requests review and consideration for the re-issuance of a Special Use Permit, which would allow a former bowling alley and restaurant to be converted into an event center, with ancillary restaurant and bar, and other associated exterior improvements in an existing 35,462-square foot building located at 6440 James Circle North (“the Subject Property”); and WHEREAS, Applicant Tashitaa Tufaa initially submitted a request in 2018 under Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002 for Special Use Permit and site and building plan approval for the aforementioned project on the Subject Property, and received unanimous approval from the City Council under City Council Resolution No. 2018-064 (Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002 Submitted by Tashitaa Tufaa of Mississippi Valley Properties, LLC, for Approval of a Site and Building Plan and Issuance of a Special Use Permit to Convert a Former Bowling Alley and Restaurant into an Event Center in the C2 (Commerce) District (Located at 6440 James Circle North); and WHEREAS, Section 35-220 (Special Use Permits) requires that a special use begin or any work relating to said special use, such as construction, commence within one year of issuance of a Special Use Permit or said use permit shall expire; and WHEREAS, said Special Use Permit approval expired on March 27, 2019 when no building permit applications were submitted to the City for redevelopment of the former bowling alley into an event center and work related to the special use did not commence; and WHEREAS, original Applicant Tashitaa Tufaa has since brought on co- Applicant Mike Brady of Brady Real Estate Development, Inc. to see the event center project forward; and WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2019-018, submitted by Tashitaa Tufaa and Mike Brady, requests approval for the re-issuance of a Special Use Permit RESOLUTION NO. to redevelop the former bowling alley located on the Subject Property, into an event center with ancillary restaurant and bar, and other associated improvements; and WHEREAS, the Applicants indicated that no alterations were to be made to the site and building plans approved under Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002 and City Council Resolution No. 2018-064, and there is therefore no need to obtain new approvals; and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is situated in the C2 (Commerce) District and pursuant to City Code Section 35-322; Subpart 3, "Eating establishments offering live entertainment; recreation 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 Rl, R2, or R3 district, including abutment at the street line" are only allowed by means of Special Use Permit in the C2 District, and the Applicant has submitted such application to the City of Brooklyn Center for official consideration under Planning Application No. 2019-018; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and called public hearing on December 12, 2019, whereby a planning staff report was presented and public testimony regarding the request for re-issuance of a Special Use Permit was received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Special Use Permit request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines and standards for evaluating this Special Use Permit contained in Section 35-220 (Special Use Permits) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and the request complies with the general goals and objectives of the City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Application No. 2019-018, submitted by Tashitaa Tufaa and Mike Brady, for re-issuance of a Special Use Permit be approved based upon the following considerations: A. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. B. The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. RESOLUTION NO. C. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding prope1ty for uses permitted in the district. D. Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. E. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Commission Application No. 2019-018 be recommended for approval subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. The Applicants shall comply with all previously outlined conditions of approval as outlined under Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002 and associated City Council Resolution No. 2018-064 (Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002 Submitted by Tashitaa Tufaa of Mississippi Valley Properties, LLC, for Approval of a Site and Building Plan and Issuance of a Special Use Permit to Convert a Former Bowling Alley and Restaurant into an Event Center in the C2 (Commerce) District (Located at 6440 James Circle North). a. The Applicants shall address all comments as outlined in the Assistant City Engineer’s Memorandum dated March 5, 2018. January 13, 2020 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. ________________ App. No. 2019-018 PC 12/12/2019 Page 1 Planning Commission Report Meeting Date: December 12, 2019 Application No. 2019-018 Applicant: Tashitaa Tufaa and Mike Brady Location: 6440 James Circle North Request: Special Use Permit for an Event Center (Re-issuance) INTRODUCTION Tashitaa Tufaa and Mike Brady (the “Applicants”) are requesting consideration of the re-issuance of a Special Use Permit for the property located at 6440 James Circle North (the “Subject Property”)—refer to Exhibit A. The Subject Property was formerly home to the AMF Earle Brown Lanes, which closed in 2015. The building and site subsequently sat vacant until 2017, when Tashitaa Tufaa purchased the Subject Property. Tashitaa Tufaa submitted an application for site and building plan and Special Use Permit approval that was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2018 and City Council on March 26, 2018 and resulted in unanimous approvals for both the site and building plan and Special Use Permit (refer to Exhibit B). Section 35-220 (Special Use Permits) notes that, “when a special use permit has been issued pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance, such permit shall expire without further action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the applicant or his assignee or successor commences work up on the Subject Property within one year of the date the special use permit is granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an extension thereof by filling out and submitting to the Secretary of the Planning Commission a “Special Use Permit” application requesting such extension and paying an additional fee in an amount set forth by the City Council resolution.” Although City Staff was in communication with the Applicant regarding the original Special Use Permit, the Applicant was not in the position to commence with construction or request an extension prior to the March 26, 2019 expiration. Mike Brady (“Co-Applicant” and Owner’s Representative) indicated in an email that there were two main reasons why construction did not commence prior to the original Special Use Permit expiring: (1)Applicant and Property Owner, Tashitaa Tufaa’s bus company (Metropolitan Transportation Network, Inc.) became more successful and the growth kept him fully engaged through the year; and (2)Without the development experience necessary, Mr. Tufaa was reliant on the assistance of others to pull together a plan for the event center, restaurant, and bar, which took time. Mr. Brady indicated that Brady Real Estate Development, Inc. has since been retained by Mr. Tufaa to move the project forward. Since the original Special Use Permit was issued, Mr. Tufaa has completed significant clean-up and demolition work to the interior of the building on the Subject Property. Additionally, Mr. Tufaa has proceeded with obtaining three bids for construction of the event center. and met with a financial institution to address project funding. •Application Filed: 11/12/2019 •Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 01/11/2020 •Extension Declared: N/A •Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A ________________ App. No. 2019-018 PC 12/12/2019 Page 2 Although the site and building plan was approved and does not require a new review (as there are no alterations proposed to the plans previously approved), the use cannot not be implemented on the Subject Property until the Applicant receives approval for the re-issuance of a Special Use Permit to operate the proposed event center, restaurant, and bar. The request for issuance of a Special Use Permit requires that a public hearing be scheduled. An Affidavit of Publication was received, confirming publication of a public hearing notice in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on November 28, 2019 (Exhibit C). Mail notices were also sent out to property owners in accordance with Section 35-220 (Special Use Permits) of the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING STANDARDS Land Use Plan: RB - Retail Business Neighborhood: Shingle Creek Current Zoning: C2 (Commerce) District Surrounding Zoning: North: I1 (Industrial Park) District East: C2 (Commerce) District South: C2 (Commerce) District West: C2 (Commerce) District Site Area: Approximately 4.03 acres BACKGROUND The approximately 35,462-square foot building was originally approved for and constructed in 1978 for use as the Earle Brown Bowl (bowling alley) under Planning Application Nos. 78023 and 78024, following site and building plan and Special Use Permit approvals by the Planning Commission and City Council. The approval of the Special Use Permits under these applications allowed for live entertainment and a bowling alley in what was then zoned I1 (Industrial Park) District. This allowed for the Subject Property to function as a bowling alley, restaurant, and game room/recreational facility. Additional Planning Commission applications were subsequently approved by the City for: 1.Expansion of lounge area and exterior remodeling of Earle Brown Bowl (1982); 2.Addition to café for new cooler storage service area and waiting room (1987); and 3.Requests to build a temporary outdoor patio, and outdoor sand volleyball courts for summer league (1991). The bowling alley and restaurant closed in April 2015 and sat vacant until 2017 when Applicant Tashitaa Tufaa purchased the property. The Applicants are proposing to redevelop the former bowling alley and restaurant into an event center with a focus on weddings and other special events. As part of this proposal, the re-establishment of a permanent restaurant and bar within the facility is proposed, along with accessory kitchen, bathrooms, bridal suites, and office facilities. The site and building plan for the proposed event center, restaurant, and bar was approved by City Council on March 26, 2018 under City Council Resolution No. 2018-64 (Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002 Submitted by Tashitaa ________________ App. No. 2019-018 PC 12/12/2019 Page 3 Tufaa of Mississippi Valley Properties, LLC, for Approval of a Site and Building Plan and Issuance of a Special Use Permit to Convert a Former Bowling Alley and Restaurant into an Event Center in the C2 (Commerce) District (Located at 6440 James Circle North)). The Applicants have indicated that there are no plans to alter the previously approved site and building plans; therefore, there is no need for new site and building plan approvals. Map 1. Subject Property Location. SPECIAL USE PERMIT REVIEW The Applicant is requesting re-issuance of a Special Use Permit to allow for an event center, restaurant, and bar. A Special Use Permit was initially issued by the City Council on March 26, 2018; however, the Special Use Permit subsequently expired when no building permit applications were submitted to the City for redevelopment of the former bowling alley into an event center. The original Applicant, Tashitaa Tufaa, and new co-Applicant Mike Brady have indicated that they are now in the position to proceed with the project within the bounds of the requirements for Special Use Permits as outlined under Section 35-220 of the Zoning Code, including the stipulation that work commence on the Subject Property within one year of the date that the Special Use Permit is granted. According to Section 35-220 (Special Use Permits) of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, “Special uses are those which may be required for the public welfare in a given district but which are, in some respects, incompatible with the permitted uses in the district. Before a building or premises is devoted to any use classified as a special use by this ordinance, a special use permit ________________ App. No. 2019-018 PC 12/12/2019 Page 4 must be granted by the City Council.” Section 35-322 (C2 Commerce District) notes that “eating establishments offering live entertainment; recreation 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 an abutment at a street line,” are allowed through approval and issuance of a Special Use Permit. It should be noted that the Subject Property, located at 6440 James Circle North, does not abut any R1, R2, or R3 properties. The Subject Property is currently surrounded by three hotels (Super 8, Norwood Suites, and Quality Inn), Jambo Africa (restaurant), a Denny’s Restaurant, a vacant City EDA- owned property, and the FBI Regional Headquarters. Light industrial properties lie to the north of the Subject Property (across Freeway Boulevard). Per the Standards of Special Use Permits, a Special Use Permit may be granted by the City Council after demonstration by evidence that all of the following are met: 1.The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. The former use of the Subject Property was through issuance of two Special Use Permits. These Special Use Permits (for the uses of “bowling alley” and “live entertainment”) were en force for a period of 37 years before the ultimate closing of the Earle Brown Lanes in 2015. Given the intent of the Applicant to establish a “premier” event center, and “upscale” restaurant and bar, staff is to the understanding that it is not the intent of the Applicant to establish a use that would be detrimental to the overall public health, safety, morals, and comfort of the general public. It is hoped that the establishment of the proposed uses would provide an enhancement to the surrounding uses. 2.The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. The Subject Property was home to the Earle Brown Lanes (bowling alley), a restaurant/bar, and game room from 1978 until its closing in 2015. Earle Brown Lanes was approved by issuance of Special Use Permits for the use of a bowling alley and allowance of live entertainment. Although the Subject Property has not been open to the public for four years, the 37 previous years were spent catering to residents and visitors as a place of entertainment and dining. The Applicant intends to overhaul the interior of the Subject Property for reuse as an entertainment center, although in a slightly different capacity. The Applicant intends for the majority of the event center business to emphasize wedding events, although the facility would also provide an alternative location for hosting proms, private parties, and corporate, community, and educational events. As proposed, the facility would feature bridal suites, ancillary office and meeting space, and a “full-service, upscale” restaurant and bar. Approval of the bar and serving of liquor by staff of the facility for events would be contingent upon issuance of a City liquor license. ________________ App. No. 2019-018 PC 12/12/2019 Page 5 It is not anticipated that the proposed event center will be injurious to the use of properties in the immediate vicinity, nor substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. The Applicants acknowledged that, as Mr. Tufaa does not have a background in running event centers, he reached out to co-Applicant Mike Brady and Brady Real Estate Development, Inc. to move the project forward. Substantial interior demolition work was completed in fall (2019), as well as the demolition of an existing exterior accessory shed; however, construction of an event center, restaurant, and bar cannot take place without the re-issuance of a Special Use Permit. 3.The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. It is not anticipated that the establishment of the requested special use would impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding properties for uses permitted in the district. The Subject Property is currently surrounded by like-zoned C2 (Commerce) District properties. With the exception of the City EDA-owned property (vacant land) along Interstates 694/94, the surrounding land is currently developed. It is hoped that the re-issuance of a Special Use Permit for an event center would allow for improvements at the surrounding properties. With regard to the City’s Earle Brown Heritage Center (EBHC), located across Interstates 694/94 and to the south, the Applicant has emphasized that his intent is to provide services that are complementary to EBHC, rather than competitive. At maximum, the three banquet rooms combined would provide occupancy of no more than 578 persons. The proposed restaurant and bar would be open to the public and would provide seating for 101 persons. To provide oversight of the operation, the Applicant still intends to hire a building manager, a chef and restaurant manager, and bridal consultant. 4.Adequate measurements have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. Staff met multiple times with the Applicant Tashitaa Tufaa’s architect and real estate broker to work through the proposed uses and overall business plan for the site prior to submittal of the initial Planning Commission Application (2018-002) for site and building plan, and Special Use Permit approval. Given the numerous uses of an event center, restaurant and bar, office space, and kitchen and catering staff, concerns were initially presented by staff regarding the ability to provide sufficient on-site parking. The Applicant explored potential alternatives to providing off-site parking; however, it was determined that there were no alternatives to provide for off-site parking that would meet the minimum requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. These requirements stipulated that any off- street parking be located a maximum of 800 feet from the principal building, and that the land on which the off-site parking was located be used solely for parking, among other requirements. The Applicant inquired as to whether the City’s EDA-owned property located at 1601 James Circle North (4.92 acres) was an option; however, it was determined by City staff that the use of the site as a parking lot would not be the highest and best use for the property. As the Applicant ________________ App. No. 2019-018 PC 12/12/2019 Page 6 owns a bus company, it was also suggested by the Applicant that perhaps employees could shuttle from the Applicant’s property in Minneapolis, located six minutes by car, during higher use events; however, this would not meet the Zoning Ordinance requirement that the property used for off-site parking be used solely for parking. Staff eventually worked with Architect Peter Hill to revise the proposed plans to alter the banquet room layouts and lower the maximum occupancy of the rooms. In order to meet the minimum parking requirements, the Applicant has retained the existing ingress and egress on the site, rather than adding an additional driveway curb cut. This access would still allow for full access to Freeway Boulevard by turning south or north onto James Circle North, as it is a loop road. As Special Use Permits allow for conditions to be placed in conjunction with issuance of a Special Use Permit, staff recommends that the Applicant adhere to the maximum occupancies outlined in the submitted plans. Should issues arise concerning clientele parking on City streets or adjacent parking lots (e.g. Super 8, Norwood Suites, Denny’s), staff may request the Applicant complete a Travel Demand Management Plan. City staff reiterated that James Circle North and Freeway Boulevard were not to be used for event parking. 5.The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. Per the submitted plans, the Applicant has no plans to alter the exterior of the building in such a way as to render the building or site non-conforming. With regard to the minimum parking requirements, the Applicant has worked with staff to revise the site and interior plans as necessary to address the parking requirements for the multiple uses proposed. Other than the request for a Special Use Permit to allow for eating establishments in conjunction with live entertainment, the proposed restaurant and office uses are generally permitted within the C2 (Commerce) District. As previously mentioned, the serving of liquor will require separate issuance of a City liquor license. Based on staff findings, staff recommends Planning Commission recommendation of the requested re- issuance of a Special Use Permit for an event center for the property located at 6440 James Circle North (Subject Property); subject to the Applicant complying with the comments outlined in the Approval Conditions noted below. APPROVAL CONDITIONS: Staff recommends the following conditions be attached to any positive recommendation on the approval of Application No. 2019-018 for 6440 James Circle North (Subject Property): 1.The Applicants shall comply with all previously outlined conditions of approval as outlined under Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002 and associated City Council Resolution No. 2018- 064 (Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002 Submitted by Tashitaa Tufaa of Mississippi Valley Properties, LLC, for Approval of a Site and Building Plan and Issuance of a Special Use Permit to Convert a Former Bowling Alley and Restaurant into an Event Center in the C2 (Commerce) District (Located at 6440 James Circle North)), including all comments as outlined in the Assistant City Engineer’s Memorandum dated March 5, 2018. ________________ App. No. 2019-018 PC 12/12/2019 Page 7 Should the Special Use Permit be re-issued, the Applicants will have one year (from date of any Special Use Permit granting by City Council) to obtain all relevant permits and commence work on the Subject Property for the proposed event center, restaurant, and bar. Should the Applicants fail to do so, the Special Use Permit shall expire unless a formal request for extension is submitted in the form of a complete Planning Commission Application prior to permit expiration. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above-noted findings, City Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Planning Commission Application No. 2019-018, re-issuance of a Special Use Permit for an event center for the Subject Property located at 6440 James Circle North, subject to the Applicant complying with the Approval Conditions. Should the Planning Commission accept this recommendation, the Commission may elect to adopt the resolution which memorializes the findings in re-issuing a Special Use Permit. Attachments Exhibit A- Planning Commission Application No. 2019-018, Assistant City Engineer's memorandum, dated March 5, 2018, and select plans from originally submitted Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002. Exhibit B- City Council Resolution No. 2018-064 ((Resolution Regarding the Recommended Disposition of Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002 Submitted by Tashitaa Tufaa of Mississippi Valley Properties, LLC, for Approval of a Site and Building Plan and Issuance of a Special Use Permit to Convert a Former Bowling Alley and Restaurant into an Event Center in the C2 (Commerce) District (Located at 6440 James Circle North). Exhibit C- Affidavit of Publication for Notice of Hearing (6440 James Circle North), published November 28, 2019, in Brooklyn Center Sun Post. For Office Use Only Date Received: Date Application Complete: Letter of Completeness: C App No. 2019 Planning Cort}mission Application Property Owner Information* (if different from Applicant): Name: C) DI\ I\ Ce•'-�c::. ....-LL C. Property Owner Address: �8-.� �.\-N �,l dle M. N '5 5 '-(�:)_ Office Pho_ne: [.Q: ( J.. �d.. ( � 'T�� (Iv\_\ kc ro.-A.� Cell: 1 � ?,-'--t'i�-1 S-'f � ( Tqsh;+a.Q) Email: ""-\\<. tb t-•.J'I@. \o t-<--cl.::, KE\) , Lirfv\ FAX: 1 fu1 S) \ -/Sif] \ ' be\\dcf �t- Project Information: Provide a general description of your project and request(s): A;") '-\� l1A,ow1 ±-L 0 f'ofe.)....l--...1 Wo.S .-:::.�,eve � c:'c� e_o_\-s c.:.-e,.. ¥__ -f c:_rM,'J-e \'i-• · 7 iz he 'i:\r(H-C:$'-:1, w� o,_t-e_ \'\'\.o-. \� V,..() c... (..__o.__lt'-:� ..C\o::b) -\-'""-01-\�� ".""-o..Q o.....r,� 1--�' { 4L'0 \ C ' ") +D t;/1L11 fd. a_ C.td 4....,i--... (Address/Location of Property: � , � l.\.. rof, n-c.k I\ , �v�.,:f C.i_ �\:c:r, Legal Description of Property: ____________________________ _ Application Type (Mark all that Apply) Comprehensive Plan Amendment $1,050 Appeal $200 Rezoning $1,050 Zoning Code Text Amendment $500 Special/Interim Use Permit $250 Special/Interim Use Permit Amendment $150 ---, Site and Building Plan Review $750 Variance $200 Planned Unit Development $1,800 Planned Unit Development Amendment $700 Preliminary Plat $400 Final Plat $200 IMPORTANT: All applications may be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of costs incurred by the City for filing, reviewing, and processing applications in the form of an escrow to the City. Application Fee: $ � _ Escrow Amount: $ I , DCC':> Receipt No: 150 Exhibit A THE CENTER A place to gather, an event to remember Vision: A place to gather for an unforgettable experience. The Center is the Twin Cities newest premier event center. The Center is conveniently located at 6440 James Circle in Brooklyn Center at the intersection of I694 and Shingle Creek Parkway, and convenient to Highways 94 and 100. Developer and owner, Mr. Tashitaa Tufaa, runs numerous successful Minnesota corporations and is excited to announce his latest project “The Center.” The Center will be a place to gather for weddings, proms, private parties, corporate events, community events, educational events, expos and other special uses. The Center construction is contemporary, classy and open. The exposed metal ceiling structure and glass panel entry doors create a sophisticated, elegant guest experience. Included within the center are chic bridal suites, a full-service upscale restaurant, informal gathering spaces and smaller office type rooms. Restrooms are conveniently located in the main hall and include three additional restrooms each, in the restaurant and bridal suite areas. The main entry features glass, inviting wall textures, colors and hard surface flooring of tile or laminate. The banquet center is visible from the entry through tall glass doors and with a grand open feel allowing guests to see into the banquet facility as they enter the building. Included in the main entry hall area is access to the Bridal Suites, offices, the restaurant and restrooms. There is a coat checkroom and valet station in the entry lobby. Upon entering the event center, guests can mingle and relax in the hall area or enjoy a beverage in the bar. The offices and bridal suites are in an area that can be locked and inaccessible to the banquet area and the main entry. Three restrooms service the suites and offices. The restaurant is just inside the main entry. It also features glass and a soft, inviting contemporary feel. There is formal seating in the restaurant area and informal seating with high top tables and bar seating in the bar area. . The restaurant and bar menu will consist of “American” type fare with added ethnic, dinner and banquet specials. Event catering service is per request. The banquet hall accommodates a total of 578 people in one large open gathering space or partitioned into two or three separate halls each accommodating approximately 190 guests. Portable wine, beer and liquor bars within the halls and other informal gathering spaces will provide beverage service guests attending events. The banquet spaces will include portable hardwood dance floors, multimedia equipment, platforms and podiums. Numerous fanciful options for decoration and embellishment are available. The parking lot is amply lit and all exterior lighting shall be provided with lenses, reflectors or shades, so as to concentrate illumination on the property. No glare shall emanate from or be visible beyond the boundaries of the illuminated premises. The event center will provide the services of a building manager, a chef/restaurant manager and bridal consultant. Mr. Tashitaa Tufaa is excited to have the opportunity to put his name and Midas touch on this stunning event center. The Center will be a place to gather for weddings, proms, private parties, corporate events, community events, educational events and the like, for memories that will last a lifetime! M E M O R A N D U M DATE: March 5, 2018 TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Site Plan Review –6440 James Circle Public Works Department staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review on February 16, 2018, for the proposed 6440 James Circle:  Civil Site Plans dated February 13, 2018 Subject to final staff Site Plan approval, the referenced plans must be revised in accordance with the following comments/revisions and approved prior to issuance of Land Alteration permit: C2.0 – Site Plan 1. Label accessible ramps. 2. Traffic lane dimension. C5.2 – Detail and Specifications Plan 3. Add current MN Dot plates for ADA accessibility ramps L1.0 – Landscape Plan 4. Provide irrigation plan. Miscellaneous 5. See redlines for additional Site Plan comments 6. Remove “City of Brooklyn Center Site Specific Notes” from all sheets. 7. Upon project completion, the applicant must submit an as-built survey of the property, improvements and utility service lines and structures; and provide certified record drawings of all project plan sheets depicting an y associated private and/or public improvements, revisions and adjustments prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The as-built survey must also verif y that all propert y corners have been established and are in place at the completion of the project as determined and directed by the Cit y Engineer. 8. Inspection for the private site improvements must be performed by the developer’s design/project engineer. Upon project completion, the design/project engineer must formall y certify through a letter that the project was built in conformance with the approved plans and under the design/project engineer’s immediate and direct supervision. The engineer must be certified in the state of Minnesota and must certify all required as- built drawings (which are separate from the as-built survey). 6440 James Circle Site Plan Review Memo, February 28, 2018 Page 2 of 2 9.The total disturbed area is less than one acre, an NPDES permit is not required. Prior to issuance of a Land Alteration 10. Final construction/demolition plans and specifications need to be received and approved by the City Engineer in form and format as determined by the City. The final plan must comply with the approved preliminary plan and/or as amended as required by the City Engineer. 11. A letter of credit or a cash escrow in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost as determined by City staff shall be deposited with the City. 12. A Construction Management Plan and Agreement is required that addresses general construction activities and management provisions, traffic control provisions, emergency management provisions, storm water pollution prevention plan provisions, tree protection provisions, general public welfare and safety provisions, definition of responsibility provisions, temporary parking provisions, overall site condition provisions and non- compliance provisions. A separate $2,500 deposit will be required as part of the non-compliance provision. Anticipated Permitting: 11.Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to obtain and warranted. 12. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable building and land disturbance permits. 13. A preconstruction conference must be scheduled and held with City staff and other entities designated by the City. The aforementioned comments are provided based on the information submitted by the applicant at the time of this review. Other guarantees and site development conditions may be further prescribed throughout the project as warranted and determined by the City. Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 2018-64 RESOLUTION REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2018-002 SUBMITTED BY TASHITAA TUFAA OF MISSISSIPPI VALLEY PROPERTIES, LLC, FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE AND BUILDING PLAN AND ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO CONVERT A FORMER BOWLING ALLEY AND RESTAURANT INTO AN EVENT CENTER IN THE C2 (COMMERCE) DISTRICT (LOCATED AT 6440 JAMES CIRCLE NORTH) WHEREAS, Planning Commission Application No. 2018-002, submitted by Tashitaa Tufaa of Mississippi Valley Properties, LLC ("Applicant/Owner") requests approval of a site and building plan and issuance of a special use permit allowing a former bowling alley and restaurant to be converted into an event center, with ancillary restaurant and bar, and other associated exterior improvements, in an existing 35,462- square foot building located at 6440 James Circle North ("Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is situated in the C2 (Commerce) District and pursuant to City Code Section 35-322; Subpart 3, "Eating establishments offering live entertainment; recreation 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 RI, R2, or R3 district, including abutment at the street line" are only allowed by means of special use permit in the C2 District, and the Applicant has submitted such application to the City of Brooklyn Center for official consideration tinder Planning Application No. 2018-002; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and called public hearing on March 15, 2018, whereby a planning staff report was presented and public testimony regarding the site and building plan and special use permit were received; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Special Use Permit request in light of all testimony received, the guidelines and standards for evaluating this special use permit contained in Section 35-222 (2 Commerce District) of the City's Zoning Ordinance, and the request complies with the general goals and objectives of the City's 2030 Comprehensive Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Application No. 2018-002, submitted by Tashitaa Tufaa of Mississippi Valley Properties, LLC, be approved based upon the following considerations: A.The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will promote and enhance the general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, or comfort. B.The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. C.The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Exhibit B RESOLUTION NO. 2018-64 D.Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. B.The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Planning Application No. 2018-002 be approved subject to the following conditions and considerations: 1. Building and Site Plan Review: The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits; and the final location or placement of any fire hydrants or other fire-related building code items shall be reviewed and approved by the Fire Inspector. a.Any major changes or modifications made to this Site and Building Plan can only be made by an amendment to the approved Site and Building Plan as approved by the City Council. b.The Applicant should evaluate whether angled parking along the north end of the parking lot (west of proposed porte-cochère) would allow for more intuitive traffic circulation. i. The driving aisle west of the porte-cochère shall maintain the same direction as traffic under porte-cochère. Directional signage is to be installed as part of this condition. c.The Applicant shall work with the City/Fire Department to address installation of fire hydrants where necessary and maximum distance requirements so as to meet code requirements. d.The Applicant shall verify that the proposed building and site has met City Code requirements. e. A pre-construction conference shall be held with City staff and other entities designated by the City prior to issuance of a Building Permit. 2. Agreements: a.The Property Owner/Developer shall execute a separate Performance Agreement with supporting financial guarantee approved by the City, which ensures the Subject Property will be constructed, developed, and maintained in conformance with the plans, specifications, and standards comprehended under this Site and Building Plan. b.The Applicant shall adhere to the maximum occupancies outlined in the submitted plans in order to conform with maximum allowable parking on site of the Subject Property. Should issues arise concerning clientele parking on City streets or adjacent parking lots, staff may request the Applicant complete a Travel Demand Management Plan. c. The Developer shall submit an as-built survey of the Subject Property, as well as any improvements and utility service lines, prior to release of the performance guarantee. 3. Engineering Review: The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions noted in the City Engineer's Review memorandum, dated March 5, 2018 (Exhibit E): a. Final grading, drainage, utility, irrigation, erosion control, and as-built plans, and any other site engineering related issues are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Fire Inspector Review: The Applicant agrees to comply with all conditions or provisions required RESOLUTION NO. 2018-64 per Fire and Building Code. These include, but are not limited to: a.Installation of a Knox-Box on the north end of the building to allow for emergency access to the proposed riser/utility room. b.Removal of existing conifers along the north end of the building as specified by the Fire Inspector upon visit to the site in January 2018. This is to allow for emergency access to the proposed riser/utility room. c.Compliance with minimum height and width requirements for the as proposed porte- cochère. d.Verification of minimum turn-radius required for fire truck apparatus as part of parking lot approval. 5. Construction Standards: a.Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during construction as approved by the City's Engineering Department. b.All work performed and materials used for construction of utilities shall conform to the City of Brooklyn Center Standard Specifications and Details. 6. Facilities and Equipment: a.Any outside trash disposal facilities and rooftop or ground mechanical equipment shall be appropriately screened from view per City Code requirements. b.Any outdoor enclosures shall be constructed with materials that are complementary to the principal building. c.The maximum level of 10-foot candles or less will be maintained at the property line for lighting in accordance with Section 35-712 (Lighting) of the City Zoning Ordinance. d.The Applicant shall furnish fixture specifications and imagery of proposed light installations as part of the Building Permit submittal. Landscaping: a.All landscaped areas, including street boulevards, shall include approved irrigation systems to facilitate site maintenance. Per Sheet LI .0 (Landscape Plan), the "entire site shall be fully irrigated. The contractor shall submit irrigation shop drawings for review and approval by the landscape architect prior to installation." b.Irrigation shop drawings shall be provided to the City for review and approval prior to installation. 8. Signage: The Applicant shall submit a Building Permit application for any proposed signage as part of the development proposal. Signage is subject to the provisions of Chapter 34 (Sign Ordinance). RESOLUTION NO. 2018-64 March 26, 2018 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Dan Ryan and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Thn WiJ]sn, MVquita Rider, Prfl Gra, Kris t rxersn, Can Ryan and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Exhibit C C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on D eclaring Commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter B ackground: I n accordance with the City Council C ode of Policies s ec,on 203; Policy on City Council C ommitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter, this res olu,on is required for approval at the first mee,ng of the C ity C ouncil each January as informa,on and a reminder of C ouncil/M anager responsibili,es. The policy is a6ached for your reference. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: O pera,onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type C ouncil Commitment Policy 1/8/2020 Backup M aterial Res olu,on 12/23/2019 Resolu,on Le6er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. ______________ RESOLUTION DECLARING COMMITMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER WHEREAS, Brooklyn Center voters in 1966 adopted a City Charter creating a Council/Manager form of government; and WHEREAS, said Charter provides that the City Council shall determine all matters of policy, and the City Manager shall be the head of the administrative branch of the City Government; and WHEREAS, the Charter provides that there be no separate administrative boards or commissions other than advisory boards or commissions; and WHEREAS, numerous advisory commissions have served the City since adoption of the Charter; and WHEREAS, the Charter provides that the City Manager shall control and direct all departments and divisions of the City and shall have the right to take part in Council discussion and shall recommend such measures as deemed necessary; and WHEREAS, the Charter prohibits Council members from dictating the appointment of any person to office or employment by the City Manager except as provided in Chapter 6 of this Charter; and WHEREAS, the Charter requires the Council to deal with and control the administrative service solely through the City Manager and prohibits any Council member from giving orders to any subordinate of the City Manager, either publicly or privately; and WHEREAS, the City Manager is charged by the Charter to see that the City Charter and the laws and resolutions of the City are enforced; and WHEREAS, the Council as a whole also has an obligation to ensure that its business is conducted pursuant to the City Charter and the norms of acceptable and courteous business behavior; and WHEREAS, Council members must depend upon the City Manager and staff to provide them with a great amount of background information, data, and expertise to aid in deliberating issues, developing policy, and administering the Council’s responsibilities; and RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the effectiveness of the services provided by the staff is in large part determined by a relationship of trust and mutual respect between the staff and the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council: 1. To rededicate itself to the spirit and letter of the City Charter and to commit itself to ensuring compliance by the City Council collectively and individually with that spirit and letter of the City Charter. 2. To rededicate itself to the checks and balances of the City Charter that keep City government accountable. 3. To pledge that in its dealings with citizens and City staff, that the City Council will treat such citizens and staff with respect and courtesy. The Council shall deal with staff in accordance with the City Charter through the City Manager. 4. To discharge its responsibilities as intended and established by federal, state, and local laws and the City Charter, and to do so in a fair and impartial manner for the good of the whole City and without regard for personal gain or interests. 5. To direct the City Manager to place this resolution for re-adoption on the agenda for the first meeting of the City Council each January hereafter, as information and reminder of Council/Manager responsibilities. January 13, 2018 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:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on A ppoin,ng C ity C ouncil Members to S erve as Liais ons to City A dvisory C ommis s ions and as City Representa,ves /Vo,ng D elegates for O ther O rganiz a,ons for 2020 B ackground: At the first mee,ng of the year, the C ity C ouncil Members are appointed to s erve as C ouncil Liais ons to City A dvisory C ommis s ions and as Council representa,ves or vo,ng delegates/alternates for boards , commi5ees , or organiza,ons in which the City par,cipates. This item w as postponed from the firs t mee,ng of the year to allow the new M ayor addi,onal ,me to review the informa,on and make the appointments. 2019 Council A ppointments were are as follow s : Commission/O rganizaon C ouncil M ember F inancial Commission M arquita Butler H ousing Commission Kris Law rence-A nderson Park & Recrea,on C ommis s ion A pril G raves Brooklyns Youth Council A pril G raves Crime P reven,on P rogram Kris L awrence-A nders on League of M innesota Ci,es D an Ryan; Mike E llio5 Alternate Metro C i,es Mike Ellio5; D an Ryan A lternate The resolu,on for the 2020 appointments will be forthcoming. B udget I ssues: No budget issues . S trategic Priories and Values: O pera,onal Excellence E conomic Development Authority City Hall Council Chambers J anuary 13, 2020 AGE NDA 1.Call to Order The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full C ity Counc il packet, including E D A (E conomic Development Authority ), is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the entrance of the council chambers. 2.Roll Call 3.Approval of Consent Agenda The following items are considered to be routine by the Economic Development Authority (E D A) and will been acted by one motion. There will be no separate disc ussion of these items unless a Commissioner so requests, in whic h event the item will be removed from the c onsent agenda and considered at the end of Commission Consideration I tems. a.Approval of Minutes - Motion to approve the minutes for: December 2, 2019 December 9, 2019 b.Resolution A uthorizing an I nterfund L oan for A dvance of Certain Costs in Connection with a Tax I ncrement F inancing District Motion to approve a resolution authorizing an interfund loan for advance of certain costs in connection with a tax increment financing district. 4.Commission Consideration Items a.Resolution Electing Officers for the E conomic Development Authority in and for the City of B rooklyn Center - Approve Resolution Electing Officers for the Economic Development Authority in and for the City of Brooklyn Center b.Resolution Opting not to Waive L imited Tort L iability for 2020 - Motion to approve the attached resolution adopting the no waiver option for statutory tort liability insurance. 5.Adjournment Economic Development Authority DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:A pproval of Minutes B ackground: I n accordance with M innesota S tate S tatute 15.17, the official records of all mee4ngs must be documented and approved by the governing body. S trategic Priories and Values: O pera4onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip4on U pload D ate Type 12-2-19 12/23/2019 Backup M aterial 12-9-19 12/23/2019 Backup M aterial 12/02/19 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 2, 2019 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Regular Session called to order by President Mike Elliott at 7:36 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL President Mike Elliott and Commissioners Marquita Butler, April Graves, and Dan Ryan. Commissioner Kris Lawrence-Anderson was absent and excused. Also present were Executive Director Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Acting Finance Director Andy Splinter, and City Clerk Barb Suciu. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Ryan moved and Commissioner Butler seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, and the following item was approved: 3a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. November 12, 2019 – Regular Session Motion passed unanimously. 4. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ITEMS 4a. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX ADOPTING THE FINAL BUDGET FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA FOR FISCAL YEAR 2020. Commissioner Graves moved and Commissioner Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2019-XX Approving the Final Budget for the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota for Fiscal Year 2020. Motion passed unanimously. 5. ADJOURNMENT 12/02/19 -2- DRAFT Commissioner Graves moved and Commissioner Ryan seconded adjournment of the Economic Development Authority meeting at 7:37 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 12/09/19 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 9, 2019 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Regular Session called to order by President Mike Elliott at 8:48 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL President Mike Elliott and Commissioners Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were Executive Director Curt Boganey, City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, and Mary Mullen, Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson moved, and Commissioner Ryan seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, and the following item was approved: 3a. RESOLUTION NO. 2019-22 APPROVING AN AMENDED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BROOKLYN CENTER AND BROOKLYN PARK REGARDING THE BROOKLYNK PROGRAM Motion passed unanimously. 4. COMMISSION CONSIDERATION ITEMS -None. 5. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson moved, and Commissioner Butler seconded adjournment of the Economic Development Authority meeting at 8:49 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Economic Development Authority DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu+on A uthoriz ing an I nterfund L oan for A dvance of C ertain C os ts in Connec+on with a Tax I ncrement F inancing D istrict B ackground: O n November 26, 2019, the Economic D evelopment A uthority (E DA ) closed on its acquisi+on of the former Target property located at 6100 S hingle C reek Parkway. The property w ill be repurpos ed or redeveloped cons is tent with the overall mas ter plan for the O pportunity S ite. The intent is to recover the E DA’s inves tment through a combina+on of a future sale of the property and tax increment from a new or expanded tax increment financing dis trict. I n order for the E DA to pres erve its ability to reimburs e itself from future tax increment, a formal interfund res olu+on mus t be adopted within 60 days of the expenditure. Passage of the a>ached interfund loan resolu+on w ill pres erve the E DA’s ability to reimburs e itself for up to $5,000,000 to cover the cos ts of property acquisi+on and any other future expenditures, s uch as demoli+on. I n addi+on, the resolu+on provides for reimburs ement of up to $100,000 for administra+ve cos ts . Thes e costs can be reimbursed from future tax increment with 5% interes t, which is the maximum rate currently permi>ed by s tatue. The interfund loan resolu+on does not require the E DA to repay, rather it pres erves the opportunity to do so from future tax increment. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider with this item. S trategic Priories and Values: Targeted Redevelopment AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip+on U pload D ate Type Res olu+on 1/7/2020 Resolu+on Le>er 1 631332v1BR291-386 Commissioner _______________________ introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: EDA RESOLUTION NO .____ AUTHORIZING AN INTERFUND LOAN FOR ADVANCE OF CERTAIN COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (“EDA”) is considering establishing a Tax Increment Financing District which is anticipated to include certain real property located at or near 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway (the “Property”) in the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the “City”) or expanding Tax Increment Financing District No. 7 (Redevelopment District) to include the Property (alternatively as established or expanded, the “TIF District”) all pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the “TIF Act”); WHEREAS, the EDA may incur certain costs related to the TIF District which may be financed on a temporary basis from available City funds; WHEREAS, under Section 469.178, Subdivision 7 of the TIF Act, the EDA is authorized to advance or loan money from any fund from which such advances may be legally made in order to finance expenditures that are eligible to be paid with tax increments under the TIF Act; WHEREAS, the EDA has determined that it may pay for administrative costs associated with the establishment of the TIF District and certain other costs incurred in connection with the proposed development of the TIF District, including but not limited to acquisition of land and buildings in the TIF District (including the Property listed above), demolition and site preparation costs and costs of public infrastructure (the “Cost Advances”) on a temporary basis from the City’s general fund or any other fund, as determined by the City Finance Director, from which such advances, from time to time, may be legally made (the “Fund”) as an interfund loan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, Subd. 7; WHEREAS, the EDA hereby designates the Cost Advances as an interfund loan in accordance with the terms of this resolution and the TIF Act NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (“Board”) as follows: 1. The EDA will reimburse itself for the Cost Advances incurred on or after a date not more than 60 days prior to the date hereof (i.e. November 14, 2019) including without limitation (i) administrative costs incurred prior to the establishment of the TIF District, subject to the limitations of the TIF Act, in an aggregate amount not to exceed the greater of $100,000 and (ii) certain costs incurred in connection with land and building acquisition, demolition and site preparation, and public infrastructure in an aggregate amount not to exceed $5,000,000 (collectively, the “Interfund Loan”), together with interest at the rate of 5% per annum (which is the greater of the rates specified under Sections 270C.40 or 549.09 in accordance with Minnesota 2 631332v1BR291-386 Statutes, Section 469.178, Subdivision 7); provided, however, the City Finance Director is authorized to specify a lower rate. 2. Principal and interest (“Payments”) on the Interfund Loan shall be paid semiannually on February 1 and August 1 (each a “Payment Date”), commencing on the first Payment Date on which the EDA has received Available Tax Increment (defined below), or on any other dates determined by the City Finance Director, through the date of last receipt of tax increment from the TIF District (the “Maturity Date”). 3. Payments on the Interfund Loan will be made solely from the tax increment from the TIF District received by the City from Hennepin County in the 6-month period before any Payment Date, net of the amount paid under any agreement with a private developer or otherwise pledged to the payment of any obligation (the “Available Tax Increment”). Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal, unless otherwise specified by the City Finance Director. Interest accruing from the date of each Cost Advance will be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and added to principal, unless otherwise specified by the City Finance Director. Payments on this Interfund Loan may be subordinated to any outstanding or future bonds, notes, or contracts secured in whole or in part with available tax increment, and are on a parity with any other outstanding or future interfund loans secured in whole or in part with available tax increment. 4. The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this resolution is pre- payable in whole or in part at any time by the EDA without premium or penalty. 5. This resolution is evidence of an internal borrowing by the EDA in accordance with Section 469.178, subdivision 7 of the TIF Act, and is a limited obligation payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under this resolution. The Interfund Loan shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the City. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on the Interfund Loan or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment. The EDA shall not have any obligation to pay any principal amount of the Interfund Loan or accrued interest thereon, which may remain unpaid after the termination or expiration of the TIF District. 6. The EDA may at any time make a determination to forgive the outstanding principal amount and accrued interest on the Interfund Loan, in whole or in part, on any date from time to time, to the extent permissible under law. 7. The EDA may from time to time amend the terms of this Resolution to the extent permitted by law, including without limitation amendment to the payment schedule and the interest rate; provided that the interest rate may not be increased above the maximum specified in Section 469.178. subd. 7 of the TIF Act. 8. This resolution is effective upon adoption. 3 631332v1BR291-386 January 13, 2020 Date President ATTEST: Secretary The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Commissioner ___________________ 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. Economic Development Authority DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :Reggie Edw ards , D eputy City Clerk BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu+on Elec+ng O fficers for the Economic D evelopment A uthority in and for the City of Brooklyn C enter B ackground: Minnes ota S tatute 469-096 provides that an Economic D evelopment A uthority s hall elect a pres ident, treasurer, and s ecretary on an annual bas is . E DA Resolu+on No. 87-06 also states in A r+cle I I , S ec+on 7, that the pres ident, vice-pres ident, s ecretary, treasurer, and assistant treasurer s hall be elected at the annual mee+ng of the A uthority and s hall hold office for one year or un+l s uccessors are elected and qualified. The a<ached res olu+on elects such posi+ons for the Economic D evelopment A uthority. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: O pera+onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip+on U pload D ate Type Res olu+on 1/7/2020 Resolu+on Le<er E DA Bylaw Resolu+on 1/8/2020 Backup M aterial Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: EDA RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION ELECTING OFFICERS FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 469.096 provides that an economic development authority shall elect a president, treasurer, and secretary on an annual basis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Authority hereby elects the following officers to serve through December 31, 2020, or such later date as their successors are elected and qualified: President/Treasurer Vice-President Assistant Treasurer Secretary January 13, 2020 Date President The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by commissioner 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. Economic Development Authority DAT E:1/13/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :A ndrew S plinter BY:A ndrew S plinter, I nterim F inance D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu+on O p+ng not to Waive L imited Tort L iability for 2020 B ackground: Each year the E DA mus t choos e whether to w aive tort liability limit protec+ons of Minnes ota S tatutes 466.04 as part of the insurance policy renew al applica+on proces s . M .S . 466.04 states that the maximum liability for a city for any claim is $500,000 with an aggregate maximum of $1,500,000 per incident. I n pas t years the E DA has chos en not to waive the liability limits and the regular premium for ins urance has covered all claims. I f the E DA w ere to waive the limits s et by s tatute, it would be prudent to purchas e addi+onal ins urance coverage to cover possible higher aw ards in liability claims . P remiums for such insurance w ould be approximately $3,500 per year. B udget I ssues: The 2020 budget an+cipates leaving the no w aiver op+on in place for 2020 and has an+cipated ins urance premiums based on that no waiver op+on. Waiving the s tatutory limits w ould require that approximately $3,500 in addi+onal premium cos ts be allocated for 2020 and in each s ucceeding year. S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip+on U pload D ate Type E DA Res olu+on for Non-waiver of liability limits for 2020 12/16/2019 Cover Memo Commissioner introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: EDA RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION OPTING NOT TO WAIVE LIMITED TORT LIABILITY FOR 2020 WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center has an option to waive its protection under the tort liability limitations contained in Minnesota Statutes 466.04; and WHEREAS, the statutory tort limit for 2020 is $500,000 per individual with an aggregate limit of $1,500,000 per incident; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center has not opted to waive its rights to limited tort liability in past years and is required to make a declaration of its intention every year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the Authority does not waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.02 for 2019. January 13, 2020 Date President The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by commissioner 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. Council/E D A Work S ession City Hall Council C hambers J anuary 13, 2020 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.F reeway P ark – Mound Cemetery Memorandum of Understanding (MO U) (20 minutes) 2.Curbside R esidential Organics Recycling Options (20 minutes) 3.O pportunity Site Update (30 minutes) 4.Housing Policy Framework (45 minutes) 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 Hub - (upcomi ng CC presentati on) Rental L icense Update - (upcoming CC presentati on) Census Update - 1/27 C D B G F unds - 1/27 Concept Review for 61st & Brooklyn B lvd D evelopment - 1/27 Commemoration of 400 years of Slavery A ctivities - 2/10 L ivable Wages - 2/10 Use of E D A Owned P roperty - 2/24 F ood Trucks - 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:1/13/2020 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:Do ran C o te, P ub lic Works Directo r S UBJ E C T:F reeway P ark – Mound C emetery Memorand um o f Unders tanding (MO U) (20 minutes ) Recommendation: It is rec ommend ed that the C ity C o uncil c o nsider provid ing d irection to s taff regard ing the s tatus of F reeway P ark. B ackground: T he January 5, 1970 C ity C o uncil meeting minutes indic ate that the “C ity Attorney and the atto rney fo r Mound C emetery As soc iation had tentatively agreed upon the language of a d o cument thro ugh which the C ity of Brooklyn C enter will obtain a 75 year lease o f the s o uthern 4 acres o f Mound C emetery fo r p ark p urposes at a cost o f $15,000.00. T he s ub jec t p arcel rep res ents the last parc el to b e ac q uired und er the 1966 HU D O p en S p ace P ro gram.” A 75 year leas e b etween the c ity and the Mo und C emetery As s oc iation was rec o rd ed in January, 1970. T he exp iration of the lease is Dec ember 31, 2044. In Dec ember, 2013, the Mound C emetery Ass o c iatio n ap p ro ached s taff with a p ro p o s al to vac ate the leas e and trans ition F reeway P ark bac k to the cemetery to be us ed fo r its original purp o s es . T he Assoc iatio n indic ated an emerging interes t in natural b urials, more families who d es ire up right mo numentatio n, and a growing religious c o mmunity whose b urial requirements vary fro m the traditional Eas t-West rotation. T he c ity and the Mound C emetery As s o ciatio n c ontinued to meet and d is cus s the termination of the leas e until 2018. T he city had proposed retaining a portio n of the cemetery fo r p ark p urposes but the Assoc iatio n rejected the propos al. T he As s o ciation c ited the financial imp rac tic ality of a s maller c emetery and the need for p ublic utilities and a maintenanc e fac ility. After meeting with the Mo und C emetery As s o ciatio n in July, 2018, the c ity agreed to retain the s ervic es o f a cons ultant to master plan the future of F reeway P ark. In O cto b er, 2018, the c ity retained the s ervic es o f I S G , a land s cape architec ture firm with a s trong rep utation for p ark p lanning and d es ign and c o mmunity engagement to p rep are a Mas ter P lan fo r F reeway P ark. O n Ap ril 15, 2019, s taff and I S G met with the Mound C emetery Assoc iatio n to disc uss the o utcome o f the p ark planning proc es s and the recommend ed o p tion fo r F reeway P ark. T he As s oc iation in respons e agreed to d o nate an ac re of the c emetery with some c ond itions to fac ilitate the mas ter p lan. After additio nal disc us s io n with the Assoc iatio n, the c ity d rafted a Memorandum o f Und ers tand ing (MO U) to memorialize the parties ’ und ers tand ing o f the terms o f the vac ation of the leas e and the d o natio n o f the land . Policy Issues: Do es the C ity C o uncil s upport entering into the MO U with the As s o ciation and c reating a smaller F reeway P ark? Do es the C ity C o uncil d es ire to let the 1970 lease run until expiration after which there wo uld b e no F reeway P ark as it exis ts to d ay? Are there any o ther c o nditio ns the C ity C o unc il wo uld like to s ee in the MO U? S trategic Priorities and Values: Enhanc ed C o mmunity Image AT TAC HME N T S : Desc rip tion Up lo ad Date Typ e F reeway P ark – Mound C emetery R eport 1/7/2020 C o ver Memo F inal MO U 1/6/2020 C o ver Memo M E M O R A N D U M DATE: December 20, 2019 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Doran M. Cote, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Freeway Park – Mound Cemetery Report This Freeway Park – Mound Cemetery Report has been prepared to document the history of the cemetery and the park as well as provide possible direction moving forward. Mound Cemetery History 1862 - 1970 •Mound Cemetery was established as a cemetery in 1862 by farmers and lumbermen who moved to Brooklyn Center and the surrounding area from New England. The earliest grave markers in Mound Cemetery are from 1855. •The original Mound Cemetery was 2 acres in size and had 80 lots with 16 grave sites each. The first addition to Mound Cemetery added 2 acres plus a looping road network and flagpole. The cemetery is now 15 acres in size with a one-way road network. •On May 14, 2012, the Brooklyn Center City Council adopted a proclamation declaring May 28, 2012, as Mound Cemetery Sesquicentennial Day. •Attachment 1 included with this report is a historical perspective of the cemetery from the Mound Cemetery website. Freeway Park 1968 - 2013 •On April 8, 1968, the City of Brooklyn Center initiated condemnation proceedings for the south 4.02 acres of Mound Cemetery for public use for park purposes (Attachment 2). Staff could not find a resolution authorizing the condemnation proceedings, however, the attached Notice of Lis Pendens (lawsuit pending) by the City of Brooklyn Center was recorded against the title of the property. •The January 5, 1970 City Council meeting minutes indicate that the “City Attorney and the attorney for Mound Cemetery Association had tentatively agreed upon the language of a document through which the City of Brooklyn Center will obtain a 75 year lease of the southern 4 acres of Mound Cemetery for park purposes at a cost of $15,000.00. The subject parcel represents the last parcel to be acquired under the 1966 HUD Open Space Program.” Attachment 3 is a copy of the January 5, 1970 minutes. AT THE CENTER I I • After discussion among the City Council, a motion was made and seconded authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the above referenced lease. The recorded January 27, 1970 Lease of Cemetery Land is included as Attachment 4. The expiration of the lease is December 31, 2044. • Historic aerial photographs indicate that Freeway Park was developed and in use in 1971 (see below). Freeway Park – Mound Cemetery Current Status 2013 - 2019 • In December, 2013, the Mound Cemetery Association approached staff with a proposal to vacate the lease and transition Freeway Park back to the cemetery to be used for its original purposes. The Association indicated and emerging interest in natural burials, more families who desire upright monumentation, and a growing religious community whose burial requirements vary from the traditional East-West rotation (see Attachment 5). • The city and the Mound Cemetery Association continued to meet and discuss the termination of the lease until 2018. The city had proposed retaining a portion of the cemetery for park purposes but the Association rejected the proposal. The Association cited the financial impracticality of a smaller cemetery and the need for public utilities and a maintenance facility (see Attachment 6). • After meeting with the Mound Cemetery Association in July, 2018, the city agreed to retain the services of a consultant to master plan the future Freeway Park. In October, 2018, the city retained the services of ISG, a landscape architecture firm with a strong reputation for park planning and design and community engagement to prepare a Master Plan for Freeway Park. • ISG’S community engagement efforts included meeting with city staff and the Mound Cemetery Association, neighborhood surveys, post cards, an online survey, an on-site suggestion box and in February, 2019, a Public Open House was held at West Palmer Lake Park Building. The Open House was also the Parks and Recreation Board Meeting. ISG presented 3 Mater Plan Options (Attachment 7). After considerable discussion, the Parks and Recreation Board recommended Option 1 as the preferred option (see below). Circa 1971 Circa 1967 • On April 15, 2019, staff and ISG met with the Mound Cemetery Association to discuss the outcome of the park planning process and the recommended option for Freeway Park. The Association in response agreed to donate an acre of the cemetery with some conditions to facilitate Option 1 of the master plan. Attachment 8 is correspondence between staff and the Association which ultimately resulted in the city drafting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to memorialize the parties’ understanding of the terms of the vacation of the lease and the donation of the land. Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Brooklyn Center and Mound Cemetery Association • Attachment 9 is the final negotiated MOU between the Association and the city for the termination of the lease and dedication of approximately 1 acre of land for Freeway Park purposes. The text in red in the recitals and conditions were added by the Association and agreed to by staff. The most significant provisions of the final MOU are as follows: a. The formal termination of the lease; b. The city's commitment to rename the park to better reflect the memory and legacy of the families who originally donated the property to the Association, subject to city council approval; c. The city's willingness to pay all costs associated with the closing, including the state deed tax, recording fees, title insurance premiums, if any, and title company closing costs; d. The city's construction of a fence between the new city-owned park property and the cemetery so that park visitors will not disturb the solitude of the cemetery with the Association owning the fence; and e. The city's restoration of the park property being returned to the cemetery with appropriate soils and grass planting, as required in the original lease. • OPTION 1 ·••O'--.... o<t-. ..__, ___ ..,.. 0 o -..... 0 ' . ~.:.~7e,.:=..:...-;:-.::;:.•- • · ::--.=.:-"r.:....--...... -. ·--..... -., ____ ,, 0 -· __ ,..... ___ .. __ _ ...... NC-wtMOd __ _. ______,__ .. ·--------..i.■---""'·-· -----........-. .... •t....,.------ Freeway Park Master Plan Brooklyn Center, Minnesota Attachment 1 Mound Cemetery OF BROOKLYN CENTER Memorial Day 2012 Mound Cemetery Celebrate it's Sesquicentennial 150 years of serving the surrounding Communities TH E N (1862) & -.J!/,11ce,. ,4,.,o---.-1'1 • -:i ~ I,.,,, '(t.• I T he earli est ma rkers in Mound Cem et ery are from 1855: Harris Thompson , 1829-1855 an d Rev . C.H.A John son, 1823- 1855 . This was bef ore t h e Civil War began in 1861 a nd before Lincoln's death in 1865. Mound Cemetery was est ab- lished as a cemete ry in 1862 by f armers and lu mbermen w ho m ove d here from New Eng land. It has gro w n f rom a 2 acr e cemetery s ur rounded by fa rml and to 17 acres surro unded by s uburba n, multicultura l neigh borh oods . , ' NOW (2012) Mo und Cemetery has been a trad ition al b uri al gro und . Today, Mou nd offers addi- tion al cho ices s uc h as crem atio n burial, co lu mba riu m niches, a nd g reen bu ria ls t o meet th e needs of th e co mmunity . Early burial registers were kept in large record books. In 1917, the cemetery secretary was in- structed to keep a record of all burials. Later, a card catalog was used to keep track of grave sales. Today, Mound Cemetery uses a comput- er system to keep track of over 10,000 grave s ites. The original cemetery had 80 lots w ith sixteen graves each . Most grave sales were for 8 or 16 graves. The first map was hand -drawn on fabric paper. Today, any number of graves can be pur- chased and the cemetery uses computer and surveyor maps today . The First Add iti on to Mound Cemetery added 2 acres plus roadwork lo oping around the flagpole . Today, the road follows a one way system for safe traffic fl ow. . . ..,, .... .,· !;;. ,; t."';, ... 1: ... ,. " 1---' .... ~• I I '. I• A,.1,10\_.:, I• ·,·, .... ~-,,,, : .... , , ., .r, .. 'J to/ 1 ;I 1• -f • ·. 1·. t~. r1: • _' I' • ... ·'. Then & Now Funeral Cars 1852 Area opened to settlement 1853 First frame house 1855 First marked burials 1858 Minnesota became a state Brooklyn Township formed . 1861 -1865 Civil War 1862 Mound Cem etery established purchased 2 acres from James Hen- derson 1863 Lincoln's Emancipation Procla- mation 1864 Cemetery plat filed with Henne- pin Co 1865 Lincoln assassinated 1873 Mound Cemetery Association fo rm ed 1875 Mound Cemetery incorporated 1882 Addi tional 2 acres purchased from James Henderson 1886 First Additi on added to Mound Cemet ery 1898 Spanish American War 1911 Village of Brooklyn Center incor- porated 1914-1918 World War I 1920 19th Amendment, right to vote for women 1924 Additiona l land bought from Carl Bj orklund 1926 Additional 3 acres purchased from Peter Peterson 1936 Land acquired from C has. & Mar- garet Parker 1939-1945 World War II 1950-1953 Korean War 1952-1967 Period of growth at Mound Cemetery 1954 7 acres acquired fr om Frank Howe 1960-1975 Vietnam War 1964 -Civil Rights Act 1966 Brooklyn Center City C harter and became a city in 1966 by a referendum vote 1970 Mound leases land t o C ity of Brookly n Center for Freeway Park 1990-1991 Persian Gulf War 2001 Afghanistan War begins 2003-2011 Iraq War 2011 Brooklyn Center Cente nni al 2012 Mo und Cemetery 150th Sesquice nte nnia l A nniversary Wars-Blue National Events Changing History The Wo rld of 1898: The Flral Regiment or MIJ1no101n Volunloor 1nran1ry Memorial Day 2002, Ca1111011 Falls, M/1111osoto Mound Cemetery Civil War Veterans Bickford, Charles, 1839-1890, 11 th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Company F Bohanon , Samuel H., 1833-1927, Hatch's Battalion, Minnesota Cavalry Company E Bragdon , Alonzo , 1828-1887, 9th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Company A Brown, John A, 1831-1897, 122nd New York Volunteer Infantry Company H Gray, Benjamin, 1841 -1904, 9th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Company F Howe, Asa, 1821 -1885, 1s1 Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Company F Howe, Eben, 1829-1903, 6th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Company B Howe, Samuel , 1825-1898, 6th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Company B Jentsch, Henry, 1841-1917, 8th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry, Company K Merrill, Samuel W ., 1842-1918, 9 th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Company A Moses, Howard M., 1842-1922 , 13th New Hampshire Volunteer Infantry Company E Norris, Joseph, 1840-1905, 11 th Minnesota Volunteer Infantry Company F Partridge, Truman , 1844-1880, 19th New York Cavalry Co . H, 1301h New York Infantry Company H Shoop , Anthony, 1837-1886, 19ih Ohio Infantry Company C Wales, Samuel, 1838-1923., 2nd Indiana Cavalry, Company B Whitney, Joseph M ., 1828-after 1880, Pvt/Sgt 113th Illinois Infantry Company A, U.S . Signal Corps Mound Cemetery Founders with Civil War connections: Asa Howe, Samuel Howe and Joel Howe were founders and veterans. George Stout was a founder and veteran buried at Champlin Cemetery. John Wales was a founder and veteran burled at Minneapolis Pioneers and Soldiers Memorial Cemetery. Andrew Huff was a founder and veteran . George A. Plummer, founder and veteran, was buried at Lakewood Ceme- tery. John P. Plummer, founder, was the father of John W. Plummer of the 1st MN, both bur- ied at Lakewood. J. C. Past was a founder and father of two veterans: Edward Past of the 1st MN and Marcus Past of the 1st MN who died at Gettysburg . rn so MIMMESOTA * * * • * * * * * * * 18<,I C IYI l WAR l 8(1.S 'IJPr.orl11m11ti.on J)f:('/.,fRIN<i M.,f I' 211. W/2. ,IS MO UN/)< 'JiMl,TfiRr o(/JR UOKl.l 'N CENTER SF..\'Q l/lC 'E/1'/'HNNI A/, l>A )' . lfl/1 1;/(e;I!): Mmmtl CM11·1,•,:1•, 11•/1lt ,f//1'('///l'('JI (l(·r,•s, WM ,,.,l(lb/1,rllrd OIi M<•)' l. /861, /ly (J J.:l'tltl/1 <,f furmcr.v will /11111//,•r,11,·11 wlw .firs t .1c1tlrd lht• lircu 111t1,1·1l,1•./rt>111 /V,111· /,)1Klm11J /Ill(/ p11rc/111,v1,1,l,f11r SJ() /11'11 ,I,·I•es ,!f /1111,I ti/ 69th A1~•1111,· Nt1t1/r 111'<1I' 1'11/1111'1' /.,1J.c Jiw11 Jm11v,, wul l:'//w f-l,·111/1•n.m1 11•///, 11,,· vllpulatlwr r//111 1/t,•/r /Jm•ci!I 11111.1·1 ,1/lmy.1 he med jiJr "(71,//'.1• ,kr,,.r", w/rlfr tli~ la.,1 .,c1·r11 (l(:re,, wcr,· IIClfll(r,11/ 111 I 'IS ,/,f,·11111 frrmk /;', lfoir,•; rmd 11'/JEl(fill.\; 'f'/1r ,\/011111/ C.:,•111t'/,•r)' As,oc/(lf/rm 11m far1111 •d 1111,/1111~ 5, /,\'73, 11'/t /, n (,'crtificati' ]1/ei/ /11 I l.•1111,•111r1 C01111(11 1111111/111: C. R I lrnt ·i'. N.Ci. 1JM0 11. 11~!1. Fhm·h,•1·. ,J.M. D11;•,1r,111 flll/l/0,11 /Jo/11,,um. ,1111 J ftm•t•, /J/11/ II . II. lle,~•'OII ,,., Tru.itrt·s, 111111 /11c1111,om1e1l In 18 76 rltl'li11i: ,h11 I h1wc ,u· l'res/dc11t: 11111/ H'/1/i /(l;;;fs, 'Ill~ c,,,.11,,,1 cmi11•1c1:1· 11/llrkcl'.f jiw11 /,~5S, /lm·r/1· 1'/11,1111,smr (l82Y-l i'iS $/ 11ml 1/t,• /IC'\'t'/'e11d C.H .A . ./(1/111.~011 (l ,V:!J-185 5), /J/'1•-dn/e 1/11•.J111111d/11g 11/ Jiu· Stull' ti/ 111/11m•.1011r um/ 1/1111.fmm ,1,.,.,.,, ,wrlfr.rt ,ltV'-' of llrm,k(l'!I Towm/rlp ,liw uwr 15() y t'o1·.,, 1hr cr mv1,•r.1• hm fi1 /lh /11I(,· mu/ ,·u11t lm11111~/y st,.,.,.,/ 1/,,· d 1y'.1· .lmu1,11tm, dpwmlr ru11111m11ity: w 1d WIIF:RJ::,1s, Th,, t e111rr.•1:1' 11·,iv urigh111lly m1111r ,I "Mmmd < 'c111t!rer,v 11 lu•c1111w (// the /11d/r111 11lf11111d.( /1wmc d 111 1/1,• .wm/t e11rl <// 1'0 /111,•r lak<J. ,1111/ w1,:--//1•.fl 11.-,llcml'tl /ly Ir., w1/11111ar,1• lloc//'tl qf /J/l•r1w1•s "11, (j()(/ m· 11 /,11(1• b11rl11/ fJ/11ce JiJr Ills d1/ldn·11 wul w,u Sl/C/'l!cl /11 1/w ,·w111111mlty 11; ,111cl lflllf.'Rl:',.1S. 1\(1my ci1/z,111.1 ()j 1/J,• r l~l' of llrook(1•11 C<J111,·r wdrtl' w,• t/c.m ·11d11111s 11' 1/w.n.1 h11rll'd t,1 Mu1111tl C,·11Mel )', t111tl mrr)' /11 1/Jdr fll'c,rls 1111•11wrh•4 '!f /lr111rclp11r~111.r, 1111N11ls, ,1/l,J,'11g.1, d11/tlrc11. wrtl r .<l,•11dr 1Jf,1111ily, ,md ,•tlfl)' /11 //relr 111/nds .,111rh·s r1111sc·,I ,l1111·11.fi·o111 g,·11<•rt11/o11 1,1 gv11en1tir 111 ; m11/ fl'H/i/UiAS, A/01111,I C,•111<•1<•1;\' ,if /Jrr)c)k/y,1 C,·11l,•r, lrr1J1r11·,v /t.i ~·111'1/I (ml'II ,·l mmC'IVf, /,y ,·,mr/1111/,ri; /I,, ml.rsla11 to •·eh•brnl~ //1111/(J'. lo 1•0/ur fa/1/,.l,r,si,1/ 1mdllio11.1·, mul 111 •·111hmc.·,• c1·~r-du111glliJ,! cu/1111·0/ 011d <'1/1111<-c11r lo lll,f OIi lwlmlf of j/rJl,1'1111,I Mi111 1,•11polls rnfl111•b1111 rmfd,•11I.1 11., a .,·cfc, lm11111J11/. parnf11/ xettlni: tledic11fr1/ Ill 1/w r!'11tcmbrn11cc 11111I lwrllttgi' 1iflhew lm'Cd 011es. NOii', 1'111:.'IIEFOR/:.'. I ,IS MA !'Ok (W 1'f/E. U/1'1' I JP 11{100K/.l'N c'fN/'l:'J/, S101t• ,)j A/llmc.1(1/rt, wllft thr ,·1111.M// 1111<1 .•1111;1111 ( r1/1/rc llrvmkl.1'11 Cmfl'I• ('fry Cormt'II. <la hvrd~1• pr,11'111/111 Ma)' 21i: 1012, crs Mo11111/ C,•ml'/••rr <!I /JN111kiyfl I ·c11f~r Sc•sr111 lt,·11t1•m1/11/ I.J<ti• /11 l/r11<•kf.r 11 l'c111er, Mil1rr"suI11, ,111,I wi;e ,,11 d tlze,1.1· lo Jo i/I Ill 1/lls ,1//~dttl 11/J:,e, 1'111/Ct•, A/{l\1 /4, }012 A sp ecial thanks to Mike Binkley for your tim e & support of Mound Ceme te ry . :x: ,;,;,-::-I ,_4 < 1 ,::'b , ,, Mct1'11r Thank you to the following people: Mayor Tim Willson J im Moffet (1st Minneso ta) Don Le hnhoff (Band of Praise) Myrna Kauth & Ra y Frls vold (American Legion) S cott & Fra n ces ca Bill (VFW) Chuck Quigley (VFW) Jim Condon (Boy Scou ts) To the memory of all the veteran's that served our county . Our mission is to provide cemetery and perpetual care services to the public and preserve the hist orical burial grounds of the founding f am Hies of Brooklyn Township. Our goal is to maintain Mound Cemetery as a safe, beautiful, peaceful setting d edicated to the remembrance and h e ritage of our loved ones. Mound Cemete ry Ce le brates Family and Tradition Mound Cemetery is a safe, bea ut iful , peaceful setting dedicated to the rem embrance and heritage of our loved ones. Our values of ho nor, respect , trad ition and excepti ona l service a re re fl ected in everyth ing we do. Whethe r you live nearby, have fam il y al ready b u ried at Mound Cemetery , or are looking for highly personalized service, Mound Cemetery is he re for you. Every Family is Special at Mound At Mo und, we und erstand th at there a re m a ny ways to g ri eve -a nd many ways to ce lebra te a li fe . Whatever your re ligious customs , ri t uals or person al desires, we will do w ha teve r we ca n t o me et your expect ations. www.moundcemetery.com ~ Mound Cemetery O F BROO K LY N CE N TER J:.stabltshed 1862 Mound Cemetery of Brooklyn Center ~pprov,-<I Prov id er t.>5 2-935-09 54 11j/1rr I 952 -93 5-0953 f,1.,· I i11fo @111 o u 11cl cc mc ccry.co m I www.mo undccm c1cry.co m C l·.~11:Tl·JW I< H.t\J'l l)N .15 15 69 th Avc nm· Nor rh. Bro ukl)'n cmcr, tvt N 55 429 /t/1J111ul Cwt'/1·1:,, llsiod,11il111 of Bmok61// Ctwt'tc•ry iJ 1111 Mm-f'rojit 01r.1111iw1iim. 1111111,igrd by ,1 \1,/111J1111:r Bo,m l of fJir,t/11/'J. Attachment 2 I --.. ,, co (!) 0) m n:: CL <t STATE OF MINNESOTA COIJNTY OF HEITTIEPilf City of Brooklyn Center, a munlcipal corporatlon, Mound Cemetery Aseoctat1on, Petitioner, Re&pondent. 'DISTRICT COURT FOURT!t JUDICIAL 'DISTRICT NOTICE OP PENOF.NCY OP PROCF.EDtNG IN Tit£ MATTER OP THE COND.EMNATlON j OF CERTAIN LANDS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY POR PUBLIC usr POR PARK PURPOSES it THf. CITY OF BROOKLYN CENT£R NOTIC8 IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the above entitled action has been commenced and that the Petition thereln ls nov on file in the office of the Clerk of the Diatrlct Court above nall'led; tha : the nam&1 of the parties to ea!d action are•• above 1tated; that the parcel of real property affected, 1 l~volvcd. and brought in question by eeld action la the tract of land ln the ·' City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, Seate of Minnesota. deacribed •• ,, I '! follows, to-wit: Parcel A The southerly 4.02 acrea of th~ eft1terly 494.64 feet of tot 2, More particularly deecribed aa: The southerly 4.02 acrea of the following deacrlbed property: Corm1encin3 at the 1outhea1t corn~r of Lotz. thence wet along the aouth line thereof a distance of 494.64 feet, thence north to a point in the north line of aald Lot 492.27 feet veat fr0111 the northeast corner of Lot 1. thence •••t to the northeast conier of Lot l, thence aouth to pofot of beglnnlng, Auditor• Subdiv1alon ~o. ZS, Hennepin County. M1nneaota 1 •• thOlffl on the up or plat thereof on file and of record tn'the office of the Regleter of Deeda in and for "cnnepln County, "innesota. • I ,, .i ·i 'I NOTICE la fut'thet' glven that the object of said action h to take and condemn an eaee111ent ln and over the entlt"e parcel of real property here• .l inabove de:sc:-ibed for publ le use for park purpose a, ,, :i ! ,j ·i i :I :1 I I !I 11 ii ! ' I I ·' Dated: April j_, 1968. SCHI'EFl'ER AND BAKKE .,( Rich Attorney fo 1290 Brookdale Centet" Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Telephone 561•3200 I --.. 1 1. ..• (X) (!) 0) m er: a..· <{ . , ' ,- STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF lff:llNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT , , City of Brooklyn Center, a munlcipal corporation, NOTICE OP PENOENCY OF l'ROCEE!>ING , IN nlE KATT£R OP THE CONDtHNATlO!i 1 OP CERTAIN LANDS IN HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC usr FOR PARK PURPOSES U TR£ CITY OP BROOKLYN Petitioner, -vs- I CENTER ,. Mound Cemetery Asaoclat1on, ·I Respondent, NOTlC8 IS REREBY OIVEN, That the above entitled ■ction has been co11W11enced and that the Petition therein la now on file in the office of the Clerk of the Dt ■trict Court above nailll!d; the: the name ■ of the parties to ea!d action are•• above stated; that the parcel of real property affected, I ,: i"volved, and brought in question by uld action f.l the tract of land in the ·' I City of Brooklyn Center, County of Hennepin, St ■te of Hlnneaota, described aa '! fol10ttrs, to-wit: 'I Parcel A ,i The eoutherly 4,02 acru of th• cuterly 494.64 feet of lot 2, 11 'I Auditore Subdivilion No. 25; ·I 11 Hore particularly de ■crtbed a,u ,I 11 Th• 1outherly 4.02 acrea of th• following ducribed property: 1 1 Conwencina at the 1outheast corn~r of tot 2. thence "8at along the aouth line .I 4 ii thereof a d~•tance of 94.64 feet, thence north to • point in the north line of aaid Lot 492.27 feet v1111t frO!Q the 11orthea1t corner of tot 1, the11ce eut ; , to the northeast corner of Lot 1, thence •outh to point of beginning, IC .I fi I Auditor• Subdivieion ~o. 25, Hennepin County, Hinne ■ot ■, •• 1howt1 on the -p or plat thereof on file and of record tn'the office of the Regleter of Deed• in and for "ennepin County, Hinneaota • l 't 'I NOTICE le furthe r glven that the objec:t of sai d ac:tion h to take ,, and condemn an easecaent ln and ove r the entire parcel of real property h e re- .: inabove dt"sc:-lbed for publ tc \J&e for park purpooea. ·: Dated: April -L. 1968. ,; ·I I 'I ,, .l I : i ·l 11 I I I !, SCRitFYER AND !AKlCE By( Rich Attorney fo 1290 Brookdale Center Brooklyn Center, ~lnneaota 55430 Te lephone 561-3200 Attachment 3 I I I Minutes of the .Proceedings of the City Council of the City of Erooklyt). Center In the county of IieMepin and State of ______ M..:..1"'-.M=esota _ . J~nuary S, 1970 The City Council met tn session and was cnlled to order by Mayor PhlUp Cohen at 7:35 P. M, Roll Call: PhUip Cohen, John Leery, Earl Rydbe rg, Howard Heck and Th eodore Willard. Also present were: Dci>..a ld Poss, Char.es VanE e ckhout, Richard Schieffer, Robert Haannan, James Merila and Bambridge Peterson. Reverend Wayne Mensing of Cross of Glory Church offered the ~nvocatlon. MoUon by Earl Rydberg and seconded by Howard Heck to approve the minutes of the December 29, 1969 meeting as submitted. Voting in favor were: Ph111p Cohe n, John Leary, Earl Rydberg, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard. VotJ.n~ against were: none. Motion carried unan!mo1.1sly. · Motion by John Leary and seconded by Theodore Willard to approve the minutes of the December 30, 1969 meeting' as submitted. Voting in favor were: PhiUp Cohen, John Leary,, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard. Voting against were: none. (.Earl Rydberg abstained). Motion carried. Motion by Earl Rydberg and seconded by Howard Heck to adjourn the 1969 Council. Voting in favor were: Phillp Cohen, John Leary, Earl Rydberg, Howard Heok end Theodore Wlllard. Voting against were: none. Motion carried unanimously. City Clerk Allens. Lindman administered the oath of office to Councilmen Vernon L. Ausen and Howard W. Heck and Mayor Philip Q. Cohen. The 1970 City Council was called to order by Mayor Ph111p Cohen at 7:45 P. M. . Ro ll Call: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon A.usen, Howard Heok and Theodore Willard were present. Motion by The odore Willard and seconded by John Leary to reappoint Councilman Howard Heck as Mayor Pro-tern. Voting in favor were: Philip Cohe n,, John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck ond Theodore Willard. Voting against were·: none. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Howard Heck end seconded by Vernon Ausen to confirm Mayor Cohen•s re appointment of Mt. Paul Ditter as a member of the Planning Commission for a tenn of two years effective January 1, 1970. Voting in favor were: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ause n, Howard Heok and Theodore Willard .. Voting against were: none. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Theodore Willard and seconde d by John Leary to confirm Mayor Cohen's renppointrne.nt of Mr. Henry Bogucki as a member of the Planning Commission for a tenn of two ye ars e ffective January 1, 1970. Voting in favor were: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard. Voting against were: none . MotJon canied unanimously. Motion by John Leary and seconded by Howard Heck to confirm Mayor Cohen•s appaintment of Mr. Karl Schulle r, 3417 -65th Avenue North, as a member of the Planning Commission for a term of two years effective Ja nuary 1, 1970, to replace Mr. Vernon .Ausen whose term expired on December 31, 19 69. Voting in favor were: Philip Cohe n, John Leary, Vernon Aus en, Howard He ck and Theodore Willard. Votlnq against were, none . Motion can1ed unanimou.s ly. I I I Motion by Theodore wmnrd. and seconde d by Howard Heck to confirm Mayor Cohen's reappotntment of Mr. Donald Reichel to the Park and Recreation Commission for a three y 0ar term effective January 1, 1970. Voting ~n favor w ere: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Aus e n, Howard Heck end Theodore Willard. Voting against were: none. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Howard Heck and seconded by Vernon Ausen t o confirm Mayor Cohen•s reappointme nt of Warren Olson to the Park and Recreation Commission for a three y ear term effective ranuary 1, 1970. Voting in favor were: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Ve rnon Ausen, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard. Voting against were: none . Motion caJTied unanimously. Motion by John Leary and seconded by Theodore Willard to confirm Mayor Cohe n's appointm e nt of Mrs. Henrietta Ande rson of 5344 North Lilac Drive as a member of the Park and Recreation Commission for a term of three y ears e{-feotive January 1, 1970 to replace Leslie Hagen whose tenn e xpire d on December 31, 19 69 . Voting in favor w ere: Ph111p Cohen, John Leary, Ve rnon Aus en, Howard ~eek a nd Theodore Willard. \Toting against were: none. Motion carried unanimously. Ma yo r Cohen mentioned that appointme nts to the Human Rights Co1nmiss1on and the Conservatlon Commission will be submitted to the Council at the next meeting. Motion by Theo dore Wlllard and seconded by Howard Heck to confirm Mayor Cohe n's reappointment of City Clerk Alle ns. Lindman as w eed Inspector. Voting 1n favor were: Philip Cohe n, John Leary, Ve rnon Au s en, Howard He ck and Theodore Willard. Voting agatnst were: no ne . Motion carried una nimously, Member John Leary introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 70-1 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR AND ALTERNATE DIRECTOR TO SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing res olution was duly seconded by me mber Vernon Ausen, and upon vote being take n thereon, the following voted in favor the reof: PhUip Cohe n, John Leary, \fernon Aus en, Howard HP.ck and Theodor e Willard; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon sald resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Theodore Willard introduced the following r esolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 70-2 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING COMMISSIONER AND ALTERNATE COMMISSIONER TO SUBURBAN SANITARY SEWER COMMXSSION The motion for the adoption of the fore going resolution was duly second ed by me mber Howard Heck, and upon vote be ing t a ke n thereon, the following vo t ed in favor the reof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Ve rnon Ausen, Howard Heck and The odore Willard; a nd the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said r esolution w as d e clare d duly pass e d and adopted. Me mbe r John Leary introduced the following resolution and moved 1ts adoptio n: RESOLUTION NO. 70-3 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY LEAGUE OF .M!llJICIPALITIES -2- 11 I '•,\ The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded ···., by me mber Howard Heck, ond upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Phlllp Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck e.nd Theodore WJ.llard; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Vernon Ausen introduced the following resolutlOn and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 70-4 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING REPRESENTATIVE AND ALTERNATE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE METRO SECTION OF THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA MUNICIPALITIES Th e motion for the adopUon of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by memb e r John Leary, and upon vote being mken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Aus e n, Howard Heck and Th e odore Willard; ana the following voted agalnet the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Member John Leary introduced the following resoluUon and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 70-5 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING DIRECTOR TO THE SUBURBAN SANITARY DISPOSAL AUTHORITY The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Howard Heck, and upon vote being taken the reon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck end Theodore Willard; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon s aid resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Memb e r John Leary introduced the following resolution and: moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 70-6 JmSOLUTION DESIGNATING THE BROOKLYN CENTER STATE BANK A DEPOSIIORY OF CITY FUNDS The motion for the adoption of the fo:rogoing resolution was duly seconded by member Theodore Willard, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor the reof: Philip Cohe n, John Leary, Vernon Aus e n, Howard He ck and Theodore Willard; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Me mb e r Howard Heck introduced the following re solution and moved its adoption: JmSOLUTION NO. 70-7 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS A DEPOS.rrORY OF crrx FUNDS The mo.tion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Ve rnon Ausen, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard; and the following voted against the same: none , whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. Me mb er Theodore Willard introduced the following resolutlOn and moved its adoption: I I I · RESOLUTION NO. 70-8 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE MARQUETTE NATIONAL BANK DEPOSITORY OF CI'lY FUNDS Th e motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly s econded by member John Leary, and upon vote being taken the reon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, John lflary, Ve rnon Ausen, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard; end the following voted ag<)Jnst the same: none , whereupon said resolution was d e clared duly passed and adopted. Motion by Theodore Willard and seconded by Howard Heck to designate the Brooklyn Center Post as the official newspaper for •the City of Brooklyn Center during the year 1970. Voting in favor were: Philip Cohen, John Le1!u:y., ve mon Ausen, Howard Heok and Theodore Willard. Voting against were: none . Motion carried unanimously. Motton by Howard Heck and seconded by John Leary to approve the following licenses: g.9arette Ucense Bill West Pure 011 Station Burger King Fran's Purity Dairy Freddie's Super Sf)rvioe Ideal Northbrook Drug Woodshed Garbage and Refus e Hay_ling license Bautch Disposal Se rvice Boyer Garbage .Service 2000 -57th Ave. No. 6110 Osseo Road 902 ... 53rd Av e . No. 6601 Lyndale Ave . No. 5740 Morgan Ave. No. 57th & Morgan Ave. No. 2931 Marshall Sti. N.E, Hamel Non-Jnt.oxicating Malt Uguor "Off-Sale" Ueense Fran's Purity Dairy Taxi Cab Ucense Town Taxi Corp. 902 -53rd Ave. No. 7440 Qxford Street Voting in favor were : Philip Cohen, John Leary, Ve rnon Ausen, Howard Heck and The odore Willard. Voting against were: none. Motion carried unanimously. At this time the City Manager related 1nfonnation to the Counoil that the City Attorne y and the attorney for the Mound Ce mete ry Association had t e ntatively ~greed upon the language of a doownent through which the City of Brooklyn Center will obtain a 75 y ear lease of the southern 4 acres of Mound· Cemetery for park purposes at a cost of $15,000.00. The subject parcel r e presents the l ast parcel to be acquired under the 1966 HUD Open Space Program. Afte r discussion among the Council, a motion was made by The odore Willard and seconded by Howard Heck to authortze the Mayor and City Ma_nager to execute a 75 y ear lease with the Mound Cemetery Association for the southern 4 acres of the Mound Cemetery for park purposes at a oost of $15,000.00. Voting in favor were: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard. Voting against were: none. Motion carded unanimously. At this time the City Me.nager announced the resignation of Public Works Director Charles Van Eeckhout effective January 31, 1970. A motion was made by Howard Heck and seconded by John Leary to acknowledge wtth regret the r esignation of Public Works Director VanEeokhout. Voting in favor were: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Auseti, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard. Voting against were: none. Motion carried unanimously. -4- I I I The City Manager then announced for Council confJnnatJon his appoint- ment of James Merila as Public works Director effectlve February 1, 1970 at a monthly salary of $1,333.00. After additional disousslon regarding the background of Mr. Merna, a motion was made by John Leary and seconded by Vernon Aus e n to oonflrm the City Manager' a appointment of James Merila as Public Works Director effective February 1, 1970 at a salary of $1,333.00 a month. Voting in favor were: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard. Voting ,against were: none. Motion carried unanimously. The City Manager next discussed 'with the Council the "catch-up" feature of the 1967 legislative act which requires communities to become current in retirement fund remittances. He stnted that Brooklyn Center had e l ected to make up the lagging one year obligation over a four year period and that the 1969 installment therefor was included 1n the 1970 tax levy, thereby necessitating a temporary loan. Motion by Vernon Ausen and seconded by John Leary to authorize a temporary loan of $17,500 from the General Fund to the Employees Retirement Agency Fund to finance the "catch-up" provisions of the 1967 l egislative action pertaining to P.E.R.A. Votlng in favor were: Ph111p Cohen, John Leary , Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Theodae Willard. Voting against were: none. Motion carried unanimously. Councilman W1llard reported to the Council on his meeting with the 'Metro Section of the Minnesota League of Municipalities regarding snowmobiles. Councllman Willard passed out to the Council and City staff a League information s heet on the reg;ulatlon of snowmobiles which contained a "model" ordinance for political s ul:idiv1sions to follow. Motton by Howard Heck and seconded py Theodore Willard to adjourn the meeting. Voting in favor were: Philip Cohen, John Leary, Vernon Ausen, Howard Heck and Theodore Willard. Voting against were: none. Motion carried unanimously. The Council meeting adjourned at 8:40 P. M. /~ cZ--- Cl rk Attachment 4 ' ...... 0 ,._ en - I 3825318 . LEASE OF CEMETERY LAND . . ,z~" PARTIES: This Lea s~ made th is~(¥....,..__ 19.l!2_. be.t.,een MOUND CEMETERY AS SOCIATION• d,y of ~ , (h ereinaf~red to ~s the ~C~metery~) and THE CITY OP BROOK LYN CENTER. (h ere in- after referred to PI the "City"). The Cemetery warrants that it !s a public cemetery association organized pursuant to Chapter 62, Laws of 1864. State of Minne so ta, and that it has full right to let the Lease to premises in accordance with that certain Order of the District Court. Fourth Judicial District. dated November 30, 1968, and record e d in the off Lce of the Clerk of District Court, in and for Hennepin Co unty as File IC-768 and that any right of appeal Fursuant to said Order ha s been voluntarily terminated, The City warrants that it is a City of the second class, ~perat1ng pursuant to the Statutes and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota and its Home Rule Charter. DESCRlPTlON OF LEASED PREMISES: The Cemetery hereby leases to the City that certain tract of land legally described asi The South 354.87 Feet of Lot 2, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 25, Hennepin County Minnesota herein called the Premises. The Ce~etery wattanta that lt ownea the leased premises in fee simple and that the property is free from all encumbrances except those reatriction1 iMpoaed by law upon public cemetery associations. TERMI The term of this leaae shall be aeventy-ftve (75) y ·ara, commencing on the lat day of January, 1970 and end ina on the 3lat day uf December, J044 ; unle1a terminated earlier aa here• inafter provided, . !Y!l• In consideration of thla leaae, the City 1hall pay to the Cemetery the lump sum of Fifteen Thoueand ($1S,OOO.OO),Dollara, Thia Instrument was drafted bya Schieffer, Hadley, Bakke & Jensen 1290 Brookdale Center Minneapolia, Minn. 55430 This eum ohall bo payable on or befor~ the expiration of thirty (30) days from the approval of this lease by both parties. ThP City shall tako possession of the pre~ises immediately upon payment of the rent. PURPOSE: The City is limit e d ln its useage of the premises to those purposes set forth in that certain Court Order referred to in the first paragraph of this Lease Agreement. ALTERATIONS AND 1MPROVE9ENT S : The City shall have the right to make changes or alterations to the leased premise s which are reasonably necessary for ust as a public park and recreation facility. No change or alteration shall at any time be made which shall permanently impair the leased premises for cemetery purp~ees upon the expiration of this l •aee, Any structures or improvements presently existing on the leased premises may be removed and any_ structures or alterations consistent with the intended use by the City may be rlaced ~pon the leased premises subject to the provisions hereinafter set forth escept that no public improvement may be placed on ••td premiaea, the financing of which will extend beyond the term of this lease or affect the underlying fee intereat of the Cemetery. The financing of all public improvements on the leased premises or serving the lea,ed premiaea er ,irvlng the leased premlaee shall be the obligation of the City. TAXES 1 ASSESSMENTS AND COVERNMINTAl CHARCES: All taxes, apeclal aaeeaementa, or other government chargea impoaed by any public body or governmental unit with respect to th·• lea1ed premiee11 described herein, shell be paid by the City, reaardleee ot whether the ~harga, tax, or a•••••ment le impoaed upon the occupant, l•••••• ls~aor, or fee owner of the prami~••: SURRENDER AT £X 0 tRAJION 0~ T~RHt Th~City 1h1ll vacate the leaaed premises upon the expiration of th• term. The City shall remove all its park improvement s and other prop e rty there from so that the Cemete ry can reposaess the lease d premi ses f or futur e use in acco rd a nce with its dedicat e d purpo ses . mo o rdin- ance, act. or other proclamation of the C! c 1 , .,, ;t!I s ucc ess or goveromen'tal unit shall in any \ol'ny pr e v ent the termination of this lease, except on th e terms expressed h e r e in, The City may, at the expiration of th e t e rm of thi s Lease, or from tim e to time at any tim e prior to the termination of this Lease, remove from the ~eased premise s any or all material, equipment and/or property of any kind installed by the City thereon, provided that • such property is remov~i without substantial injury to the leased premi s es , No injury shall be considered substantial if . it is promptly corrected by restoration to the condition existing prior to the installation of such property. The City shall not be responsible for the restoration of aay iaprovementa made upon the leased premises by the Cemetery prior to the term of th1a Lease. CHAIN LlNK FENCE: Up~n taking posse11ion of the leased pre miaea. the City shall move the cha1u link fence exi1tin& a cr oag the Southerly boundary of the premise• to the Northerly boundary or the premise,, Upon aurrender or expiration of the term of this leaae, the City ehall move the exi1ttng f e nce across the Northerly boundary of the premise, back to ita original ~vaition. acro,a the Southerly boundary of the premi•••• ASSICN~ENTS ANO SUBLEASING1 The City lpecifically reserve, to itself the right to a11lgn or transfer it• intereet in thia J ~e,a to a duly conatlt~ted public authority charged with the re1ponaibllity of maintaining the ay~tem of public parka for the City of Brooklyn Canter,, The Cemetery ple~gaa that it will not a11i10 or ■ell th, und e rlying fee tntereat to anyone except a -3- , .. ,,,,:;y:;._ .. , .... ·\;·It;' ':~ .. successor cemetery association. Other than the ubove, both parties agree that they will not assign or sublet, sell or convey their interests la the premises nereia. hEVERSlON: If the City shall c ease to use the premises for its intended purpose, tt sh~ll revert to the Cemetery. DISSOLUTION OF CEMETERY: Upon any voluntary dissolution or termination of its existence, without a duly qualified successor cemetery organization, the Cemetery warrants that it will assign all of its right, title and interest in the leased premises to the City, but subject to duties imposed upon the Cemetery by law. HOLD HARMLESS AND INSURANCE: The Cemetery shall not be liable for .injury or damage to persona or prop•rty occuring within the leased premises, unless caused by or rea•lting from the overt negligence of one of the agents, eervanta, or employees of the Cemetery. The City shall caua~ :he Cemetery to be named aa an additional i~su•ed upon any liability in•urance pol1c1ee whtch the City ahall have covering itself for liability and da~age arising from the leased premieea. LESSORS OBLIGATIONS: The Cemetery ahall hav• .~ duties nor ob113ationa with re1pect to thia L•••• other than to ••k• the land available to the City of Brooklyn Center. CONDEMNATION PROC!!DtKOI: lf the whole of th~ leased property, or auch portion thereof ea -111 make the lea•ed property unauitabl• for the park purpoaea contemplated herein, 1• cond~mned for any public uee or purpose by any le~ally conatituted authority, oth•r than the Clty of Brooklyn Center, then in alther of auch event, th1e Lea•• ehall caaa•, at the option of th• City, fro~ tb• time vhan poeae,alon la taken by euch pu~l1c a,thority. Such termination . aball be vlthout prejudice to the righta of either t~e Ceaetery or the City to recov•r compenaatlon from the coodeanlng authority for any loss or d a mage caus e d by such cond~mn~tlutt, Nc !th~t the Cemetery nor the City shall ha,~ hny rights in or to any award made to the other by the cond e mnin g authority. nor shall the Cemetery be obligated to refund to the Ctty any rent paid uoder this lease. MISCELLANEOUS PROVI S IONS: The paragraph headings used in thiP Lease are for purposes of c o nvenience only and shall not be used for purposes of interpretation, 1N WlTNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands and seals this ... , "[/1.day of MOUND CEMETERY ASSrCIATION NO SEAL ,,---,,._... .. ______."''''\"'( .. l"T -~~----'. NO CORPORATE .::·SEAL/ I \.__ __ _.,_ --' ........ ~,.,_,.--._,. .. .........._:_j Witneaa TilE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER c_j ' ,'i ' _/ By I 1._,_,.., (~~1 '---. ·-' Donald C. Pv••• Its City Manager Witneu i/Ji lrw1.ifSi=,-----d tZ · .,/Li·(; Attachment 5 B M ound Cem eter y or BROOK I VH CEN TER Mound Cemetery Association Proposal to the City of Brooklyn Center December, 2013 Mound Cemetery's goal is to ''maintain a safe, beautiful, peaceful setting dedicated to the. remembrance and heritage of our loved ones". Established in 1862, Mound Cemetery Is a public cemetery association organized pursuant to Chapter 62 Laws of 1864 of the State of Minnesota . It celebrated 150 years of service to the community, Memorial Day 2012 (See Attachment 1). We were pleased when the Brooklyn Center City Council proclaimed "May 28, 2012 as Mound Cemetery of Brooklyn Center Sesquicentennial Day" (See Attachment 2). MCA's voluntary Board is proud to contribute their energies to fatnilies at the time of the death of a loved one ond respond to the changing requirements of the communities we serve. MCA's formal Mission Statement Is "to provide cemetery and perpetual care services to the public and preserve the historical burial grounds of the founding families of Brooklyn Township.'' On January 27, 1970 the City of Brooklyn Center and the Mound Cemetery Association entered Into a seventy-f Ive (75) year lease for approximately four ( 4) acres of land adjacent to the Cemetery in consideration for $15,000, ending on December 31 , 2044, unless terminated earlier. This property Is currently known as Freeway Park and lies between the Cemetery and Highway 694. It ls legally described as: The South 354.87 feet of Lot 2, AUDITOR"S SUBDIVISION NO. 25, Hennepin County Minnesota (See Attachment 3). Request : The Mound Cemetery Board requests that the City of Brook lyn Center consider· vacating this contract, filed with the Special Assessments Clerk oh May 21, 1970, and requests that the City and Cemetery jointly coordinate transition of the Park proper·ty back to the Cemetery to be used for its original purposes. The Cetnetery's ratiohale for making this request now rather than wait until the contract expires Is to allow the both the City and the Cemetery to plan thoughtfully for the future. I 11'1 1.•,.~,. l l')S.\ I i11fntf•n11u1111 lr w1rr, rv.,11 111 I I\W w.111111 11 1J I'., 111 ,·1ro 1 ,,1111 1'-1 '\ h'J rl , l\,,·,,11., l\n,rh . llr,,.,~f)'" C'<111cr, MN ~~•12 '1 \J • .,, ,( I , .,,11.-tl, 1,,,,, 1.1/1011 ,,/ fir, ,J./1, < r111,·,r,, 11 ,,, /\',, J\1,f,'1 ,,,,.,,,1/.• ,,,,,,,, 1,1.1• •~•"' ~,., I ,d,1111.111 11,.,n,/ •!I /I,,,.,~,, Mo und Cemetery 01 uooi<1v,, c,N 1u The Cemetery needs to expand its interment space to better meet the needs •of the communities it serves; while the City needs to plan for the recreational Interests of Its citizens. rhe increasing and changing community needs of the Cemetery include on emerging interest in natural burials, more families who desire upright tnonumentation (which requires larger buria l plots), and a growing religious community whose burial requirements vary from the traditional East-West rotation. Past Improvements: Over the past few years, several improvements have been made to the Cemetery Including offering additional choices such as cremation burial, co lumbarium niches, and green burial. We Introduced a one -way entrance and exit to assure increased safety especially during funerals. We also added a new colutnbarium, planted several new trees, and created a serenity garden and memorlal pathway making the Cemetery more attractive. In fact, the Cemetery was recognized within the October, 2013 ICCFA Magazine for its responsiveness to changing memorialization traditions (S ee Attachment 4). Future Needs: In the next few years we will need to add new interment space, to upgrade the paved roads, and to trench irrigation throughout the Cemetery. We also need to expand our maintenance facilities and build permanent office space. As a result, the Cemetery contracted with Anderson Engineering to update our site plan and make preliminary plans for the future (See Attachment 5). Phase One includes adding additional Interment sections, removing an existing garage, and building permanent facilities within the proposed annexed area. We do not anticipate that any additional Cemetery entrances will ever be necessary. Phase Two demonstrates how the Cemetery might use the newly accessed land to further expand In near future. As you can see, we believe that Mound Cemetery Is on increasingly valuable Brooklyn Center neighborhood asset. One that is connected to other community organizations, adds to the attractiveness of the entire area, and shou ld be viewed as a strategic part of the whole community. We hope you agree that this Is the time for us to begin to pion ahd act on this future . 2 of 3 I C ·-·-·-·-·- INTERS TATE: 94/694 Legend 0 Sanitary Manhole • Storm Structure w Hydrant ->'t-,, Street Light ~ Portable Restrooms T Specla l Slg ne ge Drinking Fountain □ Bench 0 Trash Receptacle (B) Basketba ll Hoop ----+ Storm Sewer --Sanitary Lines --Water Lines >+-++-Fence • Trails ~ Playground c=J Building s & Shelters ~ Pavement Sports Fields -·-·-· PowerLlnes Concept Park Parcel -72,968 SF Freeway Park Asset Inventory with ~~~~ Parcel ure 3 Public Works Department November 3, 2015 0 25 50 100 Feel I II ' I " I I Attachment 6 D Mound Cemetery OF BROOKlYN CE NTER I I, /,J, f I I' t October 10, 2017 Broo klyn Center City Officials: We have attached three pdfs'. The first (Email 002) highlights suggested boundaries that the Mound Cemetery Board offers, at th is time, as a counter to the City of Brooklyn Center proposal reviewed November 10 , 2016. The second pdf (MCA Anderson) shows the original work of Anderson Engineering whi ch outlines the future plans of the Cemetery . Whil e the th ird pdf (MCA Pork Plan) is a copy of the Cities sl ides present ed in response to our original proposal . We hove agonized about how to best respond to your proposal. As you know , the Mound Cemetery Association Board vi ews the cemetery as an open -s pa ce community asset , not unlike park facilities . It is simply responsive to the needs of a different segment of the community. And you might recall, the land currently leased to the City was originally donated to the Cemetery from one our Boa r d members gr andparents in support of the communities need to hav e a place for remembrance of human remains. So, the proposal highlighted in Email002 is a substantial shift from our initial request , but it reflects our commitment of continuing to serve the commun ity 's needs, and we think, is also consistent with the orig inal intent of the agreement entered into in 1970 . Dan Kantar , Bob Mattson , and I would lik e to meet with you , without our legal counsel, to review this revised proposal and discuss its implications for the City and the Cemetery. You can see in our newly drafted respons e that we have al tered the settlement area (from the your 11/10/16 proposal), but it still allows the City to retain the two parking areas , the pavilion and drinking fountain , and most of the play area . It would require you to remove the basketball court, the baseball field, and t he swing set play area; but it would seem that adjoining property ex ists that could be used should you wish to relocate some of these facilit ies . The land und er these areas is significant and r ec overy is ne cessary fo r the Cemetery to expand and meet future community needs. We appreciated the assistance of Michael Sharp and his staff's work with us to a r r ive at this result, and should we reach agreement, we could engage them in vacating the agreement . •)', '-'J.1'1 -ll')'i' """ I ')'i2 •),\'i 0 1J 'i,\ ,., I 11tluC·< 11111 11111 k c 111 r11:1y,,01 11 I W\\",111u1111 tl1 ,·1111:l c:1r,~•11ll 1 1 ,11 1111 1 1111 1 I 11 ,., l"i I 'I <,1>1li A 1<•111 11 N,111h . l\,.,11kh·11 < ·c:,11 u , lvl N "i'i-1.!') Mound emete ry Of UOOKlYN CEN TER Ir• As outlined in Emall20pdf, we would want the City to replace the fence around the new perimeter, to remove the basketball and baseball f lelds as well as two light poles, some of the paved pathway, and t he swing-set curbing and restore the land to a black dirt state. These requirements are consistent with the original 1970 agreement . The plan would necessitate that the City move the basketball court and swing set and reroute the paved pathway should you wish to retain these current facilities , but it would seem that this design would allow you to do so if there is sufficient community interest. tn addition , we would want the City to provide access water and sewer and allow permits for Mound Cemetery Association to build a new Cemetery office and main tenance bui lding in the proposed location. We believe this "split the baby" plan is o way of achieving the interests of the City and allowing the Cemetery to meet the increasing communities needs for additional land for burial. We look forward to your response to this offer. Please contact Dan Kantor with any questions. Best regards, Mike Michael W. Howe President Mound Cemetery Association Legend a S8T1lt8f')' Manhol e • Storm Structu re Hydren1 -t!1--Street Llghl Pcr1able Restroom s Spe cial Slgnego Oi1nkl ng Foun\llln ., Bench 0 Trash Receptade ® Baaketb811 Hoop Sto,m Sewer Sanl tory lines \f.kl&r Lln as NW Pei,\&(.. ~ Fence (OM,-r"4) Trails t2:) Plsy9r0\Jnd CJ Bulldlngs & Shelters ~PevemM'lt Sports Flelda · Powerl.lOH Concept Par1< Parcel . 72 ,968 SF Freeway Park As se t Inventory with Concept Pa rcel Fig ure 3 Pub/Tc Works Department November 3, 20 16 0 l 6 60 100 FHI City of Brook lyn Cente r -Mound Cemetery Associat ion (MCA) Fo llow-Up November 1, 2017 meeting I) REQUEST: In a December 2013 proposal, MCA req uested the City consid er v acating the May 21, 1970 agreement and to j oin t ly coordinate transition of the Park property bac k to the Cemetery to be used fo r its origina l purposes. II) HISTORY: A) The Cemetery comp leted a strategi c p l an nin g process in 2012 in which It determined that it woul d need more l and to meet the death care needs of the commun ity. Anderson Eng ineering w as retained to develop a draft phased plan which responded to the interests of the Cemetery (Attachment A). 8 ) In December, 201 3 t he Cemete ry submitted its request to v acate the 1970 l ease e ntered into with t h e City (A ttac hment B). C) Severa l meetings occurred between staff of the Cemetery and the City, after which in M arc h 2016, t h e City su bmitted a proposa l to the Cemetery ask in g t h e Cemetery to swap a parce l of land for permanent park use as conside r ation for v acating the lease (A ttachme n t C). D) The City and Cemetery met in No vember, 2016 to discuss the City 's proposal. E) The Cemetery considered the Cit y's offer and made a counter offer to the City in October, 2017 (Attachment D). F) The City and Cemetery met November 1, 2017 to discuss the Cemetery's proposa l , their mutua l interests, a nd oth er options that might be ava ilable. Ill) OPT IONS REGARD I NG THE REQUEST: A) Do not hing . An impasse woul d have no immed iate imp act on the Cemetery . This i s a strategi c issue for both t he Cemetery and the City. The Cemetery will need addition al land for burying human remains we ll before the expiration of the current agreement, which end s in 2044 . With the projected us e of current land ava ilable, given th e incr eas ing needs of the co mmun ity, the Cemetery will no lon ger be of se rvi ce well before 2029. The City wou l d continue to operate Freeway Park as it ex i sts today, but woul d like ly al so become accountabl e for th e operations of Mound Cemetery of Brook lyn Center once it no long er h as income from grave sa les. B) Do som ething: There seem to be two options. 1) Negoti ate a fina l settlement ag r eea b l e to both the City and th e Ce m etery now that allows the parties to v acate the 1970 contract. 2) Agree upon an inte rim, or phase-In p lan , now that so lve s the prob lem of the Cemetery for the short-term; amends the current contract; and postpones any fina l settlement. IV) KEY QUESTIONS ASKED and IDEAS SUGG ES TED DUR I NG THE NOVEMB ER 1, 2017 ME ET ING: A) Wi ll the Cemeteries Perp etual Care Fund be adequate to maintain the Cemetery wh en th e Cemetery no longer has the ab il ity to provide services to the co mmunity? B) I s the City w ill ing to abid e by the current terms of the lease, clo se Freeway Park, and return t he property to the Cemetery in the cond ition outlined in the agreement? C) Wou ld it be pos si bl e for the Cemetery buy the City out of the remaining years of the lease? D) Wou ld the City be interested in acce lerating the termination of the ag re em ent by purchas in g so me portion of t he lease d prop erty to preserve Fr eewa y Park? E) Wou ld it be po ss ibl e to purcha se some of the homes adjacent to the Park and Cemetery to add to th e current land availab le? F) Does the City own so m e other appropri ate parce l of land that it wou ld cons id er sw appin g wi t h the Cemetery for its purposes? G) I s there an interest in cooperat in g on p la ns to bui ld a Cemetery Offi ce and Garage that mig ht se rve both the purposes of the City and the Cemetery ? V) NEXT STEPS (fo llowing t h e 1 1/1/17 m eet ing ): A) Bo t h th e City and t h e Ce mete ry wil l con sid er the collab o rative di sc uss ion fo rm th e No vem ber P 1 meetin g, t h e iss ues eac h has whil e se rvin g res p ec tive Brooklyn Ce nter p o pulations, a nd t h e mu t ual in ter ests and ob sta cl es ex presse d during th e m eeting and pre par e for meet in g aga in t o discu ss po t e nt i al so lut ion s. B) We will m ee t so on and continue to id e n t ify con ce rns and mut ual in ter es t s; to outli n e "must haves " th at beco m e pote nt ial d ea l br ea ker s; and to work t o w ard a two-p a rty rec omme nd ation th at m ee t s th e nee ds of th e Pa rk and Ce m et ery , A B Mour1Li Ce111etery I r I I <01 f I' I • I JI I Ii Mound Ceme tery Association Proposal to the City of Brooklyn Center December, 20 13 Mound Ce metery's goal is to "m aintain a safe, beautifu l, peace ful setting dedica t ed to the rememhronce and heritage of our lov ed ones", Es tablished in 1862 . Mound Cemeter y is a public ce met ery ossoc 1ation or gan i zed pursuan t t o Chapter 62 Laws of 1864 of the Sta te of Minn es ota. It cel ebrated 150 years of service to the comm unity , Memori al Day 2012 (See Attachmen t 1). We were pl eased wh e n t h e Brooklyn Ce nter City Council proclaimed "Moy 28, 201 2 as Moun d Ce met ery of Brook lyn Ce nter Sesqui ce ntennia l Day " (See Attachment 2). MCA 's voluntary Board is proud to co ntribute their energies t o families at the time of the death of a loved one and respond to the changing r equir eme nts of the commun ities we serve. M CA's fortnol Mission State ment is "to provide cemetery and perpetual ca r e strv ice.s to the pub l ic and preserve the historical burial grounds of the found ing famili es of Brooklyn Township." On January 27, 1970 the City of Brook lyn Center and t he Mound Cemetery Association ente r ed into a seventy.five (75) y ear lease for approximately four (4) acres of land adjacent t o the Ce metery in co ns ideration for $1 5,000, ending on December 31 , 2044, unless termit'lated e arlier, This property is current ly known as Freeway Park and lies between the Ce metery and Highway 694. It is legall y described as: The South 354.87 feet of Lot 2, AUDITOR"S SUBDIVI SION NO . 25 , Hennepin Co tJnt y M i nn eso t a (See At tachment 3). Request : The Mound Ce metery Board requ ests that t h e City of Brook lyn Center co nsider vacating t hi s co ntract, f iled with the Spec ial Assessments Clerk on May 21 , 1970, and r eq uests that t h e City and Ce metery jointly co ordinate transition of the Pork proper•ty back to t he Cemetery to be used for its original purpo ses . Th e Cemetery's rational e for making th is request now rather than wait until the co ntract e.><p ires Is to allow the both t he City and the Ce metery t o pion tnoughtfu ll y fo r the future . ,, j • t ! II I, , 11,I ,, • !\,found (: ·t11L·t c:ry The Cemetery needs to expand its inte rmen t space to better me et the need s of t he co 111munities rt serves; while the City needs to plan for the r ecreationa l interes t s of i ts c iti zens. (h e increasi ng and chang ing co mmunity needs of the Ce metery include on emerging interest in natural burials, more families who desire upright monum entation (which requires larger b urial plots), and a growing religi ou s commun ity who se buri al r equirements vory from the traditional East-Wes1· rotation . Past Improvements: Over the pos t few years, se veral improvetnents have been mad e to the Cemet ery i nclu d ing offering additional c hoices such as cremation burial , columbarium niches , and green burial. W e introduced a one~way entrance and exit to ass ur e in c reased safety espec ia l ly during fun erals. W e a lso added a new co lu mbarium , planted several new trees, and cr eated a serenity garden and memoria l pathway making the Cemete r y more attractive. In fact , the Cemet ery was recogn i zed within the October , 2013 ICCF A Maga zin e for rt s responsiveness to changing memoriali zat1on trodi t ton s (See Attachmen t 4 ). Future N eeds: In the next few y ears we will need t o add new Interment spa ce, to upgrade t he pav ed roads, an d to trench irrigation throughout the Cemetery. W e also need to expand our maintenan ce fac ili ties and bui ld perman ent office s pac e. As a resu lt , t he Cemetery co ntrac ted with ~nderson Engineering to update our site plan and make prelim inary plan s for t h e future (See Attachment 5 ). Pha se One in cludes adding add itional interment sections, remov i ng an existing garage , and building permanent facilities wi t hin the proposed annexed area. W e do not anticipate t hat any additi onal Cemetery entrances wi ll ever be nec essary. Phase. Two demonstrates how t he Ceme t ery mi ght use the newly accessed land to furthe r expand in near futu1·e . As yo u can see, we be heve t hat Mound Ce metery is on increas ingly va luab l e Broo l-d yn Center neighborhood asse t . One t hat is co nne c1ed to other community organizations, adds to the att ract iv enes s of t he entire area, and shou l d be viewed as a strategi c par t of t he who le community. We hope you C19ree tha't this is the titTie for us to begin to pion and act on this future. 2 Of 3 I C 67TH AV E N • • •.., • -• .;:-.. T Legend Sa nitary Manhole • Sto,m Sl ructure Hydrant ..,,!-,, Street Li ght Port able Res tro om s Spec ial S1g nage Fl D11 nking Fou rl\ain n 0 I 1 Bench . . Tm sh Rece ptacl e Basketba ll t-loop Storm Sewer Sa nita,y Lin es water Lines \ \ TH URBER RO \ l • \ >+--++-Fence •••• Trail s ~ Playground [ -7 Buildings & $1,e lt ors ~~ Paven1en t Sport s r-l elds Powerlln es Concept Park Pa rce l -72,968 SF Free way Park Asse t Inve ntory with ~~~Parce l PLJbl ic W o rks Departme nt N ovember 3 2015 0 2!, 50 100 r C•ll I I! 1 I J....J....J...l D Mottnti Cen1 te1 y 0 I 8 RU() K I Y r ~ C [ r,, I I J: October 10 . 2017 Brooklyn Center City Officials: We have attached t h ree pdfs' The first (Emai l 002) high l ights suggested boundaries that the Mound Cemetery Board offers. at this time. as a counter to 'the City of Brooklyn Center proposa l r eviewed November 10 , 2016. The second pdf (MCA Ander son) shows the or191nal work of Anderson Engineering which outlines the future plans of the Cemetery. Whi le the third pdf (MCA Park Plan) 1s a copy of the Cities slides presented in response to our or•iginal proposal. We have agonized about how to best respond to your proposal. As you know . the Mound Cemetery Association Board vrews the cemetery as an open -space community asset, not unlike pork facilities. It is simp ly responsive to the needs of a different segment of the community . And you might recall . the land currently leased to the City was originally donated to the Cemetery from one our Board members 91•andparents in support of the communrt res need to have a place for remembrance of human remains . So . the proposal highlighted in Emai l002 is a substantial shift from our initial request. but it reflects our commitment of continuing to serve the community 's needs. and we think , is also consistent with the or191nol intent of the agreement entered into in 1970. Dan Kantor . Bob Mattson . and I would l ike to meet with you . without our legal counsel . t o review this revised proposal ond discuss its implications for the City and the Ce"'etery. You can see ,n our new ly drafted respons e that we have altered the settl ement cirea (from the your 11/10/16 proposal), but rt strll all ows the City to retain the two parking areas . t he pov illon ond drrnking fountain , and most of the play orea. It wou ld require you to remov e the basketball court, the bas eba ll fie ld , and the swing set play area; but 1t would seem that adjoi ning property exists that could be used should you wish to re locate some of these facilities The land und er these areas 1s significant and recovery is necessary fo,, the Cemetery to expand and ,neet future community needs . We appreci ated the. assistance of Michae l Sharp and his staff· s work with us to arrive at this result . and should we reach agreement , we could engage them in vacating the agreement . " I • l q I \ fl I ., II ""' I, ' , ., I \ ,, \ I ' ... 1 I J I II I 'l . I' I ~vlou11d ( :c rnc tcr y i t ' '., As out li ned In Ema il 20pdf, we wou ld wont the City to replace the fence around the new perimeter . to remove the bask etball and baseball fie lds as well as two light poles . some of the paved pathway, and the sw ing -set curbing and restore the land to a black dirt state, These requirements are co ns istent with the or191nal 1970 agreement . The plan would necessitate that the City mo ve the basketball court and swing set and reroute the paved pathway should yo u wish to r eta in these current faci lities , but 1t would seem that this design would allow you to do so if there is sufficient comm un ity interest. In addition , we would want the City to provide access water and sewer and allow permits for Mound Cemetery Association to build a new Cemetery office and maintenance building 1n the proposed location . We believe this "split the baby° plan is a way of achi eving the interests of the City and all owing the Cemetery to meet the 1ncreosIng communit ies needs for additiona l land for burial. We look forward to y our response to thi s offer. Please contact Don Kantor wi th any questions . Best regards, Mike Michael W . Howe Pres id ent Mound Cemetery Assoc,at1on ~ )( to , ~ t-Jt 6J ~ f ~ .. .'t....w,~ ... ~Jdh~ ;,, -· f\7THAVf:. N .. Legend • • Sll'ltrltry Manhol ~101m ~tn.il.'.ture t l ydrant St~el L1gn1 Po1ahl l!! Re91JOOO'll 1F1 °'1nk•11y Fountl!lr1 --. \ Rench 0 Tr111h Recep tedo Balkol ball I-loop S1om1 Sewer -s-.,~torv L111e:1 1N t1er I ines Powbt\.tn t , - .. N.t.&.J ~C(._ ,....... Fenc (ci◄,.,,.J ') • ••• Tr11 l1 ~ F laygrciJM l 7 . Bu1 ldtng1 & Sheller-. PBVN'l'IMI Spena lddlJ -. Conr ·pl Pn11i Pa~I • 72 Q68 Sr- ' I r i ... ...... • { " -~ ! Freew ay Pa rk A sset Inve ntory with Co ncept P arce l Pub lic Wo rl<:s Departmen , No~e1mll'\r 3, 2015 1----- f' 1gu re '.J u J :i bO 100 r ot ·+ w...~~~~-----'-- September 4, 2018 Dear Mr. Bogany: f Mound Cemetery OF BROOl<LYN CE NT ER I write to you as Pres ident of Mound Cemetery of Brooklyn Center in response to your July 18, 2018 email In which you state the City is "open to negotiating an agreement that allow for an eCtrly termination of the lease provide sufficient lond is made available to the City for an oppropriate neighborhood park" and that your "go al is to establish the parameters for a neighborhood park that will serve the cotnmunity future nee ds while minimizing t he amount of currently leased land requ ired.'' In fad , we were under the impression that we had already entered into negotiations when the Ci t y offered it's March 2016 propo sa l. And I wou ld remind you that the City ha s not forma lly responded to the Ceme·teries October 2017 counter~offer (please see attachment}, even t hough i't has now been almos'I' i•en tnor1'1'11s since our Offer wa s made. I, along with 1'he M ound Cem etery Board of Directors, are still hopeful that we can come to a mutually agreeable arrangement. Starting in 2013 Mound Cemetery bega n engaging t he City with 1'he concerns t he Cemetery had regarding the Cemeteries ever -shrinking amount of grave space available and t he need fo reconsider the lease for the space currently occupied by Freeway Park. The original lease was signed on January 27, 1970 when the detnogrophlc conditions of 1'he City were ver y different than t hey are now. Per the projections that we shared with the Ci·ty in 2017, the Cemetery wi ll run out of space arollnd 2029, well before the lease for ·th e pork land is up in 2044. In fact , otIr recent grave sales have been stronger than expected, and thel"e is the pos sibility that our projection of having no space left (and therefore ceasing op erations as a non-profit full-service community NFP cemetery) may have to be slightly revised downward from 2029. As such, it is imp erative: tha1· we hav e fresh and mea ningful dialogue wi t h the City as concerns our October 20 17 Proposa l. Essentially our Pr oposal t o the City is to resolve the issue of inadequate grave space by tr,utua lly agreeing to r escind 1·he 1970 Lease . The Cemetery would agree to sign over to the City a stna ll park area (as noted on our attached O ffer) for permanent use and the Cemet ery would be abl e to L1 Se the balance of the land for going-forward grave spa ces. As you are aware, Mound Cemetery has been an ac tive Cemetery serving the community and has become very popu lar with certain A frican - American groups (in particular th e Liberiat, population) du e to t he good relat ionships and the Cemetery making accommodati ons such as allowing upright monumerrr·s . The Cemetery has also bec ome Increasingly valued by the Mus lim community as it provides dedicated grave spaces for traditional Islamic burials. As always, the Mound Cemetery Board of Directors is dedicat ed to developihg the Cemetery as a valuabl e community asset, open green space, and a place for the City's residents to have r epose for their l oved one s. This is especia ll y true for the aforementioned religious and ethnic groups, bu't true as well for others within t he Brool(lyn Center co mmtIni'l'y . Th is 952-93 5-0954 ,,fJ,,, I 952 -935-0953 /,1x I i11fo@mou ndccm ctcry.1:1.111\ I www.mou ndcl!mct~ry.com C:[l\fli'l'l·.ln' rm o\'l lflN 35 15 691 h J\vcnuc No rth, flroo ldy n Cen tC l', MN 55429 Mo1111d C1111tlt~~ Jlsw:i,1tim1 of !Jmok!,,, Cemmry Is 1111 Non -Profit or,.v:11r,ill,Jlfio11. m1111ngtd ~y II Vnlwu,11y B111mJ 11/ Dit'tt:ftJI'!. , Mound C emeter y OF UllOOKl YN CE NH R said, the Board must a lso acknowledge that tne Cemetery's use by residents has grown-and continues to grow-at a rate never expected back when t he 1970 Lease was signed. As you know, we were good enoLtgh to shore information with t he City regarding the financial status of the Mound Cemetery of Br ooklyn Center Perpetual Care Fund , and now we need to make serious decisions con.cerning the Cemetery's going-forward stat us and viability. As expressed within your July email, we understand that ·the City may need to engage an external consultant to review the park and its surrounds. If the City does so , th e Board hopes that any consultants would begin wl1·h the qu estion of wh c:rt Park services cou ld be pr ovid ed within the current Proposal on the table, and we would thinl< that you would want the consultant to engage the Cemetery directly so as to understand our position regarding the valua1·ion of the land being considered, our needs for the future, and our own strategic planning and especia lly con sider such within the City's planning. I again wish to rei terQte 'l'hat we originally approached the City regarding our concerns back in 2 013 . Five years later th e only thing that has changed i s that we are five years closer to the day whet1 Mound Cemetel''Y will be comp letely fu ll and cease to operal"e as a going-forward enti'l'y at which time it will , hecessarily, begin to spend down its Perpetual Care Fund as a bridge t o 2044 and co nsider eviction if necessary. I respectfully request t hat your office respond within 30 days to our October 2017 Proposal and Offer so that we can ei·l·her move the dialogue and settl ement of this important issue forward or consider other options. Respectfu lly, Michael Howe President , Mound Cemetery Email CC: Mayor T im Wilson, Michael D. Sharkey, Mound Cemetery Association Board , Meg Bee l<man , Jirn Glasoe, Dol'al'l Co ·1·e1 Michael Marsh D Mouncl Ccn1eter v ., '-' I LI I! (JO t. I Y N C' I I• I I\; Ii October lO, 2017 Brooklyn Center City Officials: We have attached three pdfs'. The first (Email 002) highlights suggested boundorit?s thot the Mound Cemetery Boord offers, at th,s time. as o counter to the City of Brooklyn Center proposol reviewed November 10 . 2016. The seco;id pdf (MCA Anderson) shows the original work of Anderson Engineering which outlines the futu r e. plans of the Cemetery. While the third pdf (MCA Park Pion) is o copy of the Cities slides presented in response to our ol'iginol proposal. We hove ogon, zed about how to best respond to your proposal. As you know, the Mound Ceme,ery Assoclotiol'I Boord views the cemetery os on open~space community asset. not unlike park facilities. It is simply responsive to the needs of o different segment of the community. And you might recall. the land currently leased to the City wos originally donated to the Ce.metery from one our Boord members grandparents in support of the commur11ties Med to hove a place for remembrance of humon remains. So. the proposal highlighted in Emoil002 is o substantial shift from our initial request. but it reflecl's our commitment of continuing to serve the community's needs, and we think, is olso consistent with the orig,nol Intent of the agreement entered into in 1970. Don Kantor , Bob Mattson . and I would llke to meef with you , without our lega l cour111el, to r eview this revised proposal ond discuss Its implications for the City and the Ceme.tery. You can see In our newly drafted respons t thot we have altered the settlement area (from t he your 11/10/16 proposal), but Ir still allows the City to retain the two parking areas, the pavilion and dr1nkirig fountain . and most of tht play oreo. It would re.quire you to remove the bosketboll court. the baseball field . ond the swing set ploy area: but i t would seem thot adjoining property exists that could be used should you wish to relocate some of the.Se focilities . The lond under these oreos is significant and recovery is necesso,•y for the Cemetery to expand and meet future col'nmunity need s . We cpprec:foted the osslstonce of Michoel Sharp and his staff's work with us t·o omve at this result , and should we reach agreement, we could engage them in vacat ing the agreement . I "-o 'f \",., .... I ,u, , '"• ,1 ,I •H , ,. ""' ,1 , ,, 111,,u u.l, 11 11 ·,,. 0 11 I ,•I \,, \ •• ,11 1, ·•,, I I 1\,,,,,1 I · ,, I I ,,,. 11 I', 'I ,., J\11ound c:cn1ercry I • l!.,,1 l it, '1 1' • As outlined in Emoll20pdf, we would wont the City to replace the fence around the ne.w perltneter, to r'emove the basketball and baseball fields os well os t wo light poles, some of 1he pove.d pathway. and the sw ing-set curbing and restore t he iond to o black dirt state. These requ irements are consistent with the or19inr1I 1970 agreement . The plan would necusitote t'1of the City move the basketball court arid swing set and reroute the paved pathway should you wish to retain these current facllitles, but ,t would seem thot this design would allow you to do so if there is sufficient community interest. In addition . we would wont the City to provide access water and sewer and allow pel"ITlfts for Mound Cemetery Assoclat1on to build a new Cemetery office and maintenance building 1n the proposed loca tion. We believe this "split the b(lby '' plan is a way of achieving the interests of the City and allowing the Cemet ery to meet the increos,ng c.ommuntties needs for additional lan d for burial, We look forward to your response. to th1.s offer. Please contoct Dan Kantor with cny questions. Bes1 regards . Mike Mic.hoe.I W. Howe Presidem Mound Ce1t1etery Assoc,ation (l TH AVE N Leg end M S1Jnltory Man~oto l -i y11run1 Slrl,l'l1 l.lf.l111 P01'1Bbl& Hontru omn Spoc 1nl s1nn ago ... . ·~ ·":l . .. "-. - 8 onr.h (£1 Tru ~h RotoptncJo BOllll l'IU'Jn ll Hc1<:p Storm Sow11 r Sr111lta1v 1.,m.•K 1N:i1nr I.H1 8G PoworUne.a -~·----------·--------- \. J, ~ ,,. \ -..-, ,. ._. .. ~ I t. l ~ .Jf•t --~--.... ~ itl.Ji\ll£!r,. 0 -~ ~· >~. ~$, A. . -·r ... ·-------- ,_...... r-unr.e (et,•rr,-.i) -·-· Trot lG r • 7 Pl:Jy 9rc11M I :· ... :] Bulldlr\()8 & Sh ollors , .. r· :r Pn11nmo 111 Spor\l\ l=lclds Conccr,I Pnr'II Pnrcol • 'la 908 s 1: .. __ ·:-::..-::..-::..:.:.:..:..-::..-_-__ -_-_-..:._-~---_-_ -_ -_ -_ -_ -_-_-_----·--·-··----r -•--··--·-·•-" ·-----··----·--·---·-Pub lic wane s Departm enr N 1wnm hAr 3 . 2015 , Freeway Park Asset Inve ntory with Concept Parcel --·--··--·-·-·-~~-·--... ,.. .•.. u J~ ~r• 10\l r-.ict •• ~ ,~ • .!-_I-LL..,• I I ---- Attachment 7 February 19, 2019 5:30 p.m. -7:00 p.m . W est Palmer Lake Park Building 7110 Palme r Lake Drive Brooklyn Park, MN 5544 3 PR OJEC T O V ER VI E W Brooklyn Center is embarking on an exciting journey t o re -invis ion Freeway Park with a long - term vis ion and master plan that w il l provide the framework for the future development of this park . Th e most important part of the process is hav in g direct feedback fr om nearby res id ents, area leaders, and other valu e d stake ho lders. M EET I NG GOALS T he goal of the meeting is to gather the public's input a nd ideas o n the futu re deve lopment of the park a long with review ing pre lim inary concepts. To stay updated o n the progre ss of the proj ect vi sit the Parks and Recreation page on the City website : http ://www.cityofbrooklync enter.org AT TH l 1C I Ht1• , , I I Mound Curren t City-Leased City of Brooklyn Cemetery Property (,-om Mound Center Property Property Ceme tery PROGRAM VISUALIZATION 8 ap~ • ~m6 • ~unu PLAY COURTS BUILDINGS/STRUCTURES VEGETATION/TURF LAWN .a. ISG I .. ,,~ Freeway Park Master Pl an Brooklyn Center, M innesota ON3931 ~ z 0 l-o.. 0 . 1 I' I ' Ii • I ·' }l ,~ I C) V) ON3937 N z 0 l-a.. 0 ~:"o .1~ I [._t( 1! 1 ' Bea.rd Avcnve North 1 ' : I I 1 J 11 l,L' :: j 1( -.....L~-~~--'-___,, , ,I . .J.-><;:;,..--....-r::-:.--;--=-~~ 1 ,.1 ' _:_ lL l 1 Dr•w Avtt'\UC North ti ·1 1 ("-:, - I ' 1 I· I I • -~ .. 1 I I' I • l' I ' I I , li' ,, li O N3937 M z 0 l-o.. 0 Fr,in<o Avenue North '\ l' I C) V) -· UJ a: UJ I UJ 0 > I . ~ z 0 I- Q.. 0 (.l L . ,\ N z 0 I- Q.. 0 M ) I z 0 t 0 C) V) f"oe,s,,ccmp!etett.s o.xveyandc!t'Op ;n:otn<:'!nd<COMll'l<t"tbe><. N= lTi< ......eytm t>=,cond<n,ec.f )':U'dlike to ,n:Mdo'"""' n-dei>:h-.&. lite fiA lmg1h oxve,can bc bJnd., 'It """"-"'""""°"key.coot/r/Freew,yf>uk I.How~cb)OU <=Frce,,ay P>l'<?Ciroe )'CC.Yar.s-. .. -,,c1ay e.0..:.•- b. ""AAtp!e times I Wttk ( ~ (!Jo=. week ., 07,er (please s:,ecifi? d.Onc.e.;1.fl"IO"lth l. Wl,rt t)l)<(s) of rcc'NlX>1a1 ._....,.,.. cb -=~ .-1 Ciroea!Jdvr;opi,ly. @) e. Sper.s >nd o:hletia ~ ~...,.-.---0 tDcnctpo,-ticp;:,e ;,, ~.. ~il..~ G e.Sb~~ ® a. Playzrcend _..., g,Othe-(pl,...- J.~rari<ttiefclowr'f:'=ln crdctof'""'°""""'to )OU~ sdec-.ing. :,or!; to U5C (I = mar. iniporurn. <I = le.st ~ -I-Pn,xmty to home _!(_ Avublc arne:ries :t.....a..-tena.= _$ Safe,yo.--.d seaMi:y l'lase a,nplete d1is ""'"1 ilr<lcin,p ;n:o tne lllld< COlffl'>Cfflbax. N<f°zlM<""""fh., oeen -lf'f(>fdllc: to~""'"' in-<=ffi (~ 1',e fiA fe,,glh "-""'Y can be foond., 'It WWW-"""<)'mOllkcy,a,mhlr,o..,,...y!',,i< ,_ Ha,,,cl!en do )OU= f'rttwoyP:n? em. JO<r-- .. r,...ycby e.Once•yur b.~................ [Ne,er c. Once• wcel< g. Ov.,,. (plcuc speo fn d. Ona, • month 2. What cy:,e(~ of reC'U1ior•I ac1MieS ~o :,ou po,,icipa.:e in? Grdc .. tl-.n•:,;,ly. s --~ @ .. Spam...,, r.t,letjo ~~-0 t Do~ p.rtxipue., ~-~ -.«>= ~~ "°"""°""""_,, ~--•' ~--,p~equpr,ert 3. Rase ra..i.k the~ Cea:cn: S'I U'Cer of imc,oru.,cc, to )OUwhen~apork-,,use (I =:,mt~<=le.,n -1). 3...-..,,,:ohcmc 2._A..A.blc,.,,,....oe, !::t.. ~.-~ Smy-1 s=rcy ~ ~ete th:s svrvey itnd dtopi'lto the~co.~ box. r,..'""' ""'"""°" has been~ W ya.Id ii<, to prcvce mc:tt .,-<!eptii leed'oad<.. 1hc full lc:r.g,h =-, can be l<u>d.i It WWW..NtYe,monl<ey.comf~f'v« t. Ho-Nof-""1 de ycu""' Freevnyf'2N Ciroe y.,,.r a,,swo,; ._1:-,e-ydq e.Once•,.,.,- h.~tirn,s•-,!c ~ c.Once,week I!' Od,.,-(ple,se ,;,eofr) d.Oi=,mon:h 2. Vvl'w ty;,e(,) c! r=erioral ,ajy-, do )'O<J pmic~inl G,de al tNt ap,!y. 3 .. ~ @0'~ e c. Skr.eboa,~<«,11ing @ c1.~equipme:,, (§ .. Spcrts .. 'ld•"1lelics 0 i 0onet~tell reaeationa.l act.'\•z:t.es g.Othet' (bl,=~ ~ ). P" ...... r>rl<ttie fclowr£l,:tasina<Wol'i,,por:z.= to )':',I whcnsd~. ,,.tic"'""' (1 = """'imporunt. ~; least ~_..,,"'_av-a.-~ .:s:-.,,...,,;,;,s \ V"'Sak!y&O<!=tr ~•tl'is RI"")'~ dr0p ...... tho t..ckcomn.:,t box. Natlt<hissi,,,ey~t,o..,~.K)'CU'd ~topro,<le"'°"' M,p:h fttd'oadc. d>e full ler,gtl, =ve, a,, be b.J.->d i!t l< _...,...,,,,_.,,=nvriFnan)f'2tlc l.f-1cwo!tendo)OUu,e~?"1<?Grdey.,,.r,nswe-; a.E-,.dily e.Once•yer b.1".u~-·-(D.leve, c.Orn,...,.;c g.0:lle,·(pleasetpedfy) d.Once ~IT\OC'lih 2. Whit~ of ,,.n.dicNl adv.,.., do)'O<l pan,op,.:e "'1 Grdc.iJ:ha.1,wty. 8 a.Bmz 0 b. W,:l,irefioigi:,g Q c.s~ ®"'~~ @ c. Sports and amle 6::s 0 (De not pamopatc ... r«r9.ticna.l a...-tiv.ztes g.Otn..-e,o,,,,,-.,1 J, ?'...., rari<lhe ~ fu<or\ n orderc'~= to ycuwt.,,,sdedilig,pa,ltcusc:(l ;roost~~~=l'2$l "!'I""":). 'l ..!:L ~ "'""""' ~ 0..,-~ -3__--.,.,..,,.,;.. _I _s.rc<yancsea,n:y Ple.-~e-.1:lhls"""'Y.nd dro;> into,!,, bla<xmmmemba<. ,;o:,,tt,;, o,rq-has been~ If pid ll<o"' f""'"O" ~ in-¢;,1h r..a-.. &. she "" long1h -..,,,,.,,a., be f""'1<!., 'It www.,un,cymonkey.c~Park J, How often do p: l.'Se Freewq Pa,k? Ci-de )'0IZ IAnl,"e". L:=}'d,y e.Ona,,year b.~timesa~k f ~ c.Ooce •-g.Othet'(,,"<=,;,eaiy) d.OroceaMOMh 2. Whzt tr,:e(,j cl ,..,...lion,•~ do)'l'lpart;ap&te-. Code II :hlupply. "e>-Boonc @l ,., s;x,--~ ond ,lhlet<a 0 h. ~ ,r:,. (Do"?:po.~t,., 'O reacatioN! W.Nll!S e c.~ ® d. ~ ~ s.Olhc,f ...... ~ 3. Rease"""""'~ fw.ors., order of I--= to lO<J wt...., 1e'«t,\& • pule» use {I ; m= impo,tat,". < = .e= .,,.,.,,..,1)- _.I_ p Praxmty 10 l>ome ~t= -amenities Safe,yandseo.rity ~~ce t1....,.,..,.1dd-opinro~blad<com...,..,,bo.. N= ,,., .,,.,.,., '"" ...,, O>nd,:m,c, W y<,i/d ~ to f"')"'>Ce = in<e;nn icc6ad<. :J.. Mbgd,1'Jf'VCf OI\ bc f,ound at ,...._.,,,,...,..,,""1<.j,_c,:,n,(rll'recw,)'l'>rlc I.Howdu::ido)<>,.,..ti-eow.,y-Pul<lGrt!e)O.l'u= .. e-.e,yd,y e.Onee•r-...., b.~~..,, .. ·-~ c.=•-g.c=(ple,sespecfyl c.Or.:cc.amo.-.tll 2. YIN.: Tf?e(s) of reo"eit-oNl ~tes co ~~-tic:ipr.e i,.? Orel, a11 = am- ~ .. l!imi ~ b, ~JOW)g G C. ~ '@ d ~ <:q<..;;,,,,,,-.,: @ e.S!x><tsand •lhle'.es ,r>.tD<>noa~in \(__) n:x:r---lticnaJ J.ct:ivi::es: ,;.O-"-.e-0,:,,:.....«)/ 3. P".aser>rn<t-.e ~ fltc-.c,r, ;,,O'doraflr,ix,-t-• to )'OU~~gepa:itto!.25e (I :most,rnp,:J('Ui t.~ =lea-st .,,.,.,.-U.1t). ..... ~ ~tohome __ </....Ck.,,~;ona,,o: ?JLA\Q,lo!,le~ _I_S.:.."'Yud,e::,Jrity p....,. <.<>"Oplet= :his a1vcy andclrop ;,:c ,;,.., ~c<>n-nern """- No:etlissm-,,ey t... bccn ~~you'd lk,cto ~ mc:tt TI-c<p,h-d<. 1h<, !.Jl b-r,t, .....,.an be foo-->d ,t 'It www.su....,....onl<cy-<Offllr{"'~Pvlc I. How<>l':on do)<>, use fr=N-, Pa.~ Orde)Otr .,.,_,._ a.E,,,e,ydly eOrn,yw- G ~etiT.esaweec i N~ C..Onoe:1¥1edc z,Other(ple.ueeecilyi d.O=•mon-:h l. '¥/t-.z.t t)pe.{s) of reou'l>Ol'W ~ CX) )OJ p..~e rr.:? Cide il:hrt,wly. ~ '-9oonz @ .. Spans >nd ·- @ 1,.w.:-~e E)c.~~ ® d ~ ~ 0 lDcnot;:,utii~n ~xtvi.te:s g.01herl),<,<2soe<(jj J, _,., ,.,-i:t ti..~ r.ac.-..., o,derc{ ~ to )'Dl,l~selectii&a.:wktoL'Se (I :rr.ost,roortl..,,.-◄=le.a.st ~ _I_ ProuMy tc 1,ome ....i.. ~=--:Ji-"-~.,,..;,;.. ~ s.fe,yan<Jseorty i Ii ~ 1 lf Ii I ·-1 i i l ! 11~ ! ,. ~ l f l\i i 6 i ti ~ 1 lf Ii f t 6 "' i' I ~ i ~ I i 1· c1 l I I J ~ a 0-i" ~ 'I ~ [l ff Ir f . t i t ! f. Ji f i I i ,t.!l it,.. }11" l ~ i [ •. it K. i l ii hl l ! n· l f~H ; ----- \ Mon lrnpott.!n1 -· -- \ \ \ ~ \\ inport&nl .__ ,_ \ Ncu1t1I -·-\ L~ss inporum -Not lmporu.nl -- it.fl ,t ,.. ¥ ' i j l f i Ii r 1m J 1 i j 11 hj 1 ! 1 ~-~-I f H t Mon 1/'rj)OrtMt ~nt - Neutral I.el< Import ant Not lrnpo<Uht ! , 11 1 r ? IH pu ~ 1 '" l j hj l ! ! ! i f H °' l I - l ~ I I I ;. rn l I , r ~ 8 ~ Mm;\ ltnpnrtMt lrnporunt l../eu1n l Len IMpOt1Mt Nol lmpn,r111nl ii I . j ,'. ,. t,:J . rn l I [ z i( 0 ,,. ~ f ii § g i If f . 1 l I l ~ ~ I ~ I. rn l I I i I ~ iii g 1 lf i t 1 l f l f 1 I ; ;. rn l I Pi [ 5 i t•i ,:yg 1 i If J .:.1 ~{a.~ .. l v-j -+f I"' !-i ~J --~,i 1ii f rn l J 9 I ~ II ~ 7. i!: 0 ~ i' If: 1 If ~ ? Ii ,t -~,t ... i I i pt! i • . ,t l i l i ~ I ll r !f ~ <. I<. K Mort lmponant ~ I<. lmpon.u1t I<.. I<.. Neutral K I<..__ I-<: ten lmpOl'W\1 N ot - lmporttnt . ~-,~i ,.. u • 11 J t i ! I i pH i 1 i a &. hj i ! i .lt~Ho. Moll lrnport iu,t ~•I N ~tr,1 -,-,----~n lmpOl'Wlt NOi 1mpo,1.,,, i i ; 1 J f T j f. { foll ,t ,.. JfJ[ 1 , · i J·· h] A & il ll l ! 1l . ~ ~ f~L- -.>< I.>< I'?' Moi \ ltrj)OrtMt - '>< lmpM.lnt Neutral IX lX ~ Len ;< I)< l~l NCJt l1(1P(HUnt -I f _, i i I f i I I i itilit '" i I ,Ii' JW i 1 i ~ -1t ! ~ hj i i 1 J. l l f Hp_ ~ t>< b< i->< Moil l1tip,Or1inl _,_ ,- ){ .)(. -~ 1-,,por,.,,t >< !?'- ,---- Mtu.itnl --Ton lmpot1ent Nor-" lmpo,1'1\t Brook lyn Cen ter Freeway Park Comm unity Survey Q1 How often do you use Freeway Park? Every day Multiple times a week Once a week Once a month Once a yoar Never Other ( please specify) ANSWER CHOICES Every day Multiple limes a week Once a week Once a month Once a year Never Other (pl ease specify) TOTAL Answered: 9 Skipped: 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% R ESPONSES 11 .11% 33.33% 33.33% 11 .11 % 0 .00 % 11 .11 % 0.00% 1 / 12 3 3 0 0 9 Brooklyn Ce nter Freeway Park Comm unity Survey Q2 If you don't use Freeway Park, what is the reason that prevents you from using it? Check all that apply . Lack o f time Lac k of e quipme nt Concerns a bout perso nal safety Ag e Health/physical di sability Not applicable, ... No interes t Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES Lack of time Lack o f equ ipment Concerns about personal safety Age Health/physical disability No t applicable, I u se the park No inter es t Other (please s pecify) To tal Respondents: 6 Answered: 6 Skip ped : 3 0 % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 16.67% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 66.67% 16.67% 0 .00% 2 / 12 0 0 0 0 4 0 Brook lyn Ce nter Freeway Pa rk Community Surv ey 03 If you don't use Freeway Par k , do you util ize any other City park? Please explain your decision to select your park of choice. Answ ered : 3 Skip ped : 6 3 / 12 Brooklyn Center Freeway Park Community Survey Q4 What type(s) of rec reatio nal activi ties do you participate in? Biking Wa l king/Jogging Skateboardlng/s katlng Pl ayground Equipment Sports and athlotlcs ... Do not participate ... Other (pl ease specify) ANS W ER CHOICES Biking Wal king/Jogging Skateboarding/skating Playground Equipment 0 % 10% Sport s and athletics (fields and courts) Do not participate in rec reational activities Other (please specify) Total Respondents: 9 Answered: 9 Skipped : 0 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 4 / 12 RESPONSES 77.78% 100.00% 11.11% 22.22% 11.11 % 0.00% 22.22% 7 9 2 0 2 Brook lyn Center Freeway Park Comm unity Su rvey Q5 What age group should park programming be primarily geared toward? Check all that apply. 0 • S•ycars •o ld 6- 12-years -old 13 · 18-years-o ld 19 • 30-years-o ld 31 • 65 -ycars-old 66-years -old + All age groups Other (please specify) A NSW ER CH OICES O -5-years-old 6 -12-years-old 13 -18 -years-old 19 -30-years-old 31 • 65-years-old 66-years-old + A ll age groups Other (please spe c ify ) Total Respondent s: 9 Answ ered: 9 Skipped: 0 0% 10% 20% 30 % 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 22 .22% 33.33% 22.22% 22.22 % 11 .11 % 11 .11 % 88.89% 0.00% 5 / 12 2 3 2 2 8 0 Bro okl y n Ce nte r F reeway Park Communi ty Survey Q6 Please rate the overall importance of the of the following park features: Answered: 9 Skip ped : 0 Playgr o und e quplmont Seating a nd p icn ic a reas Pla n ts/Trees/La ndscaplng S helte rs Ope n g reen s pace Accessibility Ligh ting Ball fle lds a nd courts T ra il s 0 2 3 4 5 6 1 8 9 10 MOST IMPORTANT NEUTRAL L ESS NOT TOTAL W E IGHTED IMPORTANT IMPORT ANT IMPORTANT AVERAGE Playground equpiment 57.1 4% 28.57% 14 .29% 0 .00% 0 .00% 4 2 1 0 0 7 1 .57 Seating and pi c ni c areas 0.00% 100.00% 0 .00% 0.00% 0 .00% 0 1 0 0 0 2.00 Plants/Tr ees/Landsca p ing 25.00% 50.00% 25.00% 0 .00% 0 .00% 1 2 1 0 0 4 2.00 S helters 0.00% 0 .00% 50.00% 0 .00% 50.00% 0 0 1 0 1 2 4 .00 O pen gr een space 0.00% 0 .00% 33.33% 66.67% 0.00% 0 0 1 2 0 3 3.67 Access ibility 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 33.33% 0 .00% 0 1 1 1 0 3 3.00 Lighti ng 33.33% 0 .00% 0.00% 33.33% 33.33% 1 0 0 1 1 3 3.33 Ball flelds and co urts 0.0 0% 40.0 0% 40.00% 20.00% 0 .00% 0 2 2 1 0 5 2 .80 6 I 12 Trails Brooklyn Ce nter Freeway Park Com munity Sur vey 60.00% 3 20.00% 1 0 .00% 0 7 I 12 20 .00% 1 0.00% 0 5 1.80 Brook lyn Ce nt er Freeway Par k Community Survey Q7 Please rank the following factors in order of importance to you when selecting a park to use (1 = most important, 4 = least important): Proximity to hom e Avai lable fac ilities ... Clea nli ness/Mal nte nance Proximity to home Safety and Secu rity 0 2 Answ ered: 9 Skip ped: 0 3 4 s 6 1 66.67% 6 Available racilltles (i.e. bathrooms, vending machines, play equ ipmen t, 22.22% shelters etc.) 2 Clea nli ness/Mai nte nance 11 .11% 1 Safely and Security 0.00% 0 8 / 12 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 TOTAL SCOR E 22.22% 0 .00% 11 .11% 2 0 1 9 3.44 11 .11% 11.11 % 55.56% 1 1 5 9 2.00 22.22% 44.44% 22.22% 2 4 2 9 2.22 44.44% 44.44% 11 .11% 4 4 1 9 2.33 Brook ly n Ce n te r Freeway Pa rk Communi ty Survey Q8 How does Freeway Park fit in to the overall vision for the community? I enjoy goi ng to Freeway P, .. I enj oy going to Freeway P ... I do not go to Freeway Park ... 1 do not go to Freeway Park ... Other (please spec ify) AN SWER CHOICES Answered: 9 Skipped: 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% I enjoy going to Freeway Park and place It as a significant aspect of our community I enjoy going lo Freeway Park bul do not place It as a significant as pect of our community I do not go to Freeway Park but I do see It as a significant aspect for our commu nity I do not go to Freeway Park and do not p lace it as a significant aspect of our community Other (please specify) TOTAL 9 / 12 RES PO NSE S 77.78% 1 1.11% 11 .11% 0.00% 0.00% 7 0 0 9 Brooklyn Cente r Free way Park Co mmunity Su rvey Q9 Would you be upset if Freeway Park was removed from the neighborhood? A NSWER CHOICES Yes No Undecid ed T OTAL Ye s No Un decided Answered : 9 Skipped : 0 0 % 10% 20% 30 % 40 % 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 10 / 12 RES PONS ES 88.89% 0 .00% 11 .11 % 8 0 9 Brook lyn Center Fre eway Park Comm unity Surv ey Q10 What can be done to better the experience in Freeway Park? Answered 7 Skipped: 2 11 / 12 Brooklyn Cent er Freeway Pat·k Co mmunity Survey Q11 Do you have any other comments, questions , or concerns Answe red : 5 Skipped 4 12 / 12 Attachment 8 Mot111d Cemetery June 11, 2019 Mr. Doran M. Cote Public Works Director City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Mr. Cote: nF BRCJOKIYN Cl:NTl:R Hr, Since our April 15th meeting with the ISG Consultant, the Mound Cemetery Association Board has met and discussed the three Master Plan Options under consideration by the City of Brooklyn Center. Please consider this correspondence as a formal reply on behalf of the MCA Board. After fully reviewing the alternatives before us, the Board agreed that terminating the January 27, 1970 lease agreement with the City and gifting a "short acre" of land, along the approximate survey lines shown in ISG Option 1, to the city in consideration for the vacating the remaining years on the lease would be the best option for both the City and the Cemetery. In making this determination, the Board weighed the loss of approximately one thousand grave sites that would have been available to meet the needs of the Brooklyn Center communities we serve . In today's financial terms, the Cemetery will lose more than $1.2 million offuture revenue and t he resulting @$240,000 of perpetual care funds which will not be available to support the maintenance of the Cemetery property into perpetuity. Therefore, we trust the City understands the Board's good faith and the resulting value of making this offer, as well as, the difficulty that the MCA Board had in making this decision. Should the City, in corresponding good faith, wish to show support and consideration for the Cemetery as a not-for-profit community asset, we would accept gratefully any contribution the City might make toward the Cemeteries Perpetual Care Fund . We would like your assurance that we can agree to work together toward a satisfactory solution. The Board suggested that we request that the City rename Freeway Park to reflect more appropriately its juxtaposition to the Cemetery, rather than its relationship to Highway 694. If its future name could, in some way, represent the Brooklyn Centers "founding settlers" or honor these who reside permanently in the Cemetery, it might reflect an appropriate "rebranding" once the new Park is established . l)"2-•)'ll:i oll'i .\ , I ,,,,,,Jl"i (l ll'i \ I i 11l11"m11111 11IH·1111 1c 1v .. 1111 I \\'\\'\'/,1t11111111ln •111 t•1~1}',1 111 11 , 11 111 , 1 1 1 11 \'i I 'i 1t1hh i\~c ni1,· N,111h , ll w111,h 11 1 11 1, ,, IN 'i"i \.!'J In addition, you will see that we have proceeded with concept plans for expanding the Cemetery and building a permanent office and maintenance faci lity. We would like your assurance that we would have the cities support as we proceed with these projects. In anticipation of moving thi s effort forward, the Board authorized u s to re -e ngage our Pl anning Engineering firm and our Attorney, which we have done. I have e nclose d Anderson Engineering's Gravesite Yield and Pl anning Concept plan, b ase d upon ISG Option 1, for your review. You wil l notice that they build upon the preliminary work that ISG has done for the City and position our proposed Cemetery improvements. Fina lly, I have enclosed a letter provided by our attorney, Michael D. Sharkey, Cou si neau, Van Bergen, McNee & Malone, P.A. which outlines our potential next steps. The se actions demonstrate that we intend to move ahead in good faith and to negotiate a thoughtful, and timely mutual settl ement which would terminate the current lease agreement b ase d upon its original language . Best r ega rds, ~t,)~ Michael W . Howe Pre sident Mound Cemetery of Brooklyn Center Cc: MCA Board of Directors Michael D. Sharkey Page 2 of 2 r- z 0 .... 0.. 0 ;--_________ _,J -' :---~----------__;,°'::.;;""::.;;";;.;.'-~No<:.:•:.:....-. ! 0. Q) u C 8 0) .5 C C cu ii: "O C cu "O 'cjj ?-5= 1~ () 11 ) ii ' I (z s: ~ :i1 • :'l 0 Christopher P. Malon e• Stephanie N. Maser Michael W. McNeet Tamara L. No votny .. Michael D. Barrett• Rachel B. Beauchamp•• Meaghan C. Bryan• Paul E. Buchel Kimberly Fleming~ Robyn !<.John so n Mich ael C. Llndb ergt Peter M. Lindb erg COUSINEAU I VAN BERGEN • Mi chael D. Sharkey• Je ssica J. Theisen• Peter G. Van S ergent David A. Wikoff Of Counsel Susan 0. Thurm er• June 10, 2019 Mr. Doran Cote Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center , MN 55430 McNEE I MALONE Michael D. Sharkey msharkey@cvmmlaw.com 9S2-525 -6990 Re: Proposal by the Ci ty of Brooklyn Center to Mound Cemetery Our File No.: 65215 Dear Mr. Cote: By way of introduction, I am an attorney who specializes in mortuary and cemetery law . I have been advising and counseling Mound Cemetery as concerns the issues with the acreage that was lea sed to th e C ity of Brooklyn Center. After a recent meetin g with Mr. Howe and Mr . Kantar of Mound Ce metery, I writ e to di scuss the latest round of negotiations with the City of Brooklyn Center. We have revjewed and analyzed the City's rec ent proposals. For various reasons whfoh are not worth addressing, we cannot accept the proposals in Option #2 or Option #3 . However, with so me modifications and additional items, we believe that Option# 1 may be a workable solution . I would note that Mound Ce metery has done the calculations and the "sh ort acre" that would be given over to the City represents a significant loss of revenue for the Cemetery. We have calculated that at today's process we could generate approximately $1.2 million in revenues from the "short acre ." T his is broken down into about $960,000 in sales and about $240 ,000 in perpetual care. These number s do not include any monument or marker sales. We not e this so that the City is fully cognizant, and appreciative, of what the Ce metery is giving up . 1 2800 Whitewater Drive, Suite 200, Minneton ka, MN 55343 Phone: 9 52-546-8 400 Website: www.cvmmlaw.com Fax: 952-546-0628 *Wisco ns in °Nor lh D11kol11 •Colorod o tMSJ3A Donrd Cert ifi ed Triul Specin li ~t June 10 , 2019 Page2 Along with the general parameters of Option #1 we would also ask the following of the City: 1. A survey (paid for by the City) of the land so that it can be properly conveyed. 2. An agreement that the City expedite any permits or other reque sts by the Cemetery for future building or improvements needs , including but not limited to any future water and sewer needs. 3. Renaming the new park as "Founders' Park» (or a very similar name) to reflect the memory and legacy of the families who originally donated the land to the Cemetery and which will now become a permanent City Park. There is an area of the Cemetery dedicated to the founders and thus this would continue the memorialization and legacy theme. 4 . That the City bear the costs of title transfer, etc. 5. An agreement to be supportive for the Cemetery's concepts for roads and building on the Cemetery grounds . 6 . That the City erect a fence between the new park and the Cemetery so that those visiting the park will not disturb the solitude of the Cemetery. 7. That the land being returned to tbe Cemetery be brought back to its original state as is specifically required in the lease agreement. In re t urn for the above items and Option #1 as proposed by the City, the Cemetery and City will mutually vacate the current lease. We would like to move forward as soon as possible and on behalf of Mound Cemetery I look forward to working with the City, its various Departments, and its counsel to effect an amicable and mutually agreeable change to the current situatfon. Please feel free to calJ or write should you have any questions or concerns . Respectfu11y , Michael D. Sharkey DIRECT NUMBER: 952-525-6990 E-MAIL ADDRESS : mslmrkey@c__ymmh w • 111 Counsel to Mound Cemete1y 4849-3679-4009, v. 'l '-oOK t ► ~ JI!"'.. + -"'="'• I -~ .. -----C,,,,,..,,..E,,....1'J'l'ER ----- AT THE I CENTER / I \ , I I \ Jul y 3, 2019 Mr. M ic hae l W . How e Presi d ent , M ound Ce met ery of Brooklyn Ce nte r c/o M.W. Ho w e Co nsulting PO Box 59 Champlin, MN 55316 Subject : M oun d Ce m et ery/Freew ay Pa r k M as t er Pl an Dea r Mr. Howe, In respo nse t o your Jun e 11, 2019, corres pond ence rega rd i ng the three Freew ay Park M aste r Pl an s, after d isc uss i ng your pr oposal with the City M anag e r and oth er city st aff, I offe r the fo llowing responses: • Paragraph 2 -The ci t y ag r ees w ith t erminating the January 27, 197 0 lease ag ree me nt betwee n the c ity and M ou nd Ce met ery of Br ooklyn Ce nter prov ided the Ce m et ery don ate roughly o ne acre o f land for Freeway Pa rk alo ng the approxi mat e survey lin es shown o n ISG Opt io n 1 M aster Pl an. Te rmin at in g the lease and acceptin g th e pa rk dedication would be subject t o City Coun ci l approva l. • Paragraph 4 -The city does not have a policy for p roviding contributio ns t o for -pr ofit ve nt ures and st ate law pro hibits munici palities from p rovi ding gifts t o property o wne rs i n the city. • Pa r ag raph 5 -Th e city ag rees w it h r enaming Freew ay Park in su ch a mann er that it would r efl ec t t he "founding se ttlers " of t he ci t y . Any name change w o uld be subject t o Cit y Co unci l approva l. • Parag raph 6 -Th e city ca nn o t provid e ass u ra nces of sup port fo r p roceed i ng w ith co ncep t pl ans o r for ex panding the Cemete ry an d building a perm ane nt o ffice and m ai nte nance fac ility. The leve l o f d et ail p rov ided ls not sufficient to provid e a ny ass urances . Any future imp rove ment s t o the Ce met ery would be subject t o t he the n curr ent codes and sta nd ards and cou ld pot ent ially re qui re City Counc il approva l. In res p onse t o th e co rrespondence from M r. Michae l D. Shar key of Co usi nea u, Va n Ber gen, McNee & M alo n e, I offer the followin g res po nses : 1. The city agrees to b ear t he cos t t o p re par e a survey to e nsure t he p ro posed land do nation can be pro p erly conveyed. 2 . Th e city ca nnot agree t o expe dite any permits o r o ther reques t s fo r th e Ce metery for fut ure b uild ing or improveme nt nee ds. Any future improvements to the Ce met ery would be su bj ect t o t he then curren t cod es and st andards and co uld pot entially req u ire City Council app ro va l. City of Brooklyn Center Public Works -Engineering Division 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 1 (763) 569-3340 1 www.c ltyofbrooklyncenter.org 3. The city agrees with renaming Freeway Park in suc h a manner that it wou Id reflect the "founding settlers" ofthe city. Any name change would be subject to City Counci l approval. 4 . The city agrees t o bear the cost of the title transfer provided t he Cemetery has a clean title. 5. Th e city cannot provide assurances of support for proceeding with concept plans or for expanding the Cemetery and building a permanent office and maintenance facility. The level of detail provided i s not sufficient to provid e any assurances. Any future improvements to the Cemetery wo uld be subject to the then curre nt codes and sta nd ards and cou ld potentially r equire City Cou nci l approval. 6. The city agrees to bear the cost to install a fence between t he park and the Cemetery. 7. In accordance w ith the curre nt lease agreement the city agrees to return the Cemetery back to its origina l state, The city believes that, In order to move forward to effect an amicab le and mutua lly agreeab le change to the curre nt situation as soo n as possible, a M emor andum of Understanding (MOU) by and between the Mound Cemetery Board of Directors and the city wou ld be appropriate at this time. If you and your attorney are agreeab le t o the response s and conditions out lin ed in this correspo ndence, I will proceed with haste to have our City Attorney draft an MOU for co nsideration . Sincerely, Doran M. Cote, P.E . Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center Public Works -Engineering Division 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (7 63) 569-3340 www.ci tyofbrooklyncenter.org • Motind Ce1netery July 19, 2019 Mr. Doran Cote Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 OF RROOKLVN C t:NTLR Re: Propo sa l by the City of Brooklyn Center to Mound Cemetery and Memorandum of Understanding CVMM File No.: 65215 Dear Mr. Cote: We have discussed the City's July 3 proposal with the Mound Cemetery Association Board as well as with legal counsel. We would like to proceed with your offer for t he City Attorn ey to draft a Memorandum of Understanding. We hope to bring this matter to a conclusion as soon as possible so that we may complete the planning and begin implementation of cemetery expansion. This will entail engi neering and mapping studies, construction proposals, financing and permit r equirements, so we do appreciate your willingness to expedite the proces s. Would it be possible for you to provide us with a tentative timetable for comp leting the Memorandum of Understanding, the City approva l process, and subsequent implementation once approved? We understand that you w ill want to tie this project into the cities ongo ing budgeting process. In respon se to your July yd letter, we offer the following observations and requests: 1) You should find that the cemetery has a clean title since we recently completed a transaction with Hennepin County in which they reinstated an old p reviously donated untitled sliver of land adjacent to the cemetery. W e appreciate the City's offer to bear the cost of preparing a survey to ensure the proposed land donation can be properly conveyed and of transferring title of our gift. I ')'i I 'JJ C-, O')c, \ I i 11f,1(J1 1111111111lt~llll lt'f\',1·rn 11 I \\'W\' 1111111111h nlll'IN \,I 1111 1 11 Vi I 1 (,•>1h \I • nu N 1111h 1 ll w1,klv n l 111 r 1, MN 'Vi ·11') 2) Your offer to bear the cost to Install a fence between t he new park and the cemetery as we ll as return the Cemetery back to its original state is appreciated. Since the cemetery will own the fence and returned property as it did in 1970, we would r equest a) prior review and approval of the city's property restoration specifications and propose d fencing, as well as, b) provide input into the city's decision regarding any pl antings that would be placed in close proximity to the fence. Our concerns are with the aest h etics of the Park as a backdrop to the Cemetery, the qua li ty of soi l such that it is su itable for cemetery grass, and t he potential maintenance is sue s should Park foliage infringe upon the fence and , t h ereby, result in increas ed future Cemetery maintenance expenses. 3) Of some concern to u s is the City's inability to assist us with our future permitting process for a future cemetery office and garage building. This issue seemed to be of concern to the City's previous Director of Public Works, and we are unaware of what conc erns the city may have. Our ability to pla t the property properly and assure timely and cost -effe ctive utility access is important to us. It seems somewhat unusua l and extraordinary that any of our future building plans migh t require City Council approval. This may t ake some further discuss ion, unl ess this statement r ega rding "cu rrent codes and standards" is simply a matter of drafting, In which case the Memorandum of Understanding should correct it. 4) A subject of interest to us is that you recon si der our reque st that the City make a substantial donation, the amount at the Cities discretion, to the Cemetery's Perpetual Care Fund. Our Board is fu lly aware of the Cemetery's inability to make- up future losses in perpetual care fund contributions due to their need at this time to make this transaction . Furthermore, we believe, making a donation towards the Cemetery's Perpetual Care Fund would reflect your understand i ng of the mutual Interest we share in the future of the Cemetery; since by law, this fund is entirely de sig nated toward the long term maintenan ce of the cemetery grounds once the cemete ry is no longer active. There may be so me misunderstanding of the lega l status of the Cemetery as well. The Cemetery is a not-for-profit public e ntity and the Board is uncompensated. It is our understanding that it is not unusual for cities to make contributions to local NFP cemetery's that serve their communities. 5) Finally, we were plea se d to know that the city will be considering renaming the Freeway Park as it becomes a newly b ra nd ed entity. We don't have any specific suggest ions, but it would be gratifying shou ld it reflect the hi sto ry of the 150-year~ old "Brooklyn" cemetery rather than a State freeway. Finally, we want to assure you that the Mound Cemetery Board looks forward to this fresh relationship we are building between the city and the cemetery. Should your City Attorney have question s, please feel free to contact our attorney, Mich ae l D. Sharkey (952-525-6990 ), with the Cousineau, Van Bergen, McNee, Malone Law Firm. Sincerely, -/4,uJ~ Michael W. Howe Pres ident, Mound Cemetery CC. Michael D. Sharkey MCA Board Attachment 9 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND MOUND CEMETERY ASSOCIATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER This Memorandum of Understanding (this "MOU") is made this __ day of _____ , 2019, by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and Mound Cemetery Association of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota public cemetery association ("MCA"). RECITALS A MCA owns and operates the Mound Cemetery (the "Cemetery"), located at 3515 69 th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "Property"). B. The Property consists of approximately 14 .82 acres of real property, although not all the Property is used for the Cemetery. C. On January 27, 1970, the parties entered into that certain Lease of Cemetery Land (the "Lease"), through which the City acquired the right to operate a public park on a portion of the Property known today as Freeway Park (the"Park"). D. The stated term of the Lease is for 75 years and, therefore, the Lease is sc hedul ed to expire on December 31, 2044 . E. MCA completed a strategic planning process in 2012 and determined they would need to vacate the lease agreement with the City , prior to the December 3 I, 2044 expiration , for the Cemetery to continue offering end-of-life services to the community . F. In December 2013 , MCA formally requested the City vacate the lease agreement signed January 27, 1970 and ')ointly coordinate transition of the Park property back to the Cemetery to be used for its original purposes", G. The City is in the process of adopting a new Freeway Park Master Plan, and multipl e options regarding the Park's future have been presented to the parties by ISO, the City's consulting engineering and architectural finn. H. The ISG Freeway Park Master Plan option determined as most desirable to all parties is identified as Option 1, which is generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto , which would require the termination of the Lease, the conveyance of approximately one acre of the Property to the City, and the City's return of the remaining Park property to MCA. In anticipation of this conveyance MCA engaged Anderson Engineering to develop a Long- Range Phased Plan to develop the leased properly as is depicted on Exh ibit B. MEMORANDUM OF JJNDERSUNDING In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter provided, it is hereby understood by the parties as follows: l. The parties will negotiate in good faith a formal conveyance agreement, subject to approval by the Brooklyn Center City Council and the MCA Board of Trustees in accordance with law, to include provisions regarding MCA' s donation to the City of approximately one acre of the Property, as generally depicted on the attached Exhibit A. 2 Upon execution of this MOU by both parties, the Ci ty will initiate the preparation of a professional survey of the portion of the Property to be donated by MCA so that the conveyance agreement can accurately identify the parcel to be subdivided from the Property and donated . The City will pay all costs associated with preparing said survey and MCA agrees to fully cooperate with the City, its employees, and its contractors, as the case may be, so that the survey can be duly prepared. 3. In addition to any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate and mutually acceptable to the parties, the conveyance agreement shall include , without limitation, terms regarding the following, subject to approval by each party's respective governingbody: a The formal termination of the Lease; b. The City's commitment to rename the Park to better reflect the memory and legacy of the families who originally donated the Property to MCA, subject to city council approval ; c. The City's willingness to pay all costs associated with the closing , including the state deed tax, recording fees, title insurance premiums, if any, and title company closing costs; d. The City's construction of a fence between the new City-owned park property and the Cemetery so that park visitors will not disturb the solitude of the Cemetery with the MCA owni ng th e fe nce; and e. The City's restoration of the Park property being returned to the Cemetery with appropriate soils and grass planting, as required in the Lease. 4. Nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed to terminate or otherwise amend or modify the Lease or its terms and conditions in any way. [signature page to follow] 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the day and year first written above. 3 THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Mike Elliott Its : Mayor By: Curt Boganey Its: City Manager MOUND CEMETERY ASSOCIATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Michael W. Howe Its: President EXHIBIT A 0 0 0 '. - I 1' 0 0 I· • . . ' I . ' : , ••• ir-- z ~ -----------~ .. =-~-:::;~=-.:.- Q.. 0 A -1 604323v I BR29 1-4 -------- EXH IBIT B . -a :c )> .. en ·.m -~ .,, :J: )> : (A .m ·N ., :", ~ t-0~ .. L_. __ _1-~;;...;;;.;..,;,:__~~~ ---···---•·•---- H Hennepin County Property Map No results Da te: 12/5/20 19 1 inc h = 50 feet Comments: This da t a (I) is rurnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completenes s or accuracy; (II) Is furnish ed ¼ith no wa rranty or any kind; an d (ill) Is notsullable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County s hall not be li able f or any damage, in jury o r loss r esu lting from thi s data. COPYRIG HT ©l HENN EPIN CO UNTY 2019 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND MOUND CEMETERY ASSOCIATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER This Memorandum of Understanding (this "MOU') is made this __ day of -----� 2019, by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and Mound Cemetery Association of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota public cemetery association ("MCA"). RECITALS A.MCA owns and operates the Mound Cemetery (the "Cemetery"), located at 3515 69th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "Property"). B.The Property consists of approximately 14.82 acres of real property, although not all the Property is used for the Cemetery. C.On January 27, 1970, the parties entered into that certain Lease of Cemetery Land (the "Lease"), through which the City acquired the right to operate a public park on a portion of the Property known today as Freeway Park (the"Park"). D.The stated term of the Lease is for 75 years and, therefore, the Lease is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2044. E.MCA completed a strategic planning process in 2012 and determined they would need to vacate the lease agreement with the City, prior to the December 31, 2044 expiration, for the Cemetery to continue offering end-of-life services to the community. F.In December 2013, MCA formally requested the City vacate the lease agreement signed January 27, 1970 and "jointly coordinate transition of the Park property back to the Cemetery to be used for its original purposes", G.The City is in the process of adopting a new Freeway Park Master Plan, and multiple options regarding the Park's future have been presented to the parties by ISG, the City's consulting engineering and architectural firm. H.The ISG Freeway Park Master Plan option determined as most desirable to all parties is identified as Option 1, which is generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto, which would require the termination of the Lease, the conveyance of approximately one acre of the Property to the City, and the City's return of the remaining Park property to MCA. In anticipation of this conveyance MCA engaged Anderson Engineering to develop a Long­ Range Phased Plan to develop the leased property as is depicted on Exhibit B. 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter provided, it is hereby understood by the parties as follows: 1.The parties will negotiate in good faith a formal conveyance agreement, subject to approval by the Brooklyn Center City Council and the MCA Board of Trustees in accordance with law, to include provisions regarding MCA's donation to the City of approximately one acre of the Property, as generally depicted on the attached Exhibit A. 2 Upon execution of this MOU by both parties, the City will initiate the preparation of a professional survey of the portion of the Property to be donated by MCA so that the conveyance agreement can accurately identify the parcel to be subdivided from the Property and donated. The City will pay all costs associated with preparing said survey and MCA agrees to fully cooperate with the City, its employees, and its contractors, as the case may be, so that the survey can be duly prepared. 3.In addition to any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate and mutually acceptable to the parties, the conveyance agreement shall include, without limitation, terms regarding the following, subject to approval by each party's respective governing body: a.The formal termination of the Lease; b.The City's commitment to rename the Park to better reflect the memory and legacy of the families who originally donated the Property to MCA, subject to city council approval; c.The City's willingness to pay all costs associated with the closing, including the state deed tax, recording fees, title insurance premiums, if any, and title company closing costs; d.The City's construction of a fence between the new City-owned park property and the Cemetery so that park visitors will not disturb the solitude of the Cemetery with the MCA owning the fence; and e.The City's restoration of the Park property being returned to the Cemetery with appropriate soils and grass planting, as required in the Lease. 4.Nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed to terminate or otherwise amend or modify the Lease or its terms and conditions in any way. [ signature page to follow] 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the day and year first written above. 3 THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Mike Elliott Its: Mayor By: Its: Cornelius Boganey City Manager MOUND CEMETERY ASSOCIATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Michael W. Howe Its: President ---------------------- - M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION DAT E:1/13/2020 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:C urt Bo ganey C ity Manager S UBJ E C T:C urbs ide R es id ential O rganic s R ec yc ling O p tions (20 minutes ) Recommendation: - P rovid e feedback for sta ff regardin g curbside resid en tia l organics recycling B ackground: AT TAC HME N T S : Desc rip tion Up lo ad Date Typ e 2020 Memo 1/8/2020 C o ver Memo P owerp o int 1/8/2020 P res entation To: Brooklyn Center City Council From: Tim Pratt, HRG Administrator Date: January 6, 2020 Re: Curbside Residential Organics Recycling Options In late November 2018 the Hennepin County Board adopted a mandate that all cities in the county with more than 10,000 residents had to provide for access to curbside residential organics recycling collection by January 1, 2022. The County wants to increase the diversion of organics material (food scraps and non-recyclable paper) from the trash into composting and other recycling options. Turning waste into a resource. Recent trash composition studies by both the State and the County have shown that the largest component of our trash is organics. The percentage of our trash that is food scraps ranged from 15 – 31% and non-recyclable paper such as napkins and paper towels which could be collected in an organics recycling program made up 5.7 – 9.8%. The Board of the Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG) which is comprised of the City Managers of the three cities reviewed three options to comply with the mandate and is making a recommendation to the city councils. The recommendation requires council action which I will detail later. First a review of the options. Options for Offering Organics Recycling HRG-wide Contract Source separated organics are considered recyclable material under state law. Thus, HRG could expand the current curbside recycling program to include organics. As part of our RFP process in fall of 2017, Waste Management offered to provide organics recycling service at an additional cost to be determined. They would provide service similar to how we provide traditional recycling service. All homeowners would be charged for the service, but they would opt in. Participants would put their organics in a compostable bag. Bags would then be put in a dedicated organics recycling cart that would be emptied by a dedicated truck. Organics carts are 32-gallons or smaller and are collected weekly year-round. HRG could also issue an RFP for residential organics collection to solicit proposals from other companies. HRG could then enter into a separate contract for organics recycling. Establish Organics Service as a Licensing Requirement According to Hennepin County staff each city could change its licensing requirements for garbage haulers to mandate that they offer organics recycling service. Residents could then opt in as they do now for yard waste service. Given that currently only one hauler offers the service, it could be a while before other haulers are able to purchase the equipment needed. Also, there may not be route density for the haulers to offer the service cost-effectively. Drop-Off Location Residents can self-haul organics to the Hennepin County Drop-Off Facility in Brooklyn Park. This does not meet the mandate for curbside collection. Thus, the board decided not to pursue locating a drop-off location in the HRG cities. Use of the Hennepin County Drop-Off Facility is an indication of potential interest. Here is a chart with the number of organics drop offs in 2018 by zip codes. This does not indicate the number of participants, just the number of times someone dropped off organics. (Chart Four: Organics Dropped Off at Hennepin County in 2018 Zip Code Number of Drop Offs 55422 89 55427 176 55428 80 55429 45 55430 34 HRG Board Recommendation The Board is recommending that each city update its garbage hauler licensing to require haulers offer curbside residential organics recycling collection. This would require staff time to draft the updates, and to communicate with haulers and residents. But it would not require the time and expense of developing and rolling out a major expansion to the recycling program. The HRG has received grant funding from Hennepin County designated for the promotion of organics recycling. The Board voted to use that grant to subsidize 50% of the cost of the first year of service for residents that sign up with their hauler for organics recycling service (up to $100 per household). The HRG will promote this subsidy program to increase awareness of organics recycling. There’s more information on Hennepin County’s Organics Recycling Incentive Grant program in the Appendix of this memo. Updates to City Codes and License Applications Requiring garbage haulers to offer organics recycling service will require each of the cities to change either their City Code, their garbage hauler licensing application or both. Currently Brooklyn Center requires as part of City Code that garbage haulers offer yard waste service. The Council may wish to add a requirement to offer organics collection service. Additionally, the Code contains outdated definitions for items such as garbage. For instance, garbage is defined as “putrescible animal and vegetable wastes resulting from the handling, preparation, cooking and consumption of food, and from the handling, storage and sale of produce…” The Green Step Cities program has developed a set of definitions that could be used to update the City Code. The garbage hauler licensing form also includes outdated terminology and should be updated. There is also a section of the code dealing with onsite incinerators (7-106) dating from the 1960s that should be updated. Appendix – HRG Efforts to Promote Organics Recycling The State began providing SCORE funding in 1989 to help counties establish and maintain residential recycling programs. Hennepin County has passed through that funding to its cities. Traditional papers, bottles and cans recycling programs are now mature with a dedicated source of funding from resident fees. In 2017 the County changed its policy regarding distribution of SCORE funds to use a portion to create an Organics Recycling Incentive Grant program. This change means that HRG has been receiving smaller SCORE grants. (Chart 1: HRG SCORE grant funding from Hennepin County) Year SCORE Grant 2013 $ 173,394 2014 $ 173,924 2015 $ 197,262 2016 $ 190,283 2017 $ 172,857 2018 $ 151,249 2019 $ 129,642 2020 $ 108,035 The organics grants have been distributed based on the number of households enrolled in an organics recycling program. Currently the only eligible option for HRG residents is to contract with Randy’s Environmental Services for organics recycling since no other hauler offers the service. The current cost is $69.95 a year. As of September, there were few people signed up. (Chart Two: Curbside Residential Organics Recycling Enrollees September 2019) City Enrollees Brooklyn Center 14 Crystal 46 New Hope 40 Thus, we have received very little in organics incentive funds. (Chart Three: Hennepin County Organics Grants to HRG) Year Amount 2017 $583 2018 $1,226 2019 $2,373 The grant funds may be used for program expenses, including the following: • Discount to new customers • Discount to existing customers • Referral incentives • City contract costs • Education and outreach • Compostable bags • Kitchen containers • Carts In 2017 we used the money to pay for educational ads in the Sun newspapers serving each city. In 2018 we experimented with an incentive program. We paid for a mailing to current customers of Randy’s Environmental Services offering to split the cost of the first year of organics recycling service. Randy’s uses a patented co-collection method where residents put organics in a compostable bag. The bag is placed in the residents’ trash carts. Randy’s sorts trash at its facility in Delano to remove the compostable bags. The bags are then delivered to a composting facility. The postcards were mailed to more than 2,000 customers in the three cities in March of 2019. As of the end of June, there have been seven customers that redeemed the offer. The number of organics customers lags other cities using similar incentive programs. For instance, about 2% of Minnetonka residents subscribe to organics service. And our performance is significantly less that cities that have city-wide contracts such as Robbinsdale, Medina and St. Louis Park. Next year will be the last year of the current funding agreement, and we have not received any indication from County staff what changes they may make to the agreement. But it would be prudent to believe that the County will continue to shift funding toward organics recycling and away from bottles, cans and paper recycling. 1/7/2020 1 ORGANICS RECYCLING OVERVIEW Brooklyn Center City Council January 13, 2020 Hennepin County Mandate • Revised Ordinance 13 in 2018 requiring cities to provide residents the opportunity to recycle organics curbside by Jan. 1, 2022. • Increase awareness about organics recycling and the benefits of participating and assist cities in setting up their programs leading up to the requirement. 2 1/7/2020 2 Why Organics 3 Food scraps ranged from 15% (Hennepin Co.) – 31% (Statewide) Non-recyclable paper made up 5.7 – 9.8% Organics is the single largest category in our trash What Are Organics? Food Scraps (including meat and dairy) Non-Recyclable Paper 4 •Fruits and vegetables •Meat, fish and bones •Bread, pasta and baked goods •Eggshells •Dairy products •Napkins and paper towels (not used with chemical cleaners) •All paper, non-plastic lined plates and bowls (look for BPI certification) •Food soiled paper, including pizza boxes, unlined take-out containers and egg cartons •Facial tissue, tissue paper and other paper products with fibers too short to be recycled 1/7/2020 3 What Is It Recycled Into? 5 Compost is used for: Landscaping Road Projects Fertilizer There are abundant local markets What Happens to My Organics video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAVA8eT-Zcw What Is It Recycled Into? 6 Anaerobic Digestion “Anaerobic digestion is a collection of processes by which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen. The process is used for industrial or domestic purposes to manage waste or to produce fuels.” Source: Wikipedia 1/7/2020 4 Two Program Types: Everybody Pays, Voluntary Sign Up (Organized Collection) (two variations) How Is It Collected 7 Separate Cart and Collection Vehicle Minneapolis, Robbinsdale, St. Louis Park https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bsGp0f5RBA Compostable Bag Co-collected with Trash Wayzata Two Program Types: Individual Contracts for Service (Open Collection) How Is It Collected 8 Compostable Bag Co-collected with Trash – Minnetonka Only one hauler in Brooklyn Center offers this. As of September 30th, 14 Brooklyn Center homeowners have signed up. 1/7/2020 5 How Effective Is Each Model Minneapolis – 40% of homeowners enrolled St. Louis Park & Wayzata – ~30% enrollment Minnetonka – 2% enrollment 9 How to Proceed HRG board is proposing requiring garbage haulers offer organics recycling Would require updates to City Code and Hauler License application Board also proposed splitting the cost for first year of service up to $100 per household Paid for with funding from Hennepin County 10 1/7/2020 6 Questions...? tim.pratt@brooklynpark.org 763-493-8120 11 M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION DAT E:1/13/2020 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:O pportunity S ite Update (30 minutes ) B ackground: In ac cordance with the p ro p o s ed timeline, a draft plan has been prepared for the O p p o rtunity S ite, inc o rp o rating c o mmunity inp ut from the first p has e o f engagement as well as o ngo ing c o nvers ations and input fro m the Working C o mmittee. T he Wo rking C ommittee has not reviewed this d raft, but will d o so at their next meeting. T he p urpose o f this update and dis c us s io n is to provid e the C ity C o uncil with an o p p o rtunity to review the direc tion of the mas ter p lan d raft and to provid e any feed b ack and c omments ahead o f the next phas e of community engagement work. Attached to the memo is an executive summary of the draft master plan. A full c opy of the draft master plan is b eing c o mp iled and will b e emailed o ut to the C ity C o uncil ahead o f the meeting. At the work session staff and the c o nsultant team will go over highlights from the draft master plan and dis c us s any changes from the pas t version. C ity C ounc il will have an o p p o rtunity to provid e feedbac k o n the work that has been done to date and d irectio n on next s tep s for the roll o ut of the d raft p lan fo r c o mmunity engagement. T he draft mas ter p lan contains signific antly more content than p revious vers ions of the plan. It breaks the plan into five c ategories o r c hapters ; Vision; P ublic R ealm; Ac cess and C o nnec tivity; Build ings and Develo pment; and Implementation. S o me elements are identified as p laceho ld ers since additio nal tec hnical analys is and community inp ut are needed in o rd er to unders tand greater d etail. F o r examp le, the imp lementation sec tion identifies targets , o r go als , fo r the develo p ment. T hes e includ e amo ng o thers , affo rdable hous ing targets whic h are d es c ribed as a range of o verall affordability fo r the entire d evelopment. T he implementatio n s ectio n identifies a path fo r develo p ing a more d etailed hous ing imp lementatio n p lan, whic h will req uire mo re c ommunity input, a hous ing stud y, as well as a financ ial feasib ility analys is to determine the final target p ercentage and s p ecific affordability band s (ie; 30% AMI, 50% AMI , and 60% AMI). T he final version of the master p lan will contain the final target numbers , while this draft vers ion contains plac eho ld ers and language which des c ribes how the final targets will be id entified . Internally, s taff and the cons ultant team debated if more tec hnical and feas ibility analys is sho uld b e c o mpleted b efo re a d raft mas ter plan was made p ublic . I n the end it was dec id ed that it was b etter to move forward with creating a d raft plan with the informatio n that was availab le in order to allow more community input into the p ro cess and to s hap e the feas ib ility wo rk, rather than to wait until the plan was mo re fully fo rmed to gather community inp ut. T he next steps will b e to present the draft mas ter p lan to the Wo rking C o mmittee fo r feedbac k and review. T his inp ut will as s is t with completing the community engagement products , s uc h as the Meeting-in-a-Box tool, p o s ters, and o ther handouts which are b eing p rep ared . T he C ity has entered into c o ntracts to assist with this next p hase of engagement with AC ER , Jude Nnadi, and the O rganizatio n for Lib erians in Minnesota (O LM), and is negotiating a s econd c o ntract for engagement with the Brooklyn Bridge Allianc e. T he foc us o f thes e contrac ts is to as s is t with reaching his toric ally underrepresented and d ifficult to reac h group s in the community, s uc h as renters , youth, immigrant communities , Wes t Afric an communities , and African American communities . S taff is als o reac hing o ut to organizations to assist with engaging Lao /Hmong communities as well as Latinx c ommunities . In additio n, onc e the engagement tools are c ompleted , community facilitators will b e enro lled to c ond uc t community conversations througho ut the community on the topic of the draft plan and to s o licit disc us s io ns and collec t s urvey info rmation on behalf of the c ity. With the d raft plan, Ehlers will b egin wo rk on a high level financial analys is whic h will look at the financial feas ib ility of the p lan, along with id entifying any fund ing gap s . S taff has as ked them to p ro vide high level analys is that will inc lude reviewing the imp ac t o f includ ing a certain p ercentage o f mixed income hous ing as p art o f the d evelo p ment as well to s ee the affec t that may have on the feas ibility. A traffic study and stormwater analysis will also begin to identify any issues or impacts associated with the plan related to these items. T he input from the community engagement, along with the technical analysis work will be used to revise and shape the plan to ensure that it minimizes impacts and maximizes benefits to the community, infrastructure, and environment. Policy Issues: Is the C ity C ounc il c o mfo rtable with the d irectio n the draft master plan is head ing? Are there areas o r elements o f the d raft mas ter plan whic h the C ity C ounc il has c o nc erns ab o ut, or would like to s ee altered ? Is the C ity C ounc il c o mfo rtable with s taff proc eed ing with the ro ll out of the draft master plan for community engagement and inp ut? S trategic Priorities and Values: Targeted R edevelo p ment AT TAC HME N T S : Desc rip tion Up lo ad Date Typ e Executive S ummary 1/8/2020 Exec utive S ummary M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION DAT E:1/13/2020 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 (45 minutes) 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: Ho using and the p o licy issues related to hous ing have b ecome s o me of the mo s t p res s ing and important matters fac ing c ommunities to d ay. F o r most s uburb an communities , hous ing c ompris es a signific ant majo rity o f a cities land us e and tax base. Maintaining and pres erving a s afe, q uality, and des irable hous ing sto ck is critical to a c ommunity's lo ng term ec o nomic health. F urther, a d iverse hous ing s toc k which offers a wide range of hous ing c ho ices and p rice p o ints ens ures that a community can be res ilient thro ugh econo mic up s and d o wns as well as p ro vide hous ing optio ns for a divers e population throughout their lives . In additio n to maintaining a q uality and d ivers e s up p ly o f ho using, c o mmunities are mo re and more b ecoming fo cus ed on c onc erns regard ing livab ility and ac c es s ib ility of hous ing. T he Twin C ities Metro p o litan Area is currently experienc e rec o rd low vacancy rates . Ac c o rd ing to Marq uette Ad vis ors ’ mid year rep o rt fro m Augus t 2019, the average vacancy rate ac ro s s the s even-c o unty metro area is 2.3 perc ent. Exp erts agree that a b alanc ed rental market will typ ically see an average vac anc y rate o f around 5 perc ent. T he Twin C ities has b een experiencing record low vacancy rates for s everal years no w as are many metro areas throughout the nation. S evere hous ing s hortages are being caus ed fro m s pikes in c o nstruc tion c o s ts , combined with unp recedented d emand fo r rental ho us ing as millennial and baby boomer generations are find ing s imilar desires for lifes tyles that offer mo re mo b ility and c o nvenience o ver the d eb t and maintenance o f home o wners hip. In ad d ition, as the cost of living out p aces inc o mes , fo r many families , ho me ownership may feel o ut of reach, and renting b ecomes the only c hoic e. T he effec t o f lo w vac anc y rates o ver time is inc reas ing rents, a growing interes t fro m outside inves tors, and landlords in a p o s ition to be cho o s ier about who they rent to . T his has borne o ut througho ut the Twin C ities Metro p o litan Area, with the average rent inc reas ing nearly 8 perc ent year over year to a c urrent unp recedented $1,254 per month. In additio n, the Metro p olitan C o uncil continues to s ee a reduc tio n in the number o f landlords acc epting S ec tion 8 vo uc hers. Acc ording to the Metropolitan C ounc il, landlords are c iting the inc reas ed interes t fo r their units fro m no n-vouc her ho ld ers as the primary reas o n fo r the change. Yet another impac t o f the inc reas ing value of rental property is the growing numb er of inves tors p urc hasing C las s B or C las s C rental p ro p erties, whic h are renting for naturally affordab le rents , making c o s metic imp ro vements , and inc reas ing rents s o that the units are no lo nger affordable. Ac cording to the Minnes o ta Ho using P artners hip , the sales o f apartment b uildings in the metro area jump ed 165 perc ent between 2010 and 2015. O ften the c hange in ownership will also c o me with a change in polic y related to c riminal histo ry, acc ep tance of S ec tio n 8 vouchers , o r minimum income req uirements, resulting in exis ting tenants being d is p laced from the property. B ro o klyn Center’s C urrent R ental Ho using T he result o f the regio nal trend s desc rib ed ab o ve are being felt in Brooklyn C enter. Vac anc y rates in the community remain lower than the regional average, hovering around 2 p ercent. T his is common in c o mmunities with mo re affo rd ab le rental units. 35 perc ent of Bro o klyn C enter's ho using s to c k is comprised o f rental units . O f tho s e, ab o ut 8 perc ent are s ingle family homes . T he C o mmunity Development Dep artment is preparing a s ummary report on the rental licens ing program which includ es a d eep er analys is of rental ho using in the C ity. T his will b e presented as p art o f a s ep arate memo. Acc o rd ing to the Metropolitan C o uncil, the following tab le ind icates what is c o ns idered affo rd ab le rents in the Twin C ities Metropolitan Area: *R ents include tenant-paid utilities According to the C ensus American Community S urvey indicates average gross rents in B rooklyn C enter: Average rents in Bro o klyn C enter are cons idered naturally oc curring afford ab le bec ause the market rents , b as ed on the age and c o nditio n o f the units make them affo rd ab le at around 50 p ercent AMI in the metropolitan area. R ents in Brooklyn C enter are lo wer than the regio nal average. Ap p ro ximately 90 perc ent o f all of the ho us ing units in Bro o klyn C enter are c o ns idered naturally oc curring affo rd ab le ho using (NO AH). W hile NO AH p ro p erties are c o nsidered affordable, they c an b e at risk of being lo s t as market d emand inc reas es and rents c o ntinue to go up . T hey c an als o exp erienc e disinvestment o ver time, c ausing d eterioration, lo s s of value, and mos t importantly p o o r quality o r uns afe living s ituations . At p res ent only 3.7 perc ent of units are c o ns id ered legally-bind ing, o r subs idized affo rd ab le units . S ubsid ized affo rd ab le units are ho using units which are required to maintain an affordab le rent regardless o f shifts in market demand. Due to their financing s tructure, they als o are req uired to be maintained to a c ertain minimum s tand ard . O ne o f the goals o f affordable hous ing ad voc ates is to preserve exis ting NO AH properties by converting them to legally b inding affo rd ab le units thro ugh NO AH p res ervation programs . With the cons tructio n of S o nder Ho using, R eal Es tate Eq uities will be ad d ing 270 units o f legally-bind ing new affo rd ab le hous ing units to the city. T hes e will b e the firs t new c o nstruc tion multi-family hous ing units built in Brooklyn C enter s ince 1971, and will inc reas e the perc entage o f legally-binding affo rd ab le units to 6 perc ent. T he City's 2040 Comprehensive P lan identifies several broad housing goals 2040 Housing & N eighborhood 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). I ssue Identificatio n 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. As it relates to hous ing polic y within the C ity o f Bro o klyn C enter, these is s ues c an b e c atego rized into two d is tinct to p ic areas : 1. Housing choice - W hat is the compo s ition and c o nditio n o f the current hous ing sto ck? W hat are the current market demand s for hous ing? Ho w d o es the city's hous ing stoc k relate to the market, and d o es the c ity have eno ugh and the right type to meet c urrent and future need ? 2. Affordable housing policies - W hat c an the city d o to improve livability and acc es s ib ility to quality affo rdable hous ing for res id ents ? W hat b es t p ractices exist to sup port an effec tive approac h to ad d res s ing the need for affo rd ab le hous ing in the community? W hat polic ies are mo s t effective to p revent dis plac ement? In order to addres s thes e to p ic areas related to hous ing, s taff is proposing a framework plan whic h takes a comprehensive review of the C ity's hous ing p o lic y approac h, with an emphas is in key foc us areas based on p rio rities is s ues whic h merit s p ecial attention. T he overall review would include identifying those housing issues which are currently surfacing in the community and prioritizing those which are most pressing. I ssues which have broadly been identified that merit special attention include: 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 Expanding hous ing optio ns H o using Po licy Framewo rk In order to gather data and to identify the need s for ad d itional ho using choic e in the community, s taff is recommend ing working with a cons ultant to c omplete a hous ing study. A propos ed s cope o f wo rk fo r the hous ing study is attac hed to this memo. T he s tudy wo uld inc lude an analys is o f regio nal trend s effec ting Brooklyn C enter's ho us ing, the city's existing hous ing sto ck, current rent trends , market d emand and gaps analys is . T he housing study is also proposed to include a tenant and home owner survey in order to ascertain whether residents are satisfied with their current housing options, and what housing choices they anticipate needing/wanting over time. T he results of this analysis will assist with guiding land use and policy decisions as it pertains to housing stock and choice. As it relates to the need s around affo rd ab le hous ing, p o licy approac hes fall into one of three c atego ries : 1) C o nstruc tion o f new legally-b inding units; 2) P res ervatio n o f NO AH units ; 3) Tenant p ro tec tions In Ap ril 2018, the C ity C o uncil d is cus s ed several p o s s ib le polic ies to addres s affordable hous ing issues . T he memo from that dis c us s ion is attached to this report. Based o n that d is cus s ion, C o uncil d irected staff to mo ve fo rward with a Tenant P rotectio n O rdinanc e, and in Dec emb er 2018, the city adopted one. Ad d itional po lic ies which address affo rd able hous ing to p ics are desc rib ed b elo w. S taff is seeking direc tio n o n which polic ies C o uncil would like to move fo rward with, wo uld like ad d itio nal informatio n o n, or would like to wait on. Inclus io nary Ho us ing P o licy (C reatio n P o lic y) – T hes e are a collec tion of polic ies whic h would either enc o urage or require new affo rd ab le units to b e includ ed as p art o f new market-rate residential d evelopment p ro jects whic h rec eive p ublic sub s id y o r other dis c retionary C ity approvals . F requently it is in the fo rm of a req uirement that a p ercentage of units b e affo rd ab le in a new residential d evelo p ment in exchange for p ublic s ubsidy of the p ro ject. New develo p ments such as tho s e in the O p p o rtunity S ite would be required to includ e a certain number o f afford ab le units . Inclus ionary Ho using p o licies ensure that new affordable units are ad d ed as market-rate units are built, thus ens uring mixed-income communities . C ities s uc h as S t. Louis P ark and Minneapolis have found that in higher rent d evelopments, a certain p ercentage o f affordable units can be required witho ut increasing the need fo r additio nal p ublic subs idy. T his is due to the higher than average market rents, whic h o ff-s et the affo rd ab le units . In Bro o klyn C enter, as is true in c o mmunities with lower average rents , the c o s t of the affordable units would req uire ad d itional p ublic sub s id ies in order for a projec t to b e financ ially feas ible. Brooklyn P ark recently adopted an Inc lus io nary Hous ing P olic y. As part of their analysis they concluded that any amount of inc luded affordable would c reate a financ ial gap in the projec t and require s ubsidy. T he polic y acknowled ges this and p ro jects will be lo o ked at on a p ro ject by projec t b as is to d etermine if the gap can be financed. C o mmunity input o n the O p p o rtunity S ite has identified many c o mmunity b enefits and go als for the red evelo p ment in additio n to affo rd able hous ing; affo rd ab le c o mmerc ial s pac e, a c ultural center, civic s p ace, event s p ace, and a recreatio n c enter to name a few. All o f thes e us es wo uld req uire p ublic s ubsidy in s o me form o r ano ther, no t to mention the infrastruc ture needs o f the s ite. Id entifying affo rdable hous ing as a singular or p rimary go al of the develo p ment thro ugh an inc lusionary hous ing p o licy inevitably elevates it ab o ve o ther c ommunity goals fo r the s ite. NO AH P res ervation P rogram (P reservation P o lic y) – A preservation program c an be s et up in various ways , b ut essentially how they wo rk is to incentivize exis ting NO AH property o wners into s etting as id e a p ercentage o f rental units as legally bind ing affordable for a s et period o f time. T he C ity wo uld create a NO AH p res ervatio n fund and id entify ad d itional fund ing s ources to grow it. S taff wo uld work with exis ting p ro perty o wners to pro vide a modest sub s id y fo r building rehabilitation, which wo uld then be combined with a 4D tax classific ation, als o kno wn as the Low Inc o me R ental C lassific ation P rogram (LI R C ), to provid e a p ro perty tax break, currently amounting to 40%. T he res ult is the p res ervatio n o f NO AH units thro ugh legally binding contrac t. T he tax break wo uld b e proportio nal to the p ercentage of units which would be affo rd ab le, and not ap p ly to the entire build ing. T he LI R C /4D s tatute defines eligib le p ro p erties as those which meet two c o nditio ns: the owner o f the p ro p erty agrees to rent and income res tric tio ns (s erving hous eholds at 60% AMI o r below) and rec eives “financ ial as s is tance” fro m federal, state or lo cal government. T his pres ents the possibility o f c reating a “Loc al 4D” p ro gram in which qualifying properties rec eive the 4D tax break in return for agreeing to cond itio ns which meet c ertain loc al government p o licy go als . T he red uc tion in property taxes wo uld no t d ecrease the C ity’s revenue from p ro p erty taxes, as the fund s would b e dis trib uted to all o ther properties ; ho wever, it wo uld red uc e that p ro p erty’s share of lo cal p ro p erty taxes . T he amo unt o f the tax break is a limiting fac to r as it eq uates to around $80/unit per year; ho wever, the p ro gram may be an inc entive fo r a p roperty o wner in a community where the market rents are already cons idered affo rd ab le, s inc e they would no t need to d ep res s their rent rates . T he c ity is es timated to have approximately $320,000 of Ho using T I F #3 fund s when T I F #3 d ecertifies at the end o f 2021. T hese fund s c o uld be us ed to s eed a NO AH p res ervation fund. NO AH pres ervation is a more cost effic ient fo rm of creating legally bind ing affordable units compared with new c ons tructio n, and ens ures families are no t d is p laced fro m their ho mes . A NO AH preservatio n p ro gram, c ombined with efforts to support tenant p ro tec tions c o uld be highly effec tive at addressing community c o nc erns ab o ut displac ement. F urther, staff c o uld b egin to work on setting up s uc h a p ro gram in the near term, and begin to identify potential funding s o urc es fo r it. F air Hous ing P o lic y (Tenant P ro tec tion P olic y) - T itle VI I I of the Civil R ights Act establishes federal policy for providing fair housing throughout the U nited S tates. T he intent of T itle VI I I is to assure equal housing opportunities for all citizens. F urther, Cities as a recipient of federal community development funds under Title I of the Housing and C ommunity D evelopment Act of 1974, is obligated to certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing. T he city of B loomington's Fair H ousing P olicy is attached as an example. M any other cities within Minnesota have F air H ousing P olicies that are written very similar to B loomington's. At present B rooklyn C enter does not have a F air H ousing P olicy. I t is staff's recommendation that this be addressed in the near term, and that the H ousing C ommission be tasked with reviewing and recommending a policy to be adopted by the C ity. R eview R ental Lic ens ing thro ugh the lend of Tenant P ro tec tions (Tenant P rotec tio n P o licy) - N early a third of the C ity's housing units are rental. With vacancy rates hovering near 3 percent, tenants are not in a favorable position when it comes to negotiating with landlords on lease terms or other accommodations. N early all of the C ity's multi-family residential is considered naturally occurring affordable housing (N O AH ). T his is primarily due to its age and condition. B rooklyn C enter hasn't had new multi-family housing constructed since 1971, and so this particular housing type, like most in the C ity, is aging. M aintenance varies significantly depending on ownership, as does the quality of property management. T herefore, it is important to continue to monitor the C ity's N O AH properties through a robust rental license program. H owever, when the rental license program was established tenant protections was not the focus of the program. A review of the City's ordinances, policies, and procedures through the lens of tenant protections would ensure that the program is serving residents as effectively as possible. Community engagement strategies would be necessary to identify problems and potential solutions. Suggested engagement strategies include lis tening s es s io ns with tenants and landlords; and engaging s takeho ld ers s uch as Ho meline, Hous ing Jus tice C enter, AC E R , etc C ity staff have met with AC E R , Ho meline, and the Hous ing Jus tic e C enter and disc ussed s o me of the is s ues affec ting Brooklyn C enter res idents alread y. In additio n, the c ity's ho us ing inspec tors s p end a s ignific ant amount of time interacting with tenants and land lo rd s and und ers tand the complexities of the is s ues. T hes e res ources can be d rawn upon to further exp lo re ways to make adjus tments to the C ity's o rd inanc es , p o licies, and proc ed ures to ens ure existing residents are p ro vided s afe, s ecure, s table hous ing and tenants are affo rd ed protec tions under the law. S taff's rec o mmendatio n is to move fo rward with reviewing the city's c urrent p o licy and ordinanc e, and to b egin to imp lement improvements . Tenant input could be inc o rp orated into the tenant s urvey that is p art o f the ho us ing s tud y. S ingle F amily Ho us ing S tabilizatio n (P res ervation P olic y) - Approximately 86 percent of B rooklyn C enter's single family housing stock is more then 40 years old. T his is a significant portion of the C ity's housing, therefore it is important to track the condition of these older homes as they are at-risk of deferred maintenance. At the same time, well maintained older homes can be an important source of entry-level housing. W hen considering the type and age of housing in B rooklyn C enter, the 2040 C omprehensive plan recommended 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 S taff recommends mo ving fo rward with a review of the c ity's single family ho us ing p ro grams. T he firs t part of which wo uld be inc o rp o rated into the hous ing s tud y. R eview of Ad d itional Bes t P ractices to Mitigate and P revent Dis p lacement - Ho us ing S tud y and Impac t As s es s ment - As was mentioned above, staff is recommending moving forward with a housing study in the near- term. B ecause issues around the impact of significant development on the city's existing housing, particularly around displacement and gentrification, have 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 proposed, 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 additional policies and best practices which may forward the city's priorities around housing policy. Implementation Ho using p o lic y is both an urgent and important need in the c o mmunity; however, s taff c ap acity is also limited to ad d res s thes e is s ues in a timely manner. S ome items id entified above c ould be und ertaken immed iately s uc h as the hous ing s tud y and the c reation of a fair ho us ing p o licy. A NO AH pres ervatio n p ro gram may b e a polic y which c o uld als o b e addressed in the near-term. O ther items will take longer to address s uc h as reviewing of the c ity's rental lic ens ing o rd inance. T he C ity o f Brooklyn P ark c urrently fac ilitates a ho us ing s takeholder group with many of the same s takeholders whic h Brooklyn C enter would very likely as k to p artic ip ate in s imilar conversatio ns. R ather than hold a sec o nd meeting eac h mo nth, Bro o klyn P ark s taff has sugges ted the two c ities combine efforts with the group . T his als o offers the opportunity to share res earch and resources o n to p ic s which are likely to be of a s imilar nature in terms o f ho using is s ues. 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 . T his c an be vetting as wo rk p rogres s es . No t o nly wo uld this allo w greater c o mmunity engagement, b ut also ensure that as vario us areas of fo cus are under review (i.e. tenant p ro tec tions , s ingle family p res ervatio n, multi-family p res ervatio n) that the right p eo p le are at the tab le to p ro vide input and expertis e. T ho ugh, inevitably, tas k fo rces and committees take cons id erab le staff time to facilitate and manage. Ensuring that any engagement that is done is intentio nal and on to p ics where inp ut is warranted is critical. S taff has identified 5 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. Tentative T ime L ine 1. Q 1 2020 F air Ho using P o licy 2. Q 1 2020 Hous ing S tudy and Imp act As s es s ment - G ap s analysis and identify best prac tic es for anti- d is p lac ement 3. Q 2 2020 NO AH P reservation program 4. Q 4 2020 Tenant P ro tec tions 5. Q 1 2021 S ingle F amily Ho using S tabilization 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. 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 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 M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION DAT E:1/13/2020 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:Barb S uc iu, C ity C lerk S UBJ E C T:P ending Items Recommendation: M etro T ransit B us H ub - (upcomi ng C C presentati on) R ental Lic ens e Update - (u p comin g C C presen tation ) C ensus Up d ate - 1/27 C DBG F und s - 1/27 C o nc ep t R eview fo r 61st & Bro o klyn Blvd Development - 1/27 C o mmemoratio n o f 400 years of S lavery Ac tivities - 2/10 Livable Wages - 2/10 Us e of EDA O wned P roperty - 2/24 F o o d Trucks - 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