Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 07-26 PCP . PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER JULY 26, 1990 STUDY SESSION 1. Call to Order: 7: 30 p.m. 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes - July 12, 1990 4. Chairperson's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 5. Teasdale and Associates 90015 Request for variance approval to allow more than 10% of the Garden City Court Apartment project to be three- bedroom units following a conversion of 24 two-bedroom units to 16 three-bedroom units. This matter was tabled by the Planning Commission at its June 14, 1990 meeting with direction to staff to provide additional information. 6. Other Business 7. Discussion Items 8. Adjournment r �! Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 90015 Applicant: Harold Teasdale Location: 3407-3417 65th Avenue North Request: Variance Application No. 90015 submitted by Harold Teasdale was considered by the Commission and tabled at its June 14, 1990 meeting. The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 footnote lc of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow more than 10$ of the units at Garden City Court Apartments to be three-bedroom units. The applicant desires to convert 24 two-bedroom units to 16 three- bedroom units within the complex so that a total of 25% of the units in the complex would be three-bedroom units. This amount of 25% is essentially a requirement to receive low income tax credits which are awarded by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The City's Zoning Ordinance limits the number of three-bedroom units to no more than 10% of the units in any multi-family building. Thus, it is impossible to comply both with City ordinance and with the requirements for the Low Income Tax Credits. Hence, the request for a variance. In tabling this application, the Commission requested further information on the following items: . 1. An opinion from the City Attorney on the legality of the City's 10% limit on three-bedroom apartments. 2. Background on the origin of the 10% limit from City records. 3. Evidence from the Metropolitan Council documenting the increasing demand for three-bedroom apartments and the declining demand for other apartments (especially one- bedroom apartments) . 4. More information on the programs which the applicant wishes to take advantage of in making the conversion of units from two-bedroom to three-bedrooms. Information relating to the first three items is attached and will be summarized along with a discussion of the programs below. City Attorney's Opinion City Attorney Charles LeFevere has transmitted to us a brief letter and a memo by Julie Lawler evaluating the legality of the current ordinance. (See letter and memo attached) . Ms. Lawler's memo indicates that bedroom restrictions are viewed by the courts as exclusionary zoning which is suspect with respect to discrimination. Bedroom limitations may tend to discriminate 7-26-90 1 r • i against minority groups with larger families or against larger families generally. The Fair Housing Act, she states, prohibits zoning practices that "otherwise make unavailable or deny" housing to any person for an impermissible reason such as race or familial status. She concludes by recommending that the City consider amending the ordinance to reflect the State legislature's commitment to multi-family housing by changing the 10% restriction to at least 25%. This would be consistent with the legislature's requirement that low income tax credits be awarded only to projects with at least 25% of the units being three-bedroom units. Mr. LeFevere's letter recommends eliminating any restriction on the number of bedrooms and relying simply on additional land area. The ordinance presently requires 250 sq. ft. of additional land for bedrooms in excess of two. In further discussions, he had indicated that a greater requirement than this would be legally defensible as it would be neutral and related to the historical zoning concern of density. Background on 10% Limit Attached for the Commission's review are all minutes of the Planning Commission and City Council from 1973 and 1974 relating to consideration of the package of ordinances which were adopted relating to multiple-family dwellings. The ordinance changes ultimately adopted included the 10% limit on three-bedroom apartments, the 250 ft. land area deduction for efficiency units, a density credit of 500 sq. ft. for under building parking stalls, and a deduction of setback areas adjacent to public streets from eligibility for meeting land area requirements. There was general discussion at some meetings regarding density concerns, but the 10% limit on three-bedroom units was only considered as part of the final package of ordinances and there is no separate discussion of it in the minutes. There is a comment in the 11-15-73 Planning Commission minutes by Blair Tremere (former Director of Planning and Inspection) that "there were serious questions as to whether three or more bedroom units in the R4 and R5 types of multiple family dwellings were desirable at all. " No reason as to why they would be undesirable was given. However, we have also had a discussion with former City Manager Donald Poss regarding the issue and it is his recollection that the reason for the 10% limit was that it was felt that families of that size should not live in apartments, but in single- family homes. Documenting Demand for Three-Bedroom Units Attached for the Commission's review are a number of excerpts from reports by the Metropolitan Council, especially from Mismatches Between Supply And Demand: Rental Housing in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area This report analyzes a number of mismatches in the rental housing market. The report concludes that there are 7-26-90 2 r i' more lower-income households than affordable units, more high-cost units than high-income renters, more large renter households than large rental units, and generally that those which can least afford it are bearing excessive rent burdens. Table 42 on page 93 of the report shows that, in the metropolitan area, there were 11,270 large renter households in 1985 and only 5,693 large rental units. Thus, there is basically a 2:1 ratio of demand relative to supply of large units. It should be pointed out that large units represented only about 2.5% of all rental units in 1980. While there is a waiting list for subsidized three-bedroom units, conversions may not become a widespread phenomena since they still represent a smaller (though growing) portion of the overall rental market. Much could be said here of the changing demographics of the 1990's and beyond and of their effect on the housing market in general and the rental housing market in particular. As the baby boom generation matures, many in it will try to move from starter homes to larger or nicer homes. However, this will place a large number of starter homes on the market at the same time, reducing their price and making homeownership more affordable for the baby bust generation that follows. This price shift, along with the reduced numbers of people in the rental market age group (20-24) , will result in higher vacancy rates in rental housing. Nancy Reeves, a housing planner at the Metropolitan Council, has pointed out to us that some of the starter homes in Brooklyn Center may wind up being rented rather than sold, thus providing some of the large housing units demanded by renter families. A Metropolitan Council publication called Housing Markets in 2000 states on page 18 that "a weakened housing market may exacerbate problems stemming from lack of maintenance (of an aging housing stock) or absentee ownership. " It recommends three options for maintenance and upkeep and choices for reuse or redirection of the housing stock: -"Maintaining and upgrading the stock to keep housing competitive in the marketplace. -Removing housing and rebuilding to remove blight; to meet different housing needs; and to meet needs for commercial uses. -Modifying existing housing to better meet housing needs by converting apartments (for example, from smaller units to larger units) modifying apartments to provide amenities newer apartments have; and providing features that make it easier for older people to live in them (for example, elevators and grab bars in baths) . 7-26-90 3 r T S Thus, the conversion of smaller apartment units to larger ones is considered a means of making them more marketable and lead to better maintenance of a project than if it were to experience high vacancy. The addition of amenities would also help. Programs Pursued by Applicant The applicant has been pursuing financial assistance from two federal programs: The Rental Rehabilitation Program administered locally by the County and Low Income Tax Credits administered by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The Rental Rehabilitation Program provides funds for rehabilitating existing rental dwellings. Sixty percent (60%) of the money must go to family units (two bedrooms or more) . Priority is given to complexes with three bedroom units. The housing units must be affordable and the owner must affirmatively market the units and not discriminate against low and moderate income tenants. However, it is not required that the units all be rented to low and moderate income tenants. The funds can only be used on existing facilities, though they could be used to provide new facilities required by the City (such as recreational facilities) . The local HUD office has recently issued a ruling that the Rental Rehabilitation Program cannot be used on a project which is also benefitting from Low Income Tax Credits. It is our understanding at this time that the applicant will no longer pursue the Rental Rehabilitation Program on this project, but will continue to pursue and may still be awarded the Low Income Tax Credits. The Low Income Tax Credits, which are awarded by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, require that at least 75% of the units have two or more bedrooms and that a third of these, or at least 25% of the total, have three or more bedrooms. Low Income Tax Credits are available for various types of projects, family rental housing being only one of five categories. The award of the credit is tied to renting a minimum portion of the units to persons of lower or moderate income. At least 20% of the units would have to be reserved for persons at or below 50% of the County median income (which is $45,000 for a family of four) , or 40% of the units to families with incomes at or below 60% of the median. The tax credit award will only be partial if the proportion of units reserved is also partial. It is, therefore, likely that 100$ of the units will be reserved for families with incomes at or below 60% of the median. Those income levels are as follows: 1 person $18,900 2 persons 21,600 3 persons 24, 300 4 persons 27, 000 5 persons 29,150 The reservation of units must be for at least 30 years. These income limits are not so low that all of the renters would have to 7-26-90 4 { J s be receiving section 8 Rent Assistance, though some no doubt would. (Mr. Teasdale has indicated that he prefers to keep as many of the existing tenants as possible since relocation costs are considerable) . Applicants for Low Income Tax Credits are awarded points for various aspects of their projects. The Garden City Court project proposed by Mr. Teasdale has received points for: other governmental involvement (MHFA financing) , providing family housing, rehabilitation of existing housing, intermediary (soft) costs, and because Brooklyn Center is an area which has not received a benefit from the program in the past. The project has not been rejected for the tax credits; it is still on a list of possible projects to be awarded credits. The project is also in the running for the Apartment Renovation Mortgage Loan Program which is for purchase of existing buildings and rehabilitation. The tax credit program is scheduled to sunset at the end of this year unless continued by Congress. Analysis The Teasdale proposal raises concerns that relate to housing policy as well as zoning policy. In terms of housing, it must be realized that 98% of the land in Brooklyn Center is already developed and the vast majority of the housing we will have in 20 years is already built. The people that occupy that housing, however, will change over time. The baby boom generation (age 25 to 44) has, for the most part moved out of the rental market and is either in starter homes or move-up homes. The baby bust generation has moved into the rental housing market and will begin to move into the homeownership market from now on. The effects of this demographic shift are likely to be numerous and significant. The demand for the housing which is abundant in Brooklyn Center will likely decline and prices and rents will likely become very competitive. We view it as being in the City's best interest to keep or make the existing housing in Brooklyn Center as marketable as possible. Conversion of multi-family units to three-bedroom units or larger may serve this purpose since demand presently exceeds supply for these types of units. While fears have been expressed about the possible deleterious effect of families receiving housing subsidies on the surrounding single-family neighborhood, some positive effects may also occur: -More marketable housing units are more likely to be occupied, generating positive cash flow and making maintenance of the property more economically feasible. -Units that are demanded by more potential tenants will put the owner in the position of choosing better tenants though he cannot discriminate on the basis of race or poverty status, etc. • 7-26-90 5 r The rehabilitation funds will give the project a shot in the arm and improve the property over its present condition. -Maintaining housing units for low and moderate income families will provide available housing for people employed in the City's central business area, including the industrial park and the regional shopping facilities. Last year, the City commissioned a study of the Brooklyn Center housing market by Maxfield Research Group, Inc. One of the findings relating to the rental market contained on page 7 was: "The potential problem with the attraction of low-income households to Brooklyn Center is the community's inability to serve this group. Allowing rental buildings to become lower-income housing through deferred maintenance (and thus, lower rents) creates substandard housing for persons with lower incomes. By actively seeking funding and designating housing units with the unique needs of low-income persons in mind, Brooklyn Center would be in a better position to serve this population. " One of those "unique needs" is probably the provision of affordable three-bedroom rental units. The report in essence is saying: change is coming and the City will be better off if it actively adapts to that change than if it does nothing. As to zoning issues, it seems clear to us that a variance is not warranted in this case as there is nothing that would particularly distinguish the Garden City Court apartment project from other apartment projects in the City. The question is whether the purposes of the existing 10% limit on three-bedroom units are legally valid and, if not, what should be done about the Zoning Ordinance that will fairly reflect valid zoning concerns. Ordinances which have a discriminatory or exclusionary effect are very suspect in light of the Fair Housing Act and the Mount Laurel court decisions. The City Attorney has advised that the present 10% limitation may be considered to discriminate against minority groups which may tend to have larger families and against families with children generally. One question is whether any limit on three-bedroom units would be considered discriminatory or whether some level such as 25%, 33%, or 50% would be considered reasonable. One concern we have is that raising the limit may only postpone and not eliminate a legal appeal. If the Commission is disposed to recommend an ordinance amendment at all, it should consider carefully the reasonableness and appropriateness of any possible limit on three-bedroom apartments. The more appropriate zoning "device" we feel is the land area requirement which has historically been used to control population density. The present surcharge of 250 sq. ft. for each bedroom over two within a dwelling unit is minimal. A significant increase in this land area requirement should be considered. Attached is a COPY of the Bloomington multi-family land area requirements. • 7-26-90 6 Bloomington uses a matrix of land area requirements for building heights and unit sizes. This is a very complex system of establishing land area requirements and we do not recommend adoption of a similar system for Brooklyn Center as it would no doubt result in nonconformities and development opportunities unforeseen at this time. However, it should be noted that the step-up in land area requirement for each additional bedroom in Bloomington's code is approximately 650 sq. ft. (it varies throughout the matrix) . We would recommend considering a land area surcharge of 750 sq. ft. to 1,000 sq. ft. for each bedroom in excess of two. (Likewise, a deduction of a similar amount should be considered for efficiency units. ) The land area surcharge relates to the historical zoning concern of population density and is neutral in its effect on potential tenants. Finally, concern has been expressed regarding recreational opportunities for children at apartment complexes. It is likely that the greatest concern should be for toddlers, preschoolers, and early elementary age children since older children will have the mobility to find recreational outlets off the premises. We do not feel it would be appropriate to specify the apparatus to be provided, but we would agree that some plan for recreational facilities should be subject to City Council approval on projects with an average number of bedrooms noticeably over 1.0 per unit. conclusion • A variance to allow more three-bedroom apartments is not appropriate because the standard of uniqueness is not met in this case. However, it is recommended that an ordinance amendment be considered involving the following elements: a) Repeal of the 10% limit on three-bedroom apartments and on efficiency units in light of a reevaluation of both valid zoning objectives and emerging housing needs in the community. b) An increase in the land area surcharge for bedrooms over two and the land area deduction for efficiency units from 250 sq. ft. to at least 750 sq. ft. in furtherance of the historical zoning objective of population density conitrol. C) Addition of a provision requiring apartment complexes with an average of 1.5 bedrooms per unit and over 10 units to provide recreational facilities for children as approved by the City Council. A draft ordinance is attached for the Commission's review and discussion. The applicant has expressed concern over timing. However, the Commission should not feel pressured to take any action on an ordinance amendment unless and until it is comfortable 7-26-90 7 / i with both the form and policy implications of the amendment. Input from the Housing Commission must also be sought. It took a year of discussion in 1973 and 1974 to arrive at the 10% limit and other associated provisions that were adopted. It may take a considerable amount of time to achieve the necessary consensus to change the ordinance that was adopted then. Nevertheless, staff will make every effort to expedite consideration of this matter as the Commission and Council direct. Recommendation In light of the above, it is recommended that the Commission take the following actions at this time: 1. Recommend denial of variance Application No. 90015 on the grounds that the standard of uniqueness is not met in this case. 2. Recommend that the City Council include the issue of larger (3-4 bedroom) rental units in the Housing Implementation Plan. 3. That the issue of these three-bedroom apartments and the possible need to eliminate the present 10t limit be referred to the Housing Commission for their review and comment. I 7-26-90 8 I • 4 HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED Attorneys at l.aw 470 Pillsbury Center,Alinneapolis,Minnesota 55402 ROBERT A.ALSOP (612)337-9300 DAVID J.KENNEDY PAUL D.BAERTSCHI JOHN R.CARSON RONALD H.BATTY Facsimile(612)337-9310 MARY J.BRF.NDEN WELLINGTON H.LAW STEPHEN J.BUBUI. JULIE A.LAWLER ROBERT C.CARLSON CHARLES L.LEFEVERE CHRISTINE M.CHALE JOHN M.LEFEVRE,JR. ROBERT L.DAVIDSON ' ROBERT J.LINDALL WRITERS DIRECT DIAL JOHN B.DEAN LAURA K.MOLLET ROBERT J.DEIKE DANIEL R.NELSON MARY G.DOBBINS BARBARA L.PORTWOOD JEFFREY ENG 337-9215 MARY FRANCES SKALA STEFANIE N.GALEY JAMES M.STROMMEN DAVID L.GRAVEN STEVEN M.TALLEN CORRINE A.HEINE JAMES J.THOMSON.JR. JOHN G.HOESCHLER LARRY M.WERTHEIM JAMES S.HOLMES BONNIE L.WILKINS June 18, 1990 Mr. Gary Shallcross City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Restriction on Number of Three-Bedroom Units Dear Gary: You have asked that we again review the law to advise you about the permissibility of the City's restriction on the number of three-bedroom apartments in multi- family dwellings. A memorandum on the subject, prepared by Julie Lawler of my office, is attached. In the memorandum, the reasons are set forth for our conclusion that the Brooklyn Center code restriction is of questionable legality. Julie suggests that the restriction be changed from ten percent to twenty-five percent. This would apparently satisfy the needs of the current applicant for conversion of apartments at the Garden City Court. By making such an amendment, we would therefore avoid any immediate challenge to the constitutionality of the City's restriction. However, I would recommend that the Planning Commission seriously consider an amendment to the ordinance which would eliminate all restrictions as to the number of bedrooms which are permitted in multi-family dwelling units. This recommendation is based on my concern that any restriction on number of bedrooms seems likely to have a disparate impact on minority racial groups. I am assuming for this purpose that there are minority groups which tend to have larger family sizes, although I make this assumption without any statistical evidence. Furthermore, the recommendation is based on the fact that I know of no way in which the public interest is served by any such restriction. That is, I can think of no permissible reason why the City would wish to restrict the number of three- bedroom units in multi-family dwellings in the City. If there are any such reasons which I have not considered, please let me know and I will reconsider this recommendation. However, it is my initial impression that any zoning objectives which might be served by restricting the number of three-bedroom units can be taken care of as effectively by simply requiring additional land area for units having more than two bedrooms. J If you have any questions,please feel free to give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL:sg Enclosure B R2 91-16 r 7 t MEMORANDUM TO: Charles L. LeFevere FROM: Julie A. Lawler DATE: June 14, 1990 RE: Validity of Brooklyn Center City Code Ordinance No 35-400(1)(c) restricting the number of apartments with three or more bedrooms in multi-family dwellings to ten percent of the units in each building Our File No.: BR 291-16 INTRODUCTION The City of Brooklyn Center (City) restricts by ordinance the number of apartments with three or more bedrooms in multi-family dwellings to ten percent of the total number of units in each building. See Brooklyn Center City Code Ordinance No. 35- 400(1)(c) (attached).. On May 19, 1990, developer Harold Teasdale, of Teasdale and Associates, Ltd., requested a variance from the bedroom restriction ordinance that would allow him to convert twenty-four two-bedroom units to three-bedroom units in the Garden City Court Apartments Redevelopment Project at 3407-3417 65th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center. Following the conversion, twenty-five percent of the Garden City Court units would be three-bedroom units. The variance request is based on changes made by the 1990 Minnesota legislature to the low income credit housing and tax exempt bond financing laws which now require that twenty-five percent of the total units in a multi-family redevelopment building have three bedrooms to qualify for financing. Mr. Teasdale pointed out that in a declining rental market, demand for moderately priced three-bedroom apartments is projected to rise. He"also notes that Brooklyn Center currently has a high proportion of one-bedroom units. ISSUE The City would like to know whether Ordinance No. 35-400(1)(c) is legally sound. ANALYSIS As we concluded in 1988, courts differ on whether percentage restrictions on the number of bedrooms in multi-family dwellings are constitutional. Contrast Malmar Associates v. Board of County Commissioners, 272 A.2d 6 (Md. 1971) (bedroom restriction ordinance upheld as reasonable means of density control when county experiencing population boom) with Molino v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Glassboro, 281 A.2d 401 (N.J. 1971) (bedroom-restriction ordinance unconstitutional when its admitted purpose is to limit the number of children in the area). Housing issues are of growing concern to cities, courts, and commentators. The legal trend appears to emphasize the importance to cities of making low and moderate cost rental housing available to families. Currently, bedroom restrictions are viewed as exclusionary zoning -- not unconstitutional Rer se, but suspect with respect to discrimination. 1 r Where a municipality's zoning practices negatively affect one group of people more than another for an improper reason, the resulting disparate impact could violate a potential resident's right to equal protection under the Minnesota and the United States Constitutions. U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Minn. Const. art. I, t 2, Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). If the City's bedroom restriction ordinance disproportionately affects members of a "suspect class," like a particular racial group, the City must have a compelling interest in the restriction. If the restriction disproportionately affects a class of people on a non- suspect basis, familial status, for example, the restriction must be rationally related to an appropriate purpose such as the public's general health, safety and welfare. These two distinctions, race and familial status, seem most likely to be implicated by bedroom restrictions. In general, cities must avoid zoning practices that have a disparate impact on people for improper reasons. In a line of cases out of New Jersey, commonly referred to as the Mount Laurel cases, however, the New Jersey Superior Court actually placed an affirmative duty on each municipality to plan and to provide by land use regulation for all types of housing, including low-income housing. N.A.A.C.P. v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A.2d. 713 (N.J. 1975). The Mount Laurel court said of bedroom restrictions, "The design of such limitations is obviously to restrict the number of families in a municipality with school-age children and thereby keep down local education costs. Such restrictions are so clearly contrary to the general welfare as not to require further discussion." Id. at 729. Title VIII, the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. ft 3601-3631 (1977 and 1990 Supp.), codifies equal protection principles to the extent that municipalities will violate the FHA when they make housing more difficult to obtain on prohibited grounds like race or familial status. Unlike the Mount Laurel decisions, housing cases that interpret the FHA in a zoning context do not mandate an affirmative duty to provide any particular type of housing. See United States v. City of Birmingham, Michigan, 538 F.Supp. 819 (D.C. Mich. 1982). Yet, they broadly interpret the FHA prohibition against all practices that "otherwise make unavailable or deny" housing to any person for an impermissible reason so that the FHA reaches every public practice that makes housing more difficult to obtain on prohibited grounds. United States v. HRA of City of Chickasaw, 504 F.Supp. 715 (S.D. Ala. 1980). Finally, under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, it is an unfair discriminatory practice for a municipality to interfere with anyone's housing rights. Minn. Stat. t 363.03 subd. 2(6) (1990). CONCLUSION Cities seem to have been given an unarticulated affirmative duty to provide low and moderate-cost housing to their residents. The Minnesota legislature clearly encourages multi-family housing. The danger of strict bedroom restrictions is their susceptibility toward having a disparate impact on specific racial groups or people with children. Both the FHA and the MHRA prohibit cities from discriminating on the basis of race and familial status. In light of these housing law developments, the City should consider amending Ordinance No. 35-400(1)(c) to reflect the Minnesota Legislature's commitment to multi-family housing by changing the ten percent restriction to twenty-five percent. JAL:gak 2 r 35-400 1. In the case of residential uses, the minimum I:rr d nrea shalt apply to each dwelling unit and shall be computed and adjusted as follows: a. The minimum land area required per unit shall he reduced hti 250 s uare feet ptr efficiencr unit in a multiple family dwellin and no more than 10 percent of the units in such a dwelling may be efficiency units. b. The required total minimum land area may be reduced 500 square feet for each required parking stall in or under a multiple residence or otherwise completely underground. c. The required total minimum land area shall be increased 250 square feet for each bedroom in excess of two in any one multiple family dwelling unit,jand no more than 10 percent of the units in any mu t p dwelling shall have more than two bedrooms. d. Where development is contemplated in R3, R41 R5, R6 or R7 Land Use Districts, the minimum land area per dwelling unit may be reduced, as hereinafter provided, upon a finding by the City Council that the following standards have been met: 1. The proposed development is in a section of the City which is in need of public open space facilities. 2. The property owner has demonstrated a willingness to convey lands to the City for public open. space purposes. 3. The physical relationship between the buildings within the proposed development and the proposed open space area afford to the occupants thereof a reasonable measure of visual relief from the mass and bulk of the buildings within the development. 4. The physical relationship among the buildings within the proposed development afford to the occupants thereof a reasonable measure of visual relief from the mass and bulk of the buildings within the development. 5. The physical relationship between the buildings within the proposed development and the proposed open space area afford to the occupants thereof a reasonably proximate recreational area. 6. The proposed development plan provides, through landscaping, plantings, natural or artificial buffering, or placement, that vehicle storage facilities, vehicle and pedestrian traffic movements, and other accessory structures and uses within the development are designed to- avoid disruption of pedestrian activities and allow the maximum use of open space areas, both public and private, for recreational purposes. the enrollment at Evergreen School was approximately the same. He noted, however, that there was a distinct possibility some students would be brought in by bus to the Evergreen School. Commissioner Gross noted some concern as to the temporary nature of the structure and noted that when the permit was originally issued, the school district had indicated the structure probably would not be required for more than three years. An extensive discussion ensued and Mr. Salmela stated that he could forsee that the building might be needed for an additional year. Chairman Jensen responded that renew- al of the permit would be for twelve months, and would be reviewed again next year. Action Recommending Following further discussion there was a Approval of Special motion by Commissioner Scott seconded by Use Permit Renewal Commissioner Gross to recommend approval of (Application No. 72068, the renewal of the special use permit for Anoka-Hennepin the Anoka-Hennepin School District, as con- School District) tained in Planning Commission Application No. 72068 for one year. The motion passed unanimously. Recess The meeting recessed at 9:40 P.M. and resum- ed at 10:05 P.M. Other Business: In other business, the Secretary stated that Council Moratorium the City Council at its July 23rd meeting ha, on Multi-Residentia established a 120 day moratorium on all Development multi-residential development not approved by the City Council. He stated that during the moratorium, a study was to be conducted regarding the following ordinance provisions for R3 through R7 districts: 1) recreation area; 2) light, air and view; 3) open green space; 4) parking and storage facilities. He stated the Council had directed that the Planning Commission serve as the coordinat- ing body for the various policy determina- tions which may be required, following an in depth investigation by the Department of Planning and Inspection. He stated that it had been suggested some consideration be given to a defined organizational structure such as the establishment of ad hoc com- mittees and the use of the neighborhood groups. He further noted the moratorium period cur- rently in affect would terminate on approx- imately November 19, 1973, coinciding with the date for a regular City Council meeting. Chairman Jensen then recognized Mayor Cohen who commented as to the intent of the mora- torium and noted various factors which generated its adoption. The Secretary and -7- 8/2/73 I i the Mayor reviewed a map indicating the re- maining multi-residential parcels in the City which had yet to be developed as such, and an extensive discussion ensued. Mayor Cohen stated the basic concern was providing for quality of life and noted this conviction was based upon his ex- perience on the metropolitan Housing Committee. He recommended that the Com- mission initiate their pasticipation in the study by meeting with the City Attorney, and he emphasized the use of existing staff resources versus contracting with a planning consultant. Chairman Jensen stated that it was necessary to undertake this study in terms of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, the present needs of the City and its residents, And existing ordinance requirements. Commissioner Bogucki responded that it was important for the Planning Commission to proceed with the philosophy of doing what was deemed right for the community. He stated that he personally would recommend a consultant be contacted to provide infor- mation and response. to preliminary recom- mendations by the Commission. In further discussion, Chairman Jensen stated he won1c3 propose the use of the neighborhood groups and a structuring of the study by the established neighbox1iooda. He commented two basic questions which definitely needed to be answered were whether changes were required in the ordinance, and whether any rezoning actions were necessary. Faith Academy In other business, the Secretary stated special Use Mai-ter that an application had been received from the Faith Academy Christian Elementary School, relative to a proposed special use permit and he noted that due to the timing of the application, and the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting in September, the applicant had requested to be heard at the August 16th study meeting. It was the consensus of the Commission to hear the petition of the Faith Academy Christian Elementary School at the August 16th meeting. Nonconforming In other business, the Secretary stated that Residential Uses on May 24, 1973, the Commission considered in R3-R5 Districts an application submitted by Mr. Mike Harrer, 6521 Brooklyn Boulevard requesting variance approval from Section 35-111 (nonconforming uses) to permit construction of an addition to his single family dwelling located in an R5 district. He commented the application was tabled at that time to permit evalua- tion and consideration of the nonconforming -8- 8/2/73 IL MINITPES OF 4F. PROCEE;INGS OF TPE rLAI7Y7T;CG 0^^NTT,SI(`•!, OF THE CIT: OF RROn-cr rT- !,-r, COTJN 7^, .gyp H_^WrPIN AIM �.T,mF. OF MIEN SOTA SPECIAL SESSION CI'T'Y I-LkLL NOVLIBER 15, 1973 Call to Order: The Planning Ccmnission met in special session and r:as called to order by Chai.riman rchcrt Jenser. at 8:00 P.M. Roll Call: CT^� t• jensen, Com�^.issi oners Ro ,... _ Duck'. F -Ott, Cron.. and :7100 �rescnt :'a= Direc tor of i'i. .nn7-n,.: and Ircoaction Blair Tremere. Approve Minutes: :lotion ht' Ccrrnissioner Scott seconded by 11-8-73 Commissioner Foreman to approve the minutes of the Mr-•ember 8, 1°73 meeting as suhmi-teed. toting in favor. were Chairman Jensen, Com-Tissioners Pocucki, Foreman, Scott, Gross and Engdahl. Not voting: Commissioner Grosshans who ex- plained he was not present at that meeting. The motion passed. Discussion of Chairman Jensen stated that the meeting Multi Residential had been called to consider the status Housing Study Of the study ordered by the City Council on July 23, 1973, at which-time a 120- day moratori am on all Multi-residential develour,:ent not yet aoprcved by the Crninc.i.l was dccla.�-'d. The Secret.j-y stated that the Council had -sked that a study be made Of ordinance provisions reaardinq_ the following factors fo.r the F,-3 through R-7 districts: re.^reation area; light, air, and view; open greet•. ^Fac and parl;i_n7 and storaao facilities. The Secrotary further stated that these factors, taken toact7:e:^, represented ,.;hat was often ternec? "density", and he stated the app-oach of tr^ Zor.ina Ordinance was the stipulation for a minimum land area requirement based on the nr.^Tber of uni-ts in a developner_t. He commented further that the ordinance did not specifically stinTilatc the allocation O" t_ie area of a site to user- such as recroaticn area, open c_rre?n space, and stornae facilities. He stated that parking was provided through the re- quirement of a m_^ r n number of sraces per unit, and this, there mere certain re- quirements for landscaping, setback, and buffer zones. The Secretary also stated that bevo.nd the requirement that 250 additional square feet muFt he added to thO mi nimu n lmn:i a� d s area for each bedroom in excess of two, there was no ordinance provision aovern- ing the size of apartment units ;r the density of the number of occun- nts. He stated that one of the basic concerns voiced by the Council an:3 c:.e Commission had been the need to a«1• provision for basic amenities in given project specifically in relati.?:, to the number and size of the dwell'.-.g units. The Secretary commented further that this relationship :gas a basic issue in the City's effort:.; to provide for quality housing. He exr—rained that if the City were to provide for three or more bed- room apartments, primarily oriented to- wards family use, then it would seem desirable to incorporate more stringent densitv--related Zoning ordinance require- ments. He added that there were serious ques- tions as to whether three or more bed- room units in the R-4 and R-5 types o multiple family dwellings were desirr.:rle at all. During an extensive discussion Commis- sioner Grosshans inquired as to ore�.nance reauirements for minimum area of &.-Iling units. The Secretary responded th)% while the building cod^ is i.d make c:.__tai n general minimum provi.­.-,-:s as to -om S5.--,-.es and capacitie-- ^ : apartment ,.nits, tlicre were not pr^ : -ions relatir. the n:--fiber or size c ,•:.its to the s' ;a or d•.-aree of amen for the occu-ants. C`airmrn Jew. n stated that the basic c-,o!;tion of densit_r of multiple family ci11c11iJngs in re:-tion to the size of the site, and the .rr.ienities provided, demon- stratnd !`,,o r(*-,-:3 to adopt more restric- tivn rule i-; -idential housing require- in further. discussion, Commissioner Enacahl ";:ggested the possibility of a for:, pia +r�Ierebv the ordinance would re- Ru:re a_--. average minimum size for units iii a. (;r velopment, as well as a maximum average number of bedrooms in the de- ve:-npment. Commissioner Foreman stated that another approach might be through a rianned unit development concept whereby site and building plans for the remain- ing R-3 through R-7 zoned land in the City would be considered on its own merits, and would possibly provide for various modes of living units. Chairman Jensen stated that three specific proposals which might be con- sidered were: 1. Requirement. that there be at least on enclosed garage per unit, intended for storage pur- poses as well as for parking. 2. The minimum land area requirement for bedrooms in excess of two would be increased from that in the present ordinance; and furthermore, a specific require- ment be made as to the provision for minimum living area in the units. 3. That a "fixed coverage" concept for sites be adopted relating the maximum amount of land which could be devoted to buildings and parking purposes, thereby more precisely defining the density as well as providing for a definite minimum amount of land to be used for recreational and open space purposes. Recess: The meeting recessed at 9:30 P.M. and resumed at 9:55 P.M. Chairman Jensen asked the Secretary to review a zoning map noting the remaining undeveloped parcels throughout the City which were zoned R-3 through R-7. An extensive discussion ensued. Chairman Jensen stated that it was ap- parent from the discussion that the primary concern focused upon the R-4 and R-5 districts, and that the basic point of contention was the provision for family oriented units which had more than two bedrooms. Chairman Jensen then proceeded to poll the Commission as to the possible approach which might be taken either prohibiting or further restricting developments featuring more than two bedrooms. Com- missioner Bogucki stated that in his opinion, three or more'bedroom units should only be allowed with separate restrictive standards. Commissioner Foreman stated that he could not see any legal way in which large multiple bed- room units could be prohibited, but that he would consider development of more restrictive requirements. Commissioner Gross stated that large family oriented units which involved more than two bed- rooms should be subject to more stringent requirements, and he noted the possibility of developing a special use permit concept. Commissioner Grosshans stated that he felt the requirements for developments featur- ing multiple bedroom units should be very restrictive. -3- 11/15/73 Consensus to Continue Chairman Jensen determined that it was Study and to Direct the consensus of the Commission to con- Further Data tinue the discussion and study of ordinance density requirements relative to multi-residential housing and that the Secretarl- should be directed to develop further data based on require- ments of other communities. Iction Requesting Motion by Commissioner Cross seconded by that Multi-Residential Commissioner Bogucki to recommend that Development Moratorium the City COU"cii extend the moratorium Be Extended on multi-resident=-al housing development for sixty (60) days. Chairman Jensen stated that the Ccmmission should note the Ccuncil direction that there was a need to gain bread input, namelv From the rew Housing Commission and the Neigh- borhood Advisory Groups. He then called for a vote. The motion passed unanimously. Consensus Regarding In other business it was the consensus December Meeting of the Commission that the December 6, 1973 regular- meeting should cormence at 7:30 p.1q. in consideration of the large number of agenda items. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Commissioner Foreman to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The PlanninU Commission meeting adjourn- ed at 11:25 p.M. Chai an i -4- 11/15/73 .� I MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND STATE OF MINNESOTA SPECIAL SESSION CITY HALL DECEMBER 13, 1973 Call to Order: The Planning Commission met in special session and was called to order by Chairman Robert Jensen at 8:00 P.M. Roll Call: Chairman Jensen, Commissioners Grosshans, Bogucki, Scott, and Engdahl. Also present was Director of Planning and Inspection Blair Tremere. Continued Consideratio of Chairman Jensen explained the meeting had Ordinance Multi-Resid ntial been called to discuss further the various Housing Requirement ordinance requirements relative to site and building characteristics for multi- residential housing. The Secretary presented preliminary data indicating ground coverage of buildings, parking, and general open space for various multi-residential complexes already con- structed in the City. He explained the information was subject to further re- finement and a more complete analysis would be available at the next study meeting. The Secretary also commented as to per- tinent provisions in zoning ordinances of other communities in the Metropolitan Area. Extensive discussion ensued relative to present and possible ordinance density requirements. It was the consensus that the Secretary should proceed with the analysis of existing complexes and the re- quirements of the ordinances of other communities. It was also the consensus that particular attention should be directed to possible minimum area re- quirements for dwelling units as well as minimum land area requirements. Other Business: Chairman Jensen commented that he would preside at the regular January meeting in an ex-officio status, since the meeting would be held prior to the first Council meeting of the year -- during which he would be sworn in as Councilman. Adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Bogucki, seconded by Commissioner Scott to adjourn the meeting. The mostion passed unanimously. . The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. V1; lXJ Chai . an taxing status or use potential. He stated the effort to secure a proclamation of this area as a historical site was due largely to the efforts of the Brooklyn fistorical Society and a number of community leaders. A brief dis- cussion ensued_ oratorium on Regarding the current moratorium relative to ulti-Residential an examination of ordinance requirements for Housing Development multi-residential housing development, Chairman Gross stated that discussions with the Mayor and the City Manager had concluded that a joint session between the Commissic n and the Council in the near future would be appropriate. He stated that matter would be discussed at the forthcoming Council meeting. The Secretary then distributed copies of lists denoting the current Neighborhood Groups as well as the newly established liaisons from the Commission, Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Grosshans seconded by Commissioner Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 12:30 p,m. Chairman -13- 2/7/74 I i the owner of the complex had been ordered to remove the sign a year or so ago, and ap- parently had only removed the sign itself, leaving the structure standing. He stated that he would lcok into the matter- Multi-Residential In other business chairman Gross commented Housing Moratorium as to the pending moratorium on multi- Status residential hcusing development and stated that the current moratorium period expired at the end of the month. He said the City Council would probably extend the mora- torium and set a joint meeting date With the Commission relative to possible ordinance amendments. Adjournment Motion by Commissioner Foreman seconded by commissioner Gresshans to adjourn, the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning commission meeting adjourned at 11:20 p-m. Chairman -8- 2/21/74 �, II applicant's operating license. The motion passed unanimously. Recess The meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m. and re- sumed at 9:20 p.m. Other Business: In other nosiness the Secretary and Director Cc,nceptual Review of of Public works reviewed preliminary site and �f Application No. building plans submitted in support of Planning 74012 Commission Application No. 74012. The (Coachman, Inc.) Secretary stated that the application had not been submitted in time for thorough analysis prior to the Commission meeting, but that it was felt a conceptual review b7 the Commission was in order. He exolained that the proposed project consisted of a multi-purpose building on the corner site at the intersection of 67th Avenue North and Shingle Creek Parkway, westerly of the Johnson Control's building. He stated the plans had been submitted by the Coachman Companv of Omaha, Nebraska, and that the sub- ject site was not owned by B.C.I.P., Inc. A discussion ensued during which the Director of Public works and the Secretary noted several concerns as to the design of the site and they noted a number of recommendations which would be made at the time the plans are presented for formal review. It was the consensus of the Commission that the staff should continue its analysis and inform the applicant of the various recommendations relative to the site design and the building plans, noting particularly the aesthetics of the building exterior and site; and, further, that formal consideration of the plans should be de- ferred until a subsequent regular meeting. Other Business: In other business the Secretary commented as to Prop,sed Lot a proposed lot subdivision by metes and bounds Ss:bd.iv.is.ion description for a parcel in the 6700 block on France Avenue North. He stated the owner was in the process of securing necessary surveys and had inquired as to whether the Cora.-ission would be willing to consider an application for a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance later in the month. It was the consensus of the Commission that if the application is submitted in time for scheduling a public hearing, and the proposal is in order, it could be considered at the March study se:Sion. )r-her Business: In other business Chairman Gross appointed Con- Appc,irt Multi-Residential missioners Grosshans, Engdahl, and Horan to work Development Moratorium with the staff relative to the disposition of Sub-committee the pending moratorium on multi-residential housing developments. He commented that the Mayor had designated a Council Sub-committee to work jointly with the Planning Commission cn thiE matter as well as the review of Ordinance Horne Occupation and Special Home Occupation require- ments. He stated the Mayor had indicated a 5- 3!7!74 desire to initiate a conclusion of these matters end of the month. The Secretary stated that the staff was in the process of developing possible toproaches for both of these issues, and would be prepared to submit the proposals to the sub-committees in the near future. Adjournment: Motion by Commissioner Engdahl seconded by Co.n-nissioner Scott to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Com- mission meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. Chairman -Fi- 3/7/74 I I L L t ocher b',j5I,!E5S Secretary dLsc,.i.,:s=-d the -',Ld e.-.t i a 1 sl.at..is of the p-=-dir.,j C,7-i;,cil IncratOrl= 0!, D C- r-i pm e!.e!.t: rn-1r:1-residertial AEr;e-'r'pne;-.t :Vd !:3tod Lhat Stat-as a set rf cecorrL-ner--,73!-.. prepared f•.,.r pcesen*.at,= t;.. ..-d 7:-e He briefl-, researc'-, 1-7dicated 1:--tIe esd tc alter n 3 d i z-�t-- ict and stated, d-a r d s -z�e t fo r t.-e R fact, rz',at t-e R-3 dl--zcnict -433 -appact=-%tly ,--;;nprehended as -mAlti-resident.Lal*' merely as a -natter of cateqcniz.atior. He explained that t-he saxne c.^nt.ext that t.c.anhc6ses cr.u.ld ;-.ct -e cias5ed as standard single f-imil-.: or two v r;imil dwell:Lnq�,, c:-.;Id '-':ev literally ca C:7,-.strued, hacause cf design ana def.iriticn, as dwell-;:qs as R-4 i-.hrc-.cT'n R-7 The Secretary explaired that•. while the morator- -.n might be. C:C:ntL,-..;Ed hy t'-.&. C—rCil fcr per- aps m3nrn, tl'i3 staff was fireDared to rc-commend exempts:q R-'s from further moratorium cla----,i.fication since there were potentially a -Lmber cf pr,::p---z-,a1s 1:-N.-Civing R-3 tape de- %:eIrpments might le 1-.i:-dered. He a-70A with the developer relative ---- trie de• r-.1co.ner-t of th& parcels located at 6,-'rh a-.d which were c:rrentiv zoned R-5 r ad beer. hold. He si.ated there was a Dcssibili- v.17,e I=ind cc; .id te zcnsd to R-3 to pen-M.It wit-h tc-.v.--hc,jses a:-A that -�he appli- was a pr--�p�-sal for a ':ezcning. t-..-npfIa-;.Lz-z,.d t:rat cr-,,Id e.e develop- -3 1 tlle R-3 zccne, t:A -Onat there were certain resrr:ic*_ic:a in R-5 nhat d:id nct appi,., tc the ,R-I distract.. He sr.at.sd -'.ere was m=ra ir. con a rezcr-ir-g rf t'!,.e parcels from R-3 to R-3, JI-Cr p-,:rp--ses, a:d that Lf this shr 0.1 1--- dcre vt.e r.c-ma.1 rez-n^ing pro- ati rE s . 'ie rec,-,m-mendat.ion cf the Staff would be r--rerp. was 1,Lttie reason to restrict, throigh m-�ratc-ri'xm, furt.hec develcpment. In the R-3 zone C'�aICITIa-. GrCSI. stat.ed that it was a Ccuncil ri-iiiter as to ahcther tQ exempt R-3 from the and he stated his c::n- cerr. that the des:igrated CTrwnittee be pre- s-r.tel -4.ith stafL re_cmmer-d=ttie!i, Mr.Lor ts the ;-.ext Planninq CC•Mmission st'.Idy Meeting so that 1-'.Iav cn•--Id de-,•r-lcp a pcsit.io rte asked that Pi---er::e =.jr- c-:, t*- ccmmi-ttee 5c L- rrc.,Tr;rIe an•.• r:.ech:..;cal advice --rich might b'_ --tF--eded i t:t-..e a rcl-Atectural field. Ad 1-,t'.-.InfRn 1; b/ CcTi:m;L-z;siorer Grosshans seccnded b•• cc-ami-:;sicrer per-e�man to adinun% Oie meetina. ,rhe r.ctic.r. pa--.,sod un-ar-inic-..sly. The Plannij-g Cc'p.mission meeting adir-ur::ed at t2:10 a.m. rrar. -8- 3%21/74 41:a^ac r) _-a_1 be submitted -.;rte c:-:p A _ anp.oved im- '-r.'.,z_-::ntrs, F,utc'mtide .^d ne^_cssc__ _ nd the v-ondJna sott dr_r.k4, cared.-, cigarettes and .t,':e _nci:!f " ':31 ;t?-^,° for the can- - c'.z5___. _ ' within the'principle _ '-.•?iiding �s pro idPd .. Section 35-322 of a z-rdinarces. n -inpiicabl e ^° p?=r.__ s X11 issued to the applicant as tine operator 1- the facility and shall Tree mrtion -oassed Proposed Amendment -he rep:*_ :tpn c° ix-si-:53 a'a3 a1scussion or a to Chapter 35 Relative propns:7 crdi.ne^ce a .-:.real^.=r*_ to Chapter 35 ve- to Sideyard Setbacks gardir.g side yard setback standards. The Secre,ar-,* cc-^m--rated _ . n ->avested opinion From T:`e C-t'- rt_.rree` ;,,A^ rct Vet a.railaole and suggested that =:-.P -ratter i:P deferred to the =t:%d - n.nPti n.+ FC:­d':!ed "-.. ;-,n 23rd. ther Business: ;., of}•er was�r.Fs= _. $?clr.t.>.r; stated t�-at re- ilti-residential is ze .c the lti- .F=�d� z'•. development Dratorium Stud,! ,d i•nc ::=71,I ttee consisting c_ _..__:....-_.. 7;_-,..-,e:. red .._ _r and Ccr�iss__.ers met ,_. .San 9th_ nd =d cc::sider-7d _ r_ 3_n teco-rmenda Ions __ dent ir_- ^rc i_io^s in the R-4 through !�.nt •Cts. fin stated that further data and .7':C1._.._n daticn5 tnaz review would be at the -n 23rd. Discussion or t,,siness th—z C irector . - public works Walkway Network ._n? status Of tl,e? c. ty's walkway net- ;or: p_ogram and noted partic,ilarly certain areas ad ^t yet been cr,, sr cted according to :pcaise of zn-c_ ..._ _ticn „_iced 13y c.d rFSid _ntc. ^u_ng a _. yew =r,or': proposal aakAd r.-.e ^r¢nissicnvfor -mier,ts rrt,rg ,..,..t ^!is -)riginal -.a:kwav :otwr)i;, read been genernt,-?a b•,• the Planning .•.^.lmissinn and had been dt-v^lc•ped thrcudh par __ ._:c_. _.�__ Ccn•Tic_; c: - iveiGb`ac:.:cnd �! it;t•.g a brief t____airman prc tem ;r�ssha-a po. led the ,.c. , •sic r, and Co-rmissicner Fierce stated t"at the waikwav ner.work :Rhc•:.ld be finish-d accordinq to the approved plan. Ccm- mLSSicner Scott stated sh-_ agreed and t'.at the work _::culd proceed as approved, :.ut mat consid- eration should be gi,•cn to certain additions tirouq-out the City to proride better irtercon -.ect.c.. of the network. Commissioner Horan stated -�- 5/16/74 READILY PERISHABLE FOOD FLEET Community Emergency Assist. Program 4111 - 71st Ave. Servcmatien 4301 - 68th Ave. SPECIAL FOOD HANDLERS LICENSE Ideal Drug Store 5740 Morgan Ave. LaBelle°s Dist. 5925 Earle Brown Dr. Voting in,favor were: Mayor Cohen. Cc-incilmen Britts, Fignar, K-,:efler and Jensen. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimo,:sly. Approving Claim The City Manager next described a s_t::ation wherein a Br-ckiyn Center policeman sustained a destroyed battery in his private automobile in attempting to assist feilcw officers in starting a police vehicle in Order to respond to an emergency call. the Manager referred to a recommendation from the Director of Finance to the effect that the prorated value of the battery was S;7.50 and payment cf a claim to that extent was recommended. Mctlsn by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Council- man Jensen to approve the claim cf Patrolman Weeks for one damaged battery at a cost of $17.50. Voting in favor were: Maycr Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Fignar, Kuefler and Jensen. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Ad Hoc Committee to Mayor Cohen then stated that he has consulted with Make Recommendations Mr. Cari Gross, Chairman of the Planning Commission, in Terms of the Multi- t� eszabllish an ad hoc committee made up of members of residential Moratorium he Planning Commission and the City Council to inves- and the Home Occupation _'g_te and mace recommendations in terms of the home Definition cce,_pa:_n definition and the multi-residential moratorium. He stated that he has appointed Councilman Kuefler and Cc;:n c,_:;an Jensen to the ad hcc committee. He ccmmentec that Mr. Gross has appointed himself, Commissioner Fcr=ma.~.: and Commissioner Pierce :c tie ad hoc committee from the Planning Commission. Extension of the Multi- Mct_.n by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman residential Moratorium Jansen tc extend the multi-residential moratorium through Marc :974. .Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Ccuno:linen Britts, Fignar, Kuefler and Jensen. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously. Service Station Congestion ire City Manager next discussed the service station congestion problem which seems to be deveioping in Brock?yn Center. He stated that the staff is reviewing the situation in terms of traffic patterns and will make recommendations to the City Council in the near future as to some type of traffic plan which can be instigated if the congestion problem increases. -20- 2-25-74 Umbrella Liability The City Manager next discussed the need for the purchase I nsurance of umbrella liability insurance for those liability claims in excess of the limits of the City's present coverage or in an area not covered by the City's liability insurance. He recommended a $1,000,000, $10,000 deductible, three-year policy effective April 1, 1974. He stated that the Director of Finance had sought quotations and recom- mended a proposal costing $2,325 per year. Motion by Councilman Britts and seconded by Councilman Kuefler to authorize the purchase of a $1,000,000 umbrella liability insurance policy from Employers Reinsurance Corporation for a three-year period effective April 1, 1974. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen,-Councilmen Br:tts, Fignar and Kuefler. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Licenses Motion by Councilman Fignar and seconded by Councilman Britts to approve the following licenses: FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE. Marc's Big Boy 5440 Brooklyn Blvd. Rog & Jim's Superette 6912 Brooklyn Blvd. GARBAGE AND REFUSE COLLECTION VEHICLE LICENSE Edina Morningside San., Inc. Route 1, Gypsy Lane ITINERANT FOOD ESTABLISHMENT LICENSE Coffee Time fsr Velie Olds 6700 Brooklyn Blvd. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Fignar and Kuefler. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Multi-residential The City Manager then informed the City Council that the Mora+crium multi-residential moratorium expires at the end of March. He also noted that the moratorium involves R3 through R7 zoning districts and questioned the purpose of a mcra- torium on R3 properties. He recommended that the moratorium against R4 through R7 development be extended for 60 days, R3 development to be excluded from the moratorium. A lengthy discussion ensued relative to the extension of the moratorium. Councilman Britts questioned the recom- mended exclusion of the R3 zone from the moratorium. Mayor Cohen commented that his concern had been in terms of the R5 zone and not the multi-residential nature of R3. Motion by Councilman Kuefler and seconded by Councilman Fignar to extend the moratorium against R4 through R7 development for 60 days. Voting in favor were: Mayor Cohen, Councilmen Britts, Fignar and Kuefler. Voting against: none. The motion passed. -6- 3-25-74 "he mct.cn the ad--pi ion!on ci t:a .-',rainance wa dL'T; tz-accndad by --amber and Up= bet-a t3kan "3rac.,r., t",a vc7--.i -�r favcr :"rtr:!cf: Phil!,- Cohan, MaLr!cze Brlltt.�, Kua-fler, t3-*"I F!a-ar and Rcbert Jansen, a7.-- t;-a x-.nted iqain--t .:;-a 3me: -one, whare-=,-n --ndfnance ,vas 6eci3red duly passed and 3'dcpt3d. Mcticn bv Cc--n-c!"man Br'.+t3 and by ORDINANCE Kuaflar+ offer icr f-r-zt reaa--.� First Reading c ir5in3no-a amanding Chapter 3 ra-*Rtf.1-3 'z L!nz"r''-31 Circuitry Fees. Voting in favcr warn: Mi-.-cr Cohan, Br!ttz, K-eflar, dai-! zl: ncna. the :nctcn -.:nsn :ncusiy. C*t*; Manacar-ext ­r . . ::ia -n-T 37: Ordinance Amendment -i7ne-ndmen: to Chapter 3,i cf t-a %5r::aw. reiatIve Relative to Multiple —�- %a tiwall!ng and ar?a lnt3d Dwelling Land Area -it tl-a Qrcl-arcs is re=r7.ar--`pd .r-- Standards-na c--: -38tanl!sh--q new stardardz, 9iraa stand3rds for R4, RS, RE, ind n Ha -3ted .'3t tis c.-d!nsrca ani" p-c-duct cf the Fl-arm.1na CCr-=..13z-1C7"%v-lt'-, "I zj C: 3 CC=7n-'tt3q v-:-'nz tna mcratc:-�---:r, par!cd. ne D!ractcr of P!arni-c 3n-,-4 --aja- atic:-n tc the Mty -cunc:, _and arpa -nandards as thav sx! ;t 3 z=di nance end how the raw or -'nanz3 5:n would 3Z4.9 ect, the req7z!rements. Mc-ticn by Cc-==111= Ku-a--:1'er anZ '-:!,--n--Z b-v CRDINTANCE .I.3 3 en to c-*-ar Lr t t r�az First Reading a n m-j.-S-.g Chapter 313 rs� dwellf-q land area st3rdard2. iw:'or v-ars: Mayor Cjh--gn, Ccurcilmqn Britt-z, Ffqnar Voting againat: none. -a C4t,/ Manager rext :- an c --'- 4i'n1-c which Animal Control we .'d amand Chapter I re."13tiva to an-,ms! ccntrci. He Ordinance stated that the prcpc.-al wcuid tntu, ext3t!ng an2,7.31 zcntrci ordinance and clar-14-,7 and n,rc c p ; t at tha d-ure-zi presa�-,-"y empicyac. -1 o crainancs uqqrr.3ul !G based recom- mzjndstSc:*s frcm Brccklyr Ca-.Br',- ',--alth depart=ant and prevail---c char A lenq- y ens".;ad and `.he effactr carts= wouid �.,eve c-n cllt!zanz: -In Brcckllyn Ctn-ntx. Inter- 9:3t wac vcicad by Ccunclliman to Soct-'cn I-IC6 (2) we.1-c1 3rlma13 w-7-h!r an ownev!3 dwe-'4:-'-,; A discuosion 'r7u-nd dur!ng whilth cther con::s-rr.:; -.,/ir- axpr?r-sad -Bbo:".t tha �-3e=,Inqly rez,+r!:;1,.'vs tno Faction. 7-8-74 j6 I (b) The fee f.r circuits s:tall be $4 plus the computed amount; is -Lallat_ions of, additions to, alterations of or repairs of each circuit or sub-feeder shall be computed separately, including circuits fed from sub-foeders and including the equipment served, except as provided for in Items (c) through (h), In the case of services in excess of 230 volts, the fcllowing fee amounts shall be doubled. Section 2: This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thir;v (30) days following its legal publica- tion. Adopted this 5th day of Auaust; 1974. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member reny Kuefler, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Maurice Britt, Tony Kuefler and Robert Jensen; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. Member Maurice Britts introduced the following ordinance ORDINANCE and moved its adoption: NO. 74-17 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO MINIMUM LAND AREA REQUIREMENTS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 35-400 (1) is hereby amended to read as follows: (1) In the case of residential uses, the minimum land area shall apply to each dwelling unit, [except that such minimum land area shall be reduced by 25 per cent in the case of efficiency units,] [No more than 10 per cent of the total number of dwelling units in a multiple dwelling may be efficiency units..] [The minimum land area] and shall be computed and adjusted as follows: (a) [For each required parking stall in or under a multiple residence cr otherwise completely underground, subtract 500 Square feet from the required total minimum land area.] Computation of the maximum number of units on a proposed s to in the R-4 R-5, R-6 and R-7 Districts shall be axchisive of the aggregate area of all Yard setbacks abutting streets as required by the Zoning Ordinance for ^aid -:te (b) [For each bedroom in excess of two in any one multiple family dwelling unit, add 250 square feet to the required total minimum land area.] The minimum land area required per unit mall bp. reduced by 250 square feet per efficiency 'Ant n a multiple family dwelling; and no more than 10 per c,„nt cf •he units in such a dwelling may be efficiency unit-.. 8-5-74 -6- Section 2: Section 35-400 (1) (c) is hereby designated as Section 35-400 (1) (e).. Section 3: Section 35-400 (1) is hereby amended by the addition of the following: (c) The required total minimum land area may be reduced 500 square feet for each required parking stall in or under a multiple residence or otherwise com- pletely underground. (d) The required total minimum land area shall be increased 250 square feet for each bedroom in excess of two in any one multiple family dwelling unit, and no more than 10 per cent of the units in any multiple dwelling shall have more than two bedrooms. Section 4: This ordinance.shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this 5th day of August, 1974. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing ordinance was duly seconded by member:Robert Jensen,-and upon vote being taken thereon-,.the following-voted in favor thereof: Philip Cohen, Mauride.Britts,.Tony Kuefler and Robert Jensen; and the following voted against the same: none, whereupon said ordinance was declared duly passed and adopted. ORDINANCE Member Robert Jensen introduced the following ordinance NO. 74-18 and moved its adoption: THE REPEAL OF AN ORDINANCE GRANTING TO NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, PERMISSION TO CON- STRUCT,OPERATE, REPAIR AND MAINTAIN, IN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA, AN ELECTRIC DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM AND TRANSMISSION LINES, INCLUDING NECESSARY POLES, POLE LINES, AND FIXTURES AND APPURTENANCES; FOR THE FURNISHING OF ELECTRIC ENERGY TO THE CITY AND ITS INHABITANTS, AND OTHERS, AND TO USE THE STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PUBLIC WAYS OF SAID CITY FOR SUCH PURPOSES; PRE- SCRIBING CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS THEREOF,. AND PRESCRIBING THE RATES TO.BE CHARGED THEREFOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Chapter 9 of the City Ordinances is hereby repealed as follows: [Section 9-201 through Section 9-228.1 Section 2: This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this 5th day of August, 1974. -7- 8-5-74 i • EXCERPTS FROM: Mismatches Between Supply and Demand Rental Housing in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and from: Housing Markets In 2000 and from: The Brooklyn Center Housing Market: A Study of Trends and their Impact on the Community li -- For households with incomes under $8,000, the situation was even worse, with 23 times as many of these households paying more than 50 percent in ,rent than there were vacant units affordable to them in 1985. -- The number of vacant units affordable to households with incomes below 50 percent of the area median fell 42 percent between 1980 and 1985. For more well-to-do renters, this situation was reversed, with far more vacancies than renters with excessive rent burdens. -- The number of vacant units in the highest cost bracket (rents over $800) rose from less than 400 units in 1980 to nearly 10,000 units in 1985. -- At the same time, virtually no households in this income range were bearing excessive rent burdens. -- Multifamily housing construction since .1985 has put over 30,000 new units on the market. Construction costs suggest that most of these units must have fairly high rents. (A typical one-bedroom unit with modest amenities would have to rent for $500 to meet costs.) SIZE One of the most crucial problems for many renter households with low incomes is finding a unit of the appropriate size that the household can afford. Very often the household faces a tradeoff between overcrowding and excessive rent burden. This is especially true of large households. -- In 1980, there were 1.6 households with five or more people (large household) for each unit with four or more bedrooms (large unit) in the Metropolitan Area. By 1985, that ratio had increased to 2.0 households for each unit. -- During this time the number of large renter households increased by 25 percent and medium households increased by 35 percent, while small renter households decreased slightly. These figures do not take into account the fact that large units are generally more expensive than small ones and thus out of reach of many households with low incomes. They also do not reflect that small households, especially those with higher incomes, may choose to rent large units. Thus, the problem faced by.large renter households with low incomes is understated here. LOCATION The location of units available to households with low incomes is also an important element of the rental housing market. High vacancy rates in some parts of the Metropolitan Area and low rates in others tend to be masked by area-wide vacancy rates. -- In 1988, the Metropolitan Area as a whole had a vacancy rate of 6.3 percent, or somewhat higher than the six percent rate generally considered healthy for multifamily housing. 3 I i HOUSEHOLD SIZE In 1980, a large percentage of renter households were small, compared to the percentage of small owner households. Between 1980 and 1985, the percentage of medium and large renter households increased, creating a heavier demand for larger rental units. SIZE CATEGORIES The number of rooms needed by households of various sizes depends partly on the makeup of the household. Four unrelated individuals sharing a household would need four separate bedrooms. A husband and wife with two daughters would need only two. A single mother with a teenaged son and a teenaged daughter could need three.3 The number of rooms also depends on the household's income. A married couple with two incomes may choose a two- or three-bedroom apartment, although they technically need only one bedroom for privacy. Thus, the number of large apartments that exists does not necessarily correlate with the number of large renter households that are housed in them. A combination of these factors makes it impossible to match household size to unit size directly. In this report, both households and units are categorized . as small, medium, or large to all w some comparison of general supply and demand for different-sized units. 1980 In 1980, renters tended to have smaller households than owners did. (See Table 9 and Figures 11 and 12.) Nearly 80 percent of renters and only 44 percent of owners had only one or two people in the household. The two central cities had the highest percentages of small renter households. Eighty-two percent of Minneapolis' renter households were small, as were 79 percent of St. Paul's. Suburban Hennepin and Ramsey counties had substantially higher percentages of small households than did the remaining counties: 78 percent in suburban Hennepin and 76 percent in suburban Ramsey. In the remaining counties, between 64 and 71 percent of renter households were small. 3HUD guidelines stipulate that to maintain privacy standards, different-sex children over the age of seven may require separate bedrooms in some cases. Approximately four percent of Minneapolis and St. Paul renter households had five or more people in 1980. Suburban Hennepin and Ramsey counties had an even smaller percentage of large renter households, with around three percent. The remaining counties tended-to have larger households, with between five and eight percent of the renter households in this range. 4This report groups units with zero or one bedroom as small, units with two or three bedrooms as medium, and units with four or more bedrooms as large. 31 I 1985 By 1985, renters still had smaller households than owners did, but their need for medium and large units increased. During this period, the proportion of medium and large renter households in the five county area rose substantially. The overall number of renter households rose seven percent during this period. The number of small renter households increased only 0. 1 percent, while medium ones increased 35 percent and large ones increased 25 percent. The percent of medium renter households increased in all of the counties except Washington, where there was a slight drop. The percentage of large households increased substantially in Anoka, Ramsey and Washington but fell in Dakota and Hennepin counties. I 32 I SUPPLY OVERVIEW This section of the report presents data about rental housing units in the Metropolitan Area. It covers information about number of units, geographic location, cost, size, vacancies, and public subsidies. This information will be compared with the demand for rental housing in the third section of the report. The rental housing stock in the Metropolitan Area grew by five percent between 1980 and 1985, from just over 246,000 units to over 257,000 units. Dakota County experienced the highest growth rate, increasing its stock by one-quarter during this period, while Minneapolis lost nearly 4,000 units. By 1987, however, growth rates shot up throughout the. area. Between 1985 and 1987, over 20,000 units were added to the stock, bringing the total to nearly 278,000 units in the Metropolitan Area. With this surge in rental housing development, all parts of the Metropolitan Area except the two central cities experienced growth rates in the double digits between 1980 and 1987, for an overall growth rate of 13 percent. The bulk of the units produced during this expansion were in the higher cost ranges. The percent of high-cost units rose by nine percentage points between 1980 and 1985, while medium-cost units declined by the same amount, and low- cost units just held steady. Typical production costs in 1988 suggest that the units added in the surge of production since 1985 have probably been in the higher cost ranges as well. Over half of the rental units in the Metropolitan Area in 1980 were small, while only two percent were large. The small units were concentrated in the two central cities. Hennepin and Ramsey counties had the smallest percentages of large rental units. Between 1980 and 1985, the percentage of medium units rose to account for over one-half of the area's rental units. The percentage of small units decreased during this period, while the percentage of large units remained steady. Dakota and Washington counties experienced the greatest change, with the percentage of medium units increasing rapidly. Multifamily housing vacancy rates in the Metropolitan Area rose from 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 1980 to 6.3 percent in 1988. A six-percent multifamily.vacancy rate is generally considered healthy. Thus the 1988 vacancy rate for the area was at the upper edge of a tenant-to-unit ratio that provides a good selection of units for households wishing to move, while not burdening owners with excessive vacancy losses. The counties varied substantially in their vacancy rates, however, with Scott, Anoka and Hennepin counties all exceeding the healthy six-percent figure and Washington and Dakota counties with only three-percent of their multifamily units vacant. Units of various sizes and costs experienced very different vacancy rates. Low-cost units and large units tended to have the lowest number of vacancies. Small units and high-cost .units, on the other hand, tended to have higher numbers of vacancies. 44 UNIT SIZE In 1980, over half of the rental units in the Metropolitan Area were small. Of these, 60 percent were in the two central cities. Medium units made up 45 percent of the rental units, while less than three percent of the units were large. Hennepin and Ramsey counties had the lowest percentages of large units in the Metropolitan Area. Between 1980 and 1985, these figures shifted somewhat. The percentage of small units fell nearly seven percentage points, while the percentage of medium units rose by the same amount. Large units held steady at between two and three percent. 1980 In 1980, over half of the rental units in the Metropolitan Area were small, 45 percent were medium and only three percent were large. (See Table 22 and Figures 19 and 20.) The two central cities had the largest percentages of small units. In Minneapolis, 62 percent of the rental units were small, and in St. Paul, 57 percent were. In the other counties, small units only accounted j for between 30 and 40 percent of the rental units. In Minneapolis, 36 percent of the units were medium, and in St. Paul, 41 percent were. In the rest of the counties, medium units accounted for between • 54 and 63 percent of the rental units. Minneapolis and St. Paul had the + smallest percentages of large units, with only two percent of their units in this size range. In the remaining counties, large units made up between three and eight percent of the rental housing stock. 1985 Between 1980 and 1985, this distribution altered slightly. In the five-county area, small units fell six percentage points, from 53 to 47 percent of all units. Medium units rose seven percentage points, from 44 to 51 percent. Large units remained at two percent of the rental housing stock. The greatest shifts in distribution occurred in Dakota and Washington counties. In Dakota, small units fell by 19 percentage points, while medium units rose by 18 percentage points. Anoka experienced the same type of shift-- its small units decreasing by 13 percentage points, and its medium units increasing by the same amount. Only Anoka -County experienced growth in its percentage of large units, rising four percentage points, from three to seven percent of the county's rental units. The rest of the counties fell slightly or remained the same. 52 . II Table 22 HOUSING UNITS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS RENTER- AND OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1980 AND 1985 Small Medium Large County 0-1 BR % 2-3 BR % 4+ BR % TOTAL 1980 Anoka Owner: 1,145 2.3% 35,339 72.2% 12,442 25.4% 48,926 Renter: 4,672 39.6 61741 57.2 377 3.2 11,790 Carver Owner: 273 2.9 69342 67.7 2,752 29.4 9,367 Renter: 969 36.6 1,460 55.2 215 8.1 21644 Dakota Owner: 1,320 2.8 33,134 69.5 13,204 27.7 47,658 Renter: 6,853 41.7 81914 54.3 659 4.0 16,426 Hennepin Owner: 10,843 4.8 160,503 70.6 55,941 24.6 227,287 Renter: 77,552 56.1 57,706 41.7 2,989 2.2 138,247 Minneapolis Owner: 6,066 7.6 59,590 74.8 13,994 17.6 79,650 . Renter: 50,911 61 .9 29,555 36.0 1,742 2.1 82,208 Suburbs Owner: 4,777 3.2 100,913 68.4 41,947 28.4 147,637 Renter: 26,641 47.5 28,151 50.2 1,247 2.2 56,039 Ramsey Owner: 4,600 4.4 77,445 73.5 23,313 22.1 105,358 Renter: 35,340 54.2 28,534 43.8 1,273 2.0 65,147 St. Paul Owner: 3,186 5.4 449361 74.9 11,668 19.7 59,215 Renter: 26,654 56.7 19,382 41.2 972 2.1 47,008 Suburbs Owner: 1,414 3.1 33,084 71.7 11,645 25.2 46,143 Renter: 8,686 47.9 9,152 50.5 301 1.7 18,139 Scott Owner: 354 3.3 7,317 67.3 3,197 29.4 10,868 Renter: 793 30.1 1,666 63.3 174 6.6 2,633 Washington - Owner: 1,061 3.6 209175 68.7 8,114 27.6 29,350 Renter: 21095 36.6 3,318 57.9 318 5.5 5,731 7-COUNTY TOTAL Owner: 19,596 4.1% 340,255 71.1% 118,963 24.8% 478,814 Renter: 128,274 52._9 108039 44.7 6,005 2.5 242,618 5-COUNTY TOTAL Owner: 18,969 4.1 326,596 71.2 113014 24.6 458,579 Renter: 126,512 53.3 105,213 44.3 59616 2.4 237,341 53 r i Table 22 (Cont.) HOUSING UNITS BY NUMBER' OF BEDROOMS TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1980 AND 1985 Small Medium Large County 0-1 BR p 2-3 BR A 4+ BR p TOTAL 1985 Anoka Owner: 2,083 3.5% 45,351 76.6% 11,754 19.9% 59,188 Renter: 4,883 35.2 8,059 58. 1 940 6.8 13,882 Dakota Owner: 161 0.3 40,803 72.2 15,535 27.5 56,499 Renter: 4,649 22.8 14,716 72.0 1,066 5.2 20,431 Hennepin Owner: 9,717 3.8 182,616 72.2 60,520 23.9 252,853 Renter: 75,128 52.4 66,106 46.1 2,038 1 .4 143,272 Ramsey Owner: 4,586 4.0 85,884 75.5 23,317 20.5 113,787 Renter: 31,897 46.9 34,948 51.4 1, 191 1 .8 68,036 Washington Owner: 1,817 5.7 23,001 71.6 7,305 22.7 32,123 Renter: 2, 122 23.6 6,413 71.3 458 5.1 8,993 5-COUNTY TOTAL Owner: 18,364 3.6% 377,655 73.4% 118,431 23.0% 514,450 Renter: 118,679 46.6 130,242 51.2 5,693 2.2 254,614 Sources: 1980 Census and 1985 American Housing Survey. 54 AWWW Figure 19 NUMBER OF RENTAL UNITS BY SIZE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1980 AND 1985 160.000 140.000 m: Large 120.000- 0 Medium 100.000 ®Small 60.000 z 60.000 40.000 20.000 0 Anoka Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Washington : 1 80 Census and 1 8 American Housing Survey. Sources 9 9 5 ng Figure 20 PERCENT OF RENTAL UNITS BY SIZE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1980 AND 1985 too ®Large 60 0 Medium ®Small 60 z W W ... .... ... .... .... .... a 40 20 0 Anoka Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Washington Sources: 1980 Census and 1985 American Housing Survey. 55 VACANCIES Vacancy rates since 1980 have been influenced by a wide variety of factors, some of them economic, and some demographic. The high interest rates of the early 1980s suppressed construction. As the interest rates fell after 1982, a great deal of construction occurred, adding rental units. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 provided large tax incentives for developing multifamily housing. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 signaled the end of the 1981 incentives and spurred intensive development efforts at the end of 1985. These factors combined to produce growth in the production of multifamily housing through 1988. At the same time, demographic shifts were beginning to be felt in the area. The baby-boom generation, which for many years had fueled the multifamily market, had moved into what are typically the homeownership years, leaving multifamily demand to the smaller baby-bust generation. The combined result was an increase in the multifamily vacancy rate, from 4.6 percent in the first quarter of 1980 to 6.3 percent in 1988. This rate varied substantially, depending on unit size, unit cost and location. In general, i smaller and higher-cost units had more vacancies than did larger and lower-cost units. By 1988, Hennepin, Scott and Anoka counties faced vacancy rates higher than the six-percent rate that is considered healthy for multifamily housing. VACANCY RATES 1980 ' In 1980, the overall vacancy rate for rental housing in the five-county area was 4.2 percent, but this rate varied by county. The vacancy rates in suburban Hennepin and suburban Ramsey counties were the lowest in the Metropolitan Area, with rates of 3.7 and 3.12 respectively. (See Table 23 and Figure 21.) These rates were well below the six-percent rate considered healthy for multifamily housing. Washington County, on the other hand, had a vacancy rate of nearly nine percent. 8Vacancy rates for counties can also fluctuate widely depending on new construction activity in the area. One large new project that has just begun to lease its units can raise the vacancy rate substantially, especially in a small county. 56 Figure 22 VACANCY RATE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1980 TO 1988 7 6 5 W N = 4- U 2 Q3 U Q 2 1 0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Source: Metropolitan Council. Vacancy Rates by Cost and Size In general, low-cost units had the lowest vacancy rates in 1980, medium-cost units had medium vacancy rates, and high-cost units had the highest vacancy rates. Only in Minneapolis were vacancy rates highest for low-cost units, a situation that pulled vacancy rates for Hennepin County and for the five- county area up. Even in Minneapolis, the multifamily vacancy rate was only six percent, a rate considered healthy for multifamily housing. In no case was the vacancy rate for low-cost units over six percent, and except in Hennepin and Washington counties, it was substantially lower than that. (See Table 25.) High vacancies among Minneapolis low-cost units could stem from several causes. For example, Minneapolis has a high percentage of efficiency units, which are often less expensive than other units but can also be too small to meet the needs of many low-income households. It is also likely that many of the least expensive units in Minneapolis were in the poorest condition and in the worst neighborhoods. These factors might have discouraged even the poorest households from renting these units driving up the vacancy rate among low-cost units in that part of the region. Except in Anoka and Ramsey counties, large units had the smallest vacancy rates. In Dakota and Washington counties in particular, vacancy rates for large units were far lower than for medium or small units. (See Table 26.) Anoka County had a large-unit vacancy rate of 10 percent. In Ramsey County, that rate was just over six percent. 59 Table 26 VACANCY RATE BY SIZE OF UNIT TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1980 Total # of # of Vacant Vacancy County Units Units Rate Anoka Small 4,826 154 3.2% Medium 7,038 297 4.2 Large 420 43 10.2 Dakota Small 7045 292 4.1 Medium 9,443 529 5.6 Large 670 11 1.6 Hennepin Small 802856 39304 4.1 Medium 59,953 2,247 3.7 Large 3,086 97 3.1 Minneapolis Small 53,293 2,382 4.5 Medium 30,673 12118 3.6 Large 1,798 56 3.1 Suburbs Small 27,563 922 3.3 Medium 29,280 1,129 3.9 Large 1,288 41 3.2 R_amsey Small 36,446 1,106 3.0 Medium 29,961 1,427 4.8 Large 19,358 85 6.3 St. Paul Small 27,533 879 3.2 Medium 20,487 1,105 5.4 Large 1,039 67 6.4 Suburbs Small 89913 227 2.5 Medium 9,474 322 3.4 Large 319 18 5.6 Washington - Small 2,317 222 9.6 Medium 3,589 271 7.6 Large 329 11 3.3 TOTAL Small 1319590 5,078 3.9% Medium 109,984 4,771 4.3 Large 5,863 247 4.2 Source: 1980 Census. 61 • • it • , NUMBER OF VACANCIES Number of Vacancies by Unit Size Half of the vacant units in the Metropolitan Area in 1980 were small, just under half were medium and two percent were large. In most of the counties, however, vacancies were spread differently. In most, medium units made up the largest percentage of vacancies and between a third and two-fifths were small. (See Table 27 and Figure 23.) In most of the counties, only 30 to 45 percent of the vacant units were small and more than half were medium. In Minneapolis, however, 67 percent of the vacant units were small. Minneapolis had such a large percentage of the area's total number of rental units that it pulled the percentage of small vacant units for the area up over 50 percent. Minneapolis also had the smallest percentage of medium units, pulling that percentage down below 50 percent, despite the fact that vacancies in medium units in all the other counties were between 54 and 64 percent. In nearly all counties, three percent or less of the vacant units were large. Anoka was the exception, with nine percent of its vacant units in the large category. In Dakota County, only one percent of the vacant units were large, and in Minneapolis, less than two percent were. • 62 I 1 4 • Table 27 NUMBER OF VACANCIES BY SIZE OF UNIT TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1980 Count Small Medium Large 0-1 BR 2-3 BR 4+ BR TOTAL p # % Anoka 154 31.2% 297 60.1% 43 8.7% 494 Dakota 292 35.1 Hennepin 3,304 529 63'6 11 1 .3 832 58.5 2,247 39.8 97 1.7 5,648 Minneapolis 2,382 67.0 1,118 31.4 Suburbs 922 44. 1 1,129 54.0 56 1 .6 3,556 Ramsey 1,106 42.2 1,427 54.5 85 3.2 2'698 St. Paul 879 42. Suburbs 9 1,105 53.9 67 3.3 2,051 227 40.0 322 56.8 18 3.2 X567 Washington 222 44.0 271 53.8 11 2.2 504 5-COUNTY TOTAL 5,078 50.3% 4,771 47.3% 247 2.4% 10,096 Source: 1980 Census. I Figure 23 NUMBER OF VACANCIES BY SIZE OF UNIT 4,000 TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1980 3,500 3,000 ®;Smalll I E] �"'- 2,500 ® z z 2,000 a U 11% 1'500 1,000 0 Anoka Dakota Minneapolis Soburbal SL P,W Suburban Washington BOO Ramsey i Source: 1980 Census. f 63 Figure 35 RENTERS WITH INCOMES UNDER $16,000 PAYING 50%+ AND AFFORDABLE VACANT UNITS TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1980 14% i Renters who can afford a vacant unit ' t Renters who cannot afford a vacant unit 86% Sources: 1980 Census and 1985 American Housing Survey. HOUSEHOLD SIZE COMPARED WITH UNIT SIZE The sizes of renter households compared to the sizes of rental units shows a serious mismatch between the two and, in particular, a severe shortage of large units. Table 41 which compares the sizes of renter households and the sizes of rental units, illustrates this mismatch. In all counties, the number of small households exceeds the number of small units. Small households with sufficient incomes may elect to rent a medium or large unit, however, which tends to reduce the demand for small units. Problems arise in the proportion of large renter households to large rental units. Small households can choose to rent medium or large units and medium households -can choose to rent large units if they have enough income and choose to spend it that way. Large households do not have the option of renting medium or small units if they do not wish to live in overcrowded conditions. In 1980, there were one and one-half times as many, or 3,400 more, large households than there were large rental units. (See Table 42 and Figure 36.) This imbalance did not reflect other restrictions on availability, such as costs making them inaccessible to large lower-income households or the occupation of some large units by smaller households. Ramsey and Anoka counties had the highest ratios of large households to large units, each with twice as many households as units. Only in Carver County was there a sufficient number of large units to house the large households. 91 Table 41 HOUSEHOLD SIZE AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS , AS A PERCENT OF ALL RENTAL UNITS TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1980 County Small Medium Large Anoka Units: 49672 39.6% 6,741 57.2% 377 2.5% Households: 7,874 66.8 3,173 26.9 743 6.3 Carver Units: 969 36.6 11460 55.2 215 8.1 Households: 1,893 69.6 638 24.1 167 6.3 Dakota Units: 69853 41.7 89914 42.7 659 4.0 Households: 11,707 71.2 3:976 24.2 757 4.6 Hennepin Units: 77,552 56.1 57,706 41.7 2,989 2.2 Households: 111,364 80.6 22,353 16.2 4,537 3.3 Minneapolis Units: 509911 61.9 29,555 36.0 11742 2.1 Households: 67,487 82.1 11,716 14.3 3,005 3.7 Suburbs • Units: 269641 47.5 28,151 50.2 11247 2.2 Households: 43,877 78.3 10,637 19.0 11532 2.7 Ramsey Units: 35040 54.2 28,534 43.8 11273 2.0 Households: 51,362 78.8 11,181 17.2 2,604 4.0 St. Paul Units: 26,654 . 56.7 19,382 41.2 972 2.1 Households: 37,565 79.9 71411 15.8 2032 4.3 Suburbs Units: 81686 47.9 9052 50.5 301 1.7 Households: 13,797 76.1 3,770 20.8 572 3.2 Scott Units: 793 30.1 19666 63.3 174 6.6 Households: 1,694 64.3 719 27.3 220 8.4 Washington Units: 29095 36.6 3018 57.9 318 5.5 Households: 3,825 66.5 . 1,528 26.5 403 7.0 TOTAL Units: 1289274 52.9% 1089339 44.7% 69005 2.5% Households: 1899719 78.2 439568 18.0 91431 3.9 Source: 1980 Census. 92 • Table 42 RATIO OF LARGE HOUSEHOLDS TO LARGE UNITS TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA 1980 AND 1985 Ratio of # of Large # of Large Households County Households Units to Units 1980 Anoka 743 377 2.0 Carver 167 215 .8 Dakota 757 659 1.1 Hennepin 4,537 2,989 1.5 Minneapolis 3,005 1,742 1.7 Suburbs 1,532 1,247 1.2 Ramsey 2,604 1,273 2.0 St. Paul 2,032 972 2.1 Suburbs 572 301 1.9 Scott 220 174 1.3 Washington 403 318 1.3 TOTAL 99431 6,005 1.6 1985 Anoka 1,351 940 1.4 Dakota 706 1,066 0.7 Hennepin 2,857 2,038 1.4 Ramsey 5,202 1,191 4.4 Washington 1,154 458 2.5 TOTAL 11,270 5,693 2.0 Sources: 1980 Census and 1985 American Housing Survey. - l 93 Figure 36 # OF LARGE HOUSEHOLDS AND 4 OF LARGE UNITS TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA, 1980 AND 1985 6,000 El Units 5,000 ®Households 7 4,000 o z a c 3,000 J 0 =2.000 O S 1,000 0 Anoka Dakota Hennepin Ramsey Washington Sources: 1980 Census and Housing 1985 American 9 g S urvey. By 1985, the number of large units in Dakota County exceeded the number of large households. The ratio of large households to large units also had decreased in Anoka County. In Washington and Ramsey counties, however, the ratio had increased substantially. At the same time, the overall ratio for the five-county area got worse. By 1985, the Metropolitan Area had nearly 6,000 more large households than large rental units. OVERCROWDING The Census Bureau defines overcrowding as having 1.01 or more people per room. Overcrowding tended to be more prevalent in the more rural counties and in the two central cities. It also tended to correspond with high large-household-to- large-unit ratios. In 1980, St. Paul had both the worst ratio of large households to large units and the highest amount of overcrowding. Anoka County and Minneapolis also had high household-to-unit ratios and high overcrowding. In Scott County, the amount of crowding was high, even though the household-to-unit ratio was not as bad as in other counties. Suburban Ramsey County had less overcrowding, even though the household-to-unit ratio was worse than in other counties. (See Table 43.) 94 EMERGING ISSUES OVERVIEW The foregoing analysis raises questions about housing policy issues in the Metropolitan Area. While it. is beyond the scope of this report to consider these in depth, this section will present a brief discussion of issues that may deserve further consideration and policy development and implementation. The mismatches between rental housing supply and demand laid out in the third section of this report suggest that thought should be given to ways to encourage the production of more appropriately targeted rental housing. The comparison of lower-wage jobs and rental costs suggests that cities focusing on economic development, as well as the business and industry that they attract, may have a vested interest in assuring the development of affordable housing to accommodate workers with appropriate skill levels. The discussion of rent burdens and how they are distributed raises questions about the effect on the need for other services if a large portion of monthly income is eaten up by rent. If affordable housing issues are not addressed directly, the needs of those households may appear in other forms, such as food- shelf use, need for energy assistance, and children without supervision. The demographic changes also suggest that consideration needs to be given to the effects that the "baby-bust" generation, the aging of the society and the growth of minority populations will have on rental housing. At the same time, the apparent overproduction of high-cost rental housing raises the question of whether a trickle-down effect will improve housing affordability for lower-income households. Finally, all of these issues raise the question of what role the state, the Metropolitan Council, local governments, housing authorities and for-profit and nonprofit developers ought to play in planning and shaping the future of the area's housing market. MISMATCHES LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND AFFORDABLE UNITS The disparity between the number of lower-income households and the number of affordable rental units available to them is startling. Overall vacancy rates in the area might suggest that there is an adequate selection of vacant units. But metropolitan-wide vacancy rates mask the differences between counties, as well as cost and size considerations. The number of vacancies in affordable price ranges does not begin to correspond to the need faced by lower-income households. In the Metropolitan Area, over a third of all renter households pay excessive portions of their incomes for rent. Most of these households are in the lowest-income categories. The 99 number of vacant units that would be affordable to them is only a fraction of that which would be needed to allow them to move to affordable units. This means that most of these households do not have the option of reducing their rent burdens. This disparity vividly illustrates the plight of lower-income renter households and raises the issue of how the match between lower-income households and the units available to them at prices they can afford can be improved. HIGHER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND HIGH-COST UNITS The disparity between the number of high-cost units and the number of rental households with high incomes is also great, but it is beneficial, rather than damaging, to those households. The vacancy rates for higher-cost units have skyrocketed, which has spurred intense competition between apartment complexes. Some offer a month's free rent, microwaves ovens or other inducements to attract new tenants. Unfortunately, price competsiton cannot make high-cost units affordable to even medium-income households. Construction costs, as well as mortgage and operating costs, are fixed. Owners cannot lower rents below what it costs them to operate the facility. While construction creates jobs and boosts the economy and new rental property can increase a city's tax base, vacant units are bad for owners and can detract from neighborhood quality. Attention needs to be paid to the potential effects of high vacancies on new buildings seeking tenants, and on old buildings that may lose tenants to the newer buildings. In either case, owners of buildings with high vacancy rates may face mortgage foreclosures if they are unable to meet their monthly costs. This suggests there may be a need for more frequent monitoring of the rental market at the metropolitan level. It also raises questions about the best use of public financing for rental housing. LARGE UNITS AND LARGE HOUSEHOLDS The current mismatch between large households and large rental units--two large households for every large unit--is stark. Small households with high incomes can select larger units, even though it is not necessary to avoid overcrowding. Since large units already are in short supply, this makes the large-unit market even tighter. Thus large households may be forced to live in overcrowded conditions. because they cannot find affordable large units. In addition, -despite regulations that prohibit discrimination in housing, minorities and households with children face extra difficulties in obtaining rental housing. Landlords often prefer smaller households without children, and some do discriminate on the basis of race. Large households with lower incomes face even greater difficulties, since low-cost large units are extremely scarce. Although large households are a relatively small segment of the renter population, the mismatch between these households and the units available to them is especially serious: Future demographic predictions indicate that the 100 percentage of minority households will increase over the next few decades. Cultural tendencies toward larger households in some minority groups and the tendency of minority households to have lower incomes suggest that the mismatch is likely to worsen over time. This raises the issue of how to improve the correspondence between the number of large units and the households that need and can afford them. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING Many cities in the Metropolitan Area have aggressive economic development policies. They compete vigorously to attract businesses and to increase their economic bases. But with each new business that is added, more affordable housing units may be required. Lower-income households are concentrated in the two central cities. At the same time, new job creation is centered heavily in the suburbs. These new jobs require workers of various skill levels and pay widely differing wages. Businesses in the suburbs may face difficulties in attracting lower-paid workers if they must commute long distances to work in order to afford their housing. Lower-income households often cannot afford reliable cars, and public transportation usually does not serve the suburban areas in which new businesses are developing well enough for lower-income households to commute to work. For lower-income households in particular, living in a community distant from the workplace can be a major barrier to employment. This raises an issue both for city governments involved in promoting economic development and for business and industry. Each may have a vested interest in assuring that workers with appropriate skill levels can afford to live in the community. RENT BURDENS Those households that can least afford it are the ones bearing excessive rent burdens. Rent is not an optional expenditure. A householder can choose to skip meals, forgo new boots or turn down the heat, but the rent must be paid if the household is not to end up on the street. The rents lower-income households are forced to pay for their units eat up large portions of their already meager incomes. If a high-income household were forced to spend 50 percent of its income on housing, the 50 percent that remained to provide for its basic necessities would still be high, compared to the 50 percent of a low-income household's income that is left to provide for these needs. Yet it is generally not the high-income, but the low-income households that are put in this predicament. The lack of affordable housing available to lower-income households has a profound effect on the funds they have available to meet their other basic needs. To the extent that those other needs cannot be met, other subsidies are required. Clothing shelves can sometimes provide boots. Energy assistance programs can help keep the'heat on. School lunch programs can give children at least one meal. But if housing were affordable to these households, they would be better able to meet these basic needs through their own resources. 101 This raises the issue of how housing costs interact with other costs confronting lower-income households, and what this implies for costs borne by city, county, federal or private means. To the extent that a household would be able to meet its other needs if housing costs were not such a large burden, other services provided to these households might be avoided. Certainly some services would continue to be needed, but their scope might be lessened if households had more disposable income for necessities other than shelter. DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES The age distribution of the area's population is changing, and with it, the demand for different types of housing will change. Three of the changes that are likely to affect the rental housing market significantly include the coming of age of the baby-bust generation; the aging of society, resulting in a larger percentage of elderly people than ever before; and the growth in the percentage of racial and ethnic minorities in relation to the whole population. BABY-BUST GENERATION As the baby-boom generation ages, those who are owners and want to move up to larger or nicer homes must first sell their current ones. The households that will be ready to buy starter homes at that point, however, will be the baby- bust generation, and it is likely that there will not be enough of them to provide buyers for all of the baby boomers wishing to move up. The paucity of buyers is likely to force baby boomers wishing to move up to sell their first homes at highly competitive prices, lowering the cost of homeownership for baby-bust households.. This would make homeownership an attractive option to renting for more affluent baby busters, thus decreasing even further the demand for high-cost rental housing. This re-emphasizes the need to monitor production of high-cost rental housing and the mismatches in the rental market that may worsen with future demographic shifts. ELDERLY GENERATION Both the number and percent of people over age 65 have been rising rapidly and are expected to continue to do so at even faster rates as longevity increases. Many of the people who have been homeowners for most of their lives may choose to move to rental housing as they need less space and become less able to care for their property. This might imply a need for more rental housing designed for the elderly. The Metropolitan Area has the highest percentage of subsidized elderly housing of any metropolitan area in the country. Although a few inner-city subsidized highrises have had trouble with vacancies, the vast majority of subsidized elderly buildings have long waiting lists that turn over very slowly. On the other hand, the demand for market-rate elderly housing is not as great. In fact, there is so much. of this type of housing relative to the demand fact' that HUD has stopped guaranteeing loans for the production of market-rate elderly housing because it is not convinced that the units will be occupied and allow owners to make their payments. 102 The aging of existing households does not create a demand for more housing units. Although the needs of elderly households may shift, they already live somewhere, and those housing units will remain in the area's housing stock. In this situation, it is not likely that new units will be needed, but rather that existing housing units will need to be redistributed or adapted to meet new needs. This raises the question of how elderly households can most appropriately be matched with housing units that meet their needs. RACIAL AND ETHNIC MINORITIES Although people of racial and ethnic minority background make up a relatively small percentage of the area's population, they are disproportionately affected by changes in the rental housing market because they tend to be poorer and tend to rent more often than the population as a whole. This disproportionate effect is likely to grow over coming decades, because minority populations are growing much faster than the population as a whole. Because of this growth, the housing needs of minorities will come to have a larger impact on the area's rental housing market over time. Unless the cycle of minorities living in poverty at much higher rates than the population as a whole is broken, the number of poor households is likely to increase as minority populations grow. The tendency of minority households to have larger households than the population as a whole will increase the demand for larger units as the number of minority households grow. The increase of Asian households in the area and their cultural tendency toward larger, extended families will put even more pressure on the supply of larger housing units. This raises the issue of how to provide more low-cost housing units and more large units to meet the needs of a growing minority population. TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECTS It might seem plausible that in the long run, the construction of high-cost housing will provide for more available low-cost housing. As high-cost units are produced, high-income renters will move to these units, freeing up slightly lower-cost units, and so on, until eventually, low-cost units will open up to the poorest households. However, the trickle-down effect may not be making a substantial difference in low-cost housing availability. The number of vacancies in the high-cost ranges increased dramatically between 1980 and 1985. The spate of multifamily construction between 1985 and 1988 and the high construction costs for new unsubsidized units suggests that even more high-cost units have come onto the market as the vacancy rate has risen. Mortgage costs, operating costs and property taxes fix the price at which owners can afford to rent their units. If renters are unwilling to pay those prices or if too few renters have incomes that will support rents in these ranges, the units will stand vacant, as many of them do now. This raises the question of whether the trickle-down effect can help provide more affordable units to renter households. 103 ROLES FOR ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES All of the emerging issues discussed here point to the need for the state, the Metropolitan Council, local governments, housing authorities and for-profit and nonprofit developers to consider whether existing or proposed plans and programs for rental housing will meet regional needs or will simply add more units to the housing stock. If they are the wrong kinds of units--too small or too expensive--they will stand vacant and will not meet the needs of the population. There is currently an imbalance between households in need of affordable housing in the central cities and in the suburbs and the units available to them. To the extent that the central cities make an extra effort to assist these households, this polarization is likely to worsen. Given the gravity of the current housing situation for renters with low incomes, however, the answer may be not a cutback in the central cities' efforts, but an increase in suburban efforts to contribute to the solution. The costs of construction indicate that without subsidies of some kind, new units cannot be built that would be affordable to lower- or even medium-income households. The trickle-down effect may open up some units to medium-income households, but because mortgage costs and operating costs are fixed, the existing units cannot become substantially more affordable. Since the high- cost end of the spectrum already has many vacancies and this has not seemed to trigger a substantial trickle-down effect, it seems unlikely that further production of higher-cost units will do so. This suggests that all actors in the rental housing market need to consider other options. Is rehabilitation an option? Rehabilitating units that are already in use will not add to the supply of affordable housing, although it can improve the quality of existing buildings. Rehabilitating boarded-up units or units in such bad condition that they are vacant could add to the existing stock, however. Can subsidies be found? Federal subsidies are scarce in the late 1980s, but some subsidies are still available, and the new housing initiatives at the federal and state levels may provide more funds for city governments to use in providing for their lower-income populations. Can cities- themselves provide subsidies, in terms of land write-downs or other . incentives that can lower development costs? Are there ways to lower the cost of existing housing, rather than trying to produce more? Can nonprofit housing agencies provide for some community needs more effectively than either public or private for-profit organizations? What kind of assistance can they be given to do this more effectively? Creative thinking and action is needed to allow communities to provide for their residents' needs. Without it, inappropriate kinds of development can occur, leaving communities unable to provide for their current residents and those it needs to attract- as it grows. 104 • Senior Market " As noted above, the increases in the senior age group could result in higher demand for existing rental housing or for new rental or smaller ownership options requiring less maintenance than single-family homes. This housing could be designed for independent living or with services. Often desirable in planned housing for older seniors is a range of services, including transportation, meals, housecleaning, social activities and nursing care. However, this housing, with such services can be quite expensive, so other options, such as using existing rental housing, are important and necessary for persons with limited incomes. AGE OF HOUSING STOCK As the region's housing stock ages, maintenance of both owner-occupied and rental housing will become an issue in more municipalities. A weakened housing market may exacerbate problems stemming from lack of maintenance or absentee ownership. This section considers possible options for maintenance and upkeep and choices for reuse or redirection of the housing stock. - Maintaining and upgrading the stock to keep housing competitive in the marketplace. - Removing housing and rebuilding to remove blight; to meet different housing needs; and to meet needs for commercial uses. V/_ Modifying existing housing to better meet housing needs by converting apartments (for example, from smaller units to larger units); modifying apartments to provide amenities newer apartments have; and r . providing features that make it easier for older people to live in them (for example, elevators and grab bars in baths). - MEETING NEEDS OF RESIDENTS These housing market issues can also be viewed from the perspective of meeting the needs of residents. Following are some examples: - For younger residents: affordable apartments or lower-priced owner occupied housing for those who work in the community or whose parents live there. - For two-parent families with children: parks and commercial services located nearby. - For single-parent families: special housing arrangements providing common areas for joint child care arrangements and other joint activities. - For mid-life residents: owners' associations in single-family neighborhoods providing yard maintenance, snow removal and other services. - For poor residents: social services. - For older residents: arrangements that help them remain living in their single-family homes; new hous- ing or existing housing modified to meet their needs. 18 The potential problem with the attraction of low-income households to Brooklyn Center is the community's inability to serve this group. Allowing rental buildings to become lower-income housing through deferred maintenance (and LBy us, lower rents) creates substandard housing for persons with lower incomes. ' actively seeking funding and designating housing units with the unique needs low-income persons in mind, Brooklyn Center would be in a better position to rve this population. Because of the transient nature of the rental population, and the density of rental housing, problems with tenants are often more noticeable in areas with a high concentration of rental housing. Rental property managers in Brooklyn Center seemed to be in agreement that the "quality of tenant" they are seeing is not as strong as it used to be. Some buildings reported an increase in vandalism, domestic problems which disturb other tenants, and in a few cases, more serious problems such as suspected drug-relatd activity. The increase in _ the number of children in many buildings has also caught some managers/owners off guard. Most buildings have been able to deal with tenant problems by more careful screening. However, it is clear from our interviews with rental owners and managers that many are concerned about undesirable activity that is increasing in their buildings. Termination or reduction of federal tax benefits has made rental housing a less favored investment. Increased operating expenses, including high property tax payments, are obstacles to rental housing investment and lead to deferred maintenance and potential abandonment. _ The city needs to be sensitive to the concerns of rental owners/managers. The growing drug problem in the central cities has begun to spill over into many first-ring suburbs, and rental owners/managers are often faced with policing their buildings for this type of activity. Although drug-related activity was mentioned by only a few rental managers as a problem, this type of activity has escalated throughout the country, and most areas are being affected in some way. Brooklyn Center's proximity to North Minneapolis has made it more vulnei- able to spillover of some problems associated with the inner city. Brooklyn Center must also be sensitive to the cost burden associated with rental " housing. Creating awareness, fostering neighborhood pride, and educating rental owners/ .. managers (particularly small property owners) on trends affecting them, are important ways the city can help rental owners to become better business mana- gers, and thus better landlords. Strategies/Policies The following are strategies for dealing with changes in the rental market: * Provide continuing education workshops for rental owners in Brook- lyn Center. Workshops would include marketing techniques, tenant screening procedures, legal matters, etc. 7 § 19.41 BLOOMINGTON/�CIITY CODE, p,p § 19.41 0 Two story 1920 2795 3440 4085 Three story 1840 2665 3280 3895 Four story 1780 2535 3120 3705 Five story 1700 2405 2960 3515 Six story 1620 2275 2800 3325 (C) Per Unit Requirement—Row Houses: Oneor Two Bedroom ...........................................................................................4300 square feet Threeor more Bedrooms .......................................................................................4800 square feet (D) For each parking space provided under a multiple-family building or underground on the same site,500 square feet may be deducted from the total area requirements listed in subparagraphs(b)(2)(B)and(bx2)(C)of this Section.The use of the 500 square foot deduction is limited to one such space for each unit. (E) For parking space provided under a multiple family building 750 square feet may be deducted from the total area requirement listed in subparagraph(b)(2)(B)and(b)(2)(C)of this Section provided that such parking space be so designed as to provide protection from radioactive fallout with a minimum protection factor of 40;and for each space,provided live square feet of storage space for fallout shelter supplies;and that the area designated as a fallout shelter be permitted for public use as a fallout shelter.The use of the 750 square foot deduction is limited to one such space for each unit and is not to be applied in addition to that shown in subparagraph (b)(2)(D) of this Section. The term "protection factor" as used in this Section is defined in Section 7.30(c)of this Code. (3) Setbacks. (A) Yards: Along public streets Fourplexes .................................................... . .......................................................... ' ' .40 feet Larger buildings t ................................................................................50 feet Other yards • ..............................................................................................:.................30 feet The required setback shall be increased one foot for each foot of height of the structure over 25 feet notwithstanding Section 19.47 of this Code. (B) Parking Lot Setbacks: From street ........ ......................................................................................................20 feet Frominterior property line ..............................................................................................10 feet proposed. (C) Garages may be placed not closer than five feet from a side or rear lot line, except where party walls are (4) Minimum Row House Unit or Lot Width ..................................................:.............................. (5) Except for garages,the side-yard setback shall in no event be less than the height of the structure. 16 feet (6) The City Council, may approve the subdivision of two-family dwellings and the lot upon which the two-family dwelling is located or is proposed to be constructed to allow separate ownership of each half of the two-family unit provided the following criteria are complied with: possible. (A) Each of the lots created by the subdivision will be equal in area or as near equal in area as is reasonably (B) Each lot so created shall contain no less than 1/2 the minimum land area requirement for a two-family dwelling. (C) Except for setbacks along the common property line, all other setback and yard requirements shall be met. (D) The subdivision of the lot shall be accomplished by plat in accordance with the subdivision regulations of the City Code including required public hearings for plat approval. 376 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the day of , 19 at p.m. at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway to consider an amendment to Chapter 35 regarding limitations on the number of three-bedroom and efficiency apartments and regarding other requirements for apartment buildings. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please contact the Personnel Coordinator at 561-3300 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY ORDINANCES REGARDING REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is hereby amended in the following manner: Section 35-400. TABLE OF MINIMUM DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. Every use of land within the City of Brooklyn Center shall conform to the following minimum requirements which are applicable to the Land Use District in which such use is contemplated. 1. In the case of residential uses the minimum land area shall apply to each dwelling unit and shall be computed and adjusted as follows: a. The minimum land area required per unit shall be reduced by [250] 750 square feet per efficiency unit in a multiple family dwelling_ [ ; and no more than 10 percent of the units in such a dwelling may be efficiency units. ] C. The required total minimum land area shall be increased by [250] 750 square feet for each bedroom in excess of two in any one multiple family dwelling unit_ [ , and no more than 10 percent of the units in any multiple dwelling shall have more than two bedrooms. ] ORDINANCE NO. Section 35-410. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IN R3, R4, R5, R6, AND R7 DISTRICTS. 8. In the case of multiple family dwellings or complexes of dwellings containing more than 10 dwelling units and having an average number of bedrooms in excess of 1 5 per unit a plan shall be submitted for City Council approval containing appropriate recreational facilities on the site as determined by the City Council In cases where a financial guarantee is held by the City to insure completion of approved site improvements the guarantee shall not be released until such recreational facilities are installed. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty (30) days following its legal publication. Adopted this day of , 19 Mayor ATTEST: Clerk Date of Publication Effective Date (Brackets indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter) . .� � d� r