HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 03-09 CCPCouncil Study Session
City Hall Council Chambers
March 9, 2020 AGE NDA
The City C ounc il requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy
of the full C ity Council pac ket is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the
entrance of the council chambers.
1.City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions - 6 p.m.
2.M iscellaneous
a.Set dates for J oint S chool Board meeting and Common Sense
b.Add to the Consent A genda, the Approval of the amended 2020 City Council
Meeting S chedule
- Motion to add to the consent agenda, the approval of the amended 2020
City Council meeting schedule
3.Discussion of Work S ession Agenda Item as T ime P ermits
4.Adjourn
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
City Hall Council Chambers
March 9, 2020
AGENDA
1.Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m.
Provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council 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 Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a time
for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the presenter for
informational purposes only.
2.Invocation - 7 p.m.
3.Call to Order Regular Business Meeting
The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A
copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at
the entrance of the council chambers.
4.Roll Call
5.Pledge of Allegiance
6.Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted 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 consent agenda and considered at
the end of Council Consideration Items.
a.Approval of Minutes
-Motion to approve the following minutes:
February 3, 2020 Work Session
February 24, 2020 Regular Session
February 24, Work Session
b.Approval of Licenses
- Motion to approve licenses as presented
c.Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project No.
20-07, Water Tower No. 1 Rehabilitation
- Motion to approve the lowest responsible bid and award a contract to The
Osseo Construction Company, LLC for Improvement Project No. 2020-07,
Water Tower No. 1 Rehabilitation.
d.Resolution Expressing Support for Converting Highway 252 From an at-grade
Expressway to a Grade Separated Freeway
- Motion to approve a resolution expressing support for converting Highway
(Ryan)
252 from an at-grade expressway to a grade separated freeway
7.Presentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations
8.Public Hearings
9.Planning Commission Items
a.Request to Direct Staff to Prepare a Resolution for the Approval or Denial of
Planning Commission Application No. 2020-001 for the Issuance of a Special
Use Permit and Parking Variance to Operate a Mosque and Community
Center at 4900 France Avenue North
- Motion to direct staff to prepare a resolution, to include findings of fact, for
the approval or denial of Planning Commission Application No. 2020-001
for issuance of a Special Use Permit to operate a mosque and community
center at 4900 France Avenue North.
A final resolution will be brought before the City Council on March 23, 2020.
10.Council Consideration Items
a.Resolution Appointing Individuals to Serve on City Commissions
-Approve a resolution appointing individuals to Serve on City
Commissions
11.Council Report
12.Adjournment
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:3/9/2020
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 mee5ngs must be documented
and approved by the governing body.
B udget I ssues:
- None
S trategic Priories and Values:
O pera5onal Excellence
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip5on U pload D ate Type
2-3 Work S ession 3/4/2020 Backup M aterial
2-24 Regular S es s ion 3/3/2020 Backup M aterial
2-24 Work S ession 3/4/2020 Backup M aterial
02/03/20 -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 WORK SESSION
FEBRUARY 3, 2020
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 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers/Commissioners Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris
Lawrence-Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of
Public Works Doran Cote, and City Clerk Barb Suciu.
HIGHWAY 252 PROJECT UPDATE
Mayor Elliott stated tonight’s work session will focus on the Highway 252 project and will include
presentations from some partners involved in various aspects of the project. He added these
include the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), the
Metropolitan Council and federal partners. He noted their presentations will cover the project
history up to present, and answer questions that the City Council and community members might
have.
City Manager Curt Boganey stated several residents came to the November 23, 2019, City Council
meeting to make a presentation and express their concern about the Highway 252 project and its
impact on their neighborhood. Among issues and concerns raised at that meeting were: minimum
safe distances between interchanges; the proposed interchange at 66th Avenue would be very
dangerous; the proposed project would be only 110 feet from the Mississippi River; reduced bus
service for local residents; and other general plan concerns.
Mr. Boganey stated the City Council, having heard the residents’ concerns, decided to schedule
this work session to hear from the subject matter experts, get responses to questions and concerns,
and bring everyone up to speed on the history of the project, including the new City
Councilmembers and new Mayor.
Mr. Boganey reviewed the procedure for tonight’s work session to ensure that all attendees are
informed and in agreement: presenters will be allowed to complete their presentation without
interruption, after which City Councilmembers will have time to get answers to their questions. A
public comment period will follow, including requests for clarification and time for questions. If
02/03/20 -2- DRAFT
there are questions or issues to which presenters do not have answers, they will commit to
providing a written response when they obtain the necessary information.
Public Works Director Doran Cote gave a brief presentation on the history of the Highway 252
corridor and its planned conversion to a freeway. Highway 252 was first mentioned as a potential
project at MnDOT in 2005 when it appeared in a transportation system plan, and Brooklyn Park
requested a corridor study. It was determined at that time that Highway 252 was a good candidate
for freeway conversion.
Mr. Cote stated the City of Brooklyn Center completed its own corridor study in 2016, and also
identified the need to convert Highway 252 to a freeway. It was also noted that Highway 252
would be a good candidate for MN-Pass high occupancy traffic lanes into downtown Minneapolis.
He added an environmental review of Highway 252 that is currently being undertaken, which
evaluates the environmental, social and economic impact of a proposed action, considers
alternatives and identifies mitigation of impacts. Throughout the process, there is ongoing public
involvement.
Mr. Cote welcomed to the work session: Jerome Adams and April Crocket from MnDOT; Carla
Steuve and Jason Stroebel from Hennepin County; and Adam Harrington from the Met Council.
The Federal Highway Administration and Three Rivers Parks District are also partners but were
not represented at the work session.
Leif Garness, SRF Consulting Group, gave an overview of the project and what the partners hope
it will accomplish. He stated there are four major questions that were identified as necessary to
solve the project and make it successful. Tonight’s meeting will focus on the first three questions,
before receiving comments and questions from the City Council and public.
Mr. Garness stated changes to Highway 252 are required based on issues that need to be addressed:
driver safety; vehicle access and mobility; accommodations for pedestrians and bicyclists. From
2011-2015, there were 611 recorded crashes on 252, and many of the crashes are rear-end crashes,
which is typical of corridors with congestion. From 2016-2019, another 972 crashes were
recorded, several involving pedestrians. Traffic levels are expected to continue to grow, with up
to 120,000 cars per day in the near future. The delay to get from Highway 610 to downtown
Minneapolis will increase from 5 minutes to 11 minutes.
Mr. Garness stated research shows that the majority of crashes on Highway 252 occur at
intersections, with the 66th Avenue intersection ranked #2 in the State of Minnesota for safety
concerns.
Mr. Garness stated the preferred alternative that will improve vehicular safety on Highway 252 is
being refined as recommended by the project team, and environmental documents are being
prepared. Additional documents, drawings, and layouts will be included in the documentation will
be available for public review and comment.
02/03/20 -3- DRAFT
Mr. Garness reviewed questions that are being considered as part of this decision-making process.
Consideration of these issues will assist in determining a course of action that will meet the needs
of the corridor:
1. What is the best way to improve vehicular safety along Highway 252 and I-94?
2. Where should access to and across Highway 252 be provided for vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists?
3. What is the best type of access for each of those locations?
4. If lanes are added to Highway 252 at or around 694, how can those lanes be used most
effectively?
Mr. Garness stated tonight’s work session will focus on the first three questions.
Mr. Garness stated the issues of safety, mobility and pedestrian and bicycle accommodates are
considered to determine whether the project will provide a benefit from a safety perspective; how
local roadways are affected; how levels of service and travel time are improved; and whether
access and safety for pedestrians and bicyclists are improved.
Mr. Garness stated the second alternative discussed would convert Highway 252 to a 6-lane
expressway, with an additional lane for the entire stretch of Highway 252. Intersections would
still be controlled, but an interchange would be constructed at 66th Avenue based on traffic levels.
He added, after technical evaluation and review, it was determined that this alternative would not
address congestion.
Mr. Garness stated the third alternative is to convert Highway 252 to a 4-lane freeway, maintaining
I-94 as it is today, south of 694. This option would reduce the number of crashes because there
would be no intersections, but Highway 252 would still be as congested as before.
Mr. Garness stated the fourth alternative is to convert Highway 252 to a 6-lane freeway with no
changes on I-94. This would reduce the overall number of crashes but there would still be
congestion and a change along the corridor would be required.
Mr. Garness stated, a fifth alternative, Highway 252 could be converted to a 6-lane freeway, but
an additional connection would be added on 94 from 694 to Dowling Avenue, where there already
exists an extra lane. Based on technical evaluation, this is the alternative that best meets the needs
of the project.
Mr. Garness stated a major issue is what will happen to local traffic in the area of Highway 252 if
it is converted to a freeway. There has been a lot of input from residents that traffic is entering the
neighborhoods that should be going on Highway 252. If Highway 252 is converted to a freeway,
there would be limited access points for cars to enter the neighborhoods.
02/03/20 -4- DRAFT
Mr. Garness stated this information is being provided to illustrate the sheer amount of data that is
collected to be able to provide recommendations and help form decisions.
Mr. Garness reviewed benefits to the Brooklyn Center community that would accompany the
conversion of Highway 252 into a freeway: reduced congestion on Highway 252; reduce in
crashes; less cut-through and bypass traffic in neighborhoods, trying to avoid the congested
expressway; reduced congestion and increased safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Mr. Garness stated the process to determine whether to convert a highway into a freeway includes
several steps: interchange evaluation checklist from the Metropolitan Council; best location of
access points to and from the freeway; pedestrian and bicyclist safety; and consistency with local
Comprehensive Plan to accommodate future growth and development.
Mayor Elliott requested clarification regarding a slide showing population density within Brooklyn
Center, and how that could affect the outcome. Mr. Garness stated population demographics
provide information on areas of high-density residential, higher populations of minorities and low-
income neighborhoods. He added reviewing this data helps to ensure that neighborhoods are not
disproportionately affected by this type of infrastructure development, in terms of where access
points are placed.
Mr. Garness stated four alternative plans are being evaluated based on design criteria and
guidelines. He added two of the plans do not assume a change will occur at 66th Avenue, and two
of the plans have a proposed interchange at 66th Avenue. The first alternative proposes two
interchanges on a 3-mile stretch of Highway 252, at 85th Avenue in Brooklyn Park and 73rd Avenue
in Brooklyn Center. The roadway would be widened to accommodate traffic levels with bus stop
locations. Many residential roads, residential properties, and commercial properties would be
affected. For instance, 73rd Avenue would be widened to 5 lanes to accommodate traffic that
diverts through the neighborhood to access Highway 252, and local traffic would increase, and
roadway improvements would reshape the neighborhoods west of Highway 252. Design measures
can be built into the plan to ensure safe and efficient operations. All requirements can be met with
2 interchanges.
Mr. Garness stated, as part of the evaluation, the potential future interchange at 73rd Avenue was
reviewed. He added the west side of 73rd Avenue has multiple multi-family housing complexes
and has a 50% minority population. He noted West River Road would need to be reconnected at
73rd Avenue, and traffic would need to find an alternative route to access Highway 252.
Mr. Garness stated 73rd Avenue is a 2-lane roadway that would need to be widened. He added
many homes along 73rd Avenue would be impacted by roadway construction. He noted it has been
discussed that over 200 properties could be impacted.
02/03/20 -5- DRAFT
Mr. Garness stated 3 interchanges are proposed for the third alternative, at 85th Avenue, Brookdale
Drive, and 70th Avenue. This proposal would improve traffic impacts to local roadways but
changes would still be required.
Mayor Elliott asked what is the distance between the interchanges at 70th Avenue and Brookdale
Drive. Mr. Garness stated it is .85 miles and does not meet the 1-mile spacing guideline. He
added, as a trade-off, measures can be taken to increase safety and efficiency but would require
widening City streets to accommodate traffic.
Mr. Garness stated, to accommodate an interchange at 73rd Avenue, West River Road would need
to be connected, and traffic diverted east to Willow Lane and north to 74th Avenue. He added
Willow Lane would become the main conduit for an interchange at 70th or 73rd Avenues.
Mr. Garness stated a technical evaluation was completed on the first alternative, with interchanges
at 85th and 66th Avenues, Brookdale Drive and 73rd Avenue. This alternative reduces the impact
on local roads, except in the neighborhoods west of Highway 252, which would see an increase in
traffic. This option does not meet the 1-mile spacing guidelines.
Mr. Garness stated all four alternatives propose reduced access points on Highway 252. There are
currently 6 access points, and the four alternative plans will reduce the number of access points
and shift traffic. He noted the biggest benefit to traffic safety on freeways is to reduce access
points, but the tradeoff is increasing traffic on local streets, as drivers will have to drive further to
access the interchanges.
Mr. Garness stated recommended interchanges at 85th Avenue, Brookdale and 66th Avenue would
allow the opportunity for pedestrians and bicycles to cross 252 at those locations. He added the
City has also received potential funding to move forward with a pedestrian bridge at 70th Avenue.
Mr. Garness stated an interchange at 66th is recommended as there would be fewer impacts on
local roads, fewer impacts to property and limits the potential increase in traffic levels that would
be expected to be seen at 70th and 73rd Avenues.
Mr. Garness stated the recommended alternative is a good balance between impacts to property,
traffic flow, and keeping traffic from local streets. There are better safety concerns on Highway
252 itself, which also maintains north and south connectivity for local roads. He added, in
conclusion, this alternative option addresses the safety concerns associated with Highway 252.
Mr. Garness reviewed the proposed interchange alternatives, including 66th Avenue interchange
with Highway 252 overpass; 66th Avenue interchange with Highway 252 under 66th Avenue, and
right-in, right-out onto Highway 252 from 66th Avenue. He added the first alternative is called
“double bridge”, and has favorable conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, but it is a costly
project, and many properties would need to be taken. He noted the “right-in right-out” alternative
was eliminated due to the number of trips that would be required.
02/03/20 -6- DRAFT
Mr. Garness stated the option of a northbound flyover was discussed which would minimize
impacts to the east side of Highway 252. He added it would need to be a three-level interchange,
as opposed to 2 levels, and the ramp would need to be moved further south, closer to I-694. He
noted it would be costly due to the number of bridges that would be required.
Mr. Garness stated the Highway 252 underpass, or “tight diamond”, is a difficult alternative
because 66th Avenue would need to be moved, and it can be difficult to get back to level ground.
He added raising 66th Avenue would result in an impact on residential properties. He noted such
impacts should be minimized as much as possible.
Mr. Garness stated alternatives 3 and 4 do not have an interchange at 66th Avenue, which would
result in less impact on local roadway systems, and fewer impacts on residential properties, and
limits the potential increase in traffic levels on residential streets.
Mr. Garness stated the construction of a frontage road system would be necessary under
Alternative 1, and property would need to be taken for holding ponds. He stressed the importance
of looking at the corridor as a whole; balancing all aspects of the project; provide the best spacing
possible to address safety concerns; and limiting impacts to properties. He noted, with these
criteria, after months of consideration, the best type of access for the freeway conversion would
be a folded diamond interchange at 66th Avenue, and that is the recommended design.
Mr. Garness stated the recommended alternative will limit the increase of traffic on local
roadways; is consistent with driver expectations; provides a conflict-free pedestrian facility on the
south side of 66th Avenue, and reduces impacts at that location.
Adam Harrington, Director of Service Development at Metro Transit, reviewed the impacts and
benefits, based on the type of transit service that is currently offered on the Highway 252 corridor.
He added MNPass high-occupancy lanes would be a big advantage for commuters going to and
from the downtown area. He noted bus access to Highway 252 will not be reduced, but some
access points will be limited as a consequence of the conversion, in particular the west side of 73rd
Avenue, and 66th Avenue near Topgolf, where the sale of a long-term parking lot is being
negotiated with the City.
Mr. Harrington stated the existing parking lot at 73rd Avenue can continue to be used and service
to that parking lot from West River Road will still be provided. He added that route runs
approximately 11 trips during rush hour and a few trips during the day, down West River Road
with access to the parking lot at 66th Avenue.
Mayor Elliott asked whether Metro Transit wishes to continue to use the park & ride at 66th
Avenue. Mr. Harrington confirmed this, adding Metro Transit has used the parking lot for over
15 years. He added there has been some discussion with City staff on this issue.
02/03/20 -7- DRAFT
Councilmember Butler asked how residents of Brooklyn Center who live along Highway 252 will
be impacted by each of the plans, including housing, river access, and environmental impacts
Mr. Garness stated the recommended interchange concept at 66th Avenue would have an impact
on residents and their property, as that is where the construction would be, and acquisitions would
be necessary. He added the next highest impact would be at Brookdale Drive.
Councilmember Butler asked how many homes would be impacted. Mr. Garness stated there is
an estimated number of affected properties that would be less than 10 residential properties and
less than 5 commercial properties. The project itself could touch a potential 70 properties, due to
minor roadway changes.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked for clarification regarding the difference between
residential parcels and residential units when determining relocation. Mr. Garness stated each
residential unit on a parcel is counted, so a property with multiple residential units could be an
apartment complex.
Mr. Boganey stated, for purposes of clarification, alternatives 1 and 2 both have the same proposed
interchange at 66th Avenue. He added alternative 3 has a proposed interchange at 70th Avenue.
Councilmember Ryan stated, as part of alternative 3, 66th Avenue and 73rd Avenue would not have
access to Highway 252 and the interchange would be located at 70th Avenue. He added this
alternative would involve 20 residential parcels, 5 commercial parcels, and 60 residential units.
He noted the City has expressed as a priority the preservation of naturally occurring affordable
housing.
Mr. Adams stated MnDOT is not in a position to determine which properties would be acquired at
this point. He added the drawings show where the grading would be completed, and it is easy to
see whether the grading runs through the property or not.
Mayor Elliott asked whether alternative plans have been considered for interchanges at other
intersections. Mr. Adams stated he has a slide that shows all the alternative plans side-by-side.
He added that the slide was shown at all the open houses.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked who will pay for the acquisition of parcels. Mr.
Garness stated the answer is going to vary, as there are many project partners and there is a funding
issue for the 66th Avenue portion. He added the City has been awarded federal funding for
construction of 66th Avenue, closure of 70th Avenue and a pedestrian crossing. He noted the
question of who acquires the 66th Avenue right of way is still being reviewed.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson requested regular updates on that. She expressed concern
that the experts have indicated that 50,000-75,000 drivers use Highway 252 every day and that far
exceeds the entire population of Brooklyn Center.
02/03/20 -8- DRAFT
Councilmember Graves asked why similarly detailed renderings were not presented for
alternatives 1 and 2. She asked how residents near Highway 252 will get to the transit center, and
whether new busing will be proposed.
Mr. Harrington stated there is a bus route, #722, that runs on Humboldt Avenue from the transit
center, and that bus route was recently extended to the Target campus. He added it will be
important to determine where people want to go and what times they want to be bussing, which
could have an impact on the proposed project.
Councilmember Ryan stated 73rd Avenue is closed in one scenario, with the option of a pedestrian
overpass. He added that he would provide access to the park & ride at 73rd Avenue. Mr.
Harrington agreed. He stressed the importance of facilitating movement across all access points.
Councilmember Ryan stated, with regard to who will pay for the acquisition of property, a good
part of the acquisitions will be necessary due to improvements to Highway 252 itself, which would
be paid for by the State. He added alternatives 3 and 4 would have impacts on the west side of
252, and acquisitions and costs at that location would be the City’s responsibility.
Mr. Adams stated he previously provided for City Staff a set of cost participation rules, which
outlines specific cost participation percentages for aspects of the project. He added the document
lays out all the costs and who would be responsible for them.
Councilmember Ryan stated, for access to alternative 4, the streets that need improvements are
City streets. He asked whether they would be City costs. Mr. Adams confirmed this, according
to the cost participation policy.
Mayor Elliott asked if the proposed design of the interchange at 66th Avenue was determined by
space limitations, and its proximity to I-694, I-94 and Highway 100.
Mr. Adams stated the distance between interchanges is taken into consideration when
recommending the type of interchange that would be most acceptable at any location.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked whether the folded diamond configuration would
leave West River Road intact. Mr. Adams confirmed this, adding it would be realigned and there
would be property impacts, but it will remain intact.
Mayor Elliott asked how far the distance is to the 66th Avenue interchange. Mr. Adams stated it
is .34 miles apart from center to center.
Mayor Elliott asked for Mr. Adams’ opinion on the safety aspect of that proximity. Mr. Adams
stated the distances are safe and it is a typical design. He added 1-mile spacing is the guideline,
but if the 1-mile spacing cannot be met, then other design options are considered.
02/03/20 -9- DRAFT
Mayor Elliott asked how many interchanges would be designed if the experts were designing
Highway 252 today, to maximize safety and access. Mr. Adams stated it is impossible to answer
that question, as the community existed before the highway was built, and there was a road network
in place. He added freeways must be designed to react to the way the City is already developed.
Mayor Elliot asked whether the alternative plans preserve bus service for Brooklyn Center
residents, and in particular, the number, availability, and frequency of buses. Mr. Adams stated
the corridor was designed as a commuter corridor, and MTC will continue to provide service. He
added the majority of commuters that are served by bus come from the largest park & ride lot north
of 85th Avenue. He noted a smaller lot at Brookdale Drive has moved around quite a bit but will
probably not be expanded. He noted MnDOT is excited about having a bus MnPASS lane for 85%
of commuters in this corridor.
Mayor Elliott asked what are the safety features that are built-in at 66th Avenue that make up for
the fact that it is less than the 1-mile recommended distance. Mr. Adams stated evaluations are
being completed on different options, including a 2-lane exit at 66th Avenue from southbound
Highway 252, to increase safety on the exit ramp. He added there are many examples of what
MnDOT can accomplish when there is not enough space to meet the 1-mile spacing guideline.
Mayor Elliott asked what the importance of the 1-mile spacing guideline is, and why it is
recommended. Mr. Adams stated the 1-mile spacing is recommended mainly because there would
be less signage, which can be confusing for drivers. He added additional space gives drivers more
decision-making time.
Mayor Elliott asked whether it is accurate to say that there is a distance of 150 feet from the
proposed interchange to the Mississippi River. Mr. Adams stated he does not have the exact data,
but the interchanges do not get closer to the river than Willow Lane.
Councilmember Butler asked about environmental impacts. Mr. Garness stated the boundary of
the proposed interchange is within the Corridor Critical Area. He added interaction between City
Staff, representatives of MN-DNR and the U.S. Parks Service provided feedback on design
parameters for an interchange at this location, and it was determined that it does not exceed
guidelines, and there are no concerns from an environmental perspective. He agreed to make the
comments available for review.
Councilmember Ryan requested that additional information be provided regarding the footprint of
trails connectivity within the interchange and any negative impacts. Mr. Garness agreed.
Mayor Elliott asked whether the proposal for an interchange at 66th Avenue is the only proposal
that would have an elevated interchange, and how high above ground level it would be. Mr. Adams
stated the roads would be left at current grade, as that would require the least amount of property
acquisition for the community. He added it is important for 66th Avenue to be at existing grade
02/03/20 -10- DRAFT
where it meets with Willow Lane. He noted there would be a vertical clearance of 16.6 feet, with
an additional 5 feet of the structure, for a total of 21-25 feet.
Councilmember Ryan asked if there is a prospective count of how many houses and businesses
would be acquired at 66th Avenue. Mr. Adams stated that the type of data is difficult to produce
because the interchange location has not been determined.
Councilmember Ryan stated safety is a major concern, but there are various methods for solving
traffic safety issues. He stressed the importance of considering which option has the smallest
footprint. Mr. Adams agreed.
Mayor Elliott asked what steps have been taken to reduce the levels of air pollution that will be a
result of an increase in cars along the corridor. He added this is one of the most polluted highways
in Minnesota. Mr. Adams stated traffic would continue to increase at this location, even if no
conversion is completed, or other actions are taken. He added traffic stops will be eliminated,
which will reduce emissions, and free-following traffic traveling at higher rates of speed get better
gas mileage, fewer emissions, and less pollution.
Mayor Elliott stated traffic will come to a stop on Highway 252 during periods of heavy traffic,
which is similar to traffic stopping and starting at traffic signals. Mr. Adams stated any increase
in pollution will be offset by the proposed improvements. He added an air quality analysis will be
required as part of the environmental review.
Mr. Harrington stated the use of public transit is an alternative to driving, and there will be an
MNPass lane, which will transport people more efficiently. He added busses have dramatically
reduced emissions and continue to improve.
Mr. Adams stated the Department of Transportation has reviewed the four options and is required
to provide the least impact solution with the highest possible benefit for all parties. He added, in
his opinion as an experienced highway engineer and Department of Transportation employee,
alternative #4 is the best option, based on potential reduced congestion and pollution as well as
reduced impact to local roads and neighborhoods.
Mayor Elliott stated the 252 Safety Taskforce would like to make comments and ask questions,
before a public comment period.
Councilmember Ryan stated many residents have attended the meeting who would like to share
their concerns and ask questions. He added the City Council has already heard at length from the
252 Taskforce and will hear from them again since they are a Taskforce. He noted their job will
be to bring a recommendation to the City Council. He requested that other residents be given an
opportunity to speak, to make it a fair proceeding.
Mayor Elliott stated the Highway 252 Safety Taskforce is on tonight’s meeting agenda.
02/03/20 -11- DRAFT
Councilmember Butler stated it is unnecessary to continue this line of discussion again and make
the Taskforce feel that their comments are not valued.
A Taskforce representative stated they would like to present responses to what they have heard
tonight. He added the Taskforce has provided their complaints to City Staff, and when they heard
the presentation tonight, they were completely ignored. He noted not one of their complaints was
addressed.
The Taskforce representative stated the 1-mile minimum was not addressed. He added a presenter
said the proposed distance between interchanges would be .85 of a mile. He asked that the experts
take into consideration the safety risks on 66th Avenue with the same risks at other locations. He
noted that was not discussed, and there were many questions that the experts could not answer.
The Taskforce representative stated the proposed changes would serve people who are not
residents of Brooklyn Center. He added federal studies have indicated that there are safety
concerns when the distance between interchanges is less than 1 mile. He noted residents of his
neighborhood are concerned about the impact on the Mississippi River.
The Taskforce representative stated other solutions are possible at 73rd Avenue, like a rotary or an
underpass. He added the experts should provide information about why they are not
recommending an exchange at 73rd Avenue. He noted the experts used sloppy unclear language
in their presentation.
Another Taskforce member asked what the percentage of cars entering Highway 252 at 66th
Avenue would need to get to I-94. She added that it would create massive traffic jams on Highway
252. She added West River Road was closed by the City Council because it was dangerous. She
noted the insufficient distance between interchanges would result in accidents, as there is not
enough time to decelerate.
The Taskforce member stated the Taskforce’s main concern is safety. She added federal guidelines
recommend 1 mile spacing between interchanges. She noted the expert from MnDOT indicated it
is much more dangerous to have a short distance between interchanges. Mr. Adams stated he did
not say it was more dangerous. He agreed to draw up additional information and clearly explain
all the benefits.
The Taskforce member stated she lost her son when he was rear-ended on Highway 252. She
added she does not want anyone to ever go through that. She noted her house would be one of the
homes that would be taken if the interchange is constructed at 66th Avenue.
The Taskforce member stated she understands that all the parties involved have done a lot of work
on this in terms of gathering and presenting the information. She added there are many factors
that cannot be worked around, but more people should not have to die on Highway 252.
02/03/20 -12- DRAFT
Tom Kouri thanked all the experts for their time and presentations, and all their hard work behind
the scenes.
Mr. Kouri stated he is a Highway 252 Safety Taskforce member. He added the Taskforce is
supportive of conversion to a limited-access freeway, but with some critical changes to the plan.
He added his group understands that staff will quickly assemble additional information.
Jesse Struve, Brooklyn Park City Engineer, stated he wishes to speak on behalf of Mayor Lunde
of Brooklyn Park, who was unable to attend. He added Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park staff
and elected officials have worked together for the last 3 years on this project. He expressed
concern at the formation of a City Council-appointed Taskforce and noted that this advisory group
should have a membership that is open to any resident of Brooklyn Center.
Mayor Elliott stated the City Council has already heard from Brooklyn Park’s Mayor Lunde on
this issue. Mr. Struve stated robust public engagement is necessary. He added 5 of the 6
interchanges on 252 are ranked in the State’s most dangerous intersections. He noted the project
has been evaluated and reviewed many times over the years, and a layout has been developed that,
in their opinion, is the safest, minimizes impacts to the community, and is cost-effective.
Mr. Struve stated Brooklyn Park wants to move ahead, advancing the 252 project as soon as
possible, like every year that the project is delayed results in more deaths, injuries, economic loss,
and increased costs. He added if federal funding is lost due to delays in Brooklyn Center, no work
will be done, and the funding is lost.
Mayor Elliot asked whether any Brooklyn Park residents have expressed their concerns about
changes in Brooklyn Park and whether any steps have been taken. Mr. Struve stated there have
been meetings and concerns expressed for projects in Brooklyn Park, including closures of
Humboldt Avenue and 73rd Avenue. Mr. Struve stated Brooklyn Park has worked through the
same process as Brooklyn Center and Minneapolis, including MnDOT updates and numerous
neighborhood meetings. He added the process in Brooklyn Park is the same as Brooklyn Center.
Mayor Elliott disagreed, stating the process in Brooklyn Center is very different. A citizen-led
Taskforce has been appointed to review the Highway 252 project and come back with
recommendations and insight on the proposal.
Mr. Struve stated Brooklyn Park has been working through this process for many years, doing
what has been asked of them, and suddenly a Taskforce was formed in Brooklyn Center with no
notification to any residents other than the people appointed to the Taskforce.
Mayor Elliot stated Mr. Struve seems to be concerned with how Brooklyn Center operates as a
City. He added Mr. Struve’s thoughts and comments on the roadway, impacts on Brooklyn Park,
02/03/20 -13- DRAFT
would be welcome and valid. He noted, however, Mr. Struve has commented on the operation of
internal affairs in Brooklyn Center, and he takes exception to that.
Bonnie Jude stated she is a resident of Brooklyn Center. She asked about the Taskforce and how
it was formed. She added Mayor Elliott said the Taskforce was made up of local residents. She
noted she has never heard of such a Taskforce and asked how and when it was formed, and whether
there is a representative cross-section of residents.
Mayor Elliott stated the Taskforce was formed by initial members who have been coming to recent
City Council meetings to express their concern about Highway 252 reconstruction.
Ms. Jude asked whether the Taskforce is made up of residents of the Riverwood neighborhood.
Mayor Elliott stated he thinks that is true, although there have been attempts to let other people
join.
Tara McCarthy, a member of the Taskforce, stated the taskforce distributed flyers to all areas of
Brooklyn Center that might be concerned about this project. She added the Taskforce has a
website, and meeting notices are posted on the City website. She noted the Taskforce members
care about the rest of Brooklyn Center and not just their neighborhood.
Tom Nystrom stated he reads the Brooklyn Center Post, and he has not seen any information on
the Taskforce. He added he built his house 37 years ago on 73rd Avenue. He added if 73rd Avenue
goes to a 5-lane roadway, he will lose his home. He noted he does not believe there are 32,000
cars on 73rd Avenue every day.
Former Mayor Tim Willson stated this debate has been going on since 2005, not just the last 5
years. He added the Taskforce provides repetitive information that they already provided before
they were a Taskforce, and they are opposed to the project. He noted the Taskforce takes umbrage
against experts in their fields at the City, County, and State level.
Former Mayor Willson asked why there are no residents from other neighborhoods on the
Taskforce. He asked whether the Taskforce’s role would be to back up the City Council’s denial
of the project or to provide comprehensive unbiased information that will be helpful to the City
Council in making an informed decision. He added there have been no comments from the
Taskforce about the existing safety issues on Highway 252 that need to be addressed.
Mayor Elliott stated a member of the Taskforce spoke in favor of moving forward with the project
but with modifications.
Former Mayor Willson asked how citizens could join the Taskforce, as he would like to join.
Mayor Elliott stated the Taskforce was initiated by residents and recognized by the City Council.
He added, however, the proclamation states that the Taskforce is open to Brooklyn Center
residents, and the Taskforce will add their own members.
02/03/20 -14- DRAFT
A Taskforce representative stated the Riverwood Association has had numerous meetings, and no
one on the Taskforce believes there will not be a change. He added they cannot have 500 members,
but anyone who wants to speak can come to their meetings. He noted the Taskforce has been very
open about their meetings.
DISCUSS NEXT STEPS
Mayor Elliott stated he understands the need for action and change on Highway 252 to address
safety and traffic concerns, he does not feel he has any additional clarity after the presentation
tonight, about which is the right proposal. He added the experts have agreed to come back and
answer questions and provide information. He added another work session can then be scheduled.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated there is a lot of information to digest, and some of it
is repetitive. She added she would like to have another meeting, perhaps a joint meeting with the
Taskforce. She noted she does not believe the City Council is in a position to vote at this time.
Councilmember Butler stated she has not seen a timeline for the project. She expressed concern
and frustration that the empowerment of a group of residents to make change causes other residents
to be upset.
Councilmember Ryan stated Councilmember Butler brings up a good point about the necessity for
having a project timeline. He added a process timeline was outlined by the Highway 252 technical
experts, and all agencies involved. For the next phase, extensive citizen engagement is planned,
as well as the publication of the environmental review.
Mr. Boganey stated City Staff could provide additional information on the project timeline and
related documentation, some of which were included in tonight’s meeting packet. He added
members of the City Council – Mayor Elliott and Councilmembers Butler - have been appointed
to attend the Highway 252 project meetings.
Mr. Boganey stated there is a time-related issue is that in the upcoming legislative session, the City
Council will need to decide whether to instruct Hennepin County to move forward with a $50
million bonding request. He added there are other timing issues down the line, related to federal
funding that has been approved, and specific dates by which that money must be accessed or the
funds will be lost. He noted the City Council should make every effort to come to a Consensus
before the February 21, 2020 project meeting, so whoever is representing Brooklyn Center is able
to reflect the direction of the City Council.
Councilmember Butler stated she was appointed to attend project meetings. She added a substitute
should be allowed to go if other City Councilmembers want to go to the meeting.
02/03/20 -15- DRAFT
Mayor Elliott stated he concurs with Councilmember Graves that the environmental review should
happen earlier in the process. He asked why the environmental review happens at the end of the
process. He added environmental sustainability is a focus of the City Council,
Mr. Garness stated throughout the process of project development, the project continues to develop
and evolve. He added the options that have been presented are for City Council review and
recommendation. He added the City Council can request further study and additional options.
Councilmember Graves stated she would like to know more about the environmental impact study,
and what effect the interchange would have on the river if it was not so close. She added she
would like to understand the traffic situation on 73rd Avenue better.
Councilmember Butler thanked the residents who attended the meeting, as well as the experts who
were flexible about dates for this meeting. She also thanked staff for putting this together and all
community members, either for or against, who came to speak, as she appreciated their time.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded adjournment
of the City Council Special Work Session at 9:37 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
02/24/20 -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
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
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, City Engineer Mike Albers, Community Development Director Meg Beekman,
Community Development Deputy Director/HRA Specialist Jesse Anderson, Police Chief Tim
Gannon, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist.
Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for the purpose of the Informal Open Forum.
No one wished to address the City Council.
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Informal Open
Forum at 6:58 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
2. INVOCATION
Mayor Elliott read an excerpt from “Factors Affecting Your Health” from Derbyshire County
Council in the UK:
There are many factors that can affect your health. These include things like
housing, financial security, community safety, employment, education, and the
environment. These are known as the wider determinants of health.
Not all of these factors are directly under your control but are part of the place
you grow up, live and work.
It is widely accepted that these factors contribute to significant levels of health
inequality.
02/24/20 -2- DRAFT
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, City Engineer Mike Albers, Community Development Director Meg Beekman,
Community Development Deputy Director/HRA Specialist Jesse Anderson, Police Chief Tim
Gannon, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist.
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to approve the
Agenda and Consent Agenda, and the following consent items were approved:
6a. LICENSES
MECHANICAL
Pro Master Plumbing, Inc. 9007 Jane Road N
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
SIGN HANGER
Digital Billboard, Inc. 16101 Ramsey Blvd NW
Ramsey MN 55303
RENTAL
RENEWAL (TYPE IV – one-year license)
1425 55th Ave N Trung Duong
5510 France Ave N Kin Chew / Urban Enterprises
7100 Lee Ave N Selene Avendamo
RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license)
1300 67th Ave N Roger & Elizabeth Family Properties LLC ‐
Brookside Manor Met Mitigation Plan
3224 67th Ave N Haymat Dasrath
3800 66th Ave N Nancy Yang / Kayo Investments ‐
Met Mitigation Plan
7012 Unity Ave N Shuxing
02/24/20 -3- DRAFT
RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license)
5420 Emerson Ave N Christopher Raisch ‐
met action plan
RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license)
5344 Twin Lake Blvd E Takasi Sibuya / John Johansson
4118 Woodbine Lane Ron & Jeanette Blasewitz
6b. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-24 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CONDUIT
MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS
RELATING TO THE REE XERXES AVENUE SENIOR HOUSING
PROJECT
6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-25 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2018-04, 2018 BRIDGE
REHABILITATION PHASE 2
6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-26 APPROVING PURCHASE AGREEMENT
FOR 6000 EWING AVENUE AS PART OF THE BROOKLYN
BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT PHASE 2
6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-27 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2020-01, 02, 03 AND 04,
GRANDVIEW NORTH AREA STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND
UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS
6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-28 ELIMINATING THE PURCHASE OF ONE
TIME USE PLASTIC AND STYROFOAM PLATES, UTENSILS, CUPS,
AND STRAWS WITH CITY FUNDS FOR ALL BUILDINGS
6g. NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION JOINT POWERS
AGREEMENT REVISED
Motion passed unanimously.
7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS
7a. HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF DAVID HUTCHINSON
City Manager Curt Boganey welcomed Hennepin County Sheriff Dave Hutchinson and invited
him to address the City Council.
Sheriff Dave Hutchinson gave a presentation on the work and activities of the Hennepin County
Sheriff’s Department. He thanked Brooklyn Center Police Chief Tim Gannon for his partnership
and support. He reviewed 2019 requests for service from Brooklyn Center, including 114
requests for information, 20 jail calls, 15 subject workups, and 2 drug trafficking analysis
02/24/20 -4- DRAFT
reports. He stated the jail system is one of Hennepin county’s biggest divisions and one of the
biggest jails and court systems in the Midwest. He added County Sheriff’s Office staff include
innovators in medical treatment for opioid addiction and mental health care workers who provide
mental health screenings of inmates.
Sheriff Hutchinson stated a trial Wellness Program has been initiated, which has resulted in
deputies that are happier and more satisfied which will have a positive effect on their work. The
Hennepin County Dispatch Center is the largest in the State of Minnesota, and in the top 15 in
the nation, dispatching to 7 different cities. A social worker has been added to Dispatch Center
staff to bridge the gap between mental health calls and the Sheriff’s Department, providing
support and information.
Sheriff Hutchinson stated he is proud of the work of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Department.
He invited the Councilmembers to tour the Hennepin County Jail and Communications Center.
He noted he hopes to continue to grow the positive relationship that has been fostered between
Hennepin County and the Brooklyn Center Police Department and Chief Gannon.
Mayor Elliott thanked Sheriff Hutchinson for attending the meeting and giving his presentation.
He asked whether the total number of calls for service includes 911 calls. Sheriff Hutchinson
confirmed this, adding the Call Center receives calls for everything from 911 to general non-
emergency calls.
Councilmember Ryan asked whether the Sheriff’s office still supplements the police force as
needed during the busy months from May – September. Sheriff Hutchinson confirmed this,
adding the Sheriff’s Office will make every attempt to respond to requests for help and provide
needed support to the Police Department.
Councilmember Graves asked whether there are plans to increase the number of mental health
professionals. Sheriff Hutchinson confirmed that the mental health worker is very busy and
needs additional support. He added the Sheriff’s Department will have 2 interns from the
University of Minnesota who are working on their doctorate to assist with mental health issues.
He noted he would like to hire a part-time secondary therapist to support solutions for a diverse
group of people, and the Sheriff’s Department hopes to diversify in other ways as well, including
hiring an African American female Police Officer.
Sheriff Hutchinson stated one of the County Commissioners is working on a plan to provide
additional social workers at the Dispatch Center.
Councilmember Graves asked whether Sheriff’s Department officers question people about their
immigration status and share information with Immigration officials. Sheriff Hutchinson stated
officers do not request immigration status information. He added an Advisory Committee works
with an immigration group to resolve issues related to immigrants and residency status.
02/24/20 -5- DRAFT
Councilmember Butler asked whether Sheriff’s Department employees do unconscious bias
training. Sheriff Hutchinson confirmed this, adding he attended training as well. He added a
new training program is being developed in partnership with the YWCA to provide better, more
thoughtful training.
Mayor Elliott asked whether there are opportunities for cities like Brooklyn Center to share
resources for the County’s co-responder model. Sheriff Hutchinson stated there is a Health &
Human Services Department program that is working on providing a co-responder initiative for
cities. He added it is difficult to come up with a basic level of service, as no two cities are the
same, and some do not want much help.
Mayor Elliott asked whether social workers joining on calls is something that can be provided
for cities. Sheriff Hutchinson stated that is already in place, as the County does dispatch for
Brooklyn Center. He added he would like to increase this program, but it comes down to
funding.
Mayor Elliott asked whether there are wellness programs in the Sheriff’s Department. Sheriff
Hutchinson stated Hennepin County is the first Sheriff’s Department in Minnesota to provide the
services of a full-time mental health worker to support Sheriff’s Department staff.
Mayor Elliott asked about the rate of recidivism in the Hennepin County Jail. Sheriff
Hutchinson stated the Department’s goal is to provide support and services while individuals are
in jail, to help reduce crime and costs in the long run. He added the rate of recidivism in
Hennepin County is one of the lowest in the nation although he did not have the data with him at
the meeting. He agreed to provide that information for Mayor Elliott.
Mayor Elliott asked whether steps are being taken to provide training to Officers who may have
encounters with new Americans, who are not totally aware of all the local laws and connect with
communities to disseminate information. Sheriff Hutchinson stated the goal of the Sheriff’s
Department is to provide guidance and engagement for citizens and youth to improve
relationships with the Police in the long term. He added an aspect of this is the recruitment of
Sheriff’s Department employees, as they are always hiring, and
Councilmember Graves asked whether the Sheriff’s Department has plans to initiate a program
like the Minneapolis Community Navigators, who provide support at calls for service. Sheriff
Hutchinson stated there are efforts through the Chaplain’s Office to provide support and advice
to high-risk people who need it.
Mayor Elliott thanked Sheriff Hutchinson for his service to the community. Sheriff Hutchinson
stated he looks forward to a continuation of the City’s partnership with the Hennepin County
Sheriff’s Department.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to receive the report of
02/24/20 -6- DRAFT
Hennepin County Sheriff David Hutchinson.
Motion passed unanimously.
7b. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-29 RECOGNIZING SUE FOGAL FOR 39 YEARS OF
SERVICE TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Mayor Elliott read in full a Proclamation recognizing Sue Fogal for 39 years of service to the
City of Brooklyn Center.
Councilmember Butler moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO.
2020-29 Recognizing Accounting Technician Sue Fogal for 39 Years of Service with the City of
Brooklyn Center.
Motion passed unanimously.
7c. METRO TRANSIT PRESENTATION ON BROOKLYN CENTER TRANSIT
CENTER IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. Boganey welcomed Alicia Vap, Metro Transit Project Manager, Joanna Hubbard-Rivera,
Metro Transit Customer Advocate, and invited them to address the City Council.
Ms. Vap stated Metro Transit’s Brooklyn Center Transit Center, located at Bass Lake Road and
Northway Drive, has been scheduled for renovations due to safety concerns and operational
issues at the facility. She added this is an opportunity to reprogram the space to support
increased ridership and daily use by Metro Transit Police.
Ms. Hubbard-Rivera stated hours for restrooms and general facilities are planned to be extended,
as surveys have shown that 30% of riders have a desire for increased staff presence at the transit
Station. She added the majority of customers identified the buses they take often 1 or more per
day, with the greatest number of riders commuting from Brooklyn Center to Minneapolis and
back.
Ms. Vap stated many exciting changes are planned at the Transit Center, including replacement
of plaza concrete; addition of exterior canopies and landscaping; renovation of public waiting
areas and restrooms; and additional space for bus operations and more space for Metro Transit
Police staff. She added a consult room is planned that can be shared between the Metro Transit
Police and the City’s Police Department. She noted a public artwork display is planned for the
lobby area.
Ms. Vap stated the design phase is nearing completion, and construction is planned to be
completed by the end of 2020. She added transit operations will be impacted as concrete plazas
are to be replaced, and 4 gates relocated to Northway Drive. She noted the interior facility will
be closed during construction.
02/24/20 -7- DRAFT
Mayor Elliott thanked the Metro Transit representatives for their presentation. He stated the
Metro Transit Station is incredibly important to the community, and investments and
improvements are extremely welcome. He added he supports the assignment of Metro Transit
Police Officers to be at the Transit Station 7 days a week.
Ms. Vap agreed, adding there will be Metro Transit Police presence at the facility every day from
2:00 p.m. to midnight.
Mayor Elliott asked where the City of Brooklyn Center ranks in terms of ridership. Ms.
Hubbard-Rivera stated Brooklyn Center is the second-highest initial ridership and transfer point
within the Metro Transit system. Ms. Vap agreed, adding only the Mall of America Transit
Center has higher numbers.
Mayor Elliott asked whether there are opportunities for providing amenities to riders, like the
Bruegger’s Bagels store at the Eagan Transit Station. Ms. Hubbard-Rivera stated the focus has
been a transit hub with Metro Transit Police presence as opposed to a retail space. Ms. Vap
agreed, adding the Metro Transit has a Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) office, that looks at
partnerships and opportunities for development at transit locations. She added the Brooklyn
Center facility is limited in size.
Councilmember Graves asked whether the Transit Station’s limited size will be sufficient to
handle future growth in ridership, based on the current high levels of ridership. Ms. Vap
confirmed that Metro Transit takes into consideration current peak loads and future projections,
and future potential utilization. She added the intention is that passengers will be in the Transit
Station for a short period of time, and Metro Transit is confident that the size of the Station is
sufficient.
Councilmember Graves asked whether a gender-neutral restroom is being considered. Ms. Vap
stated that the issue has been discussed. She added, in discussions with Metro Transit Police and
Brooklyn Center Police, it was agreed that restrooms doors should not be able to be locked, and
the decision was made that there will be no doors on restrooms. She added a gender-neutral
restroom was not a possible option.
Councilmember Graves asked whether Metro Transit staff is responsible for maintaining and
cleaning the Transit Center. Ms. Vap stated Metro Transit Facilities staff visits the Transit
Center daily to do cleaning and maintenance. She added exterior water faucets are planned to
facilitate power washing the plazas.
Councilmember Ryan stated Metro Transit has taken efforts to make improvements in
environmental design while enhancing public safety. He requested additional information from
Ms. Vap via email that he can review, in the interests of time. Ms. Vap agreed.
02/24/20 -8- DRAFT
Mayor Elliott asked whether information on ridership demographics is available. Ms. Ms.
Hubbard-Rivera stated a poll was conducted before the start of the C-line, and 60% of those
polled identified as African American. She added post-C-line polling has indicated that this has
not changed.
Mayor Elliott asked whether there is an opportunity to partner with community organizations and
the City to provide opportunities at the transit center or nearby. He added he hopes there can be
programs initiated, such as workforce training, and other opportunities considered to engage
youth in the area.
Ms. Ms. Hubbard-Rivera stated Metro Transit hosts tabling information sessions at the Brooklyn
Center Transit Center, with materials regarding Metro Transit employment and transit assistance
passes for qualified riders. Ms. Alicia agreed, adding there are a lot of opportunities for shared
outreach.
Mr. Boganey stated City Staff have had conversations with Metro Transit regarding possible
activities that could be programmed in the space to engage riders in a positive way without being
distracting.
Mayor Elliott asked whether there is data regarding gender and age of riders. Ms. Hubbard-
Rivera stated gender was not on the survey. She added she does not have survey data related to
age, but the majority of riders were 28-40 years.
Mayor Elliott thanked the Metro Transit representatives for their presentation.
Mayor Elliott called for a recess.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8a. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-01 VACATING A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY:
BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
City Engineer Mike Albers reviewed improvements to Brooklyn Boulevard and vacation of a
portion of the right of way near the intersection with Highway 100. He added the 2013 Brooklyn
Boulevard Corridor Study recommended improvements along Brooklyn Boulevard, including
this unused portion of a right of way.
Mr. Albers stated a new right in, right out access to the frontage road has been built, and the
Lilac Drive portion of the roadway have be acquired from Brookdale Covenant Church. He
added, if adopted, the Ordinance would go into effect 30 days following publication, and all
parties involved have been notified. He noted City Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance
amendment.
02/24/20 -9- DRAFT
Recommend hold a public hearing for the right of way vacation, and approval of the proposed
Ordinance.
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to open the
Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
No one appeared to address this item.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to close the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve Second Reading
and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2020-01 Vacating a Portion of Right-Of-Way: Brooklyn
Boulevard.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2020-30 for Summary Publication of Ordinance NO. 2020-01.
Motion passed unanimously.
8b. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-31 APPROVING THE PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
FOR THE 2020 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF A
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY
Deputy Director of Community Development Jesse Anderson reviewed the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding allocation of $258,000 to be received by the City of
Brooklyn Center, provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and
administered by Hennepin County. He added funds are required to be used for activities that
benefit low- and moderate-income persons. He noted the City Council had requested additional
information when this issue was discussed at their recent Work Session.
Mr. Anderson stated the down payment assistance program if increased to $100,000, would
benefit 13-14 households.
Mr. Anderson stated the City of Richfield has a similar program with the same requirements and
a recommendation of $110,000 for 2020. He added, however, Richfield has had difficulty
expending funds, as they do not have enough houses for sale that meet the requirements. He
noted they are removing requirements for 2020, and down payment assistance will be available
by application for anyone buying a home in Richfield.
02/24/20 -10- DRAFT
Mr. Anderson reviewed the proposed home rehab program, with 5 loans in process. Anticipated
proposed funds of $158,000 would benefit 9-10 households, with 61 households on the waiting
list.
Mr. Anderson stated Brooklyn Park’s home rehab program provided a single allocation of
$207,000 in CDBG funds to renovate a 4-unit apartment building to provide housing for
homeless people. He added, in 2003, Brooklyn Center allocated $175,000 in CDBG funding to
renovate Shingle Creek Towers, which is now The Crest. He added CDBG funding was
combined with other affordable housing funds, for a total of $4.9 million in rehab at the property.
He noted 96 of the 122 units affordable at or below 60% of the Average Median Income.
Mr. Anderson stated City Staff recommends 2020 CDBG funding of $258,000, with the removal
of funding for Code Enforcement and added allocation of $100,000 for the homeownership
assistance program, as well as $158,000 for the home rehab program.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to open the
Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
No one appeared to address this item.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to close the
Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Graves asked whether the resident requirement is recommended for removal,
similar to the City of Richfield. Mr. Anderson stated that is not necessary at this point, as it is
hoped that projects for current residents will be within funding parameters, and funding can be
expended until December 2020.
Mayor Elliott asked how the programs are advertised. Mr. Anderson stated the contract with the
Center for Energy and the Environment has been signed, and they have provided an
informational flyer that has been added to the City website and social media sites. He added
information will be available at the Home Buying Seminar this week, and he plans to reach out
to realtors and homeowners with homes for sale, as well as the local Realtors Association, local
banks, and current renters.
Mayor Elliott asked whether the flyer is available in multiple languages? Mr. Anderson stated
City Staff can get it translated.
02/24/20 -11- DRAFT
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2020-31 Approving the Projected Use of Funds for the 2020 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program and Authorizing Signature of a Subrecipient
Agreement with Hennepin County.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mayor Elliott thanked Mr. Anderson for his hard work and efforts, including extensive research
on this issue.
8c. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-03 AMENDING CHAPTER 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF
ORDINANCES REGARDING ACCESS TO MULTI-UNIT HOUSING
STRUCTURES BY THE UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU EMPLOYEES
Deputy City Manager Dr. Reggie Edwards reviewed the Census Complete Count, a Coalition
with the City of Brooklyn Park for the 2020 Census, which starts on April 1, 2020, with counts
made by December 31, 2020. A State Ordinance was approved in 2019 that provides access to
multi-unit housing structures by U.S. Census Bureau employees. The primary focus of the
Census is to reach under-counted or hard-to-count populations.
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to open the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
No one appeared to address this item.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the
Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve Second Reading
and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2020-03 Amending Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances
Regarding Access to Multi-Unit Housing Structures by the United States Census Bureau
Employees.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-32 for Summary Publication of ORDINANCE NO. 2020-03.
Motion passed unanimously.
8d. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-33 ADOPTING A BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY
02/24/20 -12- DRAFT
Community Development Director Meg Beekman introduced Jason Aarsvold, Ehlers, who
provided an overview of the Business Subsidy Policy structure, required by State Statute, with
proposed amendments. He added the Business Subsidy Policy provides City Council direction to
City Staff and developers regarding priorities for development and redevelopment.
Mr. Aarsvold stated the City Council was asked to identify key policy objectives, after which a
draft policy was reviewed, and feedback received. He added the final policy is presented at
tonight’s meeting for consideration with some additions to the Qualifying Projects section, to
ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, and fulfills workforce needs by hiring local
residents through targeted recruitment.
Mr. Aarsvold requested that the City Council consider the adoption of the final Business Subsidy
and Public Financing Policy.
Mayor Elliott stated Section 4.2, “Desired Qualifications” includes a statement regarding multi-
family housing with high amenities that are considered luxury amenities. He added the language
is problematic as the City should not invest in luxury apartments that would not be accessible to
residents in the community. He noted the City should not subsidize luxury apartments and he
will not support the language.
Councilmember Graves stated Item 5 refers to the promotion of investment of City Goals and
providing options that currently do not exist. She added having the language is not an indication
that the City Council would be required to approve a luxury development proposal. She noted
that the Policy is not saying the facility or physical location would be luxury, but rather that the
amenities inside the units would be high-end.
Councilmember Graves stated any project that requires a subsidy would have to be reviewed and
approved by the Consensus of the City Council. She added there are a number of positive
requirements on the same list, and owner-desired qualifications. She added the City would not
be obligated to accept a proposal if the desired qualifications were not provided.
Mr. Aarsvold agreed, adding the City Council would have wide latitude regarding what projects
will or will not receive assistance. He added the Policy document does not obligate the City or
put it at risk for not providing subsidy.
City Attorney Troy Gilchrist stated this seems to be a language issue, and the item in question
could be re-worded to read, “multi-family housing with high-quality amenities”. Mayor Elliott
stated he would like to add “accessible to working-class families.
Mayor Elliott stated he does not support the proposed language, as the City should not be
funding luxury housing for wealthier people. He added there should be language to reflect that
working-class residents can afford to live in this type of housing. He noted the amendment
should include “of various income levels”.
02/24/20 -13- DRAFT
Councilmember Ryan stated the 2040 Comprehensive Plan states that the City’s objective is to
provide a broad spectrum of housing choices across the market. He added the language could be
more open, to include high amenities rather than luxury amenities. He requested that the City
Council should move on from the contentious issue regarding what should or should not be
subsidized. He noted he has voted in favor of every affordable housing proposal that has come
before the City Council. He stressed the importance of looking at all kinds of projects that will
address other styles and price points, including higher amenities, in the marketplace.
Councilmember Graves stated the language is not exclusive, as Item 5b refers to the provision of
clean, safe and affordable housing units.
Mayor Elliott stated he would support an amendment to make the language more inclusive. He
added the City should not be in the business of the transfer of wealth. He noted the City must
provide access to luxury housing for residents if the intention is to subsidize luxury housing.
Councilmember Graves stated the policy agreement states that the individual amenities are
considered luxury items, not the apartments themselves nor the provision of subsidies.
Mayor Elliott stated multi-family housing with luxury amenities is the same as luxury
apartments, and he cannot support it. He added the City should not participate in providing
luxury apartments without providing access for working-class families.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Graves seconded to open the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
A resident stated she lives in Brooklyn Center and works for a housing program for people with
disabilities who have been homeless for over a year. She added her clients are unable to find
housing or afford rent and require financial assistance. She added the word “luxury” is not
appropriate. She stressed the importance of being careful with the language that is used, which
could be misunderstood.
The resident stated there should be an amendment to the policy agreement that provides
protections for low-income renters.
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Butler stated luxury amenities come with a luxury price tag, which should be
acknowledged. She added she is not opposed to a wide range of housing in Brooklyn Center, but
stressed the importance of not displacing current residents. She noted she agrees with Mayor
Elliott, and she will not support the agreement unless the language is amended.
02/24/20 -14- DRAFT
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated she appreciates all the comments that have been
offered. She thanked the resident who came forward for the work that she does within the
community. She added she is amenable to replacing the word “luxury” with “quality” amenities,
as “luxury” can have a connotation that could jeopardize the cost of rents. She noted she
supports the provision of good quality housing for people of varying income levels, regardless of
where they live in Brooklyn Center, and she supports the policy with the language amendment as
noted.
Mayor Elliott stated the City Council should have a more detailed discussion regarding subsidies
and accessibility for residents.
Councilmember Ryan stated Councilmember Butler is correct in pointing out that offering
additional amenities will affect the price of rental units. He added the City of Brooklyn Center
has a clear objective to provide a broad range of housing styles and price points. He noted, as a
general guide, the City Council will be reviewing development projects and receive information
and guidance regarding financials that would be necessary to make it happen.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to amend
Section 4.2, Item 5d, to read, “Multi-family housing with high-quality amenities.”
Mayor Elliott requested a friendly amendment to the motion to add the words “and
affordability”.
Councilmember Ryan stated affordability is addressed in other policy requirements. He added
the City Council will address these types of issues on a project-by-project basis. He noted the
policy provides clear guidelines related to possible financial assistance for any given project.
Mr. Gilchrist stated a motion to amend the policy was made and seconded. He added Mayor
Elliott may pursue his amendment, but an additional motion would be required.
Mayor Elliott moved and Councilmember Butler seconded to amend the amendment to read,
“Multi-family housing with high-quality amenities and affordability.”
Councilmembers Graves, Lawrence-Anderson and Ryan voted against the same. Motion to
amend did not pass.
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence Anderson seconded to amend
Section 4.2, Item D of the Business Subsidy Policy to read, “Multi-family housing with high-
quality amenities.”
Mayor Elliott and Councilmember Butler voted against the same. Motion to amend passed.
02/24/20 -15- DRAFT
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt
RESOLUTION NO. 2020-33 Adopting a Policy and Criteria for Granting Business Subsidies, as
amended.
Mayor Elliott and Councilmember Butler voted against the same. Motion passed.
9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
-None.
10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
-None.
11. COUNCIL REPORT
-None.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded adjournment of the City
Council meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
02/24/20 -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 WORK SESSION
FEBRUARY 24, 2020
CITY HALL – COUNCIL COMMISSION ROOM
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Special Work Session called to order by
Mayor/President Mike Elliott at 5:47 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson and
Dan Ryan, City Manager Curt Boganey; Deputy City Manager Dr. Reggie Edwards; Finance
Director Mark Ebensteiner; Public Works Director Doran Cote; Community Development
Director Meg Beekman; Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services Jim Glasoe;
Police Chief Tim Gannon; Fire Chief Todd Berg; and City Clerk Barb Suciu.
Also present were Representative Ilhan Omar and members of her staff.
REPRESENTATIVE ILHAN OMAR
Mayor Elliott welcomed Representative Omar and thanked her for coming to the Work Session.
Representative Omar stated she feels strongly about the importance of having connected
conversations and staying closely engaged with the constituents she serves. She added she plans
to collectively engage in ways that can best serve the people in the constituencies she serves.
Representative Omar stated she was in Brooklyn Center in 2019 for meetings related to the DED,
and the struggles related to the temporary status of Liberians, to which a permanent solution has
been found in the form of a collaborative amendment. She added the “Dream and Promise” Act
was brought forward last year, to assist temporary status or DED status immigrant residents who
want to have a permanent pathway to citizenship and residence.
Representative Omar stated there has been discussion regarding an overhaul of the immigration
system, to create a system that is more humane and uplifting, helping the community advocate
for themselves while keeping their values and principles intact.
Representative Omar stated other important issues are federal support for criminal justice reform,
eliminating incarceration and dealing with the mental health opioid crises in the communities she
02/24/20 -2- DRAFT
serves, and support for climate change legislation. She added she introduced a piece of
legislation to create a grant program for municipalities to assist in creating a zero-waste program,
as many municipalities need the resources to implement these initiatives. She added she sits on
the Education and Labor Committee, and the sub-committee Higher Education and Job Creation,
supporting funding for training and the creation of jobs. She stressed the importance of debt
cancellation for students, to enable students to get an education for free. She noted she has
supported grant opportunities and federal funding for minority-owned development.
Representative Omar stated municipalities have asked her to address housing as a priority issue.
She added legislators worked collaboratively to come up with a plan to deal with the
homelessness crisis throughout the country; to address tenant issues and landlord abuses, and
how to deal with prohibiting renting or homeownership due to a criminal record. She noted
legislation has been introduced called “Homes for All”, which would guarantee the promise of
housing for all. Federal funding of $1 trillion is being asked for this initiative, for the creation of
affordable public housing and wrap-around services and support for people who experience
chronic homelessness. This legislation also deals with the issue of gentrification, which would
ensure that communities like Brooklyn Center have the resources to support themselves and
combat gentrification, which is a direct result of development and redevelopment.
Representative Omar stated she approved funding for transportation and infrastructure. She
added communication infrastructure should be available to everyone, and not just the urban core
communities.
Representative Omar stated she is aware of the Highway 252 issue that is currently being
addressed by Brooklyn Center, and it is a critical conversation and a priority. She added she has
supported federal funding to make the project happen. She noted she has supported legislation to
support public transportation and funding for bike lanes and walkable communities.
Representative Omar stated she is interested to learn about the priorities of the Brooklyn Center
community, and if there are additional items that would benefit from collaboration.
Mayor Elliott thanked Representative Omar, adding she covered most of the items on the City’s
list of priorities. He stated affordable housing is a critical need, and he fully supports addressing
that issue. He added, with regard to gentrification, Brooklyn Center is currently working on
development projects that will increase home values and negatively impact residents on fixed
incomes. He stressed the importance of building capacity to enable residents to be able to start
and grow their own businesses in Brooklyn Center.
Mayor Elliott thanked Representative Omar for her support on the Highway 252 project,
Mayor Elliott stated the Brooklyn Center Police Department is actively working on mental health
issues and the opioid crisis and finding ways to work collaboratively with other members of the
02/24/20 -3- DRAFT
community. He added the Police Department recently added a phone app for their officers that
notifies them when they are within range of someone who has a mental health issue.
Mayor Elliott stated the City is working on all these issues, and she is glad they are transferring
to the federal level as well.
Councilmember Butler stated the City’s Opportunity Site development project is a huge area
with the potential for some type of housing. She added she does not feel gentrification is
necessarily a bad thing; however, the displacement of residents is to be avoided, not just in the
Opportunity Site, but the whole City.
Councilmember Butler stated tenant protection is a serious issue with support from the State and
Federal governments,
Councilmember Ryan stated he agrees with Councilmember Butler that the home finance
provisions in the IRS Code that provides incentives for investors to support these efforts. He
added he hopes Representative Omar and her staff will keep an eye on that, to ensure important
support for affordable housing is not undermined.
Councilmember Ryan stated Social Security benefits are important for retirees, especially for the
one-third of Americans for whom it is currently their sole source of income. He added this fund
will be insolvent within 15 years if revenues are not adjusted. He noted the Social Security Act
appears to be a good approach to enhancing revenue streams and staying solvent.
Representative Omar stated wage inequality is being discussed at the federal level, and the
Minimum Wage Act was recently passed, of which she is a chief architect, raising the minimum
wage to $15/hour. She added there is an opportunity for conversations about persistent income
inequality that exists in the United States, how to address it. She noted another architect of that
legislation will be in Minneapolis for a Town Hall meeting on this issue, and she invited the
Councilmember Ryan to speak about what is important on behalf of constituents.
Councilmember Ryan agreed as this is an issue of real concern.
Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson thanked Representative Omar, adding she appreciates that
she sits on the Education and Labor Committee. She asked when the $15/hour minimum wage
increase would go into effect. Representative Omar stated it would take effect immediately, but
the bill has not passed in the Senate, although it passed in the House. She added 435 bills were
sent to the Senate, and 375 bills are still sitting there. She noted she recently went to a picket
line of school support staff who are making $20,000/year for a full-time job, and serious
conversations are necessary with businesses and institutions about how to adequately take care of
their employees. She expressed her hope that this will change.
Councilmember Graves stated the issues of gun violence and domestic violence affect all
communities, regardless of age, race, or how people identify. She added Representative Omar
02/24/20 -4- DRAFT
had mentioned “wrap around” services for chronic homelessness. She asked whether there is
discussion at the federal level about increasing those types of services for victims of violence.
She noted preventative measures early on could ensure that these situations do not end in arrest
or loss of life.
Representative Omar stated two pieces of legislation were passed recently that address those
issues. The sensible gun law legislation, HR8, has passed the House and is sitting in the Senate.
She added this type of legislation is not a violation of 2nd Amendment rights, but rather a way to
protect the lives of vulnerable people in our communities. She noted gun violence and domestic
violence will continue, and our community’s most vulnerable members will continue to die
because there is no productive way to adequately address the issue of guns in the United States.
There is a gap between the crises in communities and the ways they are addressed by some
members of Congress.
Representative Omar stated advocacy is needed to address these issues in a holistic manner. She
added the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is due to be re-authorized and includes a
“boyfriend clause”, which has caused this piece of legislation to get stuck in the Senate and has
not been reauthorized. She noted resources that would go to communities to assist and protect
women facing domestic violence every day is not reaching them, and the issue is not being
addressed.
Councilmember Graves requested clarification regarding the “boyfriend clause”. Representative
Omar stated domestic violence laws did not extend to boyfriends, but rather family members, so
there was a discrepancy in the way relationships were identified, that the police would be able to
utilize. She added this legislation has been expanded to include boyfriends, but it is not moving
forward.
Police Chief Tim Gannon stated the definition in legislation is whether you live with the person,
are a family member or in a significant sexual relationship.
Representative Omar agreed, adding many people are not protected because they do not fit into
this definition, and there are people who will exploit loopholes, and continue to create
vulnerability for people in the community.
A resident stated his community is experiencing an increase in crime, and the majority of
residents in his area are unemployed or on disability. He added one of his neighbors had his car
towed, and the fee to retrieve it was $289, which the resident could not afford. He noted this is
too much money to get your car back, considering the environment and economic challenges.
Congresswoman Ilhan stated this is an important issue related to income and equality that must
be addressed. She added many people experience hardship because they are not able to pay
exorbitant fees. She noted there could be opportunities to set up a community fund. She stressed
the importance of addressing income inequality and creating an equitable system.
02/24/20 -5- DRAFT
A resident stated Liberians are hoping that new development in Brooklyn Center will be
affordable for them and that they will not be forced to leave the community to find affordable
housing. He requested consideration of opportunities for Liberians to stay in Brooklyn Center.
Mr. Boganey stated Representative Omar’s staff members have done a great job of keeping City
Staff informed on legislative issues. He added the City partnered with Liberians in Minnesota,
participating in an event and celebration in recognition and celebration of the act that
Congresswoman Representative Omar was instrumental in passing through the Senate.
Mayor Elliott thanked Representative Omar for her dedicated service and contributions to the
Liberian immigration pathway to citizenship. He added this collaboration was initiated between
OLM and the City of Brooklyn Center. A plaque was presented to Representative Omar on
behalf of the City and OLM for her contribution for providing immigration pathway for
Liberians.
Congresswoman Representative Omar thanked the community and City Councilmembers who
came and heard the conversation. She thanked the delegates for representing constituents so
well.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:3/9/2020
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.
H O S P I TA L I T Y A C C O M O DATI O N S
Best Western P lus
2050 F reeway Blvd
Brooklyn Center 55430
M EC H A N I C A L L I C E N S E
Avid H ea4ng & C ooling I nc 7700 County Road 110
Minnetrista 55364
D i5er I nc 820 Tow er D r
Medina 55340
S ayler H ea4ng & A ir Condi4oning I nc 6520 W Lake S t
S t Louis Park 55426
S .E.W. Enterpris es I nc 5621 H ighw ay 12
W illmar 56201
S trategic Priories and Values:
S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, O pera4onal Excellence
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip4on U pload D ate Type
Rental C riteria 5/7/2019 Backup M aterial
3-9-2020 3/3/2020 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
Property AddressDwellingTypeRenewalor InitialOwnerPropertyCodeViolationsLicenseTypePoliceCFS *Final License Type **Previous License Type ***2806 66TH Ave NSingleInitialThown Thor / Wooberg LLC19 IV N/A IV5024 71st Ave NSIngleInitialFYR SFR BORROW LLC3II N/A II5133 France Ave NSingleInitialFYR SFR BORROW LLC3II N/A7130 Fremont Ave NSingle InitialSesan Ogunniran /EE & J Investment LLC4II N/A II7119 Halifax Ave NSingleInitialHP Minnesota I / Pathlight Mgt 5 II N/A II4953 Zenith Ave N Single Renewal Matthew Greseth 8 III N/A III7200 Camden Ave N Evergreen Park ManorMulti 5 Bldg 80 UnitsRenewal Sean Bannemann184 2.3 Per UnitIII6 Valid Calls .07 per unit7206 Camden Ave5/20/2019 Theft 7/30/2019 Vandalism 8/20/2019 Vandalism 7218 Camden 3/6/2019 Auto Theft 11/9/2019 Disturbance 7224 Camden Ave N 3/15/2019 VandalismIII II3012‐18 51st Ave N2 Family 2 UnitsRenewal Sri Lakshmi Valiveti 15 IV 0 IV IV5332‐36 Russell Ave N Single Renewal Douglas Ryan 5 II 0 II I3328 49th Ave N Single Renewal Sherman Kho 4 II 0 II III2018 55th Ave N Single Renewal Chen Zhou 6 III 0 III II5323 Brooklyn Blvd Single Renewal Chen Zhou 3 II 0 II II5606 Bryant Ave N Single Renewal Marc Silverstein / MNSF II W1 LLC 11 IV 0 IV IV6337 Bryant Ave N Single Renewal My Truong / Park Avenue Homes LLC 5 II 0 II IV5700 Camden Ave NSingle RenewalDaniel Gelb /Quality Residences/Danmark Properties, LLC ‐ owes reinspection fee did not meet action plan, missingcrime free housing11 IV 0 IV III6601 Canden DrSingle Renewal Leroy Massaquoi 7 III1 valid, 4/28/19 Disturbing peaceIII II6618 Camden Dr Single RenewalHussain Khan ‐ did not meet mitigation plan, missing CPTED13 IV 0 IVIII5519 Colfax Ave N Single Renewal Ryan Smith 4 III 0 III IIRental Licenses for Council Approval on March 9, 2020
Property AddressDwellingTypeRenewalor InitialOwnerPropertyCodeViolationsLicenseTypePoliceCFS *Final License Type **Previous License Type ***Rental Licenses for Council Approval on March 9, 20206610 Colfax Ave N Single Renewal FYR SFR BORROW LLC 5 II 0 II III7018 Drew Ave N Single Renewal Michael A Bocko 5 II 0 II II5548 Dupont Ave N Single Renewal John Ford Lindah 4 II 0 II II5214 Ewing Ave N Single Renewal My Truong & My Lam / J&M Homes 18 IV 0 IV II5748 Humbolt Ave N Single Renewal FYR SFR BORROW LLC 4 II 0 II II5801 Irving Ave N Single Renewal IH3 Property Illinois LP 0 I 0 I I5449 Lyndale Ave N Single RenewalKathleen Lemay/Rod Carlson /Living Well Disability Services0I 0 III3018 Nash RdSingle Renewal Timothy Cavanaugh 7 III1 valid, 8/16/19 theft from autoIII II6900 Newton Ave N Single Renewal FYR SFR BORROW LLC 13 IV 0 IV II6206 Scott Ave N Single Renewal Mark & Cathy Cocker 2 I 0 I I5907 York Ave NSingle Renewal Xian Qiang Lin / Infinite Property LLC 0 I 0 I I6812 Zenith Ave N Single Renewal Elizabeth Paredes Rosario 0 I 0 I IV* CFS = Calls For Service for Renewal Licenses Only (Initial Licenses are not applicable to calls for service and will be listed N/A.)** License Type Being Issued*** Initial licenses will not showAll properties are current on City utilities and property taxesType 1 = 3 Year Type II = 2 Year Type III = 1 Year
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:3/9/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D oran Cote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works
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. 20-07,
Water Tower No. 1 Rehabilita-on
B ackground:
Bids for the Water Tower No. 1 Rehabilita-on, P roject N o. 2 0 2 0 -0 7 , w er e receiv ed and opened on February
25, 2020. The bidding res ults are tabulated below:
B I D D E R:TOTA L B A S E B I D :
The O s s eo C ons truc-on Company, L L C $707,950.00
C lassic P rotec-ve C oa-ngs, I nc. $718,958.00
T M I C oa-ngs, I nc. $1,238,000.00
V iking Pain-ng $773,524.00
The updated engineer 's es -mate provided by the cons ul-ng engineer prior to bidding w as $728,500.00. O f
the four (4) bids received, the lowes t bid of $707,9 5 0 .00 was s ubmiBed by T he O sseo Pain-ng C ompany,
L L C of O sseo, W is cons in. O sseo Pain-ng C ompany, L L C has the experience, equipment and capacity to
qualify as the lowes t res pons ible bidder for the project. The city ’s cons ul-ng engineer has submiBed the
aBached leBer recommending the bid be awarded to The O sseo Pain-ng C ompany, L L C .
B udget I ssues:
The low bid amount of $707,950.00 is within the budgeted amount. The total es-mated budget including
con-ngencies , adminis tra-on, engineering and legal w as $1,020,000 from the 2020 C apital I mprovement
P rogram and is amended to $8 5 0 ,000.0 0 , an approximate 1 6 .7 per cent decrease (s ee aBached Res olu-on –
Costs and Revenues tables ).
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 2/27/2020 Cover Memo
A ward Recommenda-on L eBer 2/28/2020 Cover Memo
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2020-07, WATER TOWER NO. 1
REHABILITATION
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for Improvement Project No.
2020-07, four bids were received, opened and tabulated by the City Engineer on the 25th day of
February, 2020. Said bids were as follows:
Bidder Total Base Bid
The Osseo Construction Company, LLC $707,950.00
Classic Protective Coatings, Inc. $718,958.00
TMI Coatings, Inc. $1,238,000.00
Viking Painting $773,524.00
WHEREAS, it appears that The Osseo Painting Company, LLC of Osseo,
Wisconsin is the lowest responsible bidder.
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 The Osseo Painting
Company, LLC of Osseo, Wisconsin, in the name of the
City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No.
2020-07, 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 $900,000.00 $707,950.00
Engineering and Administrative $ 80,000.00 $ 87,000.00
Contingency $ 40,000.00 $ 55,050.00
TOTAL $1,020,000.00 $850,000.00
Amended
REVENUES Estimated per Low Bid
Water Fund $1,020,000.00 $850,000.00
March 9, 2020
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
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.
K:\015416-000\Admin\Construction Admin\015416-000 LOR 022520.docx 178 E 9TH STREET | SUITE 200 | SAINT PAUL, MN | 55101 | 651.286.8450 | WSBENG.COM February 25, 2020
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Re: Water Tower No. 1 Rehabilitation
City of Brooklyn Center Project No. 20-07
WSB Project No. 015416-000
BSI Project No. WI 1488
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Bids were received for the above-referenced project on Tuesday, February 25, 2020, and were
opened and read aloud. Four bids were received. The bids were checked for mathematical
accuracy. Please find enclosed the bid summary indicating the low bid as submitted by Osseo
Construction Co., Osseo, Wisconsin in the amount of $707,950.00. The Engineer’s Estimate
was $728,500.00.
We recommend that the City Council consider these bids and award a contract in the amount of
$707,950.00 to Osseo Construction Co. based on the results of the bids received.
Sincerely,
WSB
Greg Johnson, PE
Director of Water/Wastewater
Attachments
kkp
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:3/9/2020
TO :C ity C ouncil
F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager
T H R O U G H :N/A
BY:D oran Cote, P.E., D irector of P ublic Works
S U B J E C T:Res olu-on Expressing S upport for Conver-ng H ighw ay 252 F rom an at-grade Expressway
to a G rade S eparated F reew ay
B ackground:
O n February 10, 2020 the City Council discussed the current s tatus of the H ighw ay 252 Environmental
Review. At the mee-ng, City Manager Boganey noted the mos t cri-cal is s ue at this point is providing a
cons ensus regarding the C ity C ouncil/E DA’s commitment to the conv er s ion of H ighway 252 into a freeway.
The mee-ng minutes of the February 10, 2 0 2 0 C ity Council Work S es s ion indicated that “T he majority
Consens us of the C ity Council/E DA w as to change H ighway 252 from a highw ay to a freew ay, but the C ity
Council/E DA is not commi;ed to any of the proposed plans.”
B udget I ssues:
There are no budgetary issues w ith the propos ed ac-on.
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 2/28/2020 Resolu-on Le;er
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO. _______________
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR CONVERTING HIGHWAY 252
FROM AN AT-GRADE EXPRESSWAY TO A GRADE SEPERATED
FREEWAY
WHEREAS, Highway 252 was constructed as an at-grade expressway in 1985
and 1986; and
WHEREAS, Highway 252 began to experience operational and safety as traffic
volumes increased through the 1980s and 1990s; and
WHEREAS, in the early to mid-2000s the cities of Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn
Center began more intensive discussions with MnDOT regarding the congestion and safety on
Highway 252; and
WHEREAS, several corridor studies and technical analysis have concluded that
Highway 252 would be a safer, less congested roadway if converted from an at-grade expressway
to a freeway; and
WHEREAS, the meeting minutes of the February 10, 2020 City Council Work
Session indicated that “The majority Consensus of the City Council/EDA was to change Highway
252 from a highway to a freeway, but the City Council/EDA is not committed to any of the
proposed plans.”
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the majority Consensus of the City Council/EDA is to change
Highway 252 from an expressway to a freeway.
March 9, 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:3/9/2020
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:Request to D irect S taff to P repare a Res olu1on for the A pproval or D enial of P lanning
C ommis s ion A pplica1on No. 2020-001 for the I ssuance of a S pecial Use Permit and
Parking Variance to O perate a M os que and Community Center at 4900 F rance Avenue
North
B ackground:
The A pplicant ini1 ally appr oached the C ity of Brookly n C enter in July 2 0 1 9 , as they w er e required to
relocate from s pace previous ly leas ed in an office building at 5 6 3 7 B rook lyn Boulevard follow ing a change in
building ownership. I n their search for a new home, the A pplicant iden1fied 4900 F rance Avenue North,
w hich is an I -2 (G eneral I ndustry) D istr ict-zoned pr oper ty located at the s outhern ter minus of F rance
Avenue N orth. At the 1me, religious and other assembly-type us es w er e not a per miCed us e within the I -2
D istrict; how ev er, the City recently amended the Zoning Code to allow for religious uses in the I -2 D is trict on
a cas e-by-case basis as a special use.
The A pplicant, M as j id A l-A nsar I s lamic C ommunity C enter, is now seeking issuance of a S pecial U s e Permit
and parking v ariance to open a mos que and community center at 4 9 0 0 F rance Av enue North. The
proposed us es for the S ubject P roperty include wor s hip space, gathering and event space (e.g. small
w edding or “N ikkah” ceremonies , board mee1ngs ), and office space. T he A pplicant has als o s tres s ed that
Mas jid A l-A ns ar I slamic C ommunity Center is commiCed to the engagement of y outh through a variety of
educa1onal, social, and recrea1onal ac1vi1es , and w ould therefore require clas s room s pace.
A s propos ed, the S ubject P roperty would receive the mos t traffic on F r iday s , when two 3 0 -minute prayer
s ervices w ould be held betw een the hours of noon and 2 p.m. The community center w ould be open s even
days a week, however. The A pplicant noted the current total membership is betw een 120 and 150
aCendees , and per their narra1ve, they have experienced exponen1al grow th s ince their founding in 2015.
A lthough the r eques t is to operate a mos que and community center on the S ubject P roperty, S pecial U s e
Permits generally run w ith the land or S ubject P roperty in this case. Therefore, if the A pplicant ever
relocated, a s imilar type use could locate onto the S ubject P roperty and con1nue the s pecial us e so long as it
met all minimum requirements .
The A pplicant indicated their membership would not exceed the current 150 members , but as City s taff is
not in the pos i1on to monitor membership numbers, C ity s taff as s umes members hip at the mos que and
community center may very w ell grow, par1cularly given the approximately 8,0 0 0 -s quare feet of space
between the tw o buildings on-s ite. The traffic s tudy noted a poten1al 40-s pace deficiency in on-s ite parking
assuming two F r iday prayer s ervices of 75 aCendees each; however, thes e numbers can only be cons idered
under ideal circums tances , including the complete clear ing of the par king lot ov er the 30-minute window
between s er vices . F urthermore, the s ubmiCed traffic s tudy was bas ed off the curr ent members hip w hen
City s taff feels it s hould hav e been bas ed off the maximum number of aCendees the S ubject P roperty can
s upport.
City staff has yet to be pr ovided w ith a pr opos ed inter ior layout of either building, but is in pos s ession of the
approved 1 9 9 8 s ite plan, w hich outlines each building ’s s quar e footage, and interior plans for the 4900
F rance Av enue N orth building, w hich is the fir s t building the A pplicant would occupy if approved for the
requests. I n mee1 ng w ith the A pplicant numer ous 1 mes to dis cus s the intended us e of the property, the
Building O fficial w as able to es 1mate maximum occupant loads within the tw o appr oximately 4,000-s quare
foot buildings located on the S ubject P roperty.
The main floor of the 4900 building alone could poten1 ally hold upw ar ds of approximately 3 4 6 occupants
(s tanding room w ith 5 square feet of space per occupant) if u1 liz ed for an as s embly use. I f the membership
grew to this s iz e the park ing requirements for the main floor of the 4900 building and tw o F riday prayer
s ervices w ould neces s itate a minimum of 58 on-s ite par king spaces per serv ice. Thes e parking requirements
do not factor in use of the 4 9 0 0 F rance Avenue North bas ement, nor the second building on-s ite, w hich the
A pplicant des ires to us e in the future. G iven s ite constraints, the only poten1al op1on for accommoda1ng
addi1onal on-s ite parking, beyond the five proof of parking s paces the A pplicant has indicated they would
cons truct, w ould be to demolish the s econd building (4902 F rance Avenue North).
The 4 9 0 0 F rance Avenue N orth building s uffered w ater damage in ear ly N ovember 2019. A s of this date,
s ome w ork has been completed to prov ide minimal s ys tem res tora1on, but no building permits have been
is s ued for any w ork and the building is currently declared, “unfit.” L ess is k now n about the s econd on-s ite
building (4902 F rance Av enue N orth), which is the original building to the property, as C ity s taff has not
been ins ide the building and as there are no building plans on file.
The A pplicant met with City staff to discuss w hat minimum requirements would need to be in place before
the 4 9 0 0 F rance Avenue Nor th building could be occupied for assembly us e. A pplicant requirements include
but are not limited to expans ion of the exis 1 ng parking lot (i.e. re-s tripe, curb, guCer ); reloca1on of the
exis1ng trash enclos ure; r emoval of ov ergrow n vegeta1 on and ins talla1 on of new plan1 ngs per the
approved lands cape plan and to address concerns rela1ng to acces s of the F ire D epartment Connec1on
(F D C ) and Pos t I ndicator Valv e (P I V ) by the F ire D epartment. The A pplicant w ould need to w ork w ith the
adjacent railroad to ins tall a bar rier or fence betw een the park ing lot and ac1v e rail line; repair all damage to
the interior of the building; ensure the fire sprinkler s ystem is opera1onal and monitored; ins tall panic
hardw are if needed; and ins tall a liM or elevator if the occupancy in the basement is 30 occupants or higher.
F ull cons idera1on was given under a duly no1 ced public hearing and mail no1fica1ons 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, although comments of support w ere prov ided by member s of A pplicant
A l-Mas jid A l A ns ar I s lamic C ommunity C enter and one near by res ident. I mam D ukuly w as the official
repres enta1ve of the A pplicant and w as pres ent, along w ith Tr ev or M or lock of A rrow Real Estate, who has
been w orking with the A pplicant to find a new home for the mos que and community center.
The P lanning C ommis s ion engaged in a lengthy dis cus s ion regarding the propos al and noted a frus tr a1 on in
the s eventh Commissioner s eat being open as it could res ult in a s plit v ote. The C ommis s ioner s engaged
w ith repres enta1v es of A pplicant A l-M as jid A l A nsar I s lamic C ommunity C enter and noted that while they
w ere in general support of the A pplicant ’s mis s ion, there w ere a number of concerns. Thes e related to the
overall viability of the S ubject P roperty given the substan1al investment that w ould be needed to occupy
either building and the poten1al short-sightednes s in taking on the S ubject P roperty when current
membership numbers already exceed the available on-s ite parking.
The C ommis s ioner s stressed the impor tance of ins talling a bar rier between the parking lot and ac1 ve rail
line, par1cularly as the A pplicant intends to w ork w ith youth and pr ovide various ac1 vi1 es. G iv en the
proximity of the parking lot to the property line, it is ques1 onable whether or not ins talla1 on of a barr ier or
fence is pos s ible. The edge of the par king lot is approximately 20 feet from the northernmos t s et of train
tracks.
A ddi1onal concerns related to the propos ed shuCle s ervice and w hether anyone w ould u1liz e it as some
members may be us ing their lunch hour to aCend, while other s ar e already carpooling and could drop off
occupants befor e parking in the s urr ounding neighborhood. A s a propos ed w ay of addres s ing parking
needs , the traffic s tudy sugges ted that perhaps the C ity could remove the “no parking ” signage along the
F rance Avenue North cul-de-s ac.
City s taff noted that the P ublic Works D epartment would not be open to r emoving the no parking
res tric1ons along the cul-de-sac, par1cularly given the industrial us es just north of the S ubject P roperty, as
they u1 liz e commer cial trucks that require w ider turn radius es w hen entering and exi1ng their respec1ve
proper1es. The Commissioners als o noted concer ns of pedes trian s afety in aCendees and youth parking in
the neighborhoods as ther e are no s idewalks in the s urr ounding area and they w ould need to w alk in the
s treet to the S ubject P roperty. F urther dis cus s ions by the C ommis s ioners covered the poten1al ris k the
A pplicant w ould be exposed to in terms of the property, site, and overall improvements neces s ary that
w ould be required for occupancy.
F inally, it should als o be r ecogniz ed that by gran1 ng a v ar iance in park ing for the proposed us e, this would
s et a precedent for allow ing on-site park ing deficiencies to occur for any s imilar propos als that might come
forward in the future.
Following close of the public hearing, the P lanning C ommis s ion was unable to provide a recommenda1on of
approval or denial of the S pecial Use Permit and parking variance reques t as they voted 3-3 (split vote).
ACached for y our review ar e copies of the P lanning Commission S taff Report and exhibits dated February
13, 2020, and updated f o r the March 9, 2020, C ity C ouncil mee1ng. As bo th C ity staff a nd the Planning
C ommission was unable to offer a recommenda1on of approval or denial, C ity staff is reques1ng direc1on from
C ity C ouncil in preparing a resolu1o n of either approval or denial for the requested Specia l U se Permit and
parking variance. A fi nal resolu1o n would be brought forward at the next C ity C ouncil mee1ng on March 23,
2020.
As part o f the approval or denial of a planning co mmissio n applica1on, the C ity C ouncil must adopt fi ndings of
fact which support the final decision. T hese are included in the C ity C ouncil resolu1o n. Typically, staff prepares
findings of f act which support staff's recommended ac1o n as part of the Planning C o mmissio n repo rt. T he
Planning C o mmissio n then reviews the applica1on, and makes a recommenda1on to the C ity C ouncil based on
the findings of fact and submiCed informa1on.
Staff is asking the C ity C ouncil to direct staff to go back and prepare a reso lu1on for either approval or denial.
T hat resolu1on will contain fi ndings o f f act to support that ac1o n. Further, if the C ity C o unc il direc ts staff to
prepare a resolu1on approving the a pplic a1on, staff will include condi1ons o f approval intended to mi1gate
nega1ve impacts of the use on surrounding proper1es.
T he C ity C ouncil may add co ndi1o ns o f approval as part of their direc1on to staff if they deem it appropriate. T he
aCached Planning C ommission report includes a list of possible condi1ons of approval, though these can be
altered or amended before the final resolu1on comes before the C ity C ouncil.
B udget I ssues:
None to cons ider at this 1me.
S trategic Priories and Values:
Targeted Redevelopment
AT TA C H M E N TS :
D escrip1on U pload D ate Type
P C S taff Report-4900 F rance Avenue North-S U P and Parking
Variance 3/3/2020 Backup M aterial
P C S taff Report Exhibits-4900 F rance Avenue North-S U P and
Parking Variance 3/3/2020 Backup M aterial
P C D raM Minutes (02.13.2020)3/3/2020 Backup M aterial
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 1
Planning Commission Report
Meeting Date: February 13, 2020
Updated for March 9, 2020 City Council Meeting
Application No. 2020-001
Applicant: Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center
Request: Special Use Permit for a Religious Institution and Community Center in the I-2
(General Industry) District
REQUESTED ACTION
Imam Dukuly, on behalf of Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center (“the Applicant”), is requesting
review and consideration for the issuance of a Special Use Permit to operate a mosque and community
center at 4900 France Avenue North (“the Subject Property”). A public hearing notice was published in
the Brooklyn Center Sun Post on January 30, 2020 (Exhibit A). Notices were also mailed to surrounding
property owners per City Code requirements.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant initially approached the City of Brooklyn Center in July 2019, as they were required to
relocate from space previously leased in an office building located at 5637 Brooklyn Boulevard following
a change in building ownership. The C1 (Service/Office) District, where the property is located, allows
religious institutions as a permitted use by right.
The Applicant emphasized a desire to remain in Brooklyn Center as their community is largely based
within the Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park areas; however they noted issues in locating adequate
accommodations to move their mosque and community center to. It was around this time they came
upon 4900 France Avenue North, which is an I-2 (General Industry) District property located at the
southern terminus of France Avenue North.
At the time of the Applicant’s initial discussions with the City, assembly-type uses, including but not
limited to churches, mosques, synagogues, movie theaters, event centers and the like, were not an
allowed use in the I-2 District given that this is the City’s most intense industrial district; however, the
City ultimately brought forward a request to amend the I-2 District to allow for religious uses on a case-
by-case basis through issuance of a Special Use Permit (SUP). The request to amend the Zoning Code
was ultimately adopted on October 28, 2019 and went into effect on November 23, 2019 under
Ordinance No. 2019-12.
The Applicant, Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center, is now seeking approval of a Special Use
Permit to open a mosque and community center at 4900 France Avenue North. The uses identified for
the Subject Property include worship space, gathering and event space (e.g. small wedding or “Nikkah”
ceremonies, board meetings), and office space. The Applicant has also stressed that Masjid Al-Ansar
Islamic Community Center is committed to the engagement of youth through a variety of educational,
social, and recreational activities, and would therefore require classroom space.
• Application Filed: 01/14/2020
• Review Period (60-day) Deadline: 03/14/2020
• Extension Declared: N/A
• Extended Review Period Deadline: N/A
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 2
The Subject Property has been for sale or lease for at least two years, but was previously used as a pet
groomer and veterinary clinic, which are permitted uses in the I-2 District. This particular I-2 District
property is unique in its vacancy, in part due to the age and nature of the structures on site, which are
not typical of surrounding industrial uses. The Subject Property is comprised of two structures: a newer,
split level office building, and a second circular shaped structure. Each structure is approximately 4,000-
square feet in size.
The Applicant believes that the property would meet their needs and is interested in purchasing it to
convert for their use. As part of their due diligence, the group met with City staff on multiple occasions
to inquire as to the process necessary to allow for use of the Subject Property as a place of worship and
community center and to obtain clarification on the health, life, and safety improvements that would
need to be in place prior to occupying the building(s).
Places of worship generally fall into a category of uses considered “assembly.” These are uses where
there are generally large numbers of people that may congregate or assemble at one time. Other similar
uses might include theaters, auditoriums, mortuaries, dance halls, arenas, or certain places of
entertainment.
Federal law protects religious land uses in that it requires cities to regulate them the same way in which
it regulates other similar uses, and to treat them equally and fairly when making land use regulations as
well as land use decisions regarding them.
Example: a city would need to provide a fact-based reason that it might allow a movie theater in
a particular zoning district, but not a religious use since the land uses are similar.
Site Data
2040 Land Use Plan: Industrial/Utility
Neighborhood: Twin Lake
Current Zoning: I-2 (General Industry) District
Site Area: 0.73 Acres
Surrounding Area
Direction 2040 Land Use Plan Zoning
North Industrial/Utility (Horizon
Roofing)
I-2 (General Industry) District
South RR ROW (Railroad Right-of-
Way)
East (Highway 100)
West Business-Mixed Use (Xcel
Energy Substation)
I-2 (General Industry) District
Existing Site and Area Conditions
As mentioned previously, the Subject Property is comprised of two approximately 4,000-square foot
buildings, along with a parking lot and outdoor trash enclosure. The main building, known as 4900
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 3
France Avenue North, previously functioned as a pet grooming business. The second, circular building,
known as 4902 France Avenue North, previously functioned as an animal hospital, and is the original
building, having been constructed in 1963.
Image 1. 4900 France Avenue North (left) and 4902 France Avenue North (right).
Image 2. Extent of Parking Lot—Taken from Southeast Edge of Parking Lot Adjacent to Trash Enclosure.
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 4
Image 3. In Parking Lot—Facing Southwest Towards Caribou Coffee Headquarters and Adjacent Railroad Tracks.
Image 4. Facing North on France Avenue North Cul-de-Sac—In Entrance to Driveway Access for Subject Property.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Proposed Operation
The Applicant provided a narrative regarding the intended operation of the mosque and community
center (Exhibit B). As proposed, the mosque and community center would be open seven days per week.
As indicated by the Applicant, the highest use is intended to occur on Fridays between the hours of noon
and 2 p.m., during which two separate 30-minute prayer services would take place. Currently, the
mosque meets at the Brooklyn Center Community Center for one Friday prayer service and typically sees
between 120 and 150 attendees total. The intent is to split the 120 to 150 person membership into two
Friday prayer services.
The Applicant notes the following proposed hours of operation for the mosque and community center:
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 5
The Applicant has indicated plans to eventually utilize both buildings on the Subject Property, but would
initially locate into the office building (4900 France Avenue North). As of the date of this staff report, the
office building (4900 France Avenue North) has been declared unfit due to water damage and would
require repairs to be made and all minimum necessary Building Code and ADA improvements
implemented before a new Certificate of Occupancy could be issued. The circular building (4902 France
Avenue North) could not be occupied until all minimum necessary Building Code and ADA improvements
are implemented (e.g. installation of a fire sprinkler system).
Parking and Access Demands
Assembly uses, such as religious institutions, tend to have higher parking demands than other types of
uses due to the nature of their visitors. Industrial uses by contrast tend to have low parking demands
relative to their square footage because these uses generally have lower employment densities.
For example, religious and other “places of public assembly” uses, such as theatres, auditoriums (other
than school auditoriums), mortuaries, stadiums, arenas, and dance halls, require one parking space for
every three seats, or attendees in this case, per Section 35-704.4.a of the City’s Zoning Code.
To give perspective, “Industry and Wholesale” type uses require one space for every two employees
based upon maximum planned employment during any work period or one space for each 800 square
feet of gross floor area (whichever is greater) is required. In the event the latter requirement is greater,
adequate land area shall be provided for the required off-street parking area, but improved spaces need
only be provided according to the employee ratio. In cases where there is an office component to an
industrially-zoned building, minimum on-site parking requirements are based on the total gross floor
area utilized for the use.
City staff requested that the Applicant have a traffic study and parking demand management plan
prepared as part of their submittal packet given that this is the first religious use seeking to relocate into
the City’s heavy industrial district, and to address parking and traffic concerns relating to their request
for issuance of Special Use Permit. The provided traffic and parking study was prepared by Alliant
Engineering and is based off the assumption that 32 on-site parking spaces would be available on the
Subject Property.
It should be noted that the current parking lot’s striping is degraded and, assuming the parking lot was
constructed in accordance with the approved plans, would have 27 parking spaces at best as the
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 6
previously approved site plan from 1998 indicated a “proof” of a five (5) additional parking spaces. In
order to achieve 32 on-site parking spaces, the parking lot would need to be expanded, and the existing
accessible route (sidewalk) to 4902 France Avenue North and existing trash enclosure would need to be
relocated/re-constructed (Exhibit C). The Applicant did not submit their own site plan drawings but
indicated plans to follow the previously approved 1998 site plan.
The provided traffic and parking study outlines trip generation data based off the current assumed
attendance at the one Friday prayer service, which is currently held at the Brooklyn Center Community
Center. Although the Applicant indicated a higher than typical attendance, Alliant Engineering utilized
this data for the purposes of calculating trip generation. Alliant Engineering identified the presence of 70
vehicles in the parking lot during their period of review that could be “attributed to members of the
Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center.”
Although one prayer service is currently held on Fridays at the Community Center, the intent is to hold
two prayer services between the hours of noon and 2 p.m. Assuming the attendance at each prayer
service is equally distributed and no one prayer service is more popular than the other, there could
potentially be 75 attendees at each service. Section 3.3 of the provided study (Exhibit B) indicated the
potential for 70 vehicles to be on-site during the overlap in services (12:30 to 1:30 p.m.), which could
result in a 40-space deficit in parking.
City staff finds this to be a flawed approach to calculating trip generation as the submitted traffic study
was based off the current membership when City staff feels it should have been based off the maximum
number of attendees the Subject Property can support. The Subject Property contains two buildings
totaling approximately 8,000-square feet, which could easily hold more than 150 attendees.
Assuming three people were in each vehicle and each prayer service had no more than 75 attendees,
each car held three (3) people, and all vehicles left immediately following the first service, a minimum of
25 on-site parking spaces would need to be provided for each service per the City Zoning Code
requirement. Assuming the 70-vehicle figure identified in the study, a minimum of 35 on-site parking
spaces would be required if Friday prayers were split into two services. The aforementioned minimum
parking requirements assume: (1) perfect conditions in which mingling does not occur after the first 30-
minute prayer service, and (2) no plans for future growth in membership at the mosque and community
center. It should be noted that the narrative provided by the Applicant (Exhibit B) states that the
mosque and community center began in 2015 with a few people and has since “grown exponentially
into a community into a significant size.”
Following discussions regarding the provided traffic and parking study, Imam Dukuly, representing
Applicant Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center, clarified that each prayer service lasts no longer
than 30 minutes and indicated there would be a 30-minute gap between Friday prayer services.
The traffic and parking study proposes the following alternatives as a means to address on-site parking
deficiencies within the provided Parking Management Plan (Section 3.3.1 of Exhibit B):
1. Provide greater separation between the two Friday prayer services to allow greater time to clear
the parking lot.
Response: City staff discussed this option with Imam Dukuly who noted that the prayer
services could not be separated any further; therefore, this is not an option.
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 7
2. Utilize a shuttle van service, comprised of four minivans (maximum total seating of 6 persons
per minivan or 24 attendees total), which would pick up from the K&G Fashion Superstore
located at 5425 Xerxes Avenue North in Brooklyn Center and be located a 5 minutes’ drive (1.1
miles) from the Subject Property.
Response: As of the date of this report, City staff has not received any formal
documentation representing a formal agreement for use of K&G’s parking lot by the
Applicant. Additionally, no formal plan was provided outlining how the shuttle service
would operate.
3. With the exception of the required ADA parking stalls, sign the majority of Subject Property
parking lot to allow for “carpool” only.
Response: The Applicant has not provided a plan for how this would be enforced other
than utilization of a designated parking lot attendant and the study provided only notes
that single occupant drivers should be encouraged to use the shuttle service.
Considering the intended prayer times of noon to 2 p.m. it can be assumed by City staff
that some attendees will be utilizing their lunch hour to attend prayer and the necessity
of a shuttle van may not be attractive or feasible for some.
4. Allow on-street parking along the west 210 feet of France Avenue North, south of 50th Avenue
North, as it appears vehicles already illegally park there, and utilize on-street parking within the
surrounding two to three block radius.
Response: City staff held conversations with the Public Works Department regarding the
current parking restrictions along the cul-de-sac portion of France Avenue North. The
existing road with is 30 feet wide per as-builts on file with Public Works. Assuming a 9
foot wide parallel parking space along France Avenue North, the remaining roadway
would be 21 feet in width.
For perspective, the typical width of a two-way parking lot is 24 feet wide and Fire Code
requires a minimum of 20 feet in width for a fire access road. In addition, the adjacent
property to the north requires use of heavy truck equipment, including semi-trucks and
boom trucks as they are a roofing company; therefore, the minimum required turn
radius to exit their property (4912 France Avenue North) is wider than your average
passenger vehicle.
Public Works would not allow for the parking restrictions to be removed. The Applicant
cannot rely on-street parking to address their parking deficiencies.
Other Considerations
There are certain barriers that need to be considered in retrofitting industrial or office type buildings for
“assembly” type uses as they require higher fire suppression standards than other types of uses due to
the congregation of people that occurs within buildings. The Applicant met with City staff in advance of
amending the Zoning Code to discuss the full implications of what would be required to acquire and/or
convert an industrial or office use type building.
Building and Fire Review
Conversion of the buildings located on the Subject Property would constitute a change of use from the
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 8
perspective of the Building and Fire Code, and thus would trigger the installation or expansion of a Fire
suppression and alarm system if not present. Per discussions with City staff, the office building (4900
France Avenue North) appears to possess a suppression system, but the circular building (4902 France
Avenue North) may not. Additionally, the following requirements may be triggered:
a. Installation of ADA requirements (e.g. parking lot striping and signage, ingress/egress,
bathrooms, installation of elevator/lift);
b. Sewer Accessibility Charge (Met Council) determination for change in use and
associated fee; and
c. Any other Fire and Building Code requirements.
The Applicant indicated in person and in writing their plans to remodel the interior of the two buildings
and remove walls in the main level of the office building to allow for prayer services, however; no
updated interior plans were submitted. As City staff was in possession of the 1998 interior plans for the
office building (4900 France Avenue North), the Building Official provided a rough breakdown of
potential maximum occupancy load of the 4900 building assuming an assembly use on the main level
and the potential use of the basement for office, educational/classroom, or assembly uses.
Please note that the following estimate occupant loads are contingent on a number on a number of
other factors, including stair and exit door widths, number of exits and travel distance, installation of an
elevator/lift, etc. The following estimate numbers were calculated:
Main Level Maximum Occupancy of 4900 France Avenue North—Assembly Use (5 SF per person-
standing): Approximately 346 occupants
(Note: Maximum occupancy numbers noted above would be slightly less as separate area for shoes is
required so as to not cause tripping hazards or block path of exit)
Lower Level Maximum Occupancy of 4900 France Avenue North—Office, Education, or Assembly Use:
Office Use (100 SF per person): Approximately 16 occupants
Education Use (20 SF per person): Approximately 80 occupants
Assembly Use (5 SF per person-standing, or 7 SF per person-chairs): Approximately 321 or 229
occupants
As the City does not have copies of the interior for the 4902 France Avenue North (circular building) on
file and has not been inside the building to assess its condition, the Building Official provided a
breakdown of potential maximum occupancy for the building assuming the same uses in the 4900
France Avenue North building and square footage as noted on the approved 1998 site plans.
Main Level Maximum Occupancy of 4902 France Avenue North—Assembly Use (5 SF per person-
standing, or 7 SF per person-chairs): Approximately 475 or 339 occupants
Lower Level Maximum Occupancy of 4902 France Avenue North—Office, Education, or Assembly Use:
Office Use (100 SF per person): Approximately 23 occupants
Education Use (20 SF per person): Approximately 118 occupants
Assembly Use (5 SF per person-standing, or 7 SF per person-chairs): Approximately 475 or 339
occupants
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 9
The Applicant has expressed eventually utilizing both buildings with the issuance of a Special Use Permit;
however, the Applicant has also noted that despite using both buildings, the occupancy between across
both buildings would never exceed 150 members. City staff is not in the position to monitor
membership numbers, but City staff assumes membership at the mosque and community center may
very well grow, particularly given the approximately 8,000-square feet of space between the two
buildings on-site.
Engineering Review
Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg noted in his memorandum dated February 10, 2020 (Exhibit D)
that the Applicant would need to re-stripe and conduct alterations to the Subject Property in order to
achieve the 32 on-site parking spaces as outlined in the provided traffic and parking study from Alliant
Engineering. Additionally, he indicates that the study doesn’t provide a clear understanding of the
parking needs for the site. The report provides only an estimate of service attendees at each service.
Staff estimates of occupancy loads of the building after the remodeling exceeds the number provided in
the draft traffic plan—refer to the calculations above.
He further notes that,
“In discussions with the applicant, it was implied that after the completion of each service the
parking lot will empty entirely, providing a clean slate for the next service. With the nature of
the site and the indication that the site is planned to function as community center it seems
unreasonable to expect that this will occur. If the occupancy loads match the estimation within
the traffic study, only under ideal conditions will the site be able to meet the required number
of parking stalls and the site will be under-parked. If those numbers are greater, then parking
and traffic could have major impacts on the neighborhood.”
The memorandum further details that Public Works would not be in a position to remove on-street
parking restrictions in the immediate area to allow overflow parking for the Applicant’s use of the
Subject Property and emphasizes the need to address the potential for attendees to park on adjacent
private property. It is summarized that Public Works is therefore unable to offer a recommendation in
support of the submitted traffic study as submitted.
Site Plan Review
As the Applicant has indicated plans to adhere to the previously approved 1998 site plan for the Subject
Property, the parking lot and identified five (5) spaces of proof of parking will need to be constructed as
outlined in the plans dated February 5, 1998. The existing outdoor trash enclosure will need to be
relocated, likely just north of the existing turnaround west of the office building (4900 France Avenue
North). The Applicant will need to comply with City Code requirements by constructing an enclosure
that fully screens any dumpsters and recycling bins with opaque fencing or other materials that are
complementary to the buildings on site.
As a landscape plan was approved as part of the 1998 approvals, the Applicant will need to bring the
landscaping back into compliance by removing any overgrown vegetation and replacing any missing
plantings. Should the Applicant desire installation of a different species of planting, all requests will need
to be documented and approved by the City Planner.
Finally, City staff is concerned about the immediate access to the railroad tracks, which are located just
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 10
feet from the southern perimeter of the Subject Property parking lot. The Applicant will need to address
with City staff how a buffer can be created between the Subject Property and railroad tracks,
particularly given the Applicant’s intent to provide youth engagement on site. The Applicant may need
to contact ownership of the tracks to identify any requirements or restrictions for fencing.
Special uses are those in 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, a Special Use Permit would need to be granted by City
Council. In reviewing Special Use Permits, an Applicant would need to demonstrate the following (staff
responses italicized):
a. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the special use will promote or enhance the
general public welfare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety,
morals or comfort.
The Subject Property has been vacant and on the market for lease or sale for at least two years;
therefore, re-occupancy of the buildings located on the Subject Property is desired. Re-occupancy
of the buildings on-site would result in additional eyes on the neighborhood given their intent to
utilize the buildings at varying hours seven days per week. The Subject Property is adjacent to
Highway 100, a railroad, and an Xcel Energy substation, with the only immediate neighbors
being a roofing company located immediately to the north.
City staff expressed concerns of having so many individuals and particularly youth in proximity to
an active rail line. There is no fencing or barrier on-site to prohibit individuals from accessing the
rail line, which lies just feet from the parking lot. Given the layout of the Subject Property
driveway and a gravel roadway that spurs off from the driveway and runs parallel to the rail line,
City staff is unable to determine how a safe perimeter could be established as it is assumed
access to the gravel roadway must be maintained. The Subject Property driveway is in immediate
proximity to an electrical tower, which is not fenced, and an Xcel Energy substation, which was
fully enclosed in fencing a couple years ago. A fence currently runs along the eastern perimeter
of the Subject Property and Highway 100, which is located below the Subject Property.
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.
Religious uses were recently added to the list of uses permitted through issuance of a Special Use
Permit in the I-2 (General Industry) District; however, City staff has concerns relating to the
limitations of the Subject Property including the lack of on-site parking, constrained access, and
adjacent existing uses, of which include unrestricted access to the railroad tracks along the south
portion of the Subject Property, an Xcel Energy substation located just off property, and the
industrial uses, including a roofing company located just to the north.
Despite the low levels of traffic presented in the study, City staff is aware of parking issues for
the adjacent industrial properties located along the France Avenue cul-de-sac and along the
south side of 50th Avenue North as the building structures in this area comprise the majority of
each site and therefore result in limited on-site parking options.
c. The establishment of the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 11
improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district.
The immediate area is currently developed with a mix of older 1950s era industrial development
along the east side of the France Avenue North cul-de-sac and south side of 50th Avenue North;
small 1950s and 1960s era apartment buildings; a large 1960s era industrial building; an Xcel
Energy substation; and a mix of townhomes and single family homes on the north side of 50th
Avenue North. The major concern of the proposed Special Use is that the parking demands for
the mosque and community center may restrict the ability for the neighboring industrial uses to
come and go from their respective sites during their respective business weeks.
There are additional concerns that attendees may utilize the neighboring parking lots (e.g. Xcel
Energy substation lot, 3800 50th Avenue North) or property (e.g. gravel road running parallel to
rail line) for off-site parking needs if on-street parking isn’t an option and to avoid having to
shuttle to the Subject Property. Despite the Applicant offering to assign a parking attendant to
address the limited on-site parking, there is still the issue of the Subject Property being located
on a dead end cul-de-sac, which would require drivers to back up and/or turn around. Drivers
may also decide drop off attendees at the Subject Property before leaving to find parking
elsewhere, or they may choose to queue up along France Avenue North for when an on-site
space opens on the Subject Property between services. All of the aforementioned possibilities
could have direct implications on the normal and orderly development and operation of the
surrounding businesses and homes.
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.
While numerous conversations were held with the Applicant regarding the intended operation of
the use on the Subject Property, the provided traffic and parking study indicate that while the
surrounding streets will likely maintain their levels of service, there is a potentially large
deficiency in on-site parking. While the Applicant and Alliant Engineering, who prepared the
traffic and parking study, outline a series of potential options for addressing parking congestion,
the reality is that the Subject Property is located on a dead-end cul-de-sac and has notable
limitations for ingress, egress, and parking.
Although religious uses are now permitted in the I-2 District through issuance of a Special Use
Permit and are not required to be located on an arterial or collector street, it should be noted
that religious uses elsewhere in the City require the main entrance to be served by a collector or
arterial street—the France Avenue cul-de-sac is not, which limits ingress, egress, and overall flow
to and from the Subject Property.
Despite the Applicant suggesting a shuttle service to address the parking issues, no paperwork
has been provided as of the date of the staff report to detail the agreement between K&G
Fashion Superstore and the Applicant, and no additional information has been provided as to
how the shuttle service would operate (e.g. call for pickup, scheduled pick up and drop off times).
In reviewing the current operation and parking accommodations for the Friday prayer service at
the Brooklyn Center Community Center, City staff noted that multiple cars had more than one
occupant per vehicle. It is to staff’s assumption that, rather than driving five minutes each way to
the K&G Fashion Superstore, many of the attendees will likely drop off their occupants and park
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 12
in the adjacent neighborhood given the identified shuttle service consists of four minivans with
seating only for 6 individuals each. Additional concerns were raised regarding the timing of the
prayer services (noon to 2 p.m.) and the anticipated number of attendees who might be utilizing
their Friday lunch hour to make the drive to and from prayer service.
FINDINGS
City staff understands the desire to have the Applicant (Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center)
remain in the community given that a majority of their attendees are residents from the Brooklyn
Center and Brooklyn Park areas; however, City staff has significant concerns regarding the intended use
at this particular location in consideration of the site’s limitations and substantial upgrades that would
need to take place before the buildings could be occupied. Although City staff is unable to specifically
determine the scope of the traffic issues that may result from the identified parking deficiency at the
site, the concerns associated with the lack of parking and the resulting negative impacts raise serious
questions about the appropriateness of the use on this site.
While the two buildings on the Subject Property offer a combined total of approximately 8,000-square
feet, the maximum occupancy would be capped to no more than 150 individuals at any one time and as
proposed would likely not exceed 75 people at any one time (as proposed for the Friday prayer service),
which would effectively result in a major underutilization of the buildings.
The primary reason for the Community Center, as expressed in the Applicant’s narrative is to, “use the
center to build valuable and stronger relationship between all humankind. We reach out and present
Islam through educational and cultural activities. We believe that this holistic cultural and inter-faith
presence is consistent with the teachings and principles of Islam. Our center also serves as a springboard
for religious dialogues and a home for the needy.”
The Applicant acknowledges in their provided narrative that since the inception of Masjid Al-Ansar
Islamic Community Center, they have seen “exponential growth.” By issuing a Special Use Permit for the
Subject Property, the Applicant would be placed in a situation where they would have no room to grow
assuming a cap of 150 members for the use on the Subject Property. Prohibiting further growth of the
Masjid Al-Ansar Community Center at this location would appear to only be making the best out of a
bad situation and City staff is unsure as to how long the mosque and community center could function
at this location before they would need to look elsewhere.
Regarding the parking needs, the City has historically only issued allowances (variances) for lesser
parking in instances where the Applicant has been able to (1) provide a traffic and parking study
outlining the actual needs, (2) provide data from other apartment buildings under the same ownership
by an Applicant outlining unit counts and parking calculations during different times and days, or (3)
shown a “proof of parking” that proves that, should the parking needs be greater than anticipated, the
parking lot can be expanded on-site to address those needs.
The Subject Property was approved in 1998 with a “proof of parking;” however, only five additional
spaces were provided for and the constraints of the Subject Property, barring the demolition of one of
the buildings, could not offer any more than is currently on site. It should also be recognized that by
granting a variance in parking for the proposed use, this would set a precedent for allowing on-site
parking deficiencies to occur for any similar proposals that might come forward in the future.
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 13
Finally, as the Applicant is requesting issuance of a Special Use Permit, Section 35-220 (Special Use
Permits) of the City’s Zoning Code requires that any approved special use shall, “expire without further
action by the Planning Commission or the City Council unless the Applicant or his assignee or successor
commences work upon the Subject Property within one year of the date of special use permit is
granted, or unless before the expiration of the one year period the applicant shall apply for an
extension.”
It should be noted that the building the Applicant intends to move into has been declared “unfit” and
will require a new Certificate of Occupancy and any identified Building and Fire Code requirements will
need to be implemented before a new Certificate of Occupancy can be issued for the 4900 France
Avenue building given the current unfit conditions and change in use.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff is unable to provide a recommendation requesting that a motion be made to either approve or
deny the issuance of a Special Use Permit to operate Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center at the
Subject Property location at 4900 France Avenue North. Therefore, the Planning Commission and City
Council will need to make a determination as to whether a:
1) Motion to approve a Resolution denying that the City Council issue a Special Use Permit for the
Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center for the operation of a mosque and community center at
the Subject Property and a parking variance for the intended use, based on the above outlined
findings of fact, be recommended; or
2) Motion to approve a Resolution that the City Council issue a Special Use Permit for the Masjid Al-
Ansar Islamic Community Center for the operation of a mosque and community center at the
Subject Property and approval of a parking variance for the intended use, based on the above
outlined findings of fact, be recommended.
Should a recommendation be made to approve the issuance of a Special Use Permit, a parking variance
would need to be granted as the Applicant and Alliant Engineering, who prepared the traffic and parking
study, note that the parking needs for the use will not be met through on-site parking. In addition, City
staff is recommending the following additional conditions be attached to any favorable approval of the
requested Special Use Permit:
1. A parking variance granted allows the proposed use of the Subject Property without needing to
strictly comply with the parking requirements in the City’s Zoning Ordinance. The Applicant
shall develop a Parking Plan for approval by the City Planner and Zoning Administrator to
accommodate the anticipated parking needs for the approved use. The Applicant shall be
required to implement, and remain in compliance with, the approved Parking Plan.
2. The majority of the parking lot shall be signed for “carpool use” only in accordance with
approved Parking Plan.
3. Attendees shall not utilize private property or areas designated as “no parking” (e.g. France
Avenue North cul-de-sac) for their parking needs. These prohibited parking areas shall be
designated in the approved Parking Plan.
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 14
4. Any major changes or modifications made to the Subject Property and previously approved
plans can only be made either through the City’s Building Permit process or through formal Site
and Building Plan review by the City.
5. The Applicant shall not occupy either building located on the Subject Property until:
a. A new Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the City Building Official for the unfit
building (4900 France Avenue North); and
b. The Applicant obtains City permits and completes all minimum required interior and site
improvements for the proposed use as per the City Building Official and Fire Inspector.
6. The Applicant shall bring the Subject Property into conformance with the approved site plan
prepared by Blumentals Architecture and dated February 5, 1998, including, but not limited to
the following improvements:
a. Re-striping and expansion of Subject Property parking lot to provide minimum of 32 on-
site parking spaces;
b. Relocation and/or reconstruction of outdoor trash enclosure per City Code
requirements, and as approved by City Planner; and
c. Relocation of existing accessible route for second building on Subject Property (4902
France Avenue North).
7. The approved Landscape Plan identified on the site plan prepared by Blumentals Architecture
and dated February 5, 1998 shall be brought back into compliance and any overgrown
vegetation removed. Any requests for alternate plantings shall be reviewed by the City Planner.
8. The Applicant shall install a fence along the south perimeter of the Subject Property to create
barrier between parking lot and active rail line. The Applicant shall work with the ownership of
the abutting railroad to determine allowances for fencing. The Applicant shall forward plans for
fencing to the City Planner and Building Official and a Building Permit submitted for review and
approval if required.
9. The Applicant shall comply with all comments outlined in the memorandum prepared by
Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg on February 10, 2020.
10. The Applicant/Property Owner shall ensure the fire sprinkler system is maintained and
monitored.
11. The Applicant shall furnish a copy of an agreement to the City Planner for the off-site shuttle lot,
to be located at the K&G Fashion Superstore property (5425 Xerxes Avenue North) with a
proposed method of operation for the shuttle.
12. The Applicant shall ensure a parking lot attendant is in place between Friday prayer services and
any other events generating parking needs beyond the amount available on-site of the Subject
Property. The attendant shall be located on the Subject Property and shall not direct traffic from
City Right-of-Way or adjacent private property.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A— Public Hearing Notice, published in the Brooklyn Center Sun Post, dated January 30, 2020.
App. No. 2020-001
PC 02/13/2020
CC 03/09/2020 (Updated)
Page 15
Exhibit B— Planning Commission Application No. 2020-001 Submittal Packet dated January 14, 2020, and Traffic
and Parking Study, prepared by Alliant Engineering and dated January 9, 2020.
Exhibit C— Previously Approved Site Plan with Landscaping and Preliminary Grading and Utility Plan, prepared by
Blumentals Architecture, and dated February 5, 1998.
Exhibit D— Memorandum prepared by Assistant City Engineer Andrew Hogg, dated February 10, 2020.
Exhibit A
Scanned with CamScanner
Exhibit B
1/14/2020
1/31/2020
2020-001
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Scanned with CamScanner
Brooklyn Center Mosque
Traffic & Parking Study
Brooklyn Center, MN
Prepared For:
Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center
Prepared By:
Jordan Schwarze, PE
Hannah Johnson
Alliant Engineering, Inc.
733 Marquette Avenue, Suite 700
Saint Paul, MN 55402
January 9, 2020
DRAFT Report
Traffic & Parking Study
Brooklyn Center Mosque
Alliant No. 219-0226.0 i
January 9, 2020
Table of Contents
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. i
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................1
2.0 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................1
2.1 STUDY AREA INTERSECTIONS .......................................................................................... 1
2.2 DATA COLLECTION .......................................................................................................... 1
2.2.1 Traffic Volumes ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2.2.2 Roadway/Intersection Characteristics ................................................................................................... 1
2.2.3 Parking Observations ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.3 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Level of Service and Queuing ................................................................................................................. 6
3.0 Future Conditions ..............................................................................................................7
3.1 PROPOSED MOSQUE ......................................................................................................... 7
3.2 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Background Growth ............................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.2 Trip Generation ...................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.3 Directional Distribution and Trip Assignment ........................................................................................ 7
3.2.4 Level of Service and Queuing ............................................................................................................... 10
3.3 PARKING MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 10
3.3.1 Parking Management Plan .................................................................................................................. 11
3.3.2 Parking Layout ..................................................................................................................................... 11
4.0 Conclusions/Recommendations ......................................................................................13
Appendix A – Detailed Operations and Queueing Analysis ..................................................... A
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location............................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................... 3
Figure 3. Existing Parking Observations ........................................................................................ 5
Figure 4. Directional Distribution ................................................................................................... 8
Figure 5. Future Conditions ............................................................................................................ 9
Figure 6. Recommended Parking Layout ..................................................................................... 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria ................................................................................................... 6
Table 2. Existing Intersection Operations Analysis ........................................................................ 6
Table 3. Intersection Operations Analysis Comparison ............................................................... 10
Traffic & Parking Study
Brooklyn Center Mosque
Alliant No. 219-0226.0 1
January 9, 2020
1.0 Introduction
Alliant Engineering has completed a traffic and parking study for a proposed mosque to be located
at 4900 France Avenue N in Brooklyn Center, MN. The currently unoccupied subject property is
zoned I2 – General Industrial but would be rezoned for the purpose of the mosque (see Figure 1:
Project Location). The objectives of this study are to evaluate existing traffic and parking
characteristics within the area, document the anticipated impacts related to the proposed lane use
change, and recommend mitigation measures to address potential impacts. The following provides
the assumptions, analysis, and conclusions/recommendations offered for consideration.
2.0 Existing Conditions
The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline to identify any future impacts
associated with the proposed mosque. The evaluation of existing conditions includes turning
movement counts, parking observations, and an intersection operations analysis.
2.1 Study Area Intersections
The following intersections were evaluated for the study:
• Lakebreeze Avenue & Azelia Avenue
• France Avenue & 50th Avenue
• France Avenue & 53rd Avenue
• 53rd Avenue & Drew Avenue
2.2 Data Collection
2.2.1 Traffic Volumes
To document existing conditions, intersection turning movement counts were collected by
Alliant Engineering on Friday, December 20, 2019 from 11:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. It should be noted
that the traditional Friday prayer service, the most significant regularly occurring traffic generator
for the Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center, takes place within this timeframe.
2.2.2 Roadway/Intersection Characteristics
Roadway/intersection characteristics within the study area (i.e. lane geometry and traffic
controls/volumes) were observed and are shown in Figure 2: Existing Conditions. While the
Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center currently holds a single Friday prayer service from
1:00-2:00 p.m., two Friday services are planned at the proposed mosque: 12:00-1:00 p.m. and
1:00-2:00 p.m. Therefore, the 12:30-1:30 p.m. timeframe was analyzed to ensure overlapping
traffic from each service was covered.
Project Location
Figure 1Brooklyn Center Mosque Traffic & Parking Study
ALLIANT
53rd AveFrance AveFrance AveBass Lake Rd
Lakebreeze Ave
Botti
n
e
a
u Bl
v
d Brookl
yn Bl
vdMosque
Proposed
at K&G
Park and Ride
Proposed
MINNESO
1 00
AT
Brooklyn Center Mosque Traffic & Parking Study
ALLIANT
All-Way Stop
Existing Conditions
Figure 2
L 17
T 5
R 11L 13T 12R 024 R19 T1 L6 R
5 T
0 L
21 R2 L4 R
44 T
1 R
15 T
38 L
L 1
T 11
R 1L 0T 3R 270 R
32 T
6 L
1 R0 T0 LL 63T 0R 4Azelia AveL 0
T 37
R 880 R5 T5 L L 7
T 39
Mosque
Proposed
Lakebreeze Ave France AveEwing AveDrew Ave51st Ave
50th Ave
52nd AveFrance AveEwing AveDrew Ave53rd Ave
Through/Stop
LEGEND
XX
(12:30-1:30 PM)
Friday Traffic Volume
Lane Geometry
Lakebreeze Ave & Azelia Ave
53rd Ave & Drew Ave
53rd Ave & France Ave
50th Ave & France Ave
MINNESO
AT
100
Traffic & Parking Study
Brooklyn Center Mosque
Alliant No. 219-0226.0 4
January 9, 2020
2.2.3 Parking Observations
A review of existing parking restrictions and demand/capacity (Friday 11:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.)
near the proposed mosque site was completed to understand potential impacts to the adjacent
on-street parking network. A summary of study area parking observations is documented in
Figure 3: Existing Parking Observations. The parking observations reveal that no parking is
allowed on France Avenue south of 50th Avenue (the block adjacent to the proposed mosque site),
though a number of vehicles were viewed to be parked illegally on this block.
A small supply of on-street parking was available one block from the proposed mosque site along
the south side of 50th Avenue east of France Avenue. During the four hours of Friday observations,
approximately 10-18 on-street parking spaces were available along this segment of 50th Avenue.
However, it should be noted that no pedestrian facilities exist between 50th Avenue and the
proposed mosque site. In the residential neighborhood further north, abundant on-street parking
was available on France Avenue, Ewing Avenue, and Drew Avenue.
In addition to existing parking observations near the proposed mosque site, parking demand was
observed at the Brooklyn Center Community Center where the Friday prayer service of the
Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center is currently held. A parking lot count was collected
both during the Friday prayer service and approximately one hour after conclusion of the service.
The post-service count revealed 72 fewer vehicles in the Community Center parking lot as
compared to the count during the service. Given limited observed use of other meeting space,
exercise, and pool facilities within the Brooklyn Center Community Center both during and after
the Friday prayer service, the majority of the 72-vehicle difference can be attributed to members
of the Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center.
With an observed service attendance of approximately 150 people, a rate of 2.1 people/vehicle can
be derived. Discussions with leaders of the Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center indicate
that service attendance is typically lower and that normal vehicle occupancy is likely closer to
3.0 people/vehicle. Mosque leaders cite college-age members being back from winter break during
the Friday, December 20, 2019 observations as the probable cause for the atypical numbers.
However, the observed numbers were carried forward in the analysis to conservatively estimate a
worst-case scenario for future conditions.
Brooklyn Center Mosque Traffic & Parking Study
ALLIANT
50th Ave France AveEwing AveDrew AveExisting Parking Observations
Figure 3
50th Ave
51st Ave
51st Ave
France AveLEGEND
Parking Allowed
No Parking
MINNESOTA
100
Mosque
Proposed
Traffic & Parking Study
Brooklyn Center Mosque
Alliant No. 219-0226.0 6
January 9, 2020
2.3 Intersection Operations Analysis
An existing intersection operations analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic software to
establish a baseline condition to which future traffic operations could be compared.
2.3.1 Level of Service and Queuing
Operations analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS), which indicates the quality of traffic
flow through an intersection. Intersections are given a ranking from LOS A to F. The LOS results
are based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in
Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, with vehicles experiencing minimal delays.
LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity, or a breakdown of traffic flow.
Table 1. Level of Service Criteria
Results of the existing intersection operations analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study
intersections currently operate at overall LOS A during the Friday analysis hour. In addition, no
significant side-street delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic simulation.
Detailed operations and queuing analysis results are presented in Appendix A.
Table 2. Existing Intersection Operations Analysis
Description Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
A Free Flow: Low volumes and no delays.0 - 10 0 - 10
B Stable Flow: Speeds restricted by travel conditions, minor delays.> 10 - 20 > 10 - 15
C Stable Flow: Speeds and maneuverability closely controlled due to higher
volumes.> 20 - 35 > 15 - 25
D Stable Flow: Speeds considerably affected by change in operating conditions.
High density traffic restricts maneuverability, volume near capacity.> 35 - 55 > 25 - 35
E Unstable Flow: Low speeds, considerable delay, volume at or slightly over
capacity.> 55 - 80 > 35 - 50
F Forced Flow: Very low speeds, volume exceed capacity, long delays with stop
and go traffic.> 80 > 50
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 Edition, Transportation Research Board, Exhibits 18-4 & 19-1.
Delay per Vehicle (seconds)
Level of Service
Lakebreeze Ave & Azelia Ave A /A 1.5 /4.5
France Ave & 50th Ave A /A 4.4 /5.6
France Ave & 53rd Ave A /A 4.0 /5.0
53rd Ave & Drew Ave A /A 1.0 /2.7
Overall Intersection LOS / Worst Approach LOS
Overall Intersection Delay / Worst Approach
Delay
Intersection Existing
LOS Delay (s)
Traffic & Parking Study
Brooklyn Center Mosque
Alliant No. 219-0226.0 7
January 9, 2020
3.0 Future Conditions
To determine potential impacts, a traffic operations analysis was completed for future conditions.
3.1 Proposed Mosque
The Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center is expected to repurpose existing building
structures (approximately 2,400 and 2,800 square feet each) at the 4900 France Avenue N site.
The existing site access at the southern end of a cul-de-sac on France Avenue south of 50th Avenue
is expected to be reutilized. The existing parking lot at the proposed mosque site, which is
anticipated to be restriped, is expected to provide a maximum of 32 parking stalls of typical width
(8.5 feet). It should be noted that the size of the existing building structures may limit the potential
attendance of any particular prayer service; however, the worst-case scenario in which all members
are onsite at one time was conservatively analyzed.
3.2 Intersection Operations Analysis
A future conditions intersection operations analysis was completed using Synchro/SimTraffic
software to estimate the traffic impacts of the proposed mosque.
3.2.1 Background Growth
Significant background traffic volume growth at the study intersections is not expected in the near
future, as the study area is fully developed with limited potential for redevelopment that would
produce significantly increased traffic volumes.
3.2.2 Trip Generation
The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition was referenced to estimate the trip generation
potential of the proposed mosque. However, very limited data related to a mosque is available.
Therefore, a trip generation based on existing Friday prayer service observations was utilized to
provide a more reliable analysis. As noted previously, approximately 70 vehicles at the current
Friday prayer service site could be attributed to members of the Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic
Community Center. Consequently, approximately 70 trips both to and from the proposed mosque
could be expected. While the proposed mosque is expected to offer two back-to-back prayer
services between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m., the potential exists for one of the services to be more
popular than the other. Therefore, to provide a worst-case estimate of future conditions, all 70
potential trips were assumed to exit the proposed mosque site within the Friday analysis hour.
3.2.3 Directional Distribution and Trip Assignment
The distribution of site-generated trips was estimated based on existing traffic volumes/patterns
and engineering judgement. The resultant directional distribution, shown in Figure 4:
Directional Distribution, was applied to estimated site-generated trips. The resultant forecast of
future conditions, in which all 70 potential site-generated trips exit the proposed mosque within
the Friday analysis hour, is shown in Figure 5: Future Conditions.
40%15%45%
Brooklyn Center Mosque Traffic & Parking Study
ALLIANTAzelia AveMosque
Proposed
Lakebreeze Ave France AveEwing AveDrew Ave51st Ave
50th Ave
52nd AveFrance AveEwing AveDrew Ave53rd Ave
LEGEND
Directional Distribution
Figure 4
Distribution Direction
Distribution Percentage
##%
MINNESO
AT
100
Brooklyn Center Mosque Traffic & Parking Study
ALLIANT
All-Way Stop
L 17
T 5
R 11L 13T 12R 038 R29 T1 L6 R
5 T
0 L
35 R2 L4 R
58 T
1 R
15 T
38 L
L 1
T 11
R 1L 0T 3R 270 R
32 T
6 L
1 R0 T0 LL 95T 0R 4Azelia AveL 0
T 37
R 88
L 7
T 39
Mosque
Proposed
Lakebreeze Ave France AveEwing AveDrew Ave51st Ave
50th Ave
52nd AveFrance AveEwing AveDrew Ave53rd Ave
Through/Stop
LEGEND
XX
Lane Geometry
Future Conditions
Figure 514 R29 T37 L (Mosque Peak Hour)
Friday Traffic Volume
Lakebreeze Ave & Azelia Ave
53rd Ave & Drew Ave
53rd Ave & France Ave
50th Ave & France Ave
MINNESO
AT
100
Traffic & Parking Study
Brooklyn Center Mosque
Alliant No. 219-0226.0 10
January 9, 2020
3.2.4 Level of Service and Queuing
Results of the future intersection operations analysis, shown in Table 3, indicate that all study
intersections are expected to continue operating at overall LOS A during the Friday analysis hour.
In addition, no significant side-street delay or queuing issues were observed in the traffic
simulation. Therefore, no issues related to the proposed mosque are anticipated from a traffic
operations perspective. Detailed operations and queuing analysis results are presented in
Appendix A.
Table 3. Intersection Operations Analysis Comparison
3.3 Parking Management
Despite anticipated back-to-back prayer services between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m., the potential
still exists for approximately 70 vehicles to be onsite during the overlap between services in the
12:30-1:30 p.m. timeframe. Considering an estimated maximum of 32 parking stalls onsite, the
potential exists for a parking deficit of nearly 40 stalls. Therefore, the Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic
Community Center is planning to provide four shuttle vans (7-passengers each) to move members
between the proposed mosque site and an offsite park and ride location. It should be noted that the
study area was observed to have sufficient on-street parking capacity within two to three blocks of
the proposed mosque to accommodate the entire membership. However, a significant portion of
this available on-street parking capacity lies in the residential neighborhood north of 50th Avenue.
The combination of the existing parking lot, available on-street parking, and the planned shuttle
service has the potential to effectively manage the anticipated parking demand of the proposed
mosque.
For the offsite park and ride location, an arrangement has been made with K&G Fashion Superstore
(located approximately one mile northeast of the proposed mosque at 5425 Xerxes Avenue N and
shown previously in Figure 1) to provide parking in the underutilized back parking lot of the store.
The back parking lot at K&G has a capacity of more than 100 parking stalls with little associated
demand based on a review of satellite imagery over the past 10 years. With shuttle vans running
continuously before and after services, the potential exists for the shuttle service to significantly
reduce parking demand on and near the site of the proposed mosque.
Lakebreeze Ave & Azelia Ave A /A 1.5 /4.5 A /A 1.9 /4.7
France Ave & 50th Ave A /A 4.4 /5.6 A /A 4.8 /5.5
France Ave & 53rd Ave A /A 4.0 /5.0 A /A 4.5 /5.2
53rd Ave & Drew Ave A /A 1.0 /2.7 A /A 1.1 /2.7
Overall Intersection LOS / Worst Approach LOS
Overall Intersection Delay / Worst Approach
Delay
Intersection Existing Future
LOS Delay (s)LOS Delay (s)
Traffic & Parking Study
Brooklyn Center Mosque
Alliant No. 219-0226.0 11
January 9, 2020
3.3.1 Parking Management Plan
The potential exists for parking demand to significantly exceed the anticipated parking supply on
the site of the proposed mosque at 4900 France Avenue N in Brooklyn Center. Therefore, the
following measures are recommended to minimize the potential for parking demand associated
with the proposed mosque to overrun the parking supply onsite and spill onto adjacent streets and
into the residential neighborhood north of 50th Avenue:
•If possible, separate the two anticipated prayer services by at least one hour to limit the
potential for the entire membership to be onsite during the overlap between services.
•Actively promote the use of the planned shuttle service among members of the
Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center.
o The shuttle service is expected to offer an abundance of parking at a location only a
5-minute drive from the proposed mosque site (K&G Fashion Superstore).
▪In one trip, the four shuttle van fleet could transport up to 24 people excluding van
drivers (equivalent to 11 parked vehicles at the observed rate of 2.1 people/vehicle).
▪Stagger shuttle van departures to minimize the potential for more than one van
loading/unloading passengers simultaneously on the proposed mosque site.
•Excluding the required number of designated stalls for handicap accessible, mosque
leadership, and shuttle parking, sign the majority of the remaining parking lot stalls as
carpool only.
o Encourage single occupancy drivers to utilize the planned shuttle service.
▪Designate the single parking stall immediately adjacent to the west building
entrance for shuttle van loading/unloading. This location will help minimize the
potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts within the parking lot and allow shuttle
vans the space needed to perform a backing maneuver.
o Designate a parking lot monitor to actively enforce carpool rules and post a sign at the
site access when the parking lot is full. These actions will maintain an orderly parking
lot and help minimize the potential for vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
•Given that vehicles were already observed to park illegally along France Avenue south of
50th Avenue and minimal heavy truck activity, the City of Brooklyn Center could consider
allowing on-street parking along the west side of this one-block segment. Approximately
210 feet of uninterrupted curb is available along the west side of France Avenue, south of
50th Avenue and north of the cul-de-sac which provides access to the proposed mosque.
This length of uninterrupted curb has the potential to provide approximately 10 on-street
spaces that could be utilized for short-term parking.
3.3.2 Parking Layout
To minimize the potential for vehicle/vehicle and vehicle/pedestrian conflicts onsite, the parking
layout shown in Figure 6 is recommended. It should be specifically noted that removing
overgrown vegetation near the site access is recommended to improve sight distance/safety.
Brooklyn Center Mosque Traffic & Parking Study
Recommended Parking Layout
Figure 6
ALLIANTFrance Ave Parki
ng Lot A
i
sl
e90-degree Parki
ng St
all
s90-degree Parki
ng St
all
sLoading/Unloading
Designated Shuttle
vehilce backing maneuvers
trash removal and
Maintain open space for
safety at the site access
improve sight distance/
Remove vegetation to
Mosque
Proposed
GoogleC
Traffic & Parking Study
Brooklyn Center Mosque
Alliant No. 219-0226.0 13
January 9, 2020
4.0 Conclusions/Recommendations
The following study conclusions/recommendations are offered for consideration:
•Results of the existing intersection operations analysis indicate that all study intersections
currently operate at overall LOS A during the Friday analysis hour. In addition, no significant
side-street delay or queuing issues were observed in the field or traffic simulation. After the
Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center occupies the existing building structures at
4900 France Avenue N in Brooklyn Center, all study intersections are expected to continue
operating at overall LOS A during the Friday analysis hour. Additionally, no significant
side-street delay or queuing issues are anticipated under the future conditions. Therefore, no
issues related to the proposed mosque are anticipated from a traffic operations perspective.
•Despite anticipated back-to-back prayer services between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m., the
potential still exists for approximately 70 vehicles to be onsite during the overlap between
services in the 12:30-1:30 p.m. timeframe. Considering an estimated maximum of 32 parking
stalls onsite, the potential exists for a parking deficit of nearly 40 stalls. Therefore, the
Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center is planning to provide four shuttle vans
(7-passengers each) to move members between the proposed mosque site and an offsite park
and ride location only a 5-minute drive away.
o It should be noted that the study area was observed to have sufficient on-street parking
capacity within two to three blocks of the proposed mosque to accommodate the entire
membership. However, a significant portion of this available on-street parking capacity lies
in the residential neighborhood north of 50th Avenue. The combination of the existing
parking lot, available on-street parking, and the planned shuttle service has the potential to
effectively manage the anticipated parking demand of the proposed mosque.
•To minimize the potential for parking demand associated with the proposed mosque to overrun
the parking supply onsite and spill onto adjacent streets and into the residential neighb orhood
north of 50th Avenue, the actions presented in Section 3.3.1: Parking Management Plan are
recommended.
Traffic & Parking Study
Brooklyn Center Mosque
Alliant No. 219-0226.0 A1
Appendix A – Detailed Operations and Queueing Analysis
Existing Conditions
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Movement Delay (sec/veh) 2.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 2.8 4.7 0.3 2.2 1.5
Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Movement 95th Queue (ft) 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 10 45 15 15
Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Approach LOS
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Movement Delay (sec/veh) 4.2 5.7 1.9 3.2 6.2 1.4 4.2 5.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 3.7 4.4
Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Movement 95th Queue (ft) 37 37 37 22 22 22 30 30 0 18 18 46
Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Approach LOS
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 5.9 2.7 4.6 1.7 2.6 4.2 5.5 3.7 4.2 5.8 0.0 4.0
Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Movement 95th Queue (ft) 33 33 33 43 43 43 49 49 49 43 43 43
Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Approach LOS
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.6 0.4 2.0 0.1 0.0 3.9 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 0 0 5 5 0 13 0 39 0 0 0
Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Approach LOS
Lakebreeze Ave &
Azelia Ave 0.5 0.2
A A
Intersection MOE Eastbound Approach
Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection
Total
4.5
Westbound Approach Northbound Approach
A A
2.8
Southbound Approach Intersection
Total
Intersection MOE Eastbound Approach
5.0 3.7
Intersection MOE Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach
France Ave &
50th Ave 4.5 5.6
AAAA
Intersection
Total
France Ave &
53rd Ave 3.9 3.0 4.5 5.0
A A A A
Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection
TotalIntersectionMOEEastbound Approach
2.7 0.0
A A A A
53rd Ave &
Drew Ave 0.6 0.4
Future Conditions
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Movement Delay (sec/veh) 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0.1 2.6 1.9
Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Movement 95th Queue (ft) 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 48 14 14
Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Approach LOS
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Movement Delay (sec/veh) 4.3 5.6 1.5 4.1 5.9 1.8 5.0 6.5 3.1 0.0 3.3 3.9 4.8
Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Movement 95th Queue (ft) 39 39 39 23 23 23 54 54 36 19 19 45
Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Approach LOS
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 5.9 2.3 4.5 1.7 2.5 4.2 6.6 4.3 4.6 5.7 0.0 4.5
Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Movement 95th Queue (ft) 29 29 29 43 43 43 53 53 53 43 43 43
Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Approach LOS
EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Movement Delay (sec/veh) 0.0 0.5 0.5 2.1 0.1 0.0 4.8 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1
Movement LOS A A A A A A A A A A A A A
Movement 95th Queue (ft) 0 0 0 10 10 0 11 0 44 0 0 0
Approach Delay (sec/veh)
Approach LOS
Intersection MOE Eastbound Approach
Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection
Total
Lakebreeze Ave &
Azelia Ave 0.5 0.2 0.0
Intersection MOE Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach
4.7
A A A A
France Ave &
53rd Ave 3.7
A
0.0
A A A A
2.7
Intersection
Total
Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection
Total
3.0 5.2 5.2
A A A
Intersection MOE Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach
53rd Ave &
Drew Ave 0.5 0.5
France Ave &
50th Ave 4.6 5.5 5.2 3.8
A A A A
Intersection MOE Eastbound Approach Westbound Approach Northbound Approach Southbound Approach Intersection
Total
Exhibit C
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: Feb 10, 2020
TO: Ginny McIntosh, City Planner/Zoning Administrator
FROM: Andrew Hogg, Assistant City Engineer
SUBJECT: Site Plan Review – 4900 France
Public Works Department staff reviewed the following documents submitted for review on Jan 20,
2020 for 4900 France Ave N:
Planning Commission Submittal Packet dated Jan 20, 2020
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:
Site Plan
1.The traffic study and parking demand management plan and Applicant note an intent to re-stripe
the parking lot and relocate the existing outdoor trash enclosure so as to meet the previously
approved site plan prepared by Blumentals Architecture and last revised February 5, 1998. The
Applicant did not provide an updated site plan. The location of the trash enclosure shown on the
approved site plan is different the than the existing trash enclosure’s current location and would
need to be relocated in order to allow for installation of additional parking. The applicant shall
restripe the parking to match the previously approved site plan and will need to accommodate for
minimum ADA parking requirements.
2.The applicant shall remove the overgrown vegetation at the entrance to improve sight lines
when entering and exiting the site.
3.Site accessibility shall comply with ADA standards.
Miscellaneous
4.The applicant is not proposing to disturb the site above the threshold for review; no project
review is required for the West Mississippi Watershed Commission and an NPDES permit is
not required.
5.The City has received a draft traffic study, dated January 9, 2020. The study doesn’t provide a
clear understanding of the parking needs for the site. The report provides only an estimate of
service attendees to each service. Staff estimates of occupancy loads of the building after the
remodeling exceeds the number provided in the draft traffic plan.
In discussions with the applicant, it was implied that after the completion of each service the
parking lot will empty entirely, providing a clean slate for the next service. With the nature of
the site and the indication that the site is planned to function as community center it seems
unreasonable to expect that this will occur. If the occupancy loads match the estimation within
the traffic study, only under ideal conditions will the site be able to meet the required number
of parking stalls and the site will be under-parked. If those numbers are greater, then parking
Exhibit D
4900 France Ave
Site Plan Review Memo, February 10, 2020
Page 2 of 2
and traffic could have major impacts on the neighborhood.
The Public Works department will not recommend changing any of the city on-street parking
regulations for the local city streets to accommodate on-street parking for the site, which is
suggested in the provided traffic study and parking demand management plan. The cul-de-sac
portion of France Avenue North shall not be used for on-street parking as street dimensions
do not allow for the movement of industrial traffic and vehicles in conjunction with on-street
parking. The traffic study discusses the use of a staff member directing traffic, preventing
vehicles from entering the site once the on-site parking is full, however, the study doesn’t
discuss how the traffic will be directed to prevent on-street parking in the neighborhood or
what steps will be taken to prevent queuing in the streets as cars wait for parking.
The applicant shall take steps to prevent parking on private property, unless the applicant can
provide an agreement with a private property owner for the purposes of additional parking. In
addition, the study refers to an agreement with the K&G property at 5425 Xerxes Ave N as a
location for additional parking with a shuttle service (i.e. 4 minivans). The study doesn’t
detail how the shuttle service will work, nor does the PC submittal packet include an
agreement with K&G for use of their property. City staff has not received enough information
nor does the traffic report lend clarity to the parking issues and concerns. In regards to the
traffic study, Public Works is unable to provide a recommendation in support of the traffic
study as proposed.
Anticipated Permitting:
6.Other permits not listed may be required and is the responsibility of the developer to
obtain and warranted.
7. Copies of all required permits must be provided to the City prior to issuance of applicable
building and land disturbance permits.
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.
1
City of Brooklyn Center Beautification & Public Art Plan
2020-2025
UPDATED DRAFT 2/6/20
Prepared by Forecast Public Art
Intro and Overview
City of Brooklyn Center hired Forecast to develop a Beautification & Public Art Master Plan
Why a Plan?
•Re-create a sense of identity, enhance community image, grow civic pride
•Establish policies, procedures, governance systems, management and administrative systems
and sustainable funding mechanisms Coordinate public and private beautification efforts
•Guide efforts to enhance public improvements and private development efforts
•Advance resident economic stability
•Engage residents and businesses throughout the City in meaningful ways
•Interests and priorities change over time
Why Public Art?
Public art is vital to building a dynamic and equitable city for everyone; it encourages dialogues across
difference, inspires viewers and participants to engage more fully in their communities and fosters civic
pride and stewardship.
What does Public Art and Beautification in Brooklyn Center look like in Five Years?
The range of public art resulting from the city’s program will likely be as varied and diverse as the
Brooklyn Center community; the city’s multicultural residents will be able to see themselves
represented in public spaces. There are many ways public art can happen in the future, including:
•Commissioned art as part of a public improvement project, such as a streetscape, a new
playground, renovation of a public building, etc.
•Private developers commission art to incorporate into their housing, retail or commercial
developments.
•Residents, community groups and businesses develop art projects in public-facing spaces,
independently or with start-up support from the City through a micro-grant program.
•All types of artists living in Brooklyn Center will be offered information and training
opportunities to learn how to engage with neighbors in creating meaningful projects.
•Artists are embedded in the Parks Department’s Rec on the Go program, in the Rec Center, in
schools (engaging youth), in new housing developments, at the library, etc.
•Community members are invited to plan and participate in cultural events and festivals.
•Artists and residents build functional amenities, such as benches, shade structures, trash can
holders, etc. in neighborhoods and along walking trails to increase physical activity of residents.
A Shared Vision for Brooklyn Center
Brooklyn Center is where diverse community members can see themselves in the art that’s part
of their daily lives, in their city; where residents and businesses thrive, are actively engaged in
cultural activities and enjoy their quality of life. Brooklyn Center is known for its inclusive,
equitable, people-powered beautification program focused on improving health, wellbeing and
place
stamp
here
place
stamp
here
place
stamp
here
place
stamp
here
Name
Address
City, State, Zip
Apt/Unit
Name
Address
City, State, Zip
Apt/Unit
Name
Address
City, State, Zip
Apt/Unit
Name
Address
City, State, Zip
Apt/Unit
BROOKLYNCENTER
PLANNING FOR PUBLIC ART
BROOKLYNCENTER
PLANNING FOR PUBLIC ART
BROOKLYNCENTER
PLANNING FOR PUBLIC ART
BROOKLYNCENTER
PLANNING FOR PUBLIC ART
BROOKLYNCENTER
PLANNING FOR PUBLIC ART
Facilitated byForecast Public Art
a MN-based Non-Profit
Facilitated byForecast Public Art
a MN-based Non-Profit
Facilitated byForecast Public Art
a MN-based Non-Profit
Facilitated byForecast Public Art
a MN-based Non-Profit
Discussion Item 11.a
2
thoughtful design serving the entire city. Effectively governed, adequately funded and
professionally managed, Brooklyn Center’s forward-thinking public art initiatives are recognized
nationally as high quality, meaningful and impactful.
Process Steps and Key Preliminary Findings
• Discovery, Listening and Community Engagement Phase
o Touring and Viewing, Mapping Exercises, Community Engagement Workshops
o Three Task Force groups: Community, City Team and City Council
o Surveys (online and on-site), focus groups, interviews and meetings (in person and via
telephone)
§ Note: A concerted effort to seek and obtain diverse perspectives and input
throughout the planning process was critical to the plan’s efficacy.
o Demonstration project (230 street banners featuring youth, adults and elders)
• Preliminary Findings
o Mapping exercises helped identify areas of concern or needing attention, such as the
Transit Center, vacant lots, empty buildings, etc. as well as places of value, including the
library, parks, trails, Centennial Park, etc.
o Overall, the response from participants engaged in the planning process regarding the
plan’s goals and the concept of the City developing a program has been very positive.
o Establishing a new program within the City will be a challenge, since it involves taking
some risks and it requires an investment of time, people and money.
o There are not been many artists or arts organizations in the city—no galleries, theaters,
or cultural centers (except the Brookdale Library). It is critical to identify and grow a
base of local talent able to actively and professionally participate in public art,
community engagement and beautification; it is likewise critical to grow the number of
arts and cultural facilities, venues, work spaces, etc.
o A majority of local residents and workers in the city are unaware of contemporary public
art; community-wide education and awareness-building is needed to grow awareness,
understanding, appreciation and support.
o There are numerous efforts underway or planned throughout the city that offer
excellent opportunities for incorporating public art and beautification projects, including
in schools, parks, new developments, transit improvements and more.
• Drafting of the full plan document, including overlay maps focused on corridors and key areas of
the city, will be followed by an online vetting process inviting review and input from the broader
community, leading to review and acceptance by the City Council.
About Public Art & Healthy City Strategies
• The Plan will include an overview of the public art field, including examples, recent trends and
critical issues.
o There are many types of public art, and many different functions it can serve.
o There’s a wide range of possible outcomes, including temporary/fixed,
visual/performance, social engagement, cultural festival, community meals and more.
o There are many ways public art can address individual, community and social health
objectives.
o Beyond placing art in public places; public art is increasingly about the process of
meaningful engagement experiences, efforts that bridge difference, build social
cohesion and promote cross-sector collaborations.
o Growing evidence points to benefits derived from engaging citizens in creating the
physical and social ecology they desire; allowing disenfranchised residents to see
themselves in the art they experience in their daily lives.
3
Challenges
• City has made limited investments in arts and culture; it’s a new thing that’s untested; the street
banner project offers a valuable demonstration that can help inform future efforts.
• City’s efforts with community engagement have left some interviewees wanting more bottom-
up strategies; not simply responding to City-generated ideas.
• There are several blighted or abandoned areas, and evidence of undesirable behaviors.
• It’s difficult keeping trashed areas clean; businesses don’t always cooperate.
• City’s staff capacity is strained, limiting what’s possible in terms of staff time.
• City staff are fairly risk averse and somewhat conservative.
• City has limited resources and there are many competing priorities.
Opportunities
• City has numerous assets upon which to build a meaningful, impactful program:
o Partnerships (County, Metro Transit, Brooklyn Youth Alliance, Three Rivers Parks,
Schools, Earl Brown Heritage Center, Brookdale Library, developers and others).
o Programs that have made an impact in terms of community engagement (including Rec
on the Go, Saturday Market, Centennial Park and stage, parks and trails, and others).
o Street banner demonstration project provides a good example of community-engaged
public art that builds civic pride; creating and sharing this story can raise awareness.
o Future public improvements and private developments can host public art projects.
• Positioning program around theme of “Healthy City” with deep, authentic community
engagement, combined with city’s noteworthy demographics could attract funding/investment.
• Program aligns with key goals and values of City.
• Program is new and not confined; starting from a “blank slate” offers numerous options.
Program Guiding Principles
• Places of beauty and places that encourage positive social interactions contribute to our health.
• Engaging diverse cultural communities in co-creating the built and social environments in which
they can thrive contributes to civic pride and stewardship of public spaces.
• To ensure new City program is successful, it should start small, build on the assets and
partnerships already in place, and grow from there.
• Art and artists play an important role in developing and revitalizing cities, promoting economic
development, generating pride, and building community.
• Cultural development is as important as economic development; this initiative should be viewed
as part of a larger arts and cultural program long-term, helping the City reduce disparities and
advance its equity, diversity and inclusion goals.
• Beautification can elevate property values and attract businesses, artists and creative industries.
• People enjoy living in a community where they make new friends and learn new things.
• It’s critical to incorporate maintenance and conservation funding into all capital projects.
Long-Term Goals
• Foster civic pride and community health by:
o Creating and activating meaningful public gathering places
o Enhancing connective trails and parks, and increasing usage by all
o Nurturing a vibrant cultural life that encourages cross pollination and community
building
o Offering family-oriented arts and entertainment and high quality public art experiences
• Grow number of residents who become active stewards of Brooklyn Center, and feel inclined to
care for the city’s public spaces.
4
• Increase number of volunteer community members who seek out fun and impactful
beautification projects. For example:
o Painting safety crosswalks, creating neighborhood-themed benches, planting roadside
flowerbeds, clean-up projects that result in found-object sculptures, etc.
• Grow number of residents desiring engagement in public art activities that enhance their quality
of life, especially immigrant communities, those living in multi-family dwellings and youth.
• Increase participation and leadership by locally based artists, residents and businesses.
• Attract outside grants and partnership support to warrant expansion of program.
• Grow program long-term to support cultural development (cultural center, studio space, etc.).
Short-Term Strategic Operations Work Plan (2020+2021)
• Build program intentionally, and iteratively over time with informed decision-making, taking into
account the following strategies:
a) Pop up opportunities (treatment of eyesores, surprise interventions, etc.).
b) Leverage current projects (public improvements, private developments, etc.).
c) Demonstration projects (street banners, light projections, temporary murals, etc.).
d) Strategic, long-range efforts (4-5 years out, with time to generate larger sums of
funding, etc.).
e) Encourage businesses, schools, community groups, developers and others to initiate
independent or partnership public art and beautification projects.
• Consider range of funding mechanisms, such as percent-for-art out of CIP and general fund.
o (List of various funding mechanisms to be provided).
• Reference Overlay Maps to consider corridor development and identify areas of opportunity.
• Take advantage of efforts the city—and others—are doing or plan to do, such as Transit Center
remodeling by Metro Transit, Hennepin County Public Health’s effort with Hmong community,
and others.
• Establish an Arts and Culture Commission to guide further planning, advise City on investments,
opportunities, demonstration projects, etc.
• Involve community members to help develop and adopt an “evaluation scorecard” to measure
impacts of projects and build a system for decision-making and record-keeping.
• Maintain City Team as a resource to assist with program incubation and development with
representatives from City department offering support, ideas and coordination.
• Consider a micro-grants strategy to support artists partnering with community members to
generate bottom-up ideas and projects with technical assistance from City staff.
• Host educational events, training sessions and social activities for local talent and help them
learn about program and how they can participate.
• Identify locally-embedded cultural liaisons who can assist with community engagement efforts.
• Develop community education strategies to broaden awareness, understanding and
appreciation of contemporary public art and beautification efforts, especially ones that enhance
livability; start by telling story of the Street Banner Project, with quotes from participants and
observers, followed by a story about how and why the city is working to develop a program to
build on such efforts.
Recommendations to Actualize Plan
In summary, the City should start small and grow its beautification and public art program iteratively
over time as the program takes root and becomes embedded into the culture of City government.
Program Funding
• Determine priority options to establish sustainable funding mechanisms to support program
annually.
5
o Percent of annual budget—for engagement, programs and events; and CIP budget—for
capital projects.
• Identify resources needed to help city staff take advantage of opportunities (cash and in-kind).
o Project coordinators, artists, local cultural liaisons
o Production expenses
o Public relations and communications
o Documentation and evaluation
o Continuing education and professional development
o Leverage private investment (fundraising, sponsorship procurement, etc.)
Governance
• Establish a Brooklyn Center Arts and Culture Commission with a council member liaison.
• Maintain City Team as a group to help guide and nurture program, increase connection and
collaboration amongst departments.
Management
• Overseen by Deputy City Manager with help from key staff members, until contracted project
management support and eventually staff manager is available.
o Implement, wherever practical, modestly-scaled projects and measure outcomes.
o Establish communications protocols—internal and external—to build awareness and
generate support for future efforts.
Project possibilities include, but are not limited to:
§ Temporary murals wrapping around and re-envisioning City Hall entrance.
§ Visual and performing arts enhancements to the Saturday Market (street
painting, interactive projects, colorful banners, live performances, etc.).
§ Changing art along trails that run through neighborhoods, inspiring repeat visits.
§ Artists engaging community members to inform enhancements to new
playgrounds.
§ Art incorporated into public improvements and private developments, and
artists-in-residence in new housing developments and apartment buildings.
§ Artist embedded in Rec on the Go program.
§ Artist-in-residence in schools, library and community garden projects.
§ Micro-grants offered to artists partnering with residents/businesses and cultural
liaisons from local cultural communities and neighborhood groups.
§ Community-driven Cultural Festival featuring diverse youth talent (using
multiple venues, such as Earle Brown Heritage Center, Centennial Park,
Brookdale Library, etc.).
§ Rethink interim uses for vacant buildings (consider a Festival of Nations-type
venue, a co-working studio, cultural showcase, event space, etc.).
§ Showcase local culture at Transit Center (using video monitor and sound system
for music, etc.).
§ Explore with Hennepin County facilities expanding Brookdale Library’s function
as a cultural center.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -1- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 13, 2020
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Christensen at 7:07 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL OF THE YEAR 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair Randall Christensen, Commissioners Alexander Koenig, Jack MacMillan, Rochelle
Sweeney, and Susan Tade were present. Commissioner Stephen Schonning was absent. City
Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh was present.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – FEBRUARY 13, 2020
There was a motion by Commissioner Tade, seconded by Commissioner Sweeney, to approve
the agenda for the February 13, 2020 meeting as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – DECEMBER 12, 2019
There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to
approve the minutes of the December 12, 2019 meeting as presented. The motion passed
unanimously.
5. OFFICIAL ADJOURNMENT OF THE 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION
There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Sweeney, to adjourn
the February 13, 2020 meeting at 7:10 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
6. ROLL CALL OF THE 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION
Commissioners Randall Christensen, Alexander Koenig, Jack MacMillan, Rochelle Sweeney,
and Susan Tade were present. Commissioner Stephen Schonning was absent. City Planner and
Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh was present.
7. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON FOR YEAR 2020
Commissioner MacMillan nominated Commissioner Christensen for Planning Commission
Chair. Commissioner Sweeney seconded the nomination.
Commissioner Koenig nominated himself for Planning Commission Chair, only to express
interest, but added he is happy to defer to Commissioner Christensen. Commissioner Tade
seconded the nomination.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -2- DRAFT
Following discussions, the Commissioners made a determination to proceed in nominating Chair
Christensen as chair of the 2020 Planning Commission. There was a motion by Commissioner
Tade, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to close all nominations. The motion passed
unanimously.
There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to
Accept the Results and Election of Chair for Year 2020. The motion passed unanimously.
8. APPOINTMENT OF 2020 VICE-CHAIR BY CHAIRPERSON
Chair Christensen appointed Commissioner Koenig as 2020 Vice-Chair.
9. CHAIR’S EXPLANATION
Chair Christensen explained the Planning Commission’s role as an advisory body. One of the
Commission’s functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings,
the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final
decisions in these matters.
10. PLANNING APPLICATION ITEMS
10a) Planning Commission Application No. 2020-001 (Public Hearing)
Applicant: Masjid Al-Ansar Islamic Community Center
Property Address: 4900 France Avenue North
Summary: The Applicant is requesting review and consideration for
the issuance of a Special Use Permit and parking variance
to operate a mosque and community center at 4900 France
Avenue North.
Ms. McIntosh reviewed a request for a public hearing related to a Special Use Permit for an
Islamic mosque and community center to be located at 4900 France Avenue N. She added a
parking variance would also be required as the parking needs for the assembly use exceeds the
parking available on-site. She noted the Applicant requested the City consider an amendment
that would allow for religious uses within the I-2 District. The requested amendment was
presented to the Planning Commission and City Council and was ultimately adopted in late 2019.
The amended I-2 District now allows for religious uses on a case-by-case basis through issuance
of a Special Use Permit.
Ms. McIntosh stated the Applicant was previously located in Brooklyn Center within a C-1
District-zoned office building, which allows religious uses as permitted use, but needed to
relocate following a change in ownership. The Applicant wants to stay in Brooklyn Center. The
Applicant is seeking issuance of a Special Use Permit and parking variance to operate a worship
space, gathering and event space, educational classrooms, and office space. The time and day of
the highest recurring use would be from noon to 2:00 p.m. on Fridays, when two 30-minute
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -3- DRAFT
prayer services would be held. The current attendance on Fridays number anywhere from 120 to
150 attendees, but for the purposes of the traffic study, 150 attendees was utilized. Youth classes
and cultural classes would be held on weekends, with occasional use for weddings, meetings,
and events during Ramadan.
Ms. McIntosh stated the unique property has two buildings, a parking lot, and trash enclosure.
The main building, 4900 France Avenue N, is an office building, and the Applicant would move
into this building first, although it cannot be occupied until a new Certificate of Occupancy is
issued, and building and fire regulations for assembly uses are addressed. The second building,
4902 France Avenue N, would need to meet all building and fire code requirements before it can
be occupied. Less is known about this building and the condition of the building would need to
be addressed.
Ms. McIntosh stated a traffic study was completed by Alliant Engineering, and assumes 32
parking spaces on the site. The Subject Property currently does not have 32 parking spaces and
would need to be expanded to accommodate five additional proof of parking spaces. Assuming
32 on-site parking spaces, the study indicates there could be a potential 40-space parking
deficiency.
Ms. McIntosh stated that a series of potential alternatives were outlined in the traffic study to
address the parking deficiencies. One of the proposed alternatives noted that the two Friday
prayer services could perhaps be separated further to allow the parking lot to clear out; however,
in conversations with the Applicant, it was noted that the prayer services could not be spread out
any further as they are held over the typical lunch hour. The Applicant proposed a shuttle service
from the nearby K&G parking lot, which would provide transportation for up to 24 attendees or
six individuals per each of the four vehicles available. City Staff had not yet received a formal
agreement from the Applicant with K&G for parking, but a letter was received today regarding a
parking agreement with Brooklyn Christian Center, located at 6030 Xerxes Avenue North in
Brooklyn Center. The Christian Center is approximately seven minutes away from the Subject
Property. An additional alternative noted that the available on-site parking would have signage
indicating “carpool use only”, but the Applicant has not provided a plan for how this would be
enforced, other than having a parking attendant.
Ms. McIntosh stated another alternative was outlined in the traffic study that requested the City
consider allowing that on-street parking along a 200-foot stretch of the dead-end France Avenue
North cul-de-sac, which is currently signed “no parking”, as Alliant Engineering noted cars were
parked there illegally. She added the Public Works Department has indicated they would not
remove the parking restrictions as the roadway is not wide enough to allow parking along the
west side of France Avenue North and accommodate the commercial vehicles, including boom
and semi-trucks need a wider turn radius to exit the industrial properties located directly north of
the Subject Property.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -4- DRAFT
Ms. McIntosh stated the conversion of the buildings would result in a change of use; therefore,
additional requirements would need to be met to address Building and Fire Code before the
buildings could be occupied. The Applicant would also need to comply with ADA requirements,
including re-striping the parking lot, and the potential installation of a lift or elevator. The
change of use would also trigger Sewer Accessibility Charge requirements from the Met
Council.
Ms. McIntosh stated the Applicant has indicated a willingness to follow all the requirements
outlined in the staff report, including concerns relating to the proximity of south parking lot to
the railroad tracks and electrical substation with no safety barrier, such as fencing. City Staff
understands the Applicants’ desire to remaining in the community, but the minimum changes
that would be required before a Certificate of Occupancy could be issued for the assembly use.
Furthermore, the 4900 France Avenue North building, which the Applicant wishes to occupy
first, has been deemed unfit for occupancy due to water damage that occurred in November
2019. The second building, known as 4902 France Avenue North, was constructed back in 1963,
and less is known as to the condition of the building as City staff has not been granted access to
determine the condition of the building.
Ms. McIntosh noted that the Applicant noted that their membership has grown exponentially
since they opened in 2015. As the Applicant already faces at least a 40-space deficiency in on-
site parking, City staff expressed concerns about their ability to grow in membership and
services if their needs already exceed the available on-site parking. The only option to addressing
some of the parking deficiency would be to demolish the second building.
Ms. McIntosh stated City Staff is unable to provide a recommendation for a motion to be made
to approve or deny the request for a Special Use Permit and parking variance and the Public
Works Department is unable to accept the traffic study and parking demand management plan as
submitted by Alliant Engineering. She added two resolutions have been prepared for the
Planning Commission’s consideration: a resolution recommending City Council approval of the
Special Use Permit and parking variance of approximately 40 spaces to be accommodated by
shuttle service, and a parking plan that would be required; and recommendation of City Council
denial of the request for the Special Use Permit and parking variance.
OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS – APPLICATION NO. 2020-001
There was a motion by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Tade, to open the
public hearing on Application No. 2020-001, at 7:44 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Imam Dukuly, representing the mosque, thanked the Planning Commission for their
consideration. He added the issue of the parking spaces can be solved by using a shuttle to bring
community members to the mosque from Brookdale Christian Center. He added K&G could not
accommodate the parking request due to corporate policy.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -5- DRAFT
He noted the mosque community members are pleased that the Planning Commission and City
Council changed the use allowances in the industrial district, so they could move forward with
their plans. He asked why they would change the allowances but not approve the plans. He
added this would dash the hopes and aspirations of so many people if they were not given
approval of the request, and he appealed to the Commissioners to understand that the mosque’s
interaction with the City will be beneficial, and many children will be impacted in a positive
way. He noted the community wants to stay in Brooklyn Center, which is the city they love.
The Applicant stated the mosque community’s needs are far greater than the City’s restrictions.
He added the City of Minneapolis, and many other local communities, do not have the on-site
parking requirements Brooklyn Center does. He urged the Planning Commission to approve the
request so the community members can leave the meeting with happiness and assurances.
Amar Kamara, an administrative volunteer at the mosque, stated the new parking arrangement at
the Brookdale Christian Center will work out very well. He added his entire community is in
Brooklyn Center. He noted if the amendment to allow religious uses in the I-2 District by special
use was approved by the City Council then everything else will work out.
Dave Bros, 5013 Ewing Avenue, stated he lives in the area near the proposed mosque and he
supports them moving into the building which has been vacant for a long time. He added he
disagrees that parking is an issue, as France Avenue could be used for on-street parking, as it is a
dead-end and does not need to be restricted. He noted there are many empty parking lots around
Brooklyn Center, and the City does not need another one.
Adja Cava, project coordinator for the mosque, stated the community has been working with
City Staff for over a year, and has met every requirement that the City has asked of them. She
added the City has been assured by the Applicant that they will comply with all requirements.
She noted the City has given them hope by changing the allowances in the I-2 District, and she
hopes the mosque will be approved as well, to help keep children occupied and productive, and
how to become better citizens.
Trevor Morlock stated he is the Applicant’s realtor. He added he supports the group occupying
the property, as there is true passion for the property and for keeping their organization within
Brooklyn Center. He noted it would mean the world to them to have this approved.
Sita Cava stated he and his family moved back to Brooklyn Center recently after living in
Philadelphia. He thanked the Planning Commission for changing the zoning code and working
with the Applicant on this proposal.
Fatumamata Kita stated she appreciates all the hard work of the Planning Commission. She
added she has lived in Brooklyn Center for over 10 years and has four children who all go to
school in Brooklyn Center. She noted it is important for them to get the support that will be
available at the mosque.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -6- DRAFT
Fumba Kunjen, a children’s instructor at the mosque, stated his daughter was taught how to
behave in the home, and how to become responsible and productive citizen as a member of the
mosque and community center.
MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING)
There was a motion by Commissioner Schonning, seconded by Commissioner Tade, to close the
public hearing on Application No. 2020-001 at 8:07 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Christensen stated parking accommodations have been made for other local properties that
needed it. He added the Applicant indicated there are cities that do not have parking ordinances,
like Minneapolis. Ms. McIntosh stated she would need to look into that. She added the parking
requirements for religious and assembly uses in Brooklyn Center have not changed as of recent
date.
Commissioner Koenig asked how many cars could park along one side of France Avenue. Ms.
McIntosh stated the available roadway is 210 feet in length according to the traffic study, and the
minimum length for parallel parking spots is 24 feet, so that would equate to just under nine cars,
or a potential for 24 carpoolers, assuming each car carried three occupants. Ms. McIntosh
reminded Commissioner Koenig that City staff had held discussions with the Public Works
Department regarding this request and they were not amenable due to need to retain fire access
and the turn radius requirements of the adjacent industrial businesses for their commercial trucks.
Commissioner Koenig asked whether the second building would be brought up to compliance
immediately. Ms. McIntosh stated the Special Use Permit request is for the whole property and
does not specify requirements for a building or buildings. Special Use Permits typically run with
the land although restrictions can be placed on their use. She added all minimum building and
fire requirements would need to be in place, including access and accessibility, before any of the
buildings could be occupied. Not much is known about the condition of the second building so
City staff is unable to determine what work is required before occupancy could occur.
Commissioner Koenig stressed the importance of fencing and separation from the railroad for
safety, and to protect the mosque from vandalism and other problems. He added he is in favor of
the mosque’s mission, but he is unsure whether all the requirements make it a viable use. He
noted the purchase of this property could hinder the growth of the mosque community’s
population.
Chair Christensen stated there are ways to make the parking limitations work within the
community. He inquired as to whether the Applicant could adhere to the parking requirements if
a Special Use Permit and parking variance is granted, and if not, whether the Special Use Permit
will be revoked. He added, in terms of investment, this could be very problematic for the
Applicant, and the City and surrounding properties may not be supportive of the parking
requirements of the use and a variance.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -7- DRAFT
Ms. McIntosh stated the Special Use Permit could be revoked if the Applicant is unable to meet
the requirements of the parking plan, but it would be a process. She added the Applicant intends
to purchase the property with the intent of implementing and remaining in compliance with the
requirements, but there are additional implications if the Special Use Permit were to be revoked
as the buildings and property could not be used for their purposes anymore. She added, for
instance, a condition of approval noted in the approval resolution would be that the majority of
on-site parking spaces would be for carpool use only, and parking on France Avenue would be a
violation of the parking plan.
Commissioner Tade asked whether street parking is available nearby. Ms. McIntosh stated there
is street parking on Ewing Avenue and Drew Avenue, along the south side of 50th Avenue North,
where there are a series of industrial uses and on-street parking is well utilized due to minimal
on-site parking, and a small section of the northern end of France Avenue North. Utilizing
almost all of these options would require attendees to walk in the streets as there are no
sidewalks. She added all other areas are signed for “no parking”.
Chair Christensen stated he drove around the area of the Subject Property and it is confusing
where you can and cannot park on the dead-end area of France Avenue. He added there are only
a few signs and the cul-de-sac portion of France Avenue North is not plowed up to the curb, so
any cars that might park would narrow the street further. Ms. McIntosh agreed, adding there are
only a few businesses on the cul-de-sac, and their employees have parked on France Avenue
despite the “no parking” signage. Based on discussions with at least one of the neighboring
property owners along the France Avenue cul-de-sac, there is a sense that there is not enough on-
site parking for their use.
Commissioner Koenig stated that area would only accommodate 10 or 12 cars anyway. He
added this could cause problems with nearby commercial properties.
Ms. McIntosh stated she did not receive any notifications from area businesses for the public
hearing, but she has spoken with Horizon Roofing, located just north of the Subject Property,
about their parking needs.
Commissioner Tade asked whether a shuttle parking agreement is already in place. She asked
whether people will actually use it, and whether the safety of attendees and children crossing
streets has been considered. The Applicant confirmed there is a parking agreement in place with
the Brooklyn Christian Center.
Chair Christensen stated there is no sidewalk or curb in this area, and it is difficult to plow and
maintain along the cul-de-sac. He added pedestrian safety is a concern.
Ms. McIntosh stated Public Works have indicated they will not consider lifting the parking
restrictions along the France Avenue North cul-de-sac. She noted the property located to the
west of the cul-de-sac is a large substation owned by Xcel Energy.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -8- DRAFT
Imam Dukuly stated the community would sit down with their new neighbors and create a
relationship with them to address the parking needs. He added it has already been indicated that
there will be more than enough parking due to creation of two separate services on Fridays
between noon and 2:00 p.m. and the shuttle service.
Chair Christensen asked whether the mosque will move on to a bigger facility if they outgrow
this space, and whether they would maintain this property as a smaller satellite location. Imam
Dukuly stated that could be a possibility. He added he does not believe all that parking will be
required.
Commissioner Koenig asked whether the special use requirements apply based on the purchase
of the property. He added the Applicant is in a vulnerable position, with existing parking and
overall site constraints. Ms. McIntosh stated the Special Use Permit is for this use on this
property. She added the intent right now is for purchase of the property, and a Special Use
Permit would be required whether the Applicant leased the property or purchased the property.
Trevor Morlock stated a purchase agreement has already been signed, contingent upon final
approvals by the City for the special use. He added, as a note, water damage inside the office
building is being mitigated by the current owner after filing an insurance claim. He noted the
current owner is working with the Applicant to ensure that the renovations, including the
removal of interior walls to accommodate prayer services in the 4900 France Avenue North
building, meet the needs of the mosque community.
Imam Dukuly stated there are many old folks in the community who do not drive, and they will
be carpooling. He added most mosques have one service at 1:00 p.m., but this community will
have two services within a two-hour space, of not more than 30 minutes each.
Commissioner Koenig stated he lives near the mosque’s former location, which was an office
building, and has seen the process over the 2-hour period. He added it is very busy with people
directing traffic, but very efficient.
Regarding comments from the Applicant and members that they hoped to open their mosque and
community center by Ramadan, Chair Christensen stated Ramadan is April 23, 2020, which is a
very short time frame. He expressed concern that the City will be forced to remove the Special
Use Permit if its requirements are not met.
Chair Christensen requested clarification regarding ADA requirements. Ms. McIntosh stated
that, regarding parking, there are currently two ADA parking spaces on-site, although one of the
loading spaces is too narrow and would need to be re-striped. She added the parking lot would
need to be expanded to the east to accommodate the 32 spaces noted in the traffic study, with
new bituminous, curb, and gutter, and restriping. She noted an ADA-compliant lift or elevator
may also be required if the occupancy in the 4900 France Avenue North building exceeds 30
occupants.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -9- DRAFT
Ms. McIntosh stated all of the building and fire code requirements need to be met before the
Building Official will issue a Certificate of Occupancy, as the building is currently unfit for
occupancy as the building was previously utilized and will require that even more requirements
be met as assembly uses have the strictest standards under the building and fire code. Given the
timeframe, and based off conversations regarding the current status of the 4900 France Avenue
North building, she does not believe the building and property would be fit for occupancy by
Ramadan.
Commissioner Koenig asked whether the issue could be tabled or postponed. Ms. McIntosh
stated the Planning Commission could table the item if additional information was needed to
make a decision, and application review period could be extended, but noted that the Planning
Commission currently only meets once per month and the Applicant has a purchase agreement in
place. Ms. McIntosh stated that if the Commission makes a recommendation this evening the
application would be reviewed at the City Council’s March 9, 2020 meeting.
Commissioner Tade stated the Applicant is eager to make this happen, and they have a plan
ready to go, so they can move forward with their investment. She added the ball and all risk is in
their court.
Ms. McIntosh stated another consideration is that of precedent, as any approval would require a
parking variance, which the Planning Commission would need to consider should any other
religious uses wish to relocate into the I-2 District as a special use.
Chair Christensen inquired about the parking variance of 40 spaces. Ms. McIntosh noted that
data is based on a traffic study completed by Alliant Engineering. She noted the Applicant is
proposing 32 on-site spaces, which assumes three people in every vehicle. There would be a 30-
minute window between spaces, but the study assumes overlap between vehicles leaving and
entering the site.
Assuming no more than 75 attendees were at each prayer service, each vehicle contained three
people, and no shuttle service was provided, a minimum of 25 on-site spaces would be required.
There is only a 30-minute window between services; therefore, all vehicles would need to clear
the site to accommodate the next service. The memorandum provided by the Assistant City
Engineer notes that this could only be met under extremely ideal conditions and is not realistic,
particularly as the Subject Property is to also function as a community center. Ms. McIntosh
further noted that the Subject Property is at odds with the use, as there are two approximately
4,000-square foot buildings on-site, but, at best, only 32 parking spaces. The two buildings can
accommodate significantly more than 75 people at a time, and this is noted in the staff report
under the estimated occupant loads.
Imam Dukuly stated the traffic engineer’s calculations are not correct in that there were upwards
of 150 attendees during the engineer’s observations of the Friday prayer service at the Brooklyn
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -10- DRAFT
Center Community Center, where the mosque has temporarily been meeting, and the presence of
72 vehicles for the prayer service. He noted the community has been praying at the Community
Center on Fridays, and it would be difficult to determine which people are there for activities,
and which people are there for the mosque.
Commissioner Tade stated she will support the recommendation to City Council at the
Applicant’s risk. She added the Applicant is willing to move it forward, and they want to invest
in their future in Brooklyn Center. She noted the Planning Commission is made up of
community volunteers, who have all lived in the City for a long time, and she supports keeping
the mosque within the community.
Commissioner Koenig stated he is leaning toward denying the request, although he believes
firmly in the mosque’s mission. He added he feels it will be problematic to meet all the
necessary requirements, especially considering the potential future growth of the mosque
community. He noted the application leaves the City in a difficult spot in terms of precedent and
compliance.
Commissioner Koenig stated it is important to remember that the Planning Commission is an
advisory committee, and the City Council makes the final decision.
Commissioner Schonning stated there is no appropriate use for the motion for denial, as the only
appropriate decision is to approve or disapprove. He added, in his opinion, it was a very poor
idea to offer a motion for denial. He noted the Planning Commission should only vote on the
approval motion.
Chair Christensen stated this could lead to a split vote as there are only 6 Commissioners.
Commissioner Tade expressed frustration that the vote would be split, due to the fact that no 7th
Commissioner has been appointed in over a years’ time, which is the responsibility of the Mayor
and City Council.
ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION
NO. 2020-001 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-001 SUBMITTED BY MASJID AL-ANSAR
ISLAMIC COMMUNITY CENTER
There was a motion by Commissioner Tade, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to approve
Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 2020-001, recommending City Council approval of
Planning Commission Application No. 2020-001 for Special Use Permit and parking variance to
operate a mosque and community center at 4900 France Avenue North.
Discussion during the motion: Chair Christensen expressed frustration at having two separate
motions to choose from. He stated there are many obstacles due to requirements of the Special
Use Permit and constraints on the property.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -11- DRAFT
Commissioner Schonning expressed concern about the property and the extreme risk to which
the mosque community will be exposing themselves, in terms of property and location. He
stated he understands the community’s desire to stay within the City of Brooklyn Center. He
added he does not believe the building will be ready for occupancy by Ramadan. He noted he
wished there was a location within Brooklyn Center that would be more suitable.
Commissioner Schonning stated he would love to see the mosque stay in Brooklyn Center, but
there are risks which the mosque community will need to take to do so. He added he
understands the mosque community are people of faith, willing to go to extreme lengths to make
this happen, and he appreciates those aspects of the mosque’s proposal.
Commissioner Koenig stated he is surprised that there are no alternative locations in Brooklyn
Center that would be a suitable location for the mosque community as a place of worship.
Ms. McIntosh stated assembly uses are a permitted use in the C-1 District, which is where they
were previously located. Most office buildings are zoned C-1 District, and had such a location
been identified with sufficient parking, the Applicant would have not needed to go through this
process. Religious uses are also permitted in numerous residential districts by special use so long
as the main access is on a collector or arterial street.
Chair Christensen stated, with regard to Item 11 of the approval resolution, under the Approval
Conditions, the parking shuttle agreement with K&G needs to be deleted or amended. Ms.
McIntosh agreed, adding the specific location of the parking can be removed, from Item 11, and
the parking location can established under the parking plan.
Commissioner Tade accepted the following amendment to the motion:
-Under Item 11. Approval, remove “K&G” as the shuttle parking location, and add
parking location in the Parking Plan
Ms. McIntosh stated it will be necessary to confirm that the Applicant is not affecting minimum
parking requirements at whatever shuttle parking location is identified, such as at Brookdale
Christian Center.
Commissioner Koenig asked whether anything has been decided about a fence separating the
parking lot from the railroad and sub-station. Ms. McIntosh stated the Applicant will need to
work with the railroad to determine potential restrictions, and she noted concerns relating to the
lack of separation between the parking lot and rail line and whether a fence can even be
accommodated for. She added Item 8 refers to requirements for fencing.
Voting in favor: Commissioners Tade, MacMillan and Schonning.
And the following voted against the same: Chair Christensen, Commissioners Sweeney and
Koenig.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -12- DRAFT
The motion ended on a 3-3 split vote.
Ms. McIntosh stated the application will be forwarded to the City Council on a 3-3 split vote,
which is viewed as “no recommendation.”
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS
a. Presentation and Discussion of City’s Public Art Master Plan (Jack Becker, Forecast
Public Art)
Jack Becker of Forecast Public Art reviewed the City of Brooklyn Center Beautification and
Public Art Plan. The Brooklyn Center 2040 Comprehensive Plan identified a need for civic
beautification to reduce unsightly areas and build a sense of identity and character; establish a
committee for arts and culture; guide efforts to enhance investment in beautification and public
art efforts; and encourage participation from local artists. This provides engagement
opportunities with the general public and brings together the various cultures in Brooklyn Center.
The Brookdale Library serves as a quasi-cultural center, but there is no arts center in Brooklyn
Center currently. Residents have expressed a strong desire to have a cultural center to support
the artistic talent that exists in Brooklyn Center.
Mr. Becker stated a recommendation is to connect public art education with health, in connection
with the goals and objectives the City already has. A public art plan provides opportunities for
customizing the story of Brooklyn Center, building civic pride, and helping people feel that they
are a part of the community. Recently, street banners were placed around the City featuring
community members. This is an example of an easy way that small demonstrations can help an
overall program grow.
Mr. Becker stated there are a variety of ways to gather people for collaboration and story-telling.
He added the City’s “Rec on the Go” vans could incorporate embedded local artists to add value
to an existing program. He noted the entrance to the City Hall building is a good place for
artistic enhancements, which could be a good example of how a demonstration project can
transform a building façade.
Mr. Becker stated he is working with developer Real Estate Equities on a new development in
Brooklyn Center at 5801 Xerxes Avenue North, which will incorporate a public art component.
He added one residential unit has been proposed to be reserved for an artist-in-residence, to run
arts programs and events at the residential development. There are many opportunities for arts
expression in the City’s schools and parks.
Mr. Beck reviewed sample comments taken from hundreds of surveys, asking Brooklyn Center
residents what they would like to see in their town. Responses included a healthy Brooklyn
Center, and a better place to live; someplace they can be proud of; and a place that announces
that they are home. He read an excerpt from the draft Brooklyn Center Public Art Program
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -13- DRAFT
description, which will be ready for presentation to the City staff team by the end of February
2020.
Chair Christensen stated he hopes the Lions Club signage can stay in place. He added the Lions
Club pays for the signage. Mr. Becker stated such public and private partnerships are very
important. He added, for instance, the Brookdale Library was one of the first libraries to use the
Percent for Art Ordinance for arts funding in Hennepin County libraries. He noted there is some
great art in the Brookdale Library.
Commissioner Koenig stated he attended Mr. Becker’s presentation at a recent CEAP meeting,
which was well attended. He asked whether Mr. Becker is gathering feedback, and whether
there are patterns in what people are saying. Mr. Becker confirmed these conversations are
important.
Commissioner Koenig stated functional art is a great idea in a city like Brooklyn Center, where
benches, buildings, trash receptacles, and other public amenities can have art on them and
become works of art themselves. He added he hopes the City can have a place where its
residents can do beautiful art together, reflecting their different cultures and expressing their
sense of heritage through art.
Chair Christensen stated Brooklyn Center has some secret art places, including a stainless-steel
statue of a bear in Cahlander Park, and a 1,500-foot long painting mural on the freeway sound
barrier behind Earle Brown Elementary School. He added these artistic places in the City are
very valuable.
Commissioner Koenig stated there is an old tennis court area in Centennial Park that would make
a great sculpture garden. He added that would be a nice amenity to add to Centennial Park,
which is a beautiful park.
Mr. Becker stated public art should have two to three different functions – for instance, a bench
with a work of art on it is still a bench and you can sit on it and relax. The artwork tells a story,
so it becomes arts education. And as you move away from it, it becomes a beautiful work of art.
Chair Christensen thanked Mr. Becker for his presentation.
12. OTHER BUSINESS
Ms. McIntosh stated the Planning Commissioners, and some other City Commission members,
have not been re-appointed to their positions. In the case of the Planning Commission, there is
still one vacant Commissioner seat, and none of the Planning Commissioners have been re-
appointed as of this date. She requested that the City Clerk and City Attorney review this
situation and provide feedback and comment on the potential legal implications, particularly for
the Planning Commission as they hold public hearings.
PC Minutes
02-13-20 -14- DRAFT
Ms. McIntosh stated the Planning Commission isn’t the only Commission in this situation. Other
City Commissions are in similar situations, but there could be more legal ramifications for the
Planning Commission. She added that she cannot tell the Commissioners how to proceed, but as
residents, they could speak to members of the Council and put it on their radar.
Chair Christensen stated tonight’s 3-3 vote was embarrassing, and there should have been a 7th
Commissioner to break the tie. He expressed his frustration that the Commissioners put in
countless hours of service to the City but have not been formally appointed.
Commissioner Tade stated that, as a Commissioner, she volunteers her time to serve the needs of
the City. She added she wished to go on record as saying the situation is ridiculous.
Commissioner Schonning expressed concern that not being appointed can create a situation
where the Planning Commission is put in legal jeopardy.
Commissioner Sweeney asked whether there will be March 12, 2020 meeting. Ms. McIntosh
stated there is the potential to review a request for issuance of a Special Use Permit for a new
digital sign identifying the City Hall and Community Center campus on Shingle Creek Parkway,
but she is unsure whether it needs to go ahead next month or not.
13. ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Tade, seconded by Commissioner Schonning, to adjourn
the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at
9:50 p.m.
_______________________________ _______________________________
Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Randall Christensen, Chair
C ouncil R egular M eeng
DAT E:3/9/2020
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 ayor Ellio$
S U B J E C T:Res olu(on A ppoin(ng I ndividuals to S erve on City Commissions
B ackground:
Mayor Ellio$ w ill be presen(ng a resolu(on w ith the recommended individuals to S erve on C ity
Commissions.
B udget I ssues:
None
S trategic Priories and Values:
O pera(onal Excellence
Council/E D A Work
S ession
City Hall Council C hambers
March 9, 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.E D A Property D ivestment S trategy
2.Housing Policy Framework (45 minutes)
3.O pportunity Site Update (30 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
Commemoration of 400 years of Slavery Activities -3/23
L ivable Wages -3/23
Use of E D A Owned P roperty -3/23
F ood Trucks - 3/23
S trategic Plans f or years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 - 3/23
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:3/9/2020
TO :C ity C ounc il
F R O M:C urt Bo ganey, C ity Manager
T HR O UG H:Meg Beekman, C o mmunity Development Directo r
B Y:Jimmy Lo yd, Ec o nomic Development C o o rd inato r
S UBJ E C T:EDA P ro p erty Dives tment S trategy
B ackground:
T he EDA owns 4 s ingle family lo ts at the ad d res s es of:
902 53rd Ave N - T he ED A acquired this property in 2014 for a purchas e p ric e o f $145,000.
3401 53rd Ave N - T he EDA ac q uired this p ro p erty in 2012 fo r $32,700. At o ne p o int the E DA attemp ted a
land s wap with the o wner of Lake P o int Apartment to give them the lo t in exc hange for a trail easement through
the rear o f their property. T his arrangement did not move forward , and the lo t has b een s itting vacant ad jac ent
to the apartment b uilding ever s inc e. T he pro p erty is zo ned R -5, whic h would allo w fo r multi-family
res id ential.
4800 and 4812 71s t Ave N - T hes e lots were ac quired in 2010 and 2013 and rep latted as p art o f the the
ro ad way rec ons truc tio n o f 71st Avenue N and c ons tructio n o f C EAP. T hey were p revious ly cons id ered
remnant p arcels , b ut if combined c o uld create a develo p ab le lot.
P I D: 3311921430087 - T his p arcel has not b een as s igned an address and has been likely o wned by the EDA
s inc e the airport was built. It has never been d eveloped, but could ac commo d ate a s ingle family home.
P I D: 3611921120008 - T his parc el has no t been as s igned an ad d res s and has b een o wned by the C ity sinc e
b efo re its inco rp o ration. It has Mis s is s ip p i R iver fro ntage, and was his toric ally held by the C ity in order to
acc o mmo d ate pos s ible acc es s to the river as a s ource o f surface water if the s tate were to ever limit or prohib it
acc es s to the C ity's current source o f underground water. It is very unlikely that this would ever oc cur, and if
it d id , there are other o p tions for acc es s to alternate water sources. T he p arc el wo uld acc o mmo d ate a single
family home.
No ne o f the above mentioned properties were ac quired as p art o f the C ity's R emo ve and R es tore p ro gram and
there have b een no plans for red evelopment. Eac h o f these p ro p erties are c lear o f physic al struc tures . We have
recently rec eived interes t from d evelopers for various parc els and will evaluate each proposal o n its merit and
ad herence to the zo ning code.
S taff is asking the c o uncil fo r guidance o n a d ives tment strategy that would align with our c o mp rehens ive plan
o f fostering a mix of hous ing values and inc omes .
T he EDA c an take the following ac tions of dives tment
S ell eac h property fo r market value to individ uals o r develo p ers to be us ed for highest and best us e,
limiting any c ontingencies o n the sales .
Issue an R F P fo r develo p ment. T he EDA can ind icate what c o nditions or contingencies would be
req uired in order to have a p ro p o s al c ons id ered .
R es p ond to offers and p ro p o s als on a c as e by c as e basis. T he C ity has alread y b een ap p ro ached b y
s everal gro ups interes ted in various lots o wned by the C ity.
Policy Issues:
- Does the C o unc il have any comments o r c onc erns regard ing the d ivestment o p tions ?
- Are there s pec ific p rio rities the C ounc il is interes ted in ac hieving with the dives tment o f these lo ts either in
terms o f the ac tual us e of the lots , o r with the funds received from the sales ?
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
EDA P roperty Dives tment S trategy Dec k 3/3/2020 C o ver Memo
EDA Property Divestment
Strategy
City Council Work Session Meeting, March 9th, 2020
Jimmy Loyd, Economic Development Coordinator
Background and Request
•Single Family Lot Use Recommendation
•EDA owns 6 single family lots that are currently vacant at
•902 53rd Ave N
•3401 53rd Ave N
•4800 71st Ave N
•4812 71st Ave N
•PID 3311921430087
•PID 3611921120001
•Council may provide direction on preferred method of divestment
of property
2
Proposal
•The EDA can take the following actions of divestment
•Sell each property for market value to individual or developers with no contingencies
•Issue RFP for development. The EDA can exercise more control over the parcels
•Do nothing and respond to offers and proposals on a case by case basis
3
Proposal
4
Proposal
5
Proposal
6
PID 3311921430087
7
PID 361192112008
8
Process
9
Each option would still require developer to follow the same process :
•Sale of EDA-owned property
•Preliminary Development Agreement
•Purchase Agreement (Public Hearing)
•Planning Case Application:Preliminary and Final Plat,PUD,Site and Building
Plan Review
•Planning Commission (Public Hearing)
•City Council Review (Public Hearing for PUD rezoning)
Recommendation
10
I recommend that the EDA consider marketing the parcels for sale and evaluate
each proposal on a case by case basis
Policy Discussion
•Does the Council have any comments or concerns regarding the
divestment options?
•Are there specific priorities the council is interested in achieving with
the divestment of these lots either in terms of actual use of the lots,
or with the funds received from the sales?
11
M EM OR ANDUM - COU N C IL WORK SESSION
DAT E:3/9/2020
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 111
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
BlvdHousing UnitsSource: 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
BlvdHousing UnitsSource: 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 BlvdHousing UnitsOther
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%Percentage of Housing UnitsOther
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 ServicesUnitsUnitsUnits
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 ServicesUnitsUnitsUnits
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)UnitsBefore 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)UnitsBefore 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)UnitsBefore 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)UnitsBefore 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)UnitsBefore 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)UnitsBefore 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)UnitsBefore 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 YTDVacancyRate
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 MSAVacancy Rate2010
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%Percentage of Occupied Housing Units5+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%Percentage of Occupied Housing Units5+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 YTDAverage Monthly RentCorridor (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
Percentage Change in RentMonthly Rent2017 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.$270,000$205,000$223,900$188,200$194,000$197,500$228,000$169,900$161,050$303,100$229,000$197,500$196,900$260,500$159,000$228,900$264,000$183,000$206,500$178,800$180,500$201,000$241,875$173,000$186,300$260,000$230,000$200,450$204,000$310,000$149,900$246,000$125,000
$150,000
$175,000
$200,000
$225,000
$250,000
$275,000
$300,000
Median Sales Price2005
2017
N/A $478,000
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*Housing UnitsRent 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*Housing UnitsRent 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*Housing UnitsRent 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*Housing UnitsRent 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*Housing UnitsRent 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%Percent of Households by TenureCost -
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-IncomeUnits 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-IncomeUnits 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 2016Housing UnitsGolden 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 2016Housing UnitsMF (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
Median Age
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
Median AgeSources: 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%Percentage of HouseholdsRenter-
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%Homeownership RateSources: 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
Persons per HouseholdSources: 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
Household SizeSources: 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%Percentage of HouseholdsLiving 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
Persons per HouseholdSources: 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
Household SizeSources: 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%Households with ChildrenSources: 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%Single-Person HouseholdsSources: 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%Percentage of HouseholdsMoved 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%Percentage of PopulationWhite 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%Percentage of PopulationSources: 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%Percentage of HouseholdsRenter-
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%Percentage of HouseholdsRenter-
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
Median Household IncomeSources: 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
Median Household Income2000*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
Monthly Asking RentOutside 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%Percent Change Since 2000Outside 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+002904+002905+002906+002907+002908+002909+002910+002911+002912+002913+002914+002915+002916+002917+002918+002919+002920+002921+002922+002923+002924+002925+002926+002927+002928+002929+002930+002931+002932+002933+002934+002935+002936+002937+002938+002939+002940+002941+002942+002943+002944+002945+002946+002947+002948+002949+002950+002951+002952+002953+002954+002955+002956+002957+002958+002959+002960+002961+002962+002963+002964+002965+002966+002967+002968+002969+002970+002971+002972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+002978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+002988+0099+061903+001904+001905+001906+001907+001908+001909+001910+001911+001912+001913+001914+001915+001916+001917+001918+001919+001920+001921+001922+001923+001924+001925+001926+001927+001928+001929+001930+001931+001932+001933+001934+001935+001936+001937+001938+001939+001940+001941+001942+001943+001944+001945+001946+001947+001948+001949+001950+001951+001952+001953+001954+001955+001956+001957+001958+001959+001960+001961+001962+001963+001964+001965+001966+001967+001968+001969+001970+001971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+001978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+001988+00130+5093RD AVENUE STATIONOAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION!(
!(
93 r d 93rd
610610
ZaneWest Broadway93rd169169169169West BroadwayWest
BroadwayTar
get
ZaneDouglasDouglasWinnetkaF
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+002904+002905+002906+002907+002908+002909+002910+002911+002912+002913+002914+002915+002916+002917+002918+002919+002920+002921+002922+002923+002924+002925+002926+002927+002928+002929+002930+002931+002932+002933+002934+00 2935+002936+00 2937+002938+002939+002940+002941+002942+002943+002944+002945+002946+002947+002948+002949+002950+002951+002952+002953+002954+002955+002956+002957+002958+002959+002960+002961+002962+002963+002964+002965+002966+002967+002968+002969+002970+002971+002972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+002978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+002988+0099+061903+001904+001905+001906+001907+001908+001909+001910+001911+001912+001913+001914+001915+001916+001917+001918+001919+001920+001921+001922+001923+001924+001925+001926+001927+001928+001929+001930+001931+001932+001933+001934+001935+001936+00 1937+001938+001939+001940+001941+001942+001943+001944+001945+001946+001947+001948+001949+001950+001951+001952+001953+001954+001955+001956+001957+001958+001959+001960+001961+001962+001963+001964+001965+001966+001967+001968+001969+001970+001971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+001978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+001988+00130+5093RD AVENUE STATIONOAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION!(
!(
9 3 r d 93rd
610610
ZaneWest Broadway93rd169169169169West BroadwayWest
BroadwayTar
get
ZaneDouglasDouglasWinnetkaF
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+002865+002866+002867+002868+002869+002870+002871+002872+002873+002874+002875+002876+002877+002878+002879+002880+002881+002882+002883+002884+002885+002886+002887+002888+002889+002890+002891+002892+002893+002894+002895+002896+002897+002898+002899+002900+002901+002902+002903+002904+002905+002906+002907+002908+002909+002910+002911+002912+002913+002914+002915+002916+002917+002918+002919+002920+002921+002922+002923+002924+002925+002926+002927+002928+002929+002930+002931+002932+002933+002934+002935+002936+002937+002938+002939+002940+002941+002942+002943+002944+002945+002946+002947+002948+002949+002950+002951+002952+002953+002954+002955+002956+002957+002958+002959+002960+002961+002962+002963+002964+002965+002966+002967+002968+002969+002970+002971+002972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+002978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+002988+0099+061864+001865+001866+001867+001868+001869+001870+001871+001872+001873+001874+001875+001876+001877+001878+001879+001880+001881+001882+001883+001884+001885+001886+001887+001888+001889+001890+001891+001892+001893+001894+001895+001896+001897+001898+001899+001900+001901+001902+001903+001904+001905+001906+001907+001908+001909+001910+001911+001912+001913+001914+001915+001916+001917+001918+001919+001920+001921+001922+001923+001924+001925+001926+001927+001928+001929+001930+001931+001932+001933+001934+001935+001936+001937+001938+001939+001940+001941+001942+001943+001944+001945+001946+001947+001948+001949+001950+001951+001952+001953+001954+001955+001956+001957+001958+001959+001960+001961+001962+001963+001964+001965+001966+001967+001968+001969+001970+001971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+001978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+001988+00130+5085TH AVENUE STATION93RD AVENUE STATIONOAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION!(
!(
!(WestBroadway93 r d 93rd
85th Zane610610 Dougl
asDougl
as93rd169
169169169West BroadwayWest
BroadwayZaneZaneWest BroadwayTar
getWinnetka
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+002865+002866+002867+002868+002869+002870+002871+002872+002873+002874+002875+002876+002877+002878+002879+002880+002881+002882+002883+002884+002885+002886+002887+002888+002889+002890+002891+002892+002893+002894+002895+002896+002897+002898+002899+002900+002901+002902+002903+002904+002905+002906+002907+002908+002909+002910+002911+002912+002913+002914+002915+002916+002917+002918+002919+002920+002921+002922+002923+002924+002925+002926+002927+002928+002929+002930+002931+002932+002933+002934+002935+002936+002937+002938+002939+002940+002941+002942+002943+002944+002945+002946+002947+002948+002949+002950+002951+002952+002953+002954+002955+002956+002957+002958+002959+002960+002961+002962+002963+002964+002965+002966+002967+002968+002969+002970+002971+002972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+002978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+002988+0099+061864+001865+001866+001867+001868+001869+001870+001871+001872+001873+001874+001875+001876+001877+001878+001879+001880+001881+001882+001883+001884+001885+001886+001887+001888+001889+001890+001891+001892+001893+001894+001895+001896+001897+001898+001899+001900+001901+001902+001903+001904+001905+001906+001907+001908+001909+001910+001911+001912+001913+001914+001915+001916+001917+001918+001919+001920+001921+001922+001923+001924+001925+001926+001927+001928+001929+001930+001931+001932+001933+001934+001935+001936+001937+001938+001939+001940+001941+001942+001943+001944+001945+001946+001947+001948+001949+001950+001951+001952+001953+001954+001955+001956+001957+001958+001959+001960+001961+001962+001963+001964+001965+001966+001967+001968+001969+001970+001971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+001978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+001988+00130+5085TH AVENUE STATION93RD AVENUE STATIONOAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION!(
!(
!(WestBroadway93 r d 93rd
85th Zane610610 Dougl
asDougl
as93rd169
169169169West BroadwayWest
BroadwayZaneZaneWest BroadwayTar
getWinnetka
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
2804+002805+002806+002807+002808+002809+002810+002811+002812+002813+002814+002815+002816+002817+002818+002819+002820+002821+002822+002823+002824+002825+002826+002827+002828+002829+002830+002831+002832+002833+002834+002835+002836+002837+002838+002839+002840+002841+002842+002843+002844+002845+002846+002847+002848+002849+002850+002851+002852+002853+002854+002855+002856+002857+002858+002859+002860+002861+002862+002863+002864+002865+002866+002867+002868+002869+002870+002871+002872+002873+002874+002875+002876+002877+002878+002879+002880+002881+002882+002883+002884+002885+002886+002887+002888+002889+002890+002891+002892+002893+002894+002895+002896+002897+002898+002899+002900+002901+002902+002903+002904+002905+002906+002907+002908+002909+002910+002911+002912+002913+002914+002915+002916+002917+002918+002919+002920+002921+002922+002923+002924+002925+002926+002927+002928+001804+001805+001806+001807+001808+001809+001810+001811+001812+001813+001814+001815+001816+001817+001818+001819+001820+001821+001822+001823+001824+001825+001826+001827+001828+001829+001830+001831+001832+001833+001834+001835+001836+001837+001838+001839+001840+001841+001842+001843+001844+001845+001846+001847+001848+001849+001850+001851+001852+001853+001854+001855+001856+001857+001858+001859+001860+001861+001862+001863+001864+001865+001866+001867+001868+001869+001870+001871+001872+001873+001874+001875+001876+001877+001878+001879+001880+001881+001882+001883+001884+001885+001886+001887+001888+001889+001890+001891+001892+001893+001894+001895+001896+001897+001898+001899+001900+001901+001902+001903+001904+001905+001906+001907+001908+001909+001910+001911+001912+001913+001914+001915+001916+001917+001918+001919+001920+001921+001922+001923+001924+001925+001926+001927+001928+00BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION85TH AVENUE STATION93RD AVENUE STATION!(
!(
!(
93rd 9 3 r d
West Broadway85th
85th
Brooklyn BrooklynWest Broadway8
18
1
93rd 93 r d
85th
85th
85th
85th
81
Zane93rd 93rd
169169169West BroadwayZaneZaneF
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+002805+002806+002807+002808+002809+002810+002811+002812+002813+002814+002815+002816+002817+002818+002819+002820+002821+002822+002823+002824+002825+002826+002827+002828+002829+002830+002831+002832+002833+002834+002835+002836+002837+002838+002839+002840+002841+002842+002843+002844+002845+002846+002847+002848+002849+002850+002851+002852+002853+002854+002855+002856+002857+002858+002859+002860+002861+002862+002863+002864+002865+002866+002867+002868+002869+002870+002871+002872+002873+002874+002875+002876+002877+002878+002879+002880+002881+002882+002883+002884+002885+002886+002887+002888+002889+002890+002891+002892+002893+002894+002895+002896+002897+002898+002899+002900+002901+002902+002903+002904+002905+002906+002907+002908+002909+002910+002911+002912+002913+002914+002915+002916+002917+002918+002919+002920+002921+002922+002923+002924+002925+002926+002927+002928+001804+001805+001806+001807+001808+001809+001810+001811+001812+001813+001814+001815+001816+001817+001818+001819+001820+001821+001822+001823+001824+001825+001826+001827+001828+001829+001830+001831+001832+001833+001834+001835+001836+001837+001838+001839+001840+001841+001842+001843+001844+001845+001846+001847+001848+001849+001850+001851+001852+001853+001854+001855+001856+001857+001858+001859+001860+001861+001862+001863+001864+001865+001866+001867+001868+001869+001870+001871+001872+001873+001874+001875+001876+001877+001878+001879+001880+001881+001882+001883+001884+001885+001886+001887+001888+001889+001890+001891+001892+001893+001894+001895+001896+001897+001898+001899+001900+001901+001902+001903+001904+001905+001906+001907+001908+001909+001910+001911+001912+001913+001914+001915+001916+001917+001918+001919+001920+001921+001922+001923+001924+001925+001926+001927+001928+00BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION85TH AVENUE STATION93RD AVENUE STATION!(
!(
!(
93rd 9 3 r d
West Broadway85th85th
Brooklyn BrooklynWest Broadway8
18
193rd 93rd
85th
85th
85th
85th
81Zane93rd 93rd
169169169West BroadwayZaneZaneF
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+002747+002748+002749+002750+002751+002752+002753+002754+002755+002756+002757+002758+002759+002760+002761+002762+002763+002764+002765+002766+002767+002768+002769+002770+002771+002772+002773+002774+002775+002776+002777+002778+002779+002780+002781+002782+002783+002784+002785+002786+00 2787+00 2788+00 2789+00 2790+00 2791+002792+00 2793+00 2794+00 2795+00 2796+002797+00 2798+002799+002800+002801+002802+002803+002804+002805+002806+002807+002808+002809+002810+002811+002812+002813+002814+002815+002816+002817+002818+002819+002820+002821+002822+002823+002824+002825+002826+002827+002828+002829+002830+002831+002832+002833+002834+002835+002836+002837+002838+002839+002840+002841+002842+002843+002844+002845+002846+002847+002848+002849+002850+002851+002852+002853+002854+002855+002856+002857+002858+002859+002860+002861+002862+002863+002864+002865+002866+002867+002868+002869+002870+002871+002872+002873+002874+002875+002876+003746+003747+003748+003749+003750+003751+003752+003753+003754+003755+003756+003757+003758+003759+003760+003761+003762+003763+003764+003765+003766+003767+003768+003769+003770+003771+003772+003773+003774+003775+003776+003777+003778+003779+003780+003781+003782+003783+003784+003785+001746+001747+001748+001749+001750+001751+001752+001753+001754+001755+001756+001757+001758+001759+001760+001761+001762+001763+001764+001765+001766+001767+001768+001769+001770+001771+001772+001773+001774+001775+001776+001777+001778+001779+001780+001781+001782+001783+001784+001785+001786+00 1787+00 1788+00 1789+00 1790+00 1791+00
1792+00 1793+00 1794+00 1795+00 1796+001797+00 1798+001799+001800+001801+001802+001803+001804+001805+001806+001807+001808+001809+001810+001811+001812+001813+001814+001815+001816+001817+001818+001819+001820+001821+001822+001823+001824+001825+001826+001827+001828+001829+001830+001831+001832+001833+001834+001835+001836+001837+001838+001839+001840+001841+001842+001843+001844+001845+001846+001847+001848+001849+001850+001851+001852+001853+001854+001855+001856+001857+001858+001859+001860+001861+001862+001863+001864+001865+001866+001867+001868+001869+001870+001871+001872+001873+001874+001875+001876+00BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION85TH AVENUE STATION!(
!(West Broadway85th
85th ZaneBrooklyn
BrooklynWest Broadway8181169Lakeland694694
85th
85th
85th
85th
8
1
Zane68th
8169th169West BroadwayZaneWe
st
BroadwayF
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+002747+002748+002749+002750+002751+002752+002753+002754+002755+002756+002757+002758+002759+002760+002761+002762+002763+002764+002765+002766+002767+002768+002769+002770+002771+002772+002773+002774+002775+002776+002777+002778+002779+002780+002781+002782+002783+002784+002785+002786+00 2787+00 2788+00 2789+00 2790+00 2791+002792+00 2793+00 2794+00 2795+00 2796+002797+00 2798+002799+002800+002801+002802+002803+002804+002805+002806+002807+002808+002809+002810+002811+002812+002813+002814+002815+002816+002817+002818+002819+002820+002821+002822+002823+002824+002825+002826+002827+002828+002829+002830+002831+002832+002833+002834+002835+002836+002837+002838+002839+002840+002841+002842+002843+002844+002845+002846+002847+002848+002849+002850+002851+002852+002853+002854+002855+002856+002857+002858+002859+002860+002861+002862+002863+002864+002865+002866+002867+002868+002869+002870+002871+002872+002873+002874+002875+002876+003746+003747+003748+003749+003750+003751+003752+003753+003754+003755+003756+003757+003758+003759+003760+003761+003762+003763+003764+003765+003766+003767+003768+003769+003770+003771+003772+003773+003774+003775+003776+003777+003778+003779+003780+003781+003782+003783+003784+003785+001746+001747+001748+001749+001750+001751+001752+001753+001754+001755+001756+001757+001758+001759+001760+001761+001762+001763+001764+001765+001766+001767+001768+001769+001770+001771+001772+001773+001774+001775+001776+001777+001778+001779+001780+001781+001782+001783+001784+001785+001786+00 1787+00 1788+00 1789+00 1790+00 1791+00
1792+00 1793+00 1794+00 1795+00 1796+00 1797+00 1798+001799+001800+001801+001802+001803+001804+001805+001806+001807+001808+001809+001810+001811+001812+001813+001814+001815+001816+001817+001818+001819+001820+001821+001822+001823+001824+001825+001826+001827+001828+001829+001830+001831+001832+001833+001834+001835+001836+001837+001838+001839+001840+001841+001842+001843+001844+001845+001846+001847+001848+001849+001850+001851+001852+001853+001854+001855+001856+001857+001858+001859+001860+001861+001862+001863+001864+001865+001866+001867+001868+001869+001870+001871+001872+001873+001874+001875+001876+00BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION85TH AVENUE STATION!(
!(West Broadway85th85th ZaneBrooklyn
BrooklynWest Broadway8181169Lakeland694694
85th
85th
85th
85th
8
1
Zane68th
8169th169West BroadwayZaneWes
t
BroadwayF
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+003555+003556+003557+003558+003559+003560+003561+003562+003563+003564+003565+003566+003567+003568+003569+003570+003571+003572+003573+003574+003575+003576+003577+003578+003579+003580+003581+003582+003583+003584+003585+003586+003587+003588+003589+003590+003591+003592+003593+003594+003595+003596+003597+003598+003599+003600+003601+003602+003603+003700+001554+001555+001556+001557+001558+001559+001560+001561+001562+001563+001564+001565+001566+001567+001568+001569+001570+001571+001572+001573+001574+001575+001576+001577+001578+001579+001580+001581+001582+001583+001584+001585+001586+001587+001588+001589+001590+001591+001592+001593+001594+001595+001596+001597+001598+001599+001600+001601+001602+001603+001700+002554+002555+002556+002557+002558+002559+002560+002561+002562+002563+002564+002565+002566+002567+002568+002569+002570+002571+002572+002573+002574+002575+002576+002577+002578+002579+002580+002581+002582+002583+002584+002585+002586+002587+002588+002589+002590+002591+002592+002593+002594+002595+002596+002597+002598+002599+002600+002601+002602+002603+002700+002700+002701+002702+002703+002704+002705+002706+002707+002708+002709+002710+002711+002712+002713+002714+002715+002716+002717+002718+002719+002720+002721+002722+002723+002724+002725+002726+002727+002728+002729+002730+002731+002732+002733+002734+002735+002736+002737+002738+002739+002740+002741+002742+002743+002744+002745+002746+002747+002748+002749+002750+002751+002752+002753+002754+002755+002756+002757+002758+002759+002760+002761+002762+002763+002764+002765+002766+002767+002768+002769+002770+002771+002772+002773+002774+002775+002776+002777+002778+002779+002780+002781+002782+002783+002784+002785+002786+002787+00
3700+003701+003702+003703+003704+003705+003706+003707+003708+003709+003710+003711+003712+003713+003714+003715+003716+003717+003718+003719+003720+003721+003722+003723+003724+003725+003726+003727+003728+003729+003730+003731+003732+003733+003734+003735+003736+003737+003738+003739+003740+003741+003742+003743+003744+003745+003746+003747+003748+003749+003750+003751+003752+003753+003754+003755+003756+003757+003758+003759+003760+003761+003762+003763+003764+003765+003766+003767+003768+003769+003770+003771+003772+003773+003774+003775+003776+003777+003778+003779+003780+003781+003782+003783+003784+003785+001700+001701+001702+001703+001704+001705+001706+001707+001708+001709+001710+001711+001712+001713+001714+001715+001716+001717+001718+001719+001720+001721+001722+001723+001724+001725+001726+001727+001728+001729+001730+001731+001732+001733+001734+001735+001736+001737+001738+001739+001740+001741+001742+001743+001744+001745+001746+001747+001748+001749+001750+001751+001752+001753+001754+001755+001756+001757+001758+001759+001760+001761+001762+001763+001764+001765+001766+001767+001768+001769+001770+001771+001772+001773+001774+001775+001776+001777+001778+001779+001780+001781+001782+001783+001784+001785+001786+001787+00
BASS LAKE ROAD STATION63RD AVENUE STATION!(
!(
56thWestB
r
o
a
d
wa
y
56thWe
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
yLakeland81Bass Lake
694
694
69th
8156thBass Lake
BassLake
68th
Bass Lake
56th
BassLake 8156th WestBr
oadway94
94Wes
t
BroadwayF
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+003555+003556+003557+003558+003559+003560+003561+003562+003563+003564+003565+003566+003567+003568+003569+003570+003571+003572+003573+003574+003575+003576+003577+003578+003579+003580+003581+003582+003583+003584+003585+003586+003587+003588+003589+003590+003591+003592+003593+003594+003595+003596+003597+003598+003599+003600+003601+003602+003603+003700+001554+001555+001556+001557+001558+001559+001560+001561+001562+001563+001564+001565+001566+001567+001568+001569+001570+001571+001572+001573+001574+001575+001576+001577+001578+001579+001580+001581+001582+001583+001584+001585+001586+001587+001588+001589+001590+001591+001592+001593+001594+001595+001596+001597+001598+001599+001600+001601+001602+001603+001700+002554+002555+002556+002557+002558+002559+002560+002561+002562+002563+002564+002565+002566+002567+002568+002569+002570+002571+002572+002573+002574+002575+002576+002577+002578+002579+002580+002581+002582+002583+002584+002585+002586+002587+002588+002589+002590+002591+002592+002593+002594+002595+002596+002597+002598+002599+002600+002601+002602+002603+002700+002700+002701+002702+002703+002704+002705+002706+002707+002708+002709+002710+002711+002712+002713+002714+002715+002716+002717+002718+002719+002720+002721+002722+002723+002724+002725+002726+002727+002728+002729+002730+002731+002732+002733+002734+002735+002736+002737+002738+002739+002740+002741+002742+002743+002744+002745+002746+002747+002748+002749+002750+002751+002752+002753+002754+002755+002756+002757+002758+002759+002760+002761+002762+002763+002764+002765+002766+002767+002768+002769+002770+002771+002772+002773+002774+002775+002776+002777+002778+002779+002780+002781+002782+002783+002784+002785+002786+002787+003700+003701+003702+003703+003704+003705+003706+003707+003708+003709+003710+003711+003712+003713+003714+003715+003716+003717+003718+003719+003720+003721+003722+003723+003724+003725+003726+003727+003728+003729+003730+003731+003732+003733+003734+003735+003736+003737+003738+003739+003740+003741+003742+003743+003744+003745+003746+003747+003748+003749+003750+003751+003752+003753+003754+003755+003756+003757+003758+003759+003760+003761+003762+003763+003764+003765+003766+003767+003768+003769+003770+003771+003772+003773+003774+003775+003776+003777+003778+003779+003780+003781+003782+003783+003784+003785+001700+001701+001702+001703+001704+001705+001706+001707+001708+001709+001710+001711+001712+001713+001714+001715+001716+001717+001718+001719+001720+001721+001722+001723+001724+001725+001726+001727+001728+001729+001730+001731+001732+001733+001734+001735+001736+001737+001738+001739+001740+001741+001742+001743+001744+001745+001746+001747+001748+001749+001750+001751+001752+001753+001754+001755+001756+001757+001758+001759+001760+001761+001762+001763+001764+001765+001766+001767+001768+001769+001770+001771+001772+001773+001774+001775+001776+001777+001778+001779+001780+001781+001782+001783+001784+001785+001786+001787+00BASS LAKE ROAD STATION63RD AVENUE STATION!(
!(
56thWestBr
o
a
d
wa
y
56thWe
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
yLakeland81Bass Lake
694
694
69th
8156thBass Lake
BassLake
68th
Bass Lake
56th
BassLake 8156th WestBr
oadway94
94Wes
t
BroadwayF
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+001422+001423+001424+00
1425+001426+001427+001428+001429+001430+00
1431+001432+001433+001434+001435+001500+002421+002422+002423+002424+002425+002426+002427+002428+002429+002430+002431+002432+002433+00
2434+002435+002500+003421+003422+003423+003424+003425+003426+003427+003428+003429+003430+003431+003432+003433+00
3434+003435+003436+003500+003500+003501+003502+003503+003504+003505+003506+003507+003508+00
3509+003510+003511+003512+00
3513+003514+003515+003516+003517+003518+003519+003520+00
3521+003522+00
3523+003524+003525+003526+003527+003528+003529+003530+00
3531+003532+003533+003534+003535+003536+003537+003538+00
3539+003540+00
3541+003542+003543+003544+003545+003546+003547+003548+00
3549+003550+00
3551+003552+003553+003554+003555+003556+00
3557+003558+00
3559+003560+003561+003562+003563+003564+003565+003566+00
3567+003568+00
3569+003570+003571+003572+003573+003574+003575+003576+00
3577+003578+003579+003580+003581+003582+003583+003584+00
3585+003586+00
3587+003588+003589+003590+003591+003592+003593+003594+00
3595+003596+003597+003598+003599+003600+003601+003602+003603+003700+001500+001501+001502+001503+001504+001505+00
1506+001507+001508+001509+001510+001511+001512+001513+001514+001515+001516+001517+001518+001519+001520+001521+001522+001523+001524+001525+001526+001527+001528+001529+001530+001531+001532+001533+001534+001535+001536+001537+001538+001539+001540+001541+001542+001543+001544+001545+001546+001547+001548+001549+001550+001551+001552+001553+001554+001555+001556+001557+001558+001559+001560+001561+001562+001563+001564+001565+001566+001567+001568+001569+001570+001571+001572+001573+001574+001575+001576+001577+001578+001579+001580+001581+001582+001583+001584+001585+001586+001587+001588+001589+001590+001591+001592+001593+001594+001595+001596+001597+001598+001599+001600+001601+001602+001603+001700+002500+002501+002502+002503+00
2504+002505+002506+002507+002508+002509+002510+002511+002512+002513+002514+002515+002516+002517+002518+002519+002520+002521+002522+002523+002524+002525+002526+002527+002528+002529+002530+002531+002532+002533+002534+002535+002536+002537+002538+002539+002540+002541+002542+002543+002544+002545+002546+002547+002548+002549+002550+002551+002552+002553+002554+002555+002556+002557+002558+002559+002560+002561+002562+002563+002564+002565+002566+002567+002568+002569+002570+002571+002572+002573+002574+002575+002576+002577+002578+002579+002580+002581+002582+002583+002584+002585+002586+002587+002588+002589+002590+002591+002592+002593+002594+002595+002596+002597+002598+002599+002600+002601+002602+002603+002700+002700+002701+002702+00
2703+002704+00
2705+002706+002707+002708+002709+002710+002711+002712+002713+002714+002715+002716+002717+002718+002719+002720+003700+003701+003702+003703+003704+003705+003706+00
3707+003708+003709+003710+003711+003712+003713+003714+00
3715+003716+00
3717+003718+003719+003720+001700+001701+001702+001703+001704+001705+001706+001707+001708+001709+001710+001711+001712+001713+001714+001715+001716+001717+001718+001719+001720+00BASS LAKE ROAD STATION63RD AVENUE STATION
!(
!(
8
1
56th
8
1
WinnetkaWe
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 00
58th
Orchard1 0 0Douglas
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+001422+001423+001424+001425+001426+001427+001428+001429+001430+00
1431+001432+001433+001434+001435+001500+002421+002422+002423+002424+002425+002426+002427+002428+002429+002430+002431+002432+002433+002434+002435+002500+003421+003422+003423+003424+003425+003426+00
3427+003428+003429+003430+003431+003432+003433+003434+003435+003436+003500+003500+00
3501+003502+003503+003504+003505+003506+003507+003508+003509+003510+003511+003512+003513+003514+003515+003516+003517+00
3518+003519+003520+003521+003522+003523+003524+003525+003526+003527+003528+003529+003530+003531+003532+003533+003534+003535+003536+003537+003538+003539+003540+003541+003542+003543+003544+003545+003546+003547+003548+00
3549+003550+003551+003552+003553+003554+003555+003556+003557+003558+003559+003560+003561+00
3562+003563+003564+003565+003566+003567+003568+00
3569+003570+003571+003572+003573+003574+003575+003576+003577+003578+003579+00
3580+003581+003582+003583+003584+003585+003586+003587+003588+003589+003590+003591+003592+00
3593+003594+003595+003596+003597+003598+003599+00
3600+003601+003602+003603+003700+00
1500+001501+001502+001503+001504+00
1505+001506+001507+001508+001509+001510+001511+001512+001513+001514+00
1515+001516+001517+001518+001519+001520+001521+00
1522+001523+001524+001525+001526+001527+001528+001529+001530+001531+001532+001533+001534+00
1535+001536+001537+001538+001539+001540+001541+001542+001543+001544+001545+00
1546+001547+001548+001549+001550+001551+001552+00
1553+001554+001555+001556+001557+001558+001559+001560+001561+001562+001563+001564+001565+001566+00
1567+001568+001569+001570+001571+001572+001573+00
1574+001575+001576+001577+001578+001579+001580+001581+001582+001583+001584+00
1585+001586+001587+001588+001589+001590+001591+001592+001593+001594+001595+001596+001597+00
1598+001599+001600+001601+001602+001603+001700+002500+002501+002502+002503+002504+002505+002506+002507+00
2508+002509+002510+002511+002512+002513+002514+002515+00
2516+002517+002518+002519+002520+002521+002522+00
2523+002524+002525+002526+002527+002528+002529+002530+002531+002532+002533+00
2534+002535+002536+002537+002538+002539+002540+002541+002542+002543+002544+002545+002546+00
2547+002548+002549+002550+002551+002552+002553+002554+00
2555+002556+002557+002558+002559+002560+002561+00
2562+002563+002564+002565+002566+002567+002568+002569+002570+002571+002572+00
2573+002574+00
2575+002576+002577+002578+002579+002580+002581+002582+002583+002584+002585+00
2586+002587+002588+002589+002590+002591+002592+00
2593+002594+002595+002596+002597+002598+00
2599+002600+002601+002602+002603+002700+002700+002701+002702+002703+002704+002705+002706+002707+002708+002709+002710+002711+002712+002713+002714+002715+002716+002717+002718+002719+002720+003700+003701+003702+003703+003704+003705+003706+003707+003708+003709+003710+003711+00
3712+003713+003714+003715+003716+003717+003718+003719+003720+00
1700+001701+001702+001703+001704+001705+001706+001707+001708+001709+001710+001711+001712+001713+001714+001715+001716+001717+001718+001719+001720+00BASS LAKE ROAD STATION63RD AVENUE STATION
!(
!(
8
1
56th
8
1
WinnetkaWe
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 058th
Orchard1 0 0Douglas
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+001329+001330+001331+001332+001333+001334+001335+001336+00 1337+001338+00 1339+001340+00 1341+001342+00
1343+001344+00
1345+001346+001347+001348+001349+00
1350+00
1351+001352+001353+001354+001355+001356+001357+00
1358+001359+001360+001361+001362+001363+001364+001365+001366+001367+001368+001369+001370+001371+001372+001373+001374+001375+001376+00
1377+001378+00
1379+001380+001381+001382+001383+001384+001385+001386+001387+001388+001389+00
1390+001391+00
1392+001393+001394+001395+001396+001397+001398+001399+001400+001401+001402+001403+001404+00
1405+001406+001407+001408+001409+001410+001411+001412+001413+001414+001415+00
1416+001417+001418+001419+001420+001421+001422+001423+001424+001425+001426+001427+001428+00
1429+001430+001431+001432+001433+001434+001435+001500+002328+00
2329+002330+002331+00
2332+002333+002334+002335+00 2336+002337+00 2338+002339+00 2340+002341+00
2342+002343+00
2344+002345+002346+002347+002348+002349+002350+002351+002352+002353+002354+002355+002356+002357+002358+00
2359+002360+002361+002362+002363+002364+002365+002366+002367+002368+002369+002370+002371+002372+002373+002374+002375+002376+002377+002378+002379+002380+002381+002382+002383+002384+00
2385+002386+002387+002388+002389+002390+002391+002392+00
2393+002394+002395+002396+002397+002398+002399+002400+002401+002402+002403+002404+002405+002406+002407+002408+002409+002410+002411+002412+002413+002414+002415+002416+002417+002418+002419+002420+002421+002422+002423+00
2424+002425+002426+002427+002428+002429+002430+002431+002432+002433+002434+002435+002500+003328+003329+003330+003331+003332+003333+003334+003335+003336+003337+003338+003339+003340+003341+003342+003343+003344+003345+00
3346+003347+003348+003349+003350+00
3351+003352+003353+003354+003355+003356+003357+00
3358+003359+003360+003361+003362+003363+003364+003365+00
3366+003367+00
3368+003369+003370+003371+003372+003373+003374+003375+003376+003377+003378+00
3379+003380+00
3381+003382+003383+003384+003385+003386+003387+003388+003389+003390+003391+003392+003393+003394+003395+003396+003397+003398+003399+003400+003401+003402+003403+003404+003405+003406+003407+003408+003409+003410+003411+003412+003413+003414+003415+003416+003417+003418+003419+003420+003421+003422+00
3423+003424+00
3425+003426+003427+003428+003429+003430+003431+003432+003433+003434+003435+003436+003500+003500+003501+00
3502+003503+003504+003505+003506+003507+003508+003509+003510+003511+003512+003513+003514+003515+003516+003517+003518+00
3519+003520+003521+003522+003523+003524+003525+003526+003527+003528+003529+003530+003531+001500+001501+001502+001503+001504+001505+001506+001507+001508+001509+001510+00
1511+001512+001513+001514+001515+00
1516+001517+001518+001519+001520+001521+001522+00
1523+001524+001525+001526+001527+001528+001529+001530+001531+002500+002501+002502+002503+002504+002505+002506+002507+002508+002509+002510+002511+002512+002513+002514+002515+002516+002517+002518+002519+002520+002521+002522+002523+00
2524+002525+002526+002527+002528+00
2529+002530+002531+00!(
42nd Os
s
e
o
42nd We
s
t Br
o
a
d
wa
y
L a k e
100100Brookl
yn45th818146th
DouglasF
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+001328+001329+001330+001331+001332+001333+001334+001335+001336+001337+001338+00 1339+001340+00 1341+001342+00 1343+001344+00
1345+001346+001347+001348+001349+001350+00
1351+001352+001353+001354+001355+001356+001357+00
1358+001359+001360+001361+00
1362+001363+001364+001365+001366+001367+001368+001369+001370+001371+00
1372+001373+001374+001375+001376+001377+001378+001379+001380+001381+00
1382+001383+001384+001385+001386+001387+001388+001389+001390+001391+001392+001393+00
1394+001395+001396+001397+001398+001399+001400+001401+001402+001403+00
1404+001405+001406+001407+001408+001409+001410+00
1411+001412+001413+001414+001415+001416+001417+001418+001419+001420+001421+001422+001423+001424+001425+001426+001427+001428+001429+001430+001431+001432+001433+001434+001435+001500+002327+002328+002329+002330+002331+00
2332+002333+002334+002335+002336+002337+00 2338+002339+00 2340+002341+00 2342+002343+00
2344+002345+002346+002347+002348+002349+002350+002351+002352+002353+002354+002355+002356+002357+002358+00
2359+002360+002361+002362+002363+002364+002365+00
2366+002367+002368+002369+002370+002371+002372+002373+002374+002375+002376+002377+00
2378+002379+002380+002381+002382+002383+002384+002385+002386+002387+00
2388+002389+002390+002391+002392+002393+002394+002395+002396+002397+002398+002399+002400+002401+002402+002403+002404+002405+002406+002407+002408+002409+002410+002411+002412+002413+002414+002415+002416+00
2417+002418+002419+002420+002421+002422+002423+002424+002425+002426+00
2427+002428+002429+002430+002431+002432+002433+002434+002435+002500+003327+003328+003329+003330+003331+003332+003333+003334+003335+003336+003337+003338+003339+003340+003341+003342+003343+003344+003345+003346+003347+003348+003349+003350+003351+003352+003353+003354+003355+003356+003357+00
3358+003359+003360+003361+00
3362+003363+00
3364+003365+003366+003367+003368+003369+003370+003371+003372+003373+00
3374+003375+003376+003377+003378+003379+003380+003381+003382+003383+00
3384+003385+003386+003387+003388+003389+003390+003391+003392+003393+00
3394+003395+003396+003397+003398+003399+003400+003401+003402+003403+003404+003405+00
3406+003407+003408+003409+003410+003411+003412+003413+003414+003415+003416+003417+003418+003419+003420+003421+003422+003423+003424+003425+00
3426+003427+003428+003429+003430+003431+003432+003433+003434+003435+00
3436+003500+003500+003501+003502+003503+003504+003505+003506+003507+003508+00
3509+003510+003511+003512+003513+003514+003515+00
3516+003517+003518+003519+003520+003521+003522+003523+003524+003525+003526+003527+003528+00
3529+003530+001500+001501+001502+001503+00
1504+001505+001506+001507+001508+001509+00
1510+001511+001512+00
1513+001514+001515+001516+001517+001518+001519+001520+001521+001522+001523+001524+001525+00
1526+001527+001528+001529+001530+001531+002500+002501+002502+002503+002504+002505+002506+002507+002508+002509+002510+002511+002512+002513+00
2514+002515+002516+002517+002518+002519+002520+002521+002522+002523+002524+002525+002526+002527+002528+002529+002530+002531+00!(
42nd
42nd Os
s
e
oWe
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
wa
y
L a k e
100100Brookl
yn45th
8
1814 6 t h
DouglasF
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
3000+003001+003002+003003+003004+003005+003006+003007+003008+003009+003010+003011+003012+001053+001054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+001062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+001083+001084+001085+001086+001087+001088+001089+001090+001091+001092+001093+001094+001095+001096+001097+001098+001099+001100+001101+001102+001103+001104+001105+001106+001107+001108+001109+001131+832053+002054+002055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+002062+002063+002064+002065+002066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+002083+002084+002085+002086+002087+002088+002089+002090+002091+002092+002093+002094+002095+002096+002097+002098+002099+002100+002101+002102+002103+002104+002105+002106+002107+002108+002109+001201+001202+001203+001204+001205+001206+001207+001208+001209+001210+001211+001212+001213+001214+001215+001216+001217+001218+001219+001220+001221+001222+001223+001224+001225+001226+001227+001228+001229+001230+001231+001232+001233+001234+001235+001237+001238+001239+001240+001241+001242+001243+001244+001245+001246+001247+001248+001249+001250+001251+001252+001253+001254+001255+001256+001257+001258+001259+001260+001261+001262+001263+001264+001265+001266+001267+001268+001269+001270+001271+001272+001273+001274+001275+003201+003202+003203+003204+003205+003206+003207+003208+003209+003210+003211+003212+003213+003214+003215+003216+003217+003218+003219+003220+003221+003222+003223+003224+003225+003226+003227+003228+003229+003230+003231+003232+003233+003234+003235+003236+003237+003238+003239+003240+003241+003242+003243+003244+003245+003246+003247+003248+003249+003250+003251+003252+003253+003254+003255+003256+003257+003258+003259+003260+003261+003262+003263+003264+003265+003266+003267+003268+003269+003270+003271+003272+003273+003274+003275+002200+002201+002202+002203+002204+002205+002206+002207+002208+002209+002210+002211+002212+002213+002214+002215+002216+002217+002218+002219+002220+002221+002222+002223+002224+002225+002226+002227+002228+002229+002230+002231+002232+002233+002234+002235+002236+002237+002238+002239+002240+002241+002242+002243+002244+002245+002246+002247+002248+002249+002250+002251+002252+002253+002254+002255+002256+002257+002258+002259+002260+002261+002262+002263+002264+002265+002266+002267+002268+002269+002270+002271+002272+002273+002274+002275+001301+001302+001303+001304+001305+001306+001307+001308+001309+001310+001311+001312+001313+001314+001315+001316+001317+001318+001319+001320+001321+001322+001323+001324+001325+001326+001327+001328+001329+001330+001331+001332+001333+001334+001335+001336+001337+001338+001339+001340+001341+001342+002301+002302+002303+002304+002305+002306+002307+002308+002309+002310+002311+002312+002313+002314+002315+002316+002317+002318+002319+002320+002321+002322+002323+002324+002325+002326+002327+002328+002329+002330+002331+002332+002333+002334+002335+002336+002337+002338+002339+002340+002341+002342+003301+003302+003303+003304+003305+003306+003307+003308+003309+003310+003311+003312+003313+003314+003315+003316+003317+003318+003319+003320+003321+003322+003323+003324+003325+003326+003327+003328+003329+003330+003331+003332+003333+003334+003335+003336+003337+003338+003339+003340+003341+003342+00PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATIONGOLDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION!(
!(
!(PennGolden Valley
Olson M em ori a l
Olson Memorial
Lowry
We
st
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
We
s
t Br
o
a
d
wa
yTheodoreWirthLowry
D ul u t h
Duluth Duluth
XerxesTheodoreWirthWest
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+003001+003002+003003+003004+003005+003006+003007+003008+003009+003010+003011+003012+001053+001054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+001062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+001083+001084+001085+001086+001087+001088+001089+001090+001091+001092+001093+001094+001095+001096+001097+001098+001099+001100+001101+001102+001103+001104+001105+001106+001107+001108+001109+001131+832053+002054+002055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+002062+002063+002064+002065+002066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+002083+002084+002085+002086+002087+002088+002089+002090+002091+002092+002093+002094+002095+002096+002097+002098+002099+002100+002101+002102+002103+002104+002105+002106+002107+002108+002109+001201+001202+001203+001204+001205+001206+001207+001208+001209+001210+001211+001212+001213+001214+001215+001216+001217+001218+001219+001220+001221+001222+001223+001224+001225+001226+001227+001228+001229+001230+001231+001232+001233+001234+001235+001237+001238+001239+001240+001241+001242+001243+001244+001245+001246+001247+001248+001249+001250+001251+001252+001253+001254+001255+001256+001257+001258+001259+001260+001261+001262+001263+001264+001265+001266+001267+001268+001269+001270+001271+001272+001273+001274+001275+003201+003202+003203+003204+003205+003206+003207+003208+003209+003210+003211+003212+003213+003214+003215+003216+003217+003218+003219+003220+003221+003222+003223+003224+003225+003226+003227+003228+003229+003230+003231+003232+003233+003234+003235+003236+003237+003238+003239+003240+003241+003242+003243+003244+003245+003246+003247+003248+003249+003250+003251+003252+003253+003254+003255+003256+003257+003258+003259+003260+003261+003262+003263+003264+003265+003266+003267+003268+003269+003270+003271+003272+003273+003274+003275+002200+002201+002202+002203+002204+002205+002206+002207+002208+002209+002210+002211+002212+002213+002214+002215+002216+002217+002218+002219+002220+002221+002222+002223+002224+002225+002226+002227+002228+002229+002230+002231+002232+002233+002234+002235+002236+002237+002238+002239+002240+002241+002242+002243+002244+002245+002246+002247+002248+002249+002250+002251+002252+002253+002254+002255+002256+002257+002258+002259+002260+002261+002262+002263+002264+002265+002266+002267+002268+002269+002270+002271+002272+002273+002274+002275+001301+001302+001303+001304+001305+001306+001307+001308+001309+001310+001311+001312+001313+001314+001315+001316+001317+001318+001319+001320+001321+001322+001323+001324+001325+001326+001327+001328+001329+001330+001331+001332+001333+001334+001335+001336+001337+001338+001339+001340+001341+001342+002301+002302+002303+002304+002305+002306+002307+002308+002309+002310+002311+002312+002313+002314+002315+002316+002317+002318+002319+002320+002321+002322+002323+002324+002325+002326+002327+002328+002329+002330+002331+002332+002333+002334+002335+002336+002337+002338+002339+002340+002341+002342+003301+003302+003303+003304+003305+003306+003307+003308+003309+003310+003311+003312+003313+003314+003315+003316+003317+003318+003319+003320+003321+003322+003323+003324+003325+003326+003327+003328+003329+003330+003331+003332+003333+003334+003335+003336+003337+003338+003339+003340+003341+003342+00PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATIONGOLDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION!(
!(
!(PennGolden Valley
Olson M em ori al
Olson Memorial
Lowry
We
st
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
We
s
t
B
r
o
a
d
wa
yTheodoreWirthLowry
D ul u th
Duluth D uluth
XerxesTheodoreWirthWestBroadway
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+003001+003002+003003+003004+003005+003006+003007+003008+003009+003010+003011+003012+001040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+001062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+001083+001084+001085+001086+001087+001088+001089+001090+001091+001092+001093+001094+001095+001096+001097+001098+001099+001100+001101+001102+001103+001104+001105+001106+001107+001108+001109+001131+832040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+002062+002063+002064+002065+002066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+002083+002084+002085+002086+002087+002088+002089+002090+002091+002092+002093+002094+002095+002096+002097+002098+002099+002100+002101+002102+002103+002104+002105+002106+002107+002108+002109+001201+001202+001203+001204+001205+001206+001207+001208+001209+001210+001211+001212+001213+001214+001215+001216+001217+001218+001219+001220+001221+001222+001223+001224+001225+001226+001227+001228+001229+001230+001231+001232+001233+001234+001235+001237+001238+001239+001240+001241+001242+001243+001244+001245+001246+001247+001248+001249+001250+001251+001252+001253+001254+001255+001256+001257+001258+001259+001260+001261+001262+001263+001264+001265+001266+001267+001268+001269+001270+001271+001272+001273+001274+001275+003201+003202+003203+003204+003205+003206+003207+003208+003209+003210+003211+003212+003213+003214+003215+003216+003217+003218+003219+003220+003221+003222+003223+003224+003225+003226+003227+003228+003229+003230+003231+003232+003233+003234+003235+003236+003237+003238+003239+003240+003241+003242+003243+003244+003245+003246+003247+003248+003249+003250+003251+003252+003253+003254+003255+003256+003257+003258+003259+003260+003261+003262+003263+003264+003265+003266+003267+003268+003269+003270+003271+003272+003273+003274+003275+002200+002201+002202+002203+002204+002205+002206+002207+002208+002209+002210+002211+002212+002213+002214+002215+002216+002217+002218+002219+002220+002221+002222+002223+002224+002225+002226+002227+002228+002229+002230+002231+002232+002233+002234+002235+002236+002237+002238+002239+002240+002241+002242+002243+002244+002245+002246+002247+002248+002249+002250+002251+002252+002253+002254+002255+002256+002257+002258+002259+002260+002261+002262+002263+002264+002265+002266+002267+002268+002269+002270+002271+002272+002273+002274+002275+001301+001302+001303+001304+001305+001306+001307+001308+001309+001310+002301+002302+002303+002304+002305+002306+002307+002308+002309+002310+003301+003302+003303+003304+003305+003306+003307+003308+003309+003310+00PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATIONGOLDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION!(
!(
!(!(
Glenwood
Olso n Memorial
Ol so n M em orial PennW
est Broad
w
ay
GirardGolden Valley
Glenwood XerxesTheodoreWirthWestBroadway
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 3000+003001+003002+003003+003004+003005+003006+003007+003008+003009+003010+003011+003012+001040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+001062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+001083+001084+001085+001086+001087+001088+001089+001090+001091+001092+001093+001094+001095+001096+001097+001098+001099+001100+001101+001102+001103+001104+001105+001106+001107+001108+001109+001131+832040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+002062+002063+002064+002065+002066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+002083+002084+002085+002086+002087+002088+002089+002090+002091+002092+002093+002094+002095+002096+002097+002098+002099+002100+002101+002102+002103+002104+002105+002106+002107+002108+002109+001201+001202+001203+001204+001205+001206+001207+001208+001209+001210+001211+001212+001213+001214+001215+001216+001217+001218+001219+001220+001221+001222+001223+001224+001225+001226+001227+001228+001229+001230+001231+001232+001233+001234+001235+001237+001238+001239+001240+001241+001242+001243+001244+001245+001246+001247+001248+001249+001250+001251+001252+001253+001254+001255+001256+001257+001258+001259+001260+001261+001262+001263+001264+001265+001266+001267+001268+001269+001270+001271+001272+001273+001274+001275+003201+003202+003203+003204+003205+003206+003207+003208+003209+003210+003211+003212+003213+003214+003215+003216+003217+003218+003219+003220+003221+003222+003223+003224+003225+003226+003227+003228+003229+003230+003231+003232+003233+003234+003235+003236+003237+003238+003239+003240+003241+003242+003243+003244+003245+003246+003247+003248+003249+003250+003251+003252+003253+003254+003255+003256+003257+003258+003259+003260+003261+003262+003263+003264+003265+003266+003267+003268+003269+003270+003271+003272+003273+003274+003275+002200+002201+002202+002203+002204+002205+002206+002207+002208+002209+002210+002211+002212+002213+002214+002215+002216+002217+002218+002219+002220+002221+002222+002223+002224+002225+002226+002227+002228+002229+002230+002231+002232+002233+002234+002235+002236+002237+002238+002239+002240+002241+002242+002243+002244+002245+002246+002247+002248+002249+002250+002251+002252+002253+002254+002255+002256+002257+002258+002259+002260+002261+002262+002263+002264+002265+002266+002267+002268+002269+002270+002271+002272+002273+002274+002275+001301+001302+001303+001304+001305+001306+001307+001308+001309+001310+002301+002302+002303+002304+002305+002306+002307+002308+002309+002310+003301+003302+003303+003304+003305+003306+003307+003308+003309+003310+00PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATIONGOLDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION!(
!(
!(!(
Glenwood
Olson Memorial
Olson M em orial PennW
est Broad
w
ay
GirardGolden Valley
Glenwood XerxesTheodoreWirthWestBroadway
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+003001+003002+003003+003004+003005+003006+003007+003008+003009+003010+003011+003012+001012+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+001040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+001062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+001083+001084+001085+001086+001087+001088+001089+001090+001091+001092+001093+001094+001095+001096+001097+001098+001099+001100+001101+001102+001103+001104+001105+001106+001107+001108+001109+001131+832012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+002023+002024+002025+002026+002027+002028+002029+002030+002031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+002062+002063+002064+002065+002066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+002083+002084+002085+002086+002087+002088+002089+002090+002091+002092+002093+002094+002095+002096+002097+002098+002099+002100+002101+002102+002103+002104+002105+002106+002107+002108+002109+001201+001202+001203+001204+001205+001206+001207+001208+001209+001210+001211+001212+001213+001214+001215+001216+001217+001218+001219+001220+001221+001222+001223+001224+001225+001226+001227+001228+001229+001230+001231+001232+001233+001234+001235+001237+001238+001239+001240+001241+001242+001243+001244+001245+001246+001247+001248+001249+001250+001251+001252+001253+001254+001255+001256+003201+003202+003203+003204+003205+003206+003207+003208+003209+003210+003211+003212+003213+003214+003215+003216+003217+003218+003219+003220+003221+003222+003223+003224+003225+003226+003227+003228+003229+003230+003231+003232+003233+003234+003235+003236+003237+003238+003239+003240+003241+003242+003243+003244+003245+003246+003247+003248+003249+003250+003251+003252+003253+003254+003255+003256+002200+002201+002202+002203+002204+002205+002206+002207+002208+002209+002210+002211+002212+002213+002214+002215+002216+002217+002218+002219+002220+002221+002222+002223+002224+002225+002226+002227+002228+002229+002230+002231+002232+002233+002234+002235+002236+002237+002238+002239+002240+002241+002242+002243+002244+002245+002246+002247+002248+002249+002250+002251+002252+002253+002254+002255+002256+00PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATIONGOLDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION!(
!(
!(!(
Glenwood
3 9 4394
O ls o n MemorialOlson Memorial PennWestBroadway
PennWest Broadway
GirardGolden Valley
East LyndaleDunwoody
Dunwoody LakesideXerxes949494EastLyndal
eF
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+003001+003002+003003+003004+003005+003006+003007+003008+003009+003010+003011+003012+001012+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+001040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+001062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+001083+001084+001085+001086+001087+001088+001089+001090+001091+001092+001093+001094+001095+001096+001097+001098+001099+001100+001101+001102+001103+001104+001105+001106+001107+001108+001109+001131+832012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+002023+002024+002025+002026+002027+002028+002029+002030+002031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+002062+002063+002064+002065+002066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+002083+002084+002085+002086+002087+002088+002089+002090+002091+002092+002093+002094+002095+002096+002097+002098+002099+002100+002101+002102+002103+002104+002105+002106+002107+002108+002109+001201+001202+001203+001204+001205+001206+001207+001208+001209+001210+001211+001212+001213+001214+001215+001216+001217+001218+001219+001220+001221+001222+001223+001224+001225+001226+001227+001228+001229+001230+001231+001232+001233+001234+001235+001237+001238+001239+001240+001241+001242+001243+001244+001245+001246+001247+001248+001249+001250+001251+001252+001253+001254+001255+001256+003201+003202+003203+003204+003205+003206+003207+003208+003209+003210+003211+003212+003213+003214+003215+003216+003217+003218+003219+003220+003221+003222+003223+003224+003225+003226+003227+003228+003229+003230+003231+003232+003233+003234+003235+003236+003237+003238+003239+003240+003241+003242+003243+003244+003245+003246+003247+003248+003249+003250+003251+003252+003253+003254+003255+003256+002200+002201+002202+002203+002204+002205+002206+002207+002208+002209+002210+002211+002212+002213+002214+002215+002216+002217+002218+002219+002220+002221+002222+002223+002224+002225+002226+002227+002228+002229+002230+002231+002232+002233+002234+002235+002236+002237+002238+002239+002240+002241+002242+002243+002244+002245+002246+002247+002248+002249+002250+002251+002252+002253+002254+002255+002256+00PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATIONGOLDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION!(
!(
!(!(
Glenwood
3 9 4394
Olso n MemorialOlson Memorial PennWestBroadway
PennWest Broadway
GirardGolden Valley
East LyndaleDunwoody
Dunwoody LakesideXerxes949494EastLyndal
eF
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+003001+003002+003003+003004+003005+001005+291006+001007+001008+001009+001010+001011+001012+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+001040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+001062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+001083+001084+001085+001086+001087+001088+001089+001090+001091+001092+001093+001094+001095+001096+001097+001098+001099+001100+001101+001102+001103+002000+002001+002002+002003+002004+002005+002006+002007+002008+002009+002010+002011+002012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+002023+002024+002025+002026+002027+002028+002029+002030+002031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+002062+002063+002064+002065+002066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+002083+002084+002085+002086+002087+002088+002089+002090+002091+002092+002093+002094+002095+002096+002097+002098+002099+002100+002101+002102+002103+00!(
!(!(
Glenwood
GlenwoodPenn 947th
West Broadway
7th
3 9 4
394
R i v e r
Olson Memorial
Olson Mem orial
West Broadway
Glenwood
W
estBroadway
PennGirardGolden Valley
East LyndaleDunwoody
Dunwoody
NicolletLakeside2 n d 2ndBroadway
W
a
shin
gto
n
94WashingtonEastLyndal
eF
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+003001+003002+003003+003004+003005+001005+291006+001007+001008+001009+001010+001011+001012+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+001040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+001062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+001083+001084+001085+001086+001087+001088+001089+001090+001091+001092+001093+001094+001095+001096+001097+001098+001099+001100+001101+001102+001103+002000+002001+002002+002003+002004+002005+002006+002007+002008+002009+002010+002011+002012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+002023+002024+002025+002026+002027+002028+002029+002030+002031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+002062+002063+002064+002065+002066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+002083+002084+002085+002086+002087+002088+002089+002090+002091+002092+002093+002094+002095+002096+002097+002098+002099+002100+002101+002102+002103+00!(
!(!(
Glenwood
GlenwoodPenn 947th
West Broadway
7th
3 9 4
394
R i v e r
Olson Memorial
Olson Memorial
West Broadway
Glenwood
W
estBroadway
PennGirardGolden Valley
East LyndaleDunwoody
Dunwoody
NicolletLakeside2 n d 2ndBroadway
W
as
hin
gto
n
94WashingtonEastLyndaleF
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:3/9/2020
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:3/9/2020
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:
C ommemoration of 400 years of S lavery Activities -3/23
Livable Wages -3/23
Us e of EDA O wned P roperty -3/23
F o o d Trucks - 3/23
S trategic P lans fo r years 2018-2020 and 2021-2023 - 3/23
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