The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020 01-27 CCPCouncil Study Session City Hall Council Chambers J anuary 27, 2020 AGE NDA The City C ounc il requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full C ity Council pac ket is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the entrance of the council chambers. 1.City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions - 6 p.m. 2.M iscellaneous a.2020 L egislative P olicies - Discuss legislative policies for the 2020 Legislative session 3.Discussion of Work S ession Agenda Item as T ime P ermits 4.Adjourn C IT Y C O UNC IL M E E T I NG City Hall Council Chambers J anuary 27, 2020 AGE NDA 1.Informal Open Forum with City Council - 6:45 p.m. Provides an opportunity for the public to address the C ounc il on items which are not on the agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with presenter. Questions from the C ounc il will be for c larific ation only. Open Forum will not be used as a time for problem solving or reacting to the c omments made but, rather, for hearing the presenter for informational purposes only. 2.Invocation - 7 p.m. 3.Call to Order Regular Business M eeting The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full City C ounc il packet is available to the public . The packet ring binder is loc ated at the entrance of the council chambers. 4.Roll Call 5.P ledge of Allegiance 6.Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda The following items are c onsidered to be routine by the C ity Council and will be enac ted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the c onsent agenda and considered at the end of Council Consideration I tems. a.Approval of Minutes - Motion to approve the following minutes: January 13, 2020 Study Sessi on January 13, 2020 Regular Session January 13, 2020 Work Session b.Approval of L icenses - Motion to approve li censes as presented c.Resolution Removing the Fee for a Public Dance L icense, E stablishing a F ee for an E ntertainment L icense, and Update the 2020 F ee Schedule - Motion to approve a resolution removing the fee for a public dance license, establishing the fee for an entertainment license, and update the 2020 Fee Schedule d.Resolution A ppointing B rooklyn Center Representatives to Executive Committee and/or B oard of Directors of the Brooklyn B ridge Alliance for Youth, Hennepin Recycling Group, L ocal Government I nformation S ystems, Minneapolis Northwest Convention & Visitors B ureau, North Metro Mayors Association, Northwest S uburbs Cable Communications Commission, Pets Under P olice Security, and Twin L ake J oint P owers Organization - Motion to approve the resolution appointing Brooklyn Center representatives e.Resolution A ppointing E lection J udges for the 2020 Presidential Nomination Primary - Motion to approve a resolution appointing election judges for the Presidential Nomination Primary Election on March 3, 2020 f.Pay Equity Compliance Report 2019 - R eview and accept the P ay E quity C ompliance report. After review and acceptance the report will be forwarded to the S tate of M innesota P ay E quity C oordinator. g.Resolution A mending the 2020 Fee S chedule for P lanning I nspection Fees for Electrical P ermits - Approve resolution amending the 2020 Fee Schedule for electrical fees h.Resolution A uthorizing Execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MO U) Between the City of B rooklyn Center and the Mound Cemetery A ssociation of Brooklyn Center Motion to approve a resolution authorizing execution of a Memorandum of Understanding (MO U) between the City of B rooklyn Center and the Mound Cemetery Association of Brooklyn Center. 7.P resentations/Proclamations/Recognitions/Donations a.Rental L icensing P rogram Year-end Review - Motion to Receive the Report 8.P ublic Hearings 9.P lanning Commission Items 10.Council Consideration Items a.Resolution A ppointing City Council Members to S erve as L iaisons to City Advisory Commissions and as City Representatives/Voting Delegates for Other Organizations for 2020 - Approve a resolution appointing City Council Members to Serve as Liaisons to City Advisory Commissions and as City Representatives/Voting Delegates for Other Organizations for 2020 b.An Ordinance A mending Chapter 12 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding A ccess to Multi-Unit Housing Structures by the United States Census B ureau E mployees -1st Reading - Hear the first reading of the ordinance and schedule a second reading/public hearing for February 24, 2020. 11.Council Report 12.Adjournment C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:A pproval of Minutes B ackground: I n accordance with M innesota S tate S tatute 15.17, the official records of all mee3ngs must be documented and approved by the governing body. B udget I ssues: - None S trategic Priories and Values: O pera3onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip3on U pload D ate Type J anuary 13 S tudy S es s ion 1/22/2020 Backup M aterial J anuary 13 Regular S ession 1/22/2020 Backup M aterial J anuary 13 Work S es s ion 1/22/2020 Backup M aterial 01/13/20 -1- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JANUARY 13, 2020 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS Mayor Elliott requested the following updates to the January 13, 2020 Regular Session Agenda: -Addition of “Proclamation of 252 Task Force” to be addressed as Regular Agenda Item 10c. -Removal of “Resolution Appointing Mayor Pro Tem and Acting Mayor Pro Tem” from Consent Agenda to be addressed as Regular Agenda Item 10d. -Addition of Resolution in Support of Cops Autism Response Education and Vital App to be addressed as Regular Agenda Item 10e. -Removal of Appointment of Committees from Consent Agenda to be addressed at the City Council’s January 27, 2020 meeting. -Removal of 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update from the Consent Agenda to be addressed as Regular Agenda Item 10f. Councilmember Ryan requested clarification regarding removing this item, as Comprehensive Plan approval is generally a Consent Agenda item. Mayor Elliott stated he believes updates to the Comprehensive Plan require public discussion. Councilmember Ryan acknowledged and thanked Councilmember Butler for requesting a Work Session dedicated to environmental impacts and issues, to review the possibility of eliminating plastic bags and straws at City Hall. He added he looks forward to an in-depth discussion on this 01/13/20 -2- issue. He noted the City of Minneapolis recently passed an Ordinance eliminating sales of plastic bags at all stores, and he hopes Brooklyn Center can consider such an action as well. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated a young resident who is pursuing his Eagle Scout Award contacted her to request a meeting to discuss reducing the use of plastic shopping bags in Brooklyn Center. She noted this is an important issue for many residents and the community in general. Councilmember Graves stated she fully supports the elimination of plastic bags in stores, especially since Minneapolis has already enacted this legislation, and she is 100% behind any initiative in that direction. Mayor Elliott agreed, adding plastics in the Mississippi River aggregate in the Gulf and enter the ocean, and communities along the Mississippi River should take action to reduce the use and waste of plastics. City Manager Curt Boganey stated City Staff plans to gather information on environmental action that the City has taken in the past ten years and present it to the City Council a Work Session dedicated to this topic shortly. MISCELLANEOUS 252 Work Session Mayor Elliott stated the 252 Work Session is scheduled for January 29, 2020. Councilmember Butler said she is out of town for work and unable to attend and asked to move the Work Session to the alternative meeting date of February 3, 2020. Mayor Elliott agreed. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff needs to ensure that the other meeting attendees, who are experts on this topic, will be available on that date. Mayor Elliott requested that the 252 Work Session agenda should include a presentation from the 252 Task Force. He added he prepared a modified agenda that includes a 252 Task Force presentation. Councilmember Ryan stated there is a Public Comments section on the Agenda. He added the issue is complex and has many elements, and there is a limited time frame for the Work Session. He stressed the importance of reviewing all the information that the subject experts will present to the City Council. He added the Agenda includes a Question & Answer session and time for Public Comments and does not need to be changed. Mayor Elliott stated it is important to include time for the Task Force, as they have been actively involved in this issue. He added the potential reduction of public transportation on Highway 252 was new information that is incredibly important to the whole community. He noted it is also 01/13/20 -3- important for the Task Force to present their data when the experts are present so they can get some answers. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson asked whether City Staff has information on the experts who will be attending the Work Session. Mr. Boganey stated there would be presentations from City Staff, as well as representatives from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Hennepin County, as well as SRF Consultants. He added this is an opportunity for the City Council to receive data and information, ask questions and get answers based on work that has been completed. Mayor Elliott stated it would not do any harm to have a community voice at this meeting. He added it does not take away from the focus of the meeting. Councilmember Ryan stated Mayor Elliott mentioned the issue of public transit. He added no formal recommendations had been made on that subject. He reiterated that the Public Comments period of the meeting is the appropriate time for residents to address the City Council. He added the Public Comments period could be extended as late as necessary. He noted he recently spent an extended amount of time with Mr. Cooper, representing the 252 neighborhood residents, to listen to the concerns and receive feedback and comments. Councilmember Ryan asked what the Agenda Item would be that Mayor Elliott is proposing. Mayor Elliot stated the Agenda Item would be “Information and Comments from 252 Task Force”. Councilmember Ryan stated it would be appropriate to receive that information under “Public Comments.” Mayor Elliott stated that the Agenda Item “Public Comments” could be changed to “Comments from 252 Task Force”. Councilmember Butler asked whether the Task Force has new materials to present that are different from that which the City Council has previously heard. Mayor Elliott stated it is his understanding that there is further information. Councilmember Butler suggested that the Task Force could provide the new information before the meeting for the City Council and experts to review so that it can be addressed under the experts’ presentations, and the Public Comments portion extended to 45 minutes. Mayor Elliott agreed, but added the 252 Task Force should be included in the formal Agenda. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated the Agenda Item could be changed to “252 Task Force/Public Comments”. 01/13/20 -4- It was the majority consensus of the City Council to amend the 252 Work Session Agenda to replace “Public Comments” with “252 Task Force/Public Comments” and to extend the Agenda Item from 8:30 – 9:15 p.m. Mr. Boganey stated the Task Force would need to provide information at least 1-2 weeks before the Work Session so the experts can be prepared to address their concerns. Mr. Cooper, representing the 252 neighborhood residents, stated they have provided information but have never received responses or information in return. He added this is why the residents have requested the 252 Task Force Proclamation. He expressed concern that neighborhood residents will hear the experts’ information at the same time as the City Council. Councilmember Ryan stated Mr. Cooper forwarded to him a summary document outlining the residents’ primary concerns. Mr. Cooper confirmed this, adding that the report is based on information received in August 2019, although Hennepin County and MnDOT have indicated that changes to the plan are being made. Councilmember Ryan reassured the neighborhood residents that there would be opportunities for them to give feedback and comments after they hear the experts’ presentations. Mr. Boganey stated the 252 Work Session Agenda includes an item, “Next Steps,” in anticipation of the fact that it is unclear exactly what will be presented at the meeting. He added the intent is that the City Council will decide what the next steps are after hearing any new information from the experts. It was the majority consensus of the City Council to amend the 252 Work Session Meeting Agenda Item “Public Comments” to “252 Task Force/Public Comments”, and extended the Agenda Item to 9:15 p.m. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Elliott adjourned the Study Session at 6:40 p.m. 01/13/20 -1- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION JANUARY 13, 2020 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 6:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. Mayor Mike Elliott opened the meeting for Informal Open Forum. No one wished to address the City Council. Mayor Mike Elliott closed the meeting for Informal Open Forum. 2. INVOCATION Councilmember Butler requested a moment of silence and personal reflection as the Invocation. 3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Mike Elliott at 7:00 p.m. 4. ROLL CALL Mayor Mike Elliott and Councilmembers Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence- Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. 5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 01/13/20 -2- The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Butler seconded to approve the Agenda and Consent Agenda, with recommended changes, and the following consent items were approved: 6a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. December 2, 2019, Special Meeting 2. December 9, 2019, Study Session 3. December 9, 2019, Regular Session 4. December 9, 2019, Work Session 6b. LICENSES GASOLINE SERVICE STATION LICENSE AM PM Corner Market Inc. 6501 Humboldt Avenue N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 Boulevard Enterprises Inc. 5300 Dupont Avenue N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 MECHANICAL LICENSE Absolute Mechanical, LLC 7338 Ohms Lane Edina, MN 55439 AES Mechanical Services Group, Inc. 2171 AL Highway 229 Tallahassee FL 36078 Faircon Service Company 764 Vandalia Street St. Paul MN 55114 Homeworks Services Co. 1230 Eagan Industrial Road #117 Eagan MN 55121 Ideal Air LLC 17900 Aztec Street NW Andover MN 55304 J-Berd Mechanical Contractors, Inc. PO Box 7308 St. Cloud MN 56302 Jomac Mechanical 9318 Spring Lake Road North Branch MN 55056 Lane Plumbing, Inc. 29910 104 th Avenue N Hanover MN 55341 Legend Companies 12467 Boone Avenue Savage MN 55378 Majestic Plumbing Inc. 2801 7 th Avenue #411 Anoka MN 55303 Masterpiece Mechanical LLC 12400 Gettysburg Avenue N #17 Apple Valley MN 55124 Pierce Refrigeration 1920 2 nd Avenue S Anoka MN 55303 01/13/20 -3- Quality Systems A/C & Refrigeration 16857 Welcome Avenue SE Prior Lake MN 55372 Residential Heating and Air 7454 Washington Avenue S Eden Prairie MN 55344 Sage Heating and Cooling LLC 3913 Zarthan Avenue S Minneapolis MN 55416 The Crew Facility Maintenance, Inc. 951 American Boulevard E Bloomington MN 55420 SECONDHAND GOODS LICENSE Gamestop #535 6068 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center MN 55430 SIGN HANGERS LICENSE Indigo Signworks Inc. 1622 Main Avenue Fargo ND 58103 Twin Cities Sign Installations 8880 140 th Street N Hugo MN 55038 TOBACCO LICENSE AM PM Corner Market Inc. 6501 Humboldt Street N Brooklyn Center MN 55430 RENTAL INITIAL (TYPE IV – one-year license) 3813 Janet Lane Abdirahman Dhunkal INITIAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 6101 Beard Avenue N – Beard Apartments BMW/Halverson & Blaiser Group 5001 Ewing Avenue N Mary Ann Neil 6736 Colfax Avenue N John Chao 5737 Emerson Avenue N Nutido Wong 7001 Fremont Avenue N HPA Borrower 2018-1 ML LLC 5300 Penn Avenue N Jimmy Lee Whitehead 4200 Winchester Lane Obafemi Oladeji/Koladex Venture LLC INITIAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 5316 Russell Avenue N Devin & Madeleine Mork 3813 58 th Avenue N Prosperous Property/Xian Lin 2108 70 th Avenue N Sylvester Onaiwu 1012 72 nd Avenue N Joseph Florczak/HPA USA1 LLC 5548 Logan Avenue Lateef Olarinde 3100 Thurber Road Tyler Henderson RENEWAL (TYPE IV – one-year license) 01/13/20 -4- 3601 47 th Avenue N BMW/Halverson & Blaiser Group - Ryan Creek Manor Missing CPTED 4748-52 Twin Lake Avenue Grant & Pam Osgood – Missing CPTED RENEWAL (TYPE III – one-year license) 4500 58 th Avenue N Twin Lake North Apartments TLN LA NEL 700 66 th Avenue N Georgetown Park Scott Gann/Wiensch Construction 1100 69 th Avenue N Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Master 4216 Lakebreeze Avenue Daniel Tan 5301 Russell Avenue N Midwest GIR Group 3818 61 st Avenue N Sherman Kho 3819 61 st Avenue N Fred Hanus 1316 68 th Lane Valerie McKissack – Missing CPTED RENEWAL (TYPE II – two-year license) 1312 68 th Lane Wagner Properties 2930 68 th Lane Venessa Butler RENEWAL (TYPE I – three-year license) 5239-41 Drew Avenue N Jay & Gina Battengberg 5412 ½ Fremont Avenue N Gary Anakkala 6c. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-01 DESIGNATING OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER 6d. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-02 DESIGNATING DEPOSITORIES OF CITY FUNDS FOR 2020 6e. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-03 OPTING NOT TO WAIVE LIMITED TORT LIABILITY FOR 2020 6f. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-04 GRANTING CORPORATE AUTHORITY FOR SIGNING OF CHECKS AND TRANSACTIONS OF FINANCIAL BUSINESS MATTERS 6g. RESOLUTION APPOINTING BROOKLYN CENTER REPRESENTATIVES TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND/OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH, HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, MINNEAPOLIS NORTHWEST CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU, NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION, NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, PETS UNDER POLICE SECURITY, AND TWIN LAKE JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION This item was tabled to the January 27, 2020 meeting. 01/13/20 -5- 6h. RESOLUTION SELECTING PRESIDING OFFICERS – MAYOR PRO TEM AND ACTING MAYOR PRO TEM This item was considered as Agenda Item 10d. 6i. RESOLUTION NO 2020-04 APPOINTING MUNICIPAL TRUSTEES TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER FIREFIGHTERS RELIEF ASSOCIATION BOARD OF TRUSTEES 6j. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-05 RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ETHNIC POPULATIONS AND HERITAGE CELEBRATIONS 6k. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-06 ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2019-15, 2019 70 TH AVENUE STORM SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT 6l. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-07 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2020-01, 02, 03 AND 04, GRANDVIEW NORTH AREA STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS 6m. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-01 VACATING A PORTION OF RIGHT-OF- WAY BROOKLYN BOULEVARD – FIRST READING 6n. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-02 ESTABLISHING THE EASTBROOK ESTATES 2 ND ADDITION STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT TAX DISTRICT 6o. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2040 BROOKLYN CENTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE This item was considered as Agenda Item 10f. 6p. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-09 ACCEPTING WORK PERFORMED AND AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2016-06, FREEWAY BOULEVARD MILL AND OVERLAY (EAST OF XERXES AVENUE) STREET IMPROVEMENTS) Motion passed unanimously. 7. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS/RECOGNITIONS/DONATIONS 7a. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-10 EXPRESSING RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION OF BRUCE (DOC) MILLER FOR OVER 18 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 01/13/20 -6- Mayor Elliott read in full a Proclamation in recognition and appreciation of Bruce (Doc) Miller for over 18 years of dedicated service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-10 Expressing Recognition and Appreciation of Bruce (Doc) Miller for Over 18 Years of Dedicated Service to the City of Brooklyn Center. Motion passed unanimously. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8a. ORDINANCE NO. 2020-11 AMENDING CHAPTERS 23 AND 35 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AND USES – 2ND READING City Clerk Barb Suciu reviewed the Second Reading of an Ordinance amending City Code Chapters 23 and 35 regarding Entertainment Licensing and Uses. She added a public hearing is required at tonight’s meeting regarding the elimination of the dual license process, as restaurants are currently required to hold a Public Dance License and a Special Use Permit for live entertainment. The proposed single license policy will be more business-friendly and will help curb negative behaviors. Ms. Suciu stated the City Council reviewed this issue and expressed concern regarding a condition in the draft Ordinance related to police calls. She added that condition was removed and replaced with language related to security with business plan samples. She noted the amendment to Chapter 35 eliminates live entertainment as a Special Use. Ms. Suciu stated City Staff met with business owners that would be affected by the amendment, and no concerns were expressed. She added City Staff recommends approval of 2 nd reading of an Ordinance amending Chapters 23 and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances, as well as a Resolution allowing summary publication. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Butler seconded to open the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. No one appeared to address this item. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Butler seconded to close the Public Hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 01/13/20 -7- Councilmember Graves thanked City Staff for their hard work on the Ordinance amendment, in receiving feedback from local business owners and incorporating these changes into the proposed Ordinance. She added she is happy that this will streamline the process for local business owners. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve Second Reading and adopt ORDINANCE NO. 2020-11 Amending Chapters 23 and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances Regarding Entertainment Licensing and Uses, and for summary publication for Ordinance No. 2019-14. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Graves moved and Councilmember Butler to approve Summary Publication. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 9a. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-12 APPROVING PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2019-018, RE-ISSUANCE OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AT 6440 JAMES CIRCLE NORTH Community Development Director Meg Beekman reviewed an application for Special Use Permit issuances for the former Earle Brown Bowl, which is currently under interior demolition. She added the property closed in 2015 and was purchased in 2017 by the applicant, Tashita Tufaa, who requested a Special Use Permit in 2018 to convert the building into an event center with restaurant and other improvements. She added the Special Use Permit expired one year after issuance, Ms. Beekman stated the applicant is moving forward with a plan for the property in partnership with real estate developer Mike Brady. She added the site and building plans did not expire, and only the Special Use Permit requires re-submission. She noted this application was reviewed and a public hearing held by the Planning Commission at their December 12, 2019 meeting, and no comments were received. The Planning Commission and City Staff recommend re-issuance of Special Use Permit for 6440 James Circle North with conditions listed in the Staff Report. Councilmember Graves stated she is excited that something will happen at the Earle Brown Bowl site and that it will be another entertainment space in the City for people to gather. Councilmember Ryan stated he concurs with Councilmember Graves. He added the City of Brooklyn Center has been fortunate to be able to re-purpose some of its existing buildings into new uses, including HOM Furniture, which moved into the former Kohl’s site, and the restaurant supply store that now occupies the former Best Buy. 01/13/20 -8- Councilmember Ryan moved, and Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-12 to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2019-018 for Re-Issuance of a Special Use Permit to Convert a Former Bowling Alley and Restaurant into an Event Center in the C2 (Commerce) District Located at 6440 James Circle North, Based on the Findings of Fact and Submitted Plans, as Amended by the Conditions of Approval in the Resolution. Motion passed unanimously. 10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS 10a. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-13 DECLARING COMMITMENT TO THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CHARTER Councilmember Graves read a Resolution in full expressing the City’s commitment to the City Charter. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson moved, and Councilmember Butler seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-13 Declaring Commitment to the Brooklyn Center City Charter. Motion passed unanimously. 10b. RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SERVE AS LIAISONS TO CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS AND AS CITY REPRESENTATIVES/VOTING DELEGATES FOR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS FOR 2020 This item was rescheduled to January 27, 2020, Council meeting. 10c. PROCLAMATION ESTABLISHING THE 252 SAFETY TASK FORCE Mayor Elliott read in full a Proclamation establishing a 252 Safety Task Force. Councilmember Ryan stated the Proclamation, in effect, would establish a City Commission. He added he would support a correctly phrased Proclamation acknowledging a citizen Task Force. He noted, under City Charter Section 2.02, the establishment of a volunteer citizen Commission requires a recommendation from City Staff, specification of roles and responsibilities, and how the Commission would advise the City Council. Councilmember Ryan recommended that the City Council table this issue for further review, consideration, and vote at the January 27, 2020 meeting. City Attorney Troy Gilchrist stated Mayor Elliott shared the Proclamation with him earlier that day. He added the Proclamation of the Mayor, creating a Task Force, requires a vote of approval from the City Council. He noted the Proclamation would be an action of the City Council to 01/13/20 -9- create a volunteer Task Force to review and identify issues and provide recommendations by March 31, 2020. Councilmember Ryan expressed concern that the Mayor, under the City Charter, does not have the authority to make stand-alone Proclamations, which would have no legal effect. He added this should be a City Council action, giving the Task Force the status and authority of the City Council, and not a Proclamation of the Mayor. Councilmember Butler stated this would not be an ongoing Commission, but rather a Task Force that will focus on a specific issue that will not continue. She added the Proclamation acknowledges the work that is being done. Councilmember Ryan stated this would, in effect, be the same as a Commission, even though it is temporary. He added he would like to get recommendations from City Staff and have the opportunity to review this issue. He noted the City Council just received this information tonight. He asked whether City Staff could provide additional information before the City Council’s second meeting in January. City Manager Curt Boganey confirmed that it is an option if the City Council decides to table this issue. Councilmember Butler asked Mayor Elliott whether he worked with City Staff to draft the Proclamation. Mayor Elliott stated he drafted the Proclamation and provided copies to City Staff earlier that day. He added the proposed Task Force should have access to the information they need as they prepare for the Highway 252 meeting on February 3, 2020, with MnDOT. He noted acceptance of the Proclamation would give them the legitimacy they need to request information and have it available before the meeting. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson stated the group of residents should complete applications if they are going to be appointed to a Task Force and working on behalf of the City. Councilmember Butler asked whether applications were required of the Art Task Force members. She questioned whether a formal process is necessary. Mr. Boganey stated the Art Task Force was established and its members appointed by City Staff, and not the City Council. He added Task Forces established by the City Council would require input from the City Council in terms of selection, methodology, and other criteria. Councilmember Ryan stated the City Council should follow the City Charter, Section 2.02, by precedent, which applies to volunteer commissions. He added residents would want to come forward when they object to a project. He noted establishing a process for creating a task force like this could be to the City’s advantage. Mayor Elliott stated the Proclamation addresses recommendations for how the Task Force will work and what their purpose is to advise the City Council. He added it is important for the 01/13/20 -10- residents to have access to information to prepare for the MnDOT meeting on February 3, 2020. He stressed the importance of empowering the group of residents as they provide support on an issue that will so significantly affect the community. Councilmember Graves stated she had hoped this issue would be discussed during the Work Session. She added she supports giving these residents the information they need to prepare for the MnDOT meeting and consider all viewpoints and perspectives. She noted she would help City Staff providing recommendations for what the Task Force would be responsible for. Councilmember Graves stated she supports moving forward with the Proclamation, making any necessary changes to the initial document, so this group of citizens can have something tangible that they can use to prepare for the February 3, 2020 meeting. She added the City Council could instruct City Staff to follow up with recommendations for bureaucratic processes. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson proposed the establishment of a Safety Commission, to review this and other traffic-related issues. She stated she appreciates the work that residents have invested in the Highway 252 issue, and they might also look at other issues. She expressed concern that the City Council has only just received the Task Force proposal and has not had a chance to consider it as a body. She added she is also concerned about whether the City has liability in establishing an official Task Force and empowering citizens to act on behalf of the City in an official capacity. She noted she appreciates the work the residents are doing, and she wants to empower them, but the Proclamation implies that they will be acting under City direction. Mayor Elliott stated, about liability, he asked the City Attorney to review the Proclamation and, after some modification, confirmed that the language is appropriate. He added the Proclamation confirms that this group may not act on behalf of the City. Mr. Gilchrist stated any volunteer commission or task force member has the potential to create liability issues for the City, and he is not overly concerned about liability. He added the Open Meeting Law must be followed. Councilmember Ryan stated he highly values the interests and hard work of engaged citizens. He added the City Council must agree to the best use for the Task Force, which should be discussed in a Work Session before the Task Force is appointed. He recommended this issue be addressed in the City Council’s next Work Session, which would still allow the residents time to gather information before the MnDOT meeting. Councilmember Butler stated she supports the Task Force appointment as it is a good and positive situation to have residents coming forward to become involved in projects. She added she has been vocal about the lack of community involvement in other areas, and she is grateful for the amount of time and passion that the residents are putting into this issue. She noted she does not think it should be a Commission as they will be focusing on an isolated project. 01/13/20 -11- Councilmember Graves stated there is consensus to move forward with approval of the Proclamation, although it would have been helpful to receive it earlier, and there are potential language changes. Councilmember Ryan stated he would support moving ahead with the Resolution with the removal of the 2nd paragraph, 2 nd page, which refers to City Charter Section 2.02, as the intent of the Task Force is explicitly laid out. Mayor Elliott stated that the article was added by the City Attorney and established the City Council’s authority in determining advising groups from a legal standpoint. He said the paragraph should remain if the City Attorney intended to add context. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Butler seconded to approve a Proclamation Establishing the 252 Safety Task Force. Motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Lawrence-Anderson requested that the Task Force members receive copies of the Open Meeting Law and understand their liability. She recommended that Mr. Boganey should meet with the Task Force leader to ensure that the Task Force is equipped with the necessary information and other official items they may need to be considered. Mayor Elliott agreed. Mr. Gilchrist stated he could pass along to City Staff some suitable materials on this subject from the League of Minnesota Cities. 10d. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-14 SELECTING PRESIDING OFFICERS – MAYOR PRO TEM AND ACTING MAYOR PRO TEM Mayor Elliott stated it is not necessary to select an Acting President Pro Tem as that will fall to the most senior Councilmember in the room. Mayor Elliott nominated Councilmember Butler to provide leadership in his absence as Mayor Pro Tem. Councilmember Butler agreed. Mayor Elliott moved, and Councilmember Graves seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020- 14 Selecting Presiding Officers Pro Tem and Acting Mayor Pro Tem. Motion passed unanimously. 10e. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-15 IN SUPPORT OF COP AUTISM RESPONSE EDUCATION AND VITALS APP 01/13/20 -12- Councilmember Graves reviewed a Resolution intended to create support at the State level for funding to support Cops Autism Response Education (CARE) and the Vitals app. She stressed the importance of showing Brooklyn Center’s support for these tools, which will provide leverage to activists at the State level. Mayor Elliott stated he supports the Resolution, adding it is incredibly important for the City Council to support this initiative, and to lend a voice to the activists who want to enact change. He said this support could save lives and falls within the City’s responsibilities. Mr. Boganey stated Police Chief Tim Gannon did some research on the cost of the Vitals app. He added he received information that the price is approximately $4-5 per month for the app. He noted Chief Gannon stated his research did not indicate that cost pro-rating or reduction based on income would be considered. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-15 in support of Cops Autism Response Education (CARE) and the Vitals app. Motion passed unanimously. 10g. HENNEPIN COUNTY FUNDING FOR 2020 CENSUS Mayor Elliott presented an opportunity for the City Council to write a letter in support of the allocation of Hennepin County funds for the 2020 Census for low count communities. He apologized that this information was not included in the Council packet. He stated the City would be required to contribute $1,000 and the County would contribute approximately $21,000. He added this would be discussed at an upcoming Hennepin County Commissioners meeting. He apologized again for neglecting to get this on this evening’s agenda. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff could draft a letter if that is all that is required for the City Council to endorse the program and obtain funding allocation. He added either formal vote or consensus would be appropriate. Councilmember Graves stated she supports drafting a letter to pursue funding support for the 2020 Census. She added she recently attended a 2020 Census meeting of the Brooklyns at CAPI, where information was presented on jobs and money that would be available to cities to assist with the Census. She added it is estimated 25,000 residents will undercount many communities. Mayor Elliott moved, and Councilmember Graves seconded to instruct City Staff to draft a letter related to the 2020 Census to Hennepin County, to be signed by the Mayor on behalf of the City Council, to encourage the allocation of funds to low count cities including Brooklyn Center for $21,468 with a contribution of $1,000 from the City of Brooklyn Center. Motion passed unanimously. 01/13/20 -13- 10f. RESOLUTION NO. 2020-16 ADOPTING THE 2040 BROOKLYN CENTER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE There was a discussion among the City Council to table this item due to the late hour. Ms. Beekman stated there is some urgency attached to the adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as the City is still operating under the expired Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gilchrist recommended that the City Council receive the Staff Report and adopt the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, so it is the current Plan. Ms. Beekman reviewed the 2040 Comprehensive Plan process, which is overseen by the Metropolitan Council and required every ten years. The City of Brooklyn Center was required to review the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and make amendments to bring the system statement into compliance with the Thrive MSP 2040 document and other related documents and plans. The City of Brooklyn Center hired Swanson Haskamp Consulting to provide background information and assist with the process. Ms. Beekman stated community input and feedback on the proposed Comprehensive Plan was received at multiple community events and information sessions over two years. The results of these sessions were used to guide goals and strategies related to land use, development and housing. All of Brooklyn Center’s Commissions and Committees were engaged in this process, and the draft was made public during the Public Comment period during which the Planning Commission held a public hearing and received additional comments. The final document was recommended for approval to the Metropolitan Council in April 2019, and their Community Development Committee unanimously approved with no changes. Ms. Beekman stated City Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in its final form. She added the City would have six months to make updates and bring the City’s Zoning Code into compliance. Mayor Elliott asked whether there is a process to update the Comprehensive Plan after it is approved. Ms. Beekman confirmed this, adding there is an administrative process for amendments through the Metropolitan Council. She noted the goal of the City’s Zoning Task Force is to align the City’s Zoning Code with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Elliott asked whether there is some flexibility in terms of the types of amendments that the Task Force can implement. Ms. Beekman stated there is guidance in areas such as land use and density, but in other areas, there is broad discretion. She added the Comprehensive Plan identifies five new future land use designations, including neighborhood mixed-use as well as a range of commercial and residential uses. He added Zoning Districts and what is allowed is entirely up to the City to dictate, but the Comprehensive Plan dictates density and land use. 01/13/20 -14- Mayor Elliott asked whether the City would need to change the zoning on a property if it is guided for different use by the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Beekman answered in the affirmative. Mayor Elliott asked whether the City will be legally bound by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to amend the Zoning Code. Ms. Beekman confirmed this. Councilmember Graves stated Mayor Elliott had indicated this Agenda Item would be addressed for informational purposes. She stressed the importance of moving on to other discussion items, as City Staff has done a thorough and excellent job on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan process. Mayor Elliott stated zoning changes would have many implications in Brooklyn Center. He stressed the importance of having an active discussion about zoning and its impacts. He added he wants to be open to modifying the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and City zoning. Councilmember Graves moved, and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 2020-16 Adopting the 2040 Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan Update. Motion passed unanimously. 11. COUNCIL REPORT The City Council agreed to forego Council Reports in the interest of time. 12. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Ryan moved, and Councilmember Butler seconded adjournment of the City Council meeting at 9:03 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. 01/13/20 -1- MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WORK SESSION JANUARY 13, 2020 CITY HALL – COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to order by Mayor/President Mike Elliott at 9:07 p.m. ROLL CALL Mayor/President Mike Elliott and Councilmembers/Commissioners Marquita Butler, April Graves, Kris Lawrence-Anderson, and Dan Ryan. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Deputy City Manager Reggie Edwards, Community Development Director Meg Beekman, City Engineer Doran Cote, City Clerk Barb Suciu, and City Attorney Troy Gilchrist. FREEWAY PARK – MOUND CEMETERY MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING City Engineer Doran Cote reviewed a proposed Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Mound Cemetery Association. He added the City entered into a 75-year lease for a 4-acre portion of Mound Cemetery in 1971 for use as a park. The Cemetery Association, after discussions with City Staff, is requesting that the lease be vacated, and property transitioned back to Mound Cemetery. City Staff was concerned about the importance of maintaining a City park, and a consulting firm, ISG Landscaping, was retained to assist with this issue. Mr. Cote stated an Open House was held in February 2019 during a Park and Recreation Commission meeting at West Palmer Lake Park. He added ISG consultants presented three options for consideration, and the Park and Recreation Commission recommended Option 1. He noted the potential park plan in Option 1 is a future 1-acre parcel with open space, trail adjustment, and a landscape barrier between the park and the cemetery. Mr. Cote stated Option 2 was a 2-acre park with larger open space, and Option 3 included a joint-use facility building to be shared by the cemetery and the park. Mr. Cote stated City Staff met with the Mound Cemetery Association, and they agreed to donate 1 acre for Option 1. He added City Staff had prepared a Memorandum of Understanding related to this agreement, with terms for the donation of 1 acre, with retention of the current ballpark and trail. With the formal lease termination, the City is free to re-name the park subject to City Council/EDA approval. The City would pay all costs associated with the donation and would 01/13/20 -2- construct a fence between the City-owned park and the cemetery that would be maintained by the Cemetery Association. The City would restore the land formerly used as a park back to its original state for use by the Cemetery Association. Mr. Cote requested City Council/EDA feedback and comment on this issue. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves asked whether the ballfield is a baseball diamond. Mr. Cote stated it is a baseball diamond, but there is no programming in the park. He added space is used for practice and play, and open space activities. He said the open space is too small for a full soccer field. Mayor/President Elliott stated he supports the inclusion of open space for multi-use activities. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves agreed, adding she supports Option 1. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson agreed, noting there are other parks nearby, including West Palmer Park, Willow Lane Park, and Centennial Park. City Manager Curt Boganey stated, regarding Option 1, the agreement with the Cemetery Association is not related to the type of recreational uses in the proposed design, but rather the Association’s acceptance of the amount of land that would be preserved for City use. A representative of the Mound Cemetery Association, a volunteer board dedicated to meeting the needs of grieving families as well as providing end of life services, stated the cemetery has had a good relationship with the City and hopes to continue to work together. He added the Association supports Option 1. Mayor/President Elliott stressed the importance of considering the types of activities that will go into the park, and to look at options for multi-use spaces. Mr. Boganey stated there had been in discussions with the ISG consultant regarding the best uses for the park space. He added the design for Option 1 was the result of quite a bit of deliberation. Mr. Boganey stated City Staff would prepare the MOU for formal adoption by the City Council/EDA at an upcoming meeting. CURBSIDE RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS RECYCLING OPTIONS Tim Pratt, Brooklyn Park Recycling Manager, reviewed a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA), administered by the Hennepin Recycling Group (HRG), of which he is the Administrator. He added a recent Ordinance passed by Hennepin County requires that cities will provide residents with the opportunity to have curbside organic materials recycling by January 2022. He noted organic materials are items that are not appropriate for backyard composting, and for which there 01/13/20 -3- are abundant local markets for the production of anaerobic digestion which produces and harvests methane. Mr. Pratt stated two program models, organized collection and open market, are under consideration. He added organized collection, similar to traditional recycling, which is provided for all residents and can involve a patented blue bag that is placed in a trash container for collecting and delivery to a composting facility. He noted open market requires residents to contract with a service individually for their organics recycling. Mr. Pratt stated the HRG Board is recommending an update of licensing requirements that will require haulers to offer organics recycling, which would take less staff time and fewer resources. He added the Board proposes reducing the cost of the first year of service through the use of funding from the Hennepin County Organics Recycling Fund. He noted the cities of New Hope and Crystal are amenable to this proposal, and if Brooklyn Center City Council/EDA agrees, the HRG Board will move forward with updating definitions and hauling license applications. Mayor/President Elliott asked how much the first year of service will cost, with financial assistance from the Hennepin County Recycling Fund. Mr. Pratt stated it would depend upon the number of residents that receive the funding. He added the annual fee for organics recycling is $69.95. Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan asked whether residents would have the option to subscribe to organics recycling that is offered by their hauler. Mr. Pratt confirmed this. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated she supports the open enrollment option, where organic recycling should be encouraged, but not mandated for residents to comply. She noted she would support a requirement that all garbage haulers must offer organics recycling to their customers. Mayor/President Elliott asked whether the City mandates recycling. Mr. Pratt stated traditional recycling is a State requirement, but residents are not required to participate. He added the rate of participation for traditional recycling is approximately 90%. Mayor/President Elliott asked whether any of Brooklyn Center’s haulers can offer organics recycling. Mr. Pratt stated Randy’s Sanitation is the only hauler offering the service, although the HRG Board has had discussions with other haulers as well. He added many haulers have commercial recycling, but residential organics recycling would be a new facet to their business. Mayor/President Elliott asked whether there will be accommodations or grant opportunities for residents who want to do organics recycling but can’t afford it. Mr. Pratt stated the County has a free drop-off location, and the Board has discussed adding more drop-off locations but decided not to pursue that possibility. Councilmember/Commissioner Graves expressed interest in the anaerobic digestion process that produces methane. Mr. Pratt stated a request for qualifications for this method was submitted to Hennepin County but was not considered due to the high costs of owning and operating such a facility. 01/13/20 -4- Mayor/President Elliott stated there is an economic component to this agreement. He requested consideration of ways to provide financial support for this environmentally friendly program for residents who want to participate but are not able to afford it. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson stated she fully supports the open enrollment option and asked why the recycling hauler would not coordinate organics recycling. Mr. Pratt said Brooklyn Center’s traditional recycling is a City-wide contract, which would have to be amended. Mr. Boganey stated no action is required on this item. He added City Staff would prepare changes to the current Ordinance for presentation to the City Council/EDA at an upcoming meeting, to put this change into effect. Mayor/President Elliott stated the remaining Work Session Agenda items should be tabled to another meeting due to the late hour. Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence-Anderson requested that the group that has been waiting should be first on the agenda for the next Work Session. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember/Commissioner Graves moved, and Councilmember/Commissioner Lawrence- Anderson seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at 10:00 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:A lix Bentrud, D eputy City Clerk S U B J E C T:A pproval of Licens es B ackground: The follow ing bus ines s es /per s ons have applied for C ity licens es as noted. Each busines s /person has fulfilled the requirements of the C ity O rdinance governing respec4v e licens es , submi5ed appropriate applica4ons, and paid proper fees. A pplicants for r ental dwelling licens es are in compliance w ith C hapter 12 of the City C ode of O rdinances , unless comments are noted below the property address on the a5ached rental report. I N TOXI C ATI N G L I Q U O R A N D S U N DAY S A L E S Bayou Crab S hack 1360 S hingle C reek Cros s ing Brooklyn C enter, M N S I G N HA N G E R S L I C E N S E M athey S ign 831 Coon Rapids Blvd N W Coon Rapids 55433 S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, O pera4onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip4on U pload D ate Type Rental C riteria 5/7/2019 Backup M aterial Page 2 of 2 b.Police Service Calls. Police call rates will be based on the average number of valid police calls per unit per year. Police incidences for purposes of determining licensing categories shall include disorderly activities and nuisances as defined in Section 12-911, and events categorized as Part I crimes in the Uniform Crime Reporting System including homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft, auto theft and arson. Calls will not be counted for purposes of determining licensing categories where the victim and suspect are “Family or household members” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (b) and where there is a report of “Domestic Abuse” as defined in the Domestic Abuse Act, Minnesota Statutes, Section 518B.01, Subd. 2 (a). License Category Number of Units Validated Calls for Disorderly Conduct Service & Part I Crimes (Calls Per Unit/Year) No Category Impact 1-2 0-1 3-4 units 0-0.25 5 or more units 0-0.35 Decrease 1 Category 1-2 Greater than 1 but not more than 3 3-4 units Greater than 0.25 but not more than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.35 but not more than 0.50 Decrease 2 Categories 1-2 Greater than 3 3-4 units Greater than 1 5 or more units Greater than 0.50 Property Code and Nuisance Violations Criteria License Category (Based on Property Code Only) Number of Units Property Code Violations per Inspected Unit Type I – 3 Year 1-2 units 0-2 3+ units 0-0.75 Type II – 2 Year 1-2 units Greater than 2 but not more than 5 3+ units Greater than 0.75 but not more than 1.5 Type III – 1 Year 1-2 units Greater than 5 but not more than 9 3+ units Greater than 1.5 but not more than 3 Type IV – 6 Months 1-2 units Greater than 9 3+ units Greater than 3 C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on Removing the Fee for a P ublic D ance L icense, Establis hing a Fee for an Entertainment Licens e, and U pdate the 2020 Fee S chedule B ackground: W ith adop,ng O rdinance 2019-14, the 2020 Fee S chedule needs to be amended. This resolu,on w ill eliminate the public dance licens e and and es tablish the Entertainment L icense fee. B udget I ssues: None S trategic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community I mage, S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity, O pera,onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Res olu,on 1/21/2020 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. ________ RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2020 FEE SCHEDULE WITH ELIMINATING THE PUBLIC DANCE LICENSE FEE AND ADDING THE ENTERTAINMENT LICENSE FEE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center adopted Resolution 97-180 on October 14, 1997 adopting the fee for Public Dance license; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center recently replaced the Public Dance license with the Entertainment License; and WHEREAS, the 2020 Fee Schedule will be amended to remove the Public Dance license and replace it with Entertainment License fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center amends the 2020 Fee Schedule with eliminating the Public Dance License fee and adding the Entertainment License Fee. Entertainment License Fee $300 Date Mike Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: Barb Suciu, City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on A ppoin,ng Brooklyn C enter Repres enta,ves to Execu,ve C ommi0ee and/or Board of D irectors of the Brooklyn Bridge A lliance for Youth, H ennepin Recycling G roup, L ocal G overnment I nforma,on S ystems, Minneapolis Northwes t Conven,on & V isitors Bureau, North Metro M ayors A ssocia,on, Northw est S uburbs Cable C ommunica,ons C ommis s ion, Pets Under Police S ecurity, and Twin L ake Joint Powers O rganiz a,on B ackground: The C ity of Brooklyn C enter has entered into s everal J oint and C oopera,ve A greements w ith various organiza,ons. Each of the joint pow ers agreements have been review ed and the organiz a,ons w hos e agreements provide that appointment of directors be made by the governing body or by C ity C ouncil res olu,on have been iden,fied. S ome of the agreements require annual appointment, s ome provide that a director is appointed un,l s ucceeded, and some provide that a certain posi,on s erve as the repres enta,ve. A s ummary of each of the Joint and Coopera,ve A greements can be found in the S ec,on V I I of the C ity C ouncil Reference Book. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community I mage, O pera,onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Res olu,on 1/22/2020 Resolu,on Le0er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO._______________ RESOLUTION APPOINTING BROOKLYN CENTER REPRESENTATIVES TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND/OR BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE ALLIANCE FOR YOUTH, HENNEPIN RECYCLING GROUP, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS, MINNEAPOLIS NORTHWEST CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU, NORTH METRO MAYORS ASSOCIATION, NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, PETS UNDER POLICE SECURITY, AND TWIN LAKES JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint Powers Agreement for the establishment of the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth on November 24, 2008, and Article III, Section 3.2, of the joint powers agreement states that each member appoints one member of its governing body as a voting Director, one Alternate Director, one Director from the City’s Police Department, and one Director from the City’s Parks and Recreation Department; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of Hennepin Recycling Group on August 1, 1988, and Article IV, Section 2, of the joint powers agreement states that the governing body of a member appoints directors; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS), on May 1, 1972, and Article IV, Section 1, of the joint powers agreement states that the governing body of a member appoints directors; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of the North Metro Convention and Tourism Bureau, now known as Minneapolis Northwest Convention & Visitors Bureau, on September 8, 1986, and Article IV, Section 2, of the bylaws states that each member City may appoint one Director and one Alternate Director to the Board of Directors. WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint Powers Agreement for the establishment of the North Metro Mayors Association on June 26, 1989, and the joint powers agreement states that the governing body of a member appoints two directors, one of whom shall be the City Manager or other designee; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission on September 24, 1979, and Article VI, Section 1, of the joint powers agreement states that the City Council of a member appoints Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of Pets Under Police Security (PUPS) on September 10, 1990, and Article IV, Section 2, of the joint powers agreement states that the governing body of a member appoints directors; and RESOLUTION NO.______________ WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center entered into a Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the establishment of the Twin Lakes Joint Powers Organization on January 14, 1991, and Article IV, Section 2, of the joint powers agreement states that the governing body of a member appoints directors; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following appointments are hereby approved: Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Member Mike Elliott Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Alternate Member Marquita Butler Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Police Tim Gannon Brooklyn Bridge Alliance for Youth, Parks and Recreation Jim Glasoe Hennepin Recycling Group, Director Curt Boganey Hennepin Recycling Group, Alternate Director Andrew Hogg Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS), Director Reggie Edwards Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS), Alternate Director Dessi Larsen Minneapolis Northwest Convention & Visitors Bureau, Director Mike Elliott Minneapolis Northwest Convention & Visitors Bureau, Alternate Director Dan Ryan North Metro Mayors Association, Director – City Manager Curt Boganey North Metro Mayors Association, Director Tim Willson Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission, Council Mike Elliott Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission, Resident Darryl Sannes Pets Under Police Security, Director Richard Gabler Pets Under Police Security, Alternate Director Garett Flesland Twin Lakes Joint Powers Organization, Director Tim Gannon Twin Lakes Joint Powers Organization, Alternate Director Tony Gruenig January 27, 2020 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on A ppoin,ng Elec,on J udges for the 2020 P residen,al Nomina,on P rimary B ackground: Minnes ota S tatutes, S ec,on 204 B.21, sbudivis ion 2, requires elec,on judges to be appointed the governing body at leas t 25 days before the elec,on at w hich the elec,on judges will serve. Minnes ota S tatutes, S ec,on 203 B.121, provides that the absentee ballot board may include staff trained as elec,on judges . Becaus e the absentee ballot board accepts or rejects absentee ballots in such a ,mely manner, it is impera,ve that C ity S taff be appointed to the abs entee ballot board. B udget I ssues: The expense for P res iden,al Nomina,on P rimary elec,on judges is included in the 2020 Budget. S trategic Priories and Values: I nclusive C ommunity Engagement, O pera,onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type S tate S tatutes 1/17/2020 Backup M aterial Res olu,on 1/17/2020 Resolu,on Le<er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE 2020 ELECTIONS WHEREAS, a Presidential Nomination Primary Election is March 3, 2020; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. 204B.21, subd. 2, requires that persons serving as election judges be appointed by the Council at least 25 days before the election at which the election judges will serve. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the individuals named below and on file in the office of the City Clerk are appointed to perform the duties of election judge and/or be appointed as the Brooklyn Center Absentee Ballot Board election judges. BE IT RESOLVED the City Council also appoints other individuals and all members appointed to the Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board as authorized under Minn. Stat. 204B.21, subd. 2 , under the direction of the City Clerk, to serve as members of the Brooklyn Center Absentee Ballot Board. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is with this, authorized to make any substitutions or additions as deemed necessary. Tamika Baskin Lynn Bennethum Tedd Bennethum Andrea Bentrud Mawuli Blabuh Christine Bonovsky Doris Branch Don Bumgarner Anne C Charles Calhoun Jean Carlson Rebecca Crass Kathryn Ellgren Magdy Elyamany Mary Gersetich Mark Goodell Charice Goude Carolyn Green Allan Hancock Philip Henrichs Sara Huffman Joseph Jablonski Connor Janostin Charlene Johnson Lynne Johnston Mary King Karen Knutson Sharon Krieger Robert Kumagai Stephen Long Sandra Malcom Gayle Merritt Patty Mesenbrink Sue Minor Susan Okerstrom Debbie Paine Vanissa Peterson John Polz Kathleen Pullen Karen Richter Peggy Seibert Honey Speltz Tim Thorbus Beverly Truran Diane Visser City Staff Alix Bentrud Sheila Bear Nichole Clausell Cynthia Majors Barb Suciu January 27, 2020 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. _______________ The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :Reggie Edw ards , D eputy City Manager BY:Kelli W ick, H uman Res ources D irector S U B J E C T:Pay Equity C ompliance Report 2019 B ackground: The M innes ota D epartment of M anagement and Budget no2 fied the City of Brooklyn Center in its e-mail dated N ovember 15, 2 0 1 9 , that w e mus t s ubmit our Pay Equity I nforma2 on as required by the L ocal G overnment Pay Equity A ct. O ur juris dic2on w as found in compliance based on our 2 0 1 6 report and the next regular report is due January 31, 2020. This report must show data in place as of D ecember 31, 2019. S tate law (M.S . 471.991-471.999) and Minnes ota Rules (C hapter 3920) requires all public j urisdic2 ons to eliminate any s ex-bas ed wage inequi2 es in compensa2on. Pay Equity is a method of elimina2ng dis crimina2on against women who are paid les s than men for jobs requiring comparable levels of exper2se. This goes bey ond the familiar idea of “equal pay for equal w ork” where men and women w ith the s ame jobs must be paid equally. A policy to establis h pay equity us ually means : 1) that all jobs w ill be ev aluated and given points according to the lev el of knowledge and res pons ibility r equir ed to do the j ob; and 2) that salary adjus tments will be made if it is dis cov er ed that w omen are cons is tently paid les s than men for jobs with s imilar points. I n conduc2 ng pr eliminar y reports of our pay equity data it appears that w e are in compliance. The report review s the total number of male and female employ ees lis ted for each job class including part-2me employees w ho w ork at least an av erage of 14 hour s per w eek and 67 days per year. I t determines if male and female dominated clas s es are being paid in a manner that eliminates discrimina2on against w omen. The compens a2 on for female-dominated clas s es s hould not be cons is tently below the compens a2 on for male-dominated classes of comparable work value. J urisdic2ons are found in compliance if they achieve an underpayment ra2o of 80% or more. The city has an underpayment ra2o of 101.90%. B udget I ssues: There are no budget is s ues to consider. S trategic Priories and Values: O pera2onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip2on U pload D ate Type Pay Equity Report 1/22/2020 Backup M aterial C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:J esse A nders on, D eputy Community D evelopment D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu+on A mending the 2020 Fee S chedule for P lanning I nspec+on Fees for Electrical Permits B ackground: T he C ity of B rooklyn C enter has a contracted electrical inspector for B rooklyn C enter. T he costs for the electrical inspectors services have increased for 2020. T he electrical fees have not increased at least 10 years. S trategic Priories and Values: O pera+onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip+on U pload D ate Type Res olu+on 1/21/2020 Resolu+on Le4er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION RESOLUTION AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PLANNING AND INSPECTION FEES FOR ELECTRICAL PERMITS WHEREAS, Chapters 3, 12, 15, 34, and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances requires the payment of fees for Electrical permits; and WHEREAS, Chapters 3, 12, 15, 34, and 35 of the City Code of Ordinances further authorizes the setting of various fees by City Council resolution; and WHEREAS, City Council Resolution No. 86-123 (adopted 8/11/86), 89-224 (adopted 11/27/89), 90-33 (adopted 2/26/90), 95-174 (adopted 8/14/95), 98-228 (adopted 12/14/98), 99-172 (adopted 11/8/99), 2005-65 (adopted 4/11/05), 2006-48 (adopted 4/10/06), 2008-11 (adopted 1/14/08), 2015-128(adopted 8/24/15) and 2018-09(adopted 1/08/2018) together comprise a schedule of fees collected for service by Community Development; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds it appropriate to modify the fees contained in said resolutions and to amend the fee schedule related to electrical permits NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center that the fee schedule be amended as follows for the City of Brooklyn Center: Description Fee Calculation Minimum fee one inspection trip $50.00 Two trip fee (Every job where wiring will be $100 includes covered needs a rough-in and final inspection. two inspections Examples: remodel or new bath, kitchen, porch, basement, laundry, detached garage, swimming pool, etc.) Service changeout $110 Temporary service $55 Service changeout with one or two remodeled or added rooms $160 includes two inspections Sub panel changeout $50 New or major remodel of apartment or condominium $100 per unit (This includes main service, feeders, house panel, circuit breakers, and temp power) Residential maximum (includes new houses, townhouses, $190 includes remodels with 50% or more of the lights, receptacles three inspections and switches being replaced. Outside Electrical reinstalled after siding replacement, house $50 first unit Duplex, triplex, fourplex attached townhouses and apartments $25 each unit Electronic inspection fee for these items only; furnace, $40 air conditioning, bath fan, fireplace, or receptacle for water heater vent. Must email required pictures. Solar fees for PV System Residential and Commercial: 0-5,000 watts $90 5,001-10,000 watts $150 10,001-20,000 watts $225 20,001-30,000 watts $300 30,001-40,000 watts $375 add $25 for each Additional 10,000 watts Commercial Electrical Fees Description Fee Calculation Valuation $1 to $1,000 $50.00 Valuation $1,001 to $2,000 $50 for the first $1,000 plus $3.25 for each additional $100 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000 Valuation $2,001 to $25,000 $82.00 for the first $2,000 plus $14.85 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000 Valuation $25,001 to $50,000 $423.55 for the first $25,000 plus $10.70 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000 Valuation $50,001 to $100,000 $691.05 for the first $50,000 plus $7.45 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000 Valuation $100,001 to $500,000 $1,063.55 for the first $100,000 plus $6 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000 Valuation $500,000 to $1,000,000 $3,463.55 for the first $500,000 plus $5.10 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 Valuation $1,000,001 and up $6,013.55 for the first $1,000,000 plus $4 for each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof Reinspection fee (in addition to all other fees) $50 Investigative fee (working without permit) the fee is doubled Refunds issued only for permits over: $100 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above schedule of Planning and Inspection fees shall become effective on February 1, 2020. January 27, 2019 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:D oran Cote, P ublic Works D irector S U B J E C T:Res olu+on A uthoriz ing Execu+on of a Memorandum of Understanding (M O U) Between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Mound C emetery A s s ocia+on of Brooklyn Center B ackground: The J anuary 5, 1 9 7 0 C ity C ouncil mee+ng minutes indicate that the “C ity A8orney and the a8orney for Mound C emeter y A s s ocia+on had tenta+v ely agreed upon the language of a document through w hich the City of Brooklyn Center w ill obtain a 7 5 year lease of the s outhern 4 acr es of Mound C emetery for park purposes at a cos t of $15,000.00. The s ubj ect par cel repres ents the las t par cel to be acquired under the 1966 H U D O pen S pace P rogram.” A 75 y ear leas e between the city and the M ound Cemetery A ssocia+on w as recorded in J anuary, 1970. The expira+on of the lease is D ecember 31, 2044. I n D ecember, 2013, the M ound Cemeter y A s s ocia+on appr oached staff w ith a proposal to v acate the leas e and tr ans i+on F reew ay Par k back to the cemetery to be us ed for its original purpos es. The A ssocia+on indicated an emerging interes t in natur al burials , more families who des ire upright monumenta+on, and a grow ing religious community whose burial requirements vary from the tradi+onal East-Wes t rota+on. The city and the Mound C emetery A s s ocia+on con+nued to meet and dis cus s the termina+on of the leas e un+l 2018. The city had proposed retaining a por+on of the cemetery for park purpos es but the A s s ocia+on rej ected the proposal. The A s s ocia+on cited the financial imprac+cality of a s maller cemetery and the need for public u+li+es and a maintenance facility. A Her mee+ng w ith the M ound Cemetery A s s ocia+on in J uly, 2018, the city agreed to retain the serv ices of a cons ultant to mas ter plan the future of F reeway Park. I n O ctober, 2018, the city retained the s erv ices of I S G , a lands cape architecture fir m w ith a strong r eputa+on for park planning and design and community engagement to prepare a M aster P lan for F reeway Park. O n A pr il 15, 2 0 1 9 , staff and I S G met w ith the Mound C emetery A s s ocia+on to dis cus s the outcome of the park planning proces s and the recommended op+on for F reeway Park. The A s s ocia+on in response agreed to donate an acre of the cemetery with some condi+ons to facilitate the mas ter plan. A Her addi+onal dis cus s ion w ith the A s s ocia+on, the city draHed a M emor andum of Understanding (M O U) to memorializ e the par+es’ unders tanding of the terms of the vaca+on of the leas e and the dona+on of the land. O n J anuary 1 3 , 2019, the C ity C ouncil held a Work S es s ion at which the his tor y, background and current s tatus of F r eew ay Park and the M ound C emetery w ere dis cus s ed and it w as gener ally agreed that accep+ng one acre of land for a per manent park w as a reas onable outcome of nego+a+ons with the Cemetery A s s ocia+on. S taff was given direc+on to bring the M O U back to the City Council for cons idera+on. The mos t s alient condi+ons contained in the M O U are as follow s : a. The formal termina+on of the Lease; b. The C ity 's commitment to rename the Park to be8er reflect the memory and legacy of the families w ho originally donated the P roperty to M C A , subject to city council approval; c. The City 's w illingnes s to pay all cos ts as s ociated w ith the clos ing, including the s tate deed tax, recording fees , +tle insurance premiums , if any, and +tle company closing cos ts ; d. The City's cons truc+on of a fence betw een the new City-ow ned park property and the Cemetery so that park visitors w ill not dis turb the s olitude of the Cemetery with the M C A ow ning the fence; and e. The C ity's res tora+on of the Par k property being r etur ned to the C emeter y with appropriate s oils and grass plan+ng, as required in the L eas e. B udget I ssues: The cost for items lis ted in c. through e. abov e are not expected to exceed $2 0 ,000 and w ill be funded through the Park Maintenance opera+ng budget (45201). S trategic Priories and Values: Resident Economic S tability AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip+on U pload D ate Type Res olu+on 1/21/2020 Cover Memo F inal M O U 1/21/2020 Cover Memo Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. _______________ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND THE MOUND CEMETERY ASSOCIATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER WHEREAS, the city has met with the Mound Cemetery Association to discuss termination of an existing lease on 4.02 acres of Mound Cemetery for the purposes of providing a public park called Freeway Park; and WHEREAS, the city hire a consultant to prepare a Master Plan for Freeway Park; and WHEREAS, the one of the options developed by the city’s consultant developed only requires approximately one acre of cemetery property; and WHEREAS, the Mound Cemetery Association has agreed to dedicate approximately one acre of land to the city for park purposes subject to certain conditions; and WHEREAS, the city agreed to draft an MOU memorializing the negotiated agreement between the two parties. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that: 1. The Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Mound Cemetery Association of Brooklyn Center is hereby approved. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said lease agreement. 2. All conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding will be carried out by the appropriate party. January 27, 2020 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member RESOLUTION NO. _______________ and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AND MOUND CEMETERY ASSOCIATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER This Memorandum of Understanding (this "MOU') is made this __ day of -----� 2020, by and between the City of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the "City"), and Mound Cemetery Association of Brooklyn Center, a Minnesota public cemetery association ("MCA"). RECITALS A.MCA owns and operates the Mound Cemetery (the "Cemetery"), located at 3515 69th Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota (the "Property"). B.The Property consists of approximately 14.82 acres of real property, although not all the Property is used for the Cemetery. C.On January 27, 1970, the parties entered into that certain Lease of Cemetery Land (the "Lease"), through which the City acquired the right to operate a public park on a portion of the Property known today as Freeway Park (the"Park"). D.The stated term of the Lease is for 75 years and, therefore, the Lease is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2044. E.MCA completed a strategic planning process in 2012 and determined they would need to vacate the lease agreement with the City, prior to the December 31, 2044 expiration, for the Cemetery to continue offering end-of-life services to the community. F.In December 2013, MCA formally requested the City vacate the lease agreement signed January 27, 1970 and "jointly coordinate transition of the Park property back to the Cemetery to be used for its original purposes", G.The City is in the process of adopting a new Freeway Park Master Plan, and multiple options regarding the Park's future have been presented to the parties by ISG, the City's consulting engineering and architectural firm. H.The ISG Freeway Park Master Plan option determined as most desirable to all parties is identified as Option 1, which is generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto, which would require the termination of the Lease, the conveyance of approximately one acre of the Property to the City, and the City's return of the remaining Park property to MCA. In anticipation of this conveyance MCA engaged Anderson Engineering to develop a Long Range Phased Plan to develop the leased property as is depicted on Exhibit B. 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter provided, it is hereby understood by the parties as follows: 1.The parties will negotiate in good faith a formal conveyance agreement, subject to approval by the Brooklyn Center City Council and the MCA Board of Trustees in accordance with law, to include provisions regarding MCA's donation to the City of approximately one acre of the Property, as generally depicted on the attached Exhibit A. 2 Upon execution of this MOU by both parties, the City will initiate the preparation of a professional survey of the portion of the Property to be donated by MCA so that the conveyance agreement can accurately identify the parcel to be subdivided from the Property and donated. The City will pay all costs associated with preparing said survey and MCA agrees to fully cooperate with the City, its employees, and its contractors, as the case may be, so that the survey can be duly prepared. 3.In addition to any other terms and conditions deemed appropriate and mutually acceptable to the parties, the conveyance agreement shall include, without limitation, terms regarding the following, subject to approval by each party's respective governing body: a.The formal termination of the Lease; b.The City's commitment to rename the Park to better reflect the memory and legacy of the families who originally donated the Property to MCA, subject to city council approval; c.The City's willingness to pay all costs associated with the closing, including the state deed tax, recording fees, title insurance premiums, if any, and title company closing costs; d.The City's construction of a fence between the new City-owned park property and the Cemetery so that park visitors will not disturb the solitude of the Cemetery with the MCA owning the fence; and e.The City's restoration of the Park property being returned to the Cemetery with appropriate soils and grass planting, as required in the Lease. 4.Nothing contained in this MOU shall be construed to terminate or otherwise amend or modify the Lease or its terms and conditions in any way. [ signature page to follow] 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Memorandum of Understanding as of the day and year first written above. 3 THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Mike Elliott Its: Mayor By: Its: Cornelius Boganey City Manager MOUND CEMETERY ASSOCIATION OF BROOKLYN CENTER By: Michael W. Howe Its: President ---------------------- - C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :M eg Beekman, C ommunity D evelopment D irector BY:J esse A nders on, D eputy D irector of Community D evelopment S U B J E C T:Rental L icensing P rogram Year-end Review B ackground: O n O ctober 8, 2 0 1 8 , C ity C ouncil adopted amendments to the r ental license program. At the C ouncil mee4ng it w as reques ted that s taff provide a year-end review of the rental pr ogr am and how the modifica4ons affected the program. The following w ere the adopted modifica4ons to the rental licens e program. 1. M odify the ordinance to r emove the r equir ed a8endance at A ssocia4on for Responsible (A R M) Mee4ngs and remove the requirement for monthly updates . 2. M odify the ordinance to require an ins pector consulta4on for repeat Type I V r ental licens es that repeat due to property code viola4ons. 3. Modify the ordinance to allow M i4 ga4on plans to be approved by staff, s imilar to how Ty pe I I I Rental Licens e A c4on P lans are currently approved. 4. M odify the Rental L icense C ategory C riteria Policy to incr eas e the number of property code v iola4 ons per category by 1 for one and two family dw ellings . A ?er one year of implemen4 ng the changes, staff is r epor 4ng back to C ity C ouncil on the r es ults made to the rental license program. 1. I n 2018 A R M mee4 ngs w ere r equir ed for Type I I I and Ty pe I V r ental licens es. I n all of 2 0 1 8 , there w ere 479 a8endees (average of 80 a8endees at each mee4ng) at all 6 A R M mee4ngs . W ith the requirement change, in 2019 the number of a8endees dropped to 1 8 1 a8endees (av erage of 30 a8endees at each mee4ng) for the 6 A R M mee4 ngs . Thos e a8ending the mee4 ngs choos e to be ther e to obtain the informa4 on pr es ented and there is an increas e in a8endee par4 cipa4 on dur ing A R M mee4ng pres enta4ons. F urther, by making this modifica4 on, the number of r ental licens es that improv ed their licens e category increased. A lthough the requirement for comple4 ng the S ecurity A s s es s ment and the comple4on of the Crime F ree H ous ing cours e remains , many of the proper4 es that r enew w ith the city have already undergone the s ecur ity as s es s ment inspec4on and many ow ner /managers have already completed the Crime F ree H ous ing training from other ci4es . A lthough a monthly report is not required, staff le? language on the M i4ga4on P lan for ow ners /managers to check in w ith the tenants on a monthly bas is . This helps to ens ure that nuis ance property viola4ons can be addressed prior to the r ental license inspec4on and the property does not get neglected un4 l the next ins pec4on. 2. S taff con4nues to meet w ith owners and managers to pr ovided rental ins pec4 on cons ulta4 ons to further explain the program’s ins pec4 on r equir ements. A challenge that con4 nues w ith Ty pe I V licenses is the overlapping of rental licens es due to delays in inspec4ons or delay s in rental licens e renewal applica4on s ubmission. To further enhance cons is tency and ens ur e that all Ty pe I V licenses r eceive an inspec4on cons ulta4on, staff has added addi4onal language into the M i4ga4 on P lan to ensure that Type I V rental proper4es ar e scheduled for a rental cons ulta4 on prior to the approval of their M i4ga4 on P lan and before their next ini4al rental license ins pec4on. 3. A dminis tra4vely approving Mi4ga4on P lans has streamlined the rental licens e proces s and has allow ed s taff to proces s M i4ga4 on P lans mor e efficiently w ith no delay in s taff's ability to is s ue the rental license. This has also allow ed staff to con4nue to move forward on licens es w hen there are delays and s tart w orking on the next license. 4. I ncreas ing the number of allow ed code viola4ons for s ingle and tw o-family proper4es for each licens e category has res ulted in impr oved numbers for each licens e category. I n 2 0 1 8 , there were 87 Type I V rental licenses and of the 87 licens es , 2 2 repeated as a Type I V licens e. T her e were 1 3 licenses that had a Type I V repeat due to the number of code viola4ons they had, and 9 licens es that repeated due to failure to meet A R M mee4 ng and monthly r epor 4ng requirements . O f all license categor ies , 74 proper4es impr oved on their rental licens e inspec4on. I n 2019, 82 Type I V licenses w ere issued, with 12 of them repea4 ng as Type I Vs, all of which were becaus e of the number of code v iola4 ons they received. O v er all 90% of the repeat Type I V licens es improved. O v er all, ther e con4 nues to be impr ovement in the hous ing s tock and viola4ons con4 nue to be less severe. B udget I ssues: There are no budgetary issues to cons ider. S trategic Priories and Values: S afe, S ecure, S table C ommunity AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip4on U pload D ate Type Rental L icense P rogram D ata 1/15/2020 Cover Memo Repeat Type 4 License Review *each license may fall into more than one category resulting in more than the total number of licenses There was a significant drop in the number of repeat Type IV rental licenses issued in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, there were 22 rental licenses issued as a repeat Type IV license. Of the repeat Type IV licenses, 9 of the licenses failed meet their Mitigation Plan by failing to complete the ARM meeting requirement or failing to submit monthly reports while only 3 licenses met their Mitigation Plan requirements. 13 licenses were repeat Type IV licenses due to the number of code violations. In 2019, a total of 82 Type IV rental licenses were issued, of 82 licenses, 12 licenses were a repeat Type IV license. At the October 8, 2018 City Council meeting, the council approved to remove the ARM meeting and monthly reporting requirement effective December 1, 2018. Of the remaining requirements, 4 properties did not meet the Security Assessment (CPTED) requirement. 8 licenses were repeat Type IV licenses due to code violations. Type 4 Information 2015 & 2016 & 2017 2018 2019 Total Type IV 347 87 82 Total Repeat Type IV 155 (44%) 22 (25%) 12 (14%) Repeat where violation were still Type IV 48 (30% of repeats)(14% of all IV) 13 (59% of repeats)(14% of all IV) 8 (67% of repeats)(9% of all IV) Repeat for ARM or Monthly only 90 (58% or repeats)(25% of all IV) 9 (41% of repeats)(10% of all IV) 0 Met Requirements but had code violations 20 (13% of repeats)(6% of all IV) 3 (13% of repeats)(3% of all IV) 4 (33% of repeats)(4% of all IV) Improving on inspections 86% 85% (74) 90%(74) Didn’t repeat as type IV 55% 74% (65) 85% (70) Active License by Type License Category 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Type I—3 year license 322 (41%) 247 (41%) 284 (34%) 315 (36%) 323 (38%) 296 (37%) 327 (44%) 378 (51%) Type II - 2 year license 359 (45%) 377 (45%) 427 (51%) 413 (47%) 278 (45%) 352 (43%) 326 (43%) 273 (37%) Type III - 1 year license 77 (10%) 85 (10%) 91 (11%) 115 (13%) 114 (14%) 115 (14%) 90 (12%) 62 (9%) Type IV - 6 mo. license 30 (4%) 29 (3%) 43 (3%) 28 (3%) 29 (3%) 44 (5%) 6* (1%)* 24 (3%) Total 788 838 845 871 844 810 749 737 (Active 12/20) Excludes pending or renewals *Type 4 License number is low due to pending ordinance change Reason for repeating as a Type 4 License 2017 2016 2015 2018 2019 Missed Monthly only 4 12 4 1 0 Monthly and Security Assessment 1 2 2 0 0 Met Mitigation Plan- Code violations only 10 3 7 13 8 Missed Security Assessment only 1 1 4 0 4 ARM Only 17 9 10 1 0 Arm and Monthly 10 14 10 4 0 Arm and Security 2 7 3 0 0 arm, monthly and security 9 6 7 3 0 Crime free housing course only 1 1 0 0 What license would have qualified for based on code violations: 2018 2019 Type 1 4 0 Type 2 2 4 Type 3 3 0 Type 4 13 8 Repeat Reason 2019 based on number of times repeated 2019 Repeat reason Total 1x repeat 2nd X Repeat 3 X Repeat 4x repeat 5x repeat 6x repeat Missed Monthly only Monthly and security Met Mitigation Plan Requirement Missed security assessment only 4 Association Meetings Arm and Monthly Arm and Security arm, monthly and security Crime free housing course only Monthly, Security, Crime Free Housing Security and crime free housing course Arm, Crime free housing training Code violations 4 2 1 1 Would have qualified for 2019 Type 1 Type 2 4 4 Type 3 Type 4 8 4 2 1 1 Repeat Reason 2018 based on number of times repeated 2018 Repeat reason Total 1x repeat 2nd X Repeat 3 X Repeat 4x repeat 5x repeat 6x repeat 7x repeat Missed Monthly only 1 1 Monthly and security Met Mitigation Plan Requirement Missed security assessment only Association Meetings 1 1 Arm and Monthly 4 2 1 1 Arm and Security arm, monthly and security 3 2 1 Crime free housing course only Monthly, Security, Crime Free Housing Security and crime free housing course Arm, Crime free housing training Code violations only 13 9 2 1 1 Would have qualified for 2018 Type 1 4 2 1 1 Type 2 2 1 1 Type 3 3 2 1 Type 4 13 9 2 1 1 Repeat Reason 2017 based on number of times repeated 2017 Repeat reason Total 1x repeat 2nd X Repeat 3 X Repeat 4x repeat 5x repeat 6x repeat Missed Monthly only 4 1 1 1 1 Monthly and security 1 1 Met Mitigation Plan Requirement 10 6 2 1 1 Missed security assessment only 1 1 Association Meetings 17 10 3 2 2 Arm and Monthly 10 6 1 1 2 Arm and Security 2 1 1 arm, monthly and security 9 4 3 1 1 Crime free housing course only Monthly, Security, Crime Free Housing Security and crime free housing course Arm, Crime free housing training Would have qualified for 2017 Type 1 8 5 2 1 Type 2 14 7 2 2 2 1 Type 3 13 7 3 2 1 Type 4 19 10 4 2 2 1 Repeat Reason 2016 based on number of times repeated Repeat reason 1x repeat 2nd X Repeat 3 X Repeat 4x repeat 5x repeat Missed Monthly only 6 4 1 3 Monthly and security 3 Met Mitigation Plan- Code violations only 1 2 Missed security assessment only 1 Association Meetings 3 1 1 2 Arm and Monthly 6 2 4 1 1 Arm and Security 5 2 arm, monthly and security 4 1 Crime free housing course only 1 Monthly, Security, Crime Free Housing 1 Security and crime free housing course Arm, Crime free housing training Would have qualified for Type 1 4 1 2 1 Type 2 12 8 1 2 1 Type 3 4 2 1 3 Type 4 10 4 Repeat Reason 2015 based on number of times repeated Repeat reason 1x repeat 2nd X Repeat 3 X Repeat 4x repeat 5x repeat Missed Monthly only 2 2 Monthly and security 1 Met Mitigation Plan- Code violations only 5 1 Missed security assessment only 4 Association Meetings 6 1 1 1 Arm and Monthly 7 1 2 Arm and Security 1 1 arm, monthly and security 4 2 Crime free housing course only 1 Monthly, Security, Crime Free Housing 1 Security and crime free housing course 1 Arm, Crime free housing training 1 Would have qualified for Type 1 5 1 Type 2 4 4 Type 3 12 4 2 Type 4 10 3 1 Police Nuisance Calls Effect on Rental License Category Type 4 Rental License 2018-2019 Count Total Type 4 Rentals 169 Not affected by police nuisance calls 169 Qualified for a one category decrease due to police nuisance calls 0 Would have had a decrease by one category but was already a type 4 0 Would have been a type 3 but police nuisance calls cause decrease by 1 category 0 Qualified for a 2 category decrease 0 Property Type Number of properties Number of units Percentage 1-4 784 896 21% 5-39 24 401 9% 40-99 15 987 23% 100+ 12 2065 47% Total 835 4349 100% *As of 4/3/18 Property Type Number of properties Number of units Percentage 1-4 781 891 21% 5-39 24 401 9% 40-99 15 987 23% 100+ 12 2064 47% Total 830 4349 100% As of 12/27/2019, Includes 111 in renewal process C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S U B J E C T:Res olu,on A ppoin,ng C ity C ouncil Members to S erve as Liais ons to City A dvisory C ommis s ions and as City Representa,ves /Vo,ng D elegates for O ther O rganiz a,ons for 2020 B ackground: At the first mee,ng of the year, the C ity C ouncil Members are appointed to s erve as C ouncil Liais ons to City A dvisory C ommis s ions and as Council representa,ves or vo,ng delegates/alternates for boards , commi5ees , or organiza,ons in which the City par,cipates. 2019 C ouncil Appointments were are as follows: Commission/O rganizaon C ouncil M ember F inancial C ommis s ion M arquita Butler H ous ing C ommis s ion Kris Law rence-A nderson Park & Recrea,on Commission A pril G raves Brooklyns Youth C ouncil A pril G raves C rime P reven,on P rogram Kris Law rence-A nderson L eague of Minnes ota C i,es D an Ryan; A lt. M ike Ellio5 M etro Ci,es M ike Ellio5; A lt. D an Ryan B udget I ssues: No budget issues . S trategic Priories and Values: O pera,onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip,on U pload D ate Type Res olu,on 1/22/2020 Resolu,on Le5er Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION NO. ____________ RESOLUTION APPOINTING CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO SERVE AS LIAISONS TO CITY ADVISORY COMMISSIONS AND AS CITY REPRESENTATIVES/VOTING DELEGATES FOR OTHER ORGANIZATIONS FOR 2020 WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center City Council members are appointed to serve as liaisons to City Advisory Commissions and to serve as City Representatives/Voting delegates for other organizations annually; and WHEREAS, this resolution will ratify the appointments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the following appointments are hereby approved: Commission/Organization Council Member Financial Commission Marquita Butler Housing Commission Kris Lawrence-Anderson Park & Recreation Commission April Graves Brooklyns Youth Council April Graves Crime Prevention Program Kris Lawrence-Anderson League of Minnesota Cities Dan Ryan; Alt. Mike Elliott Metro Cities Mike Elliott; Alt. Dan Ryan 252 Project Advisory Committee Mike Elliott; Marquita Butler January 27, 2020 Date Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member Graves and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: and the following voted against the same: whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. C ouncil R egular M eeng DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, City Manager T H R O U G H :N/A BY:D r. Reggie Edwards, D eputy C ity M anager S U B J E C T:A n O rdinance A mending C hapter 12 of the City Code of O rdinances Regarding A ccess to M ul.-U nit H ousing S tructures by the U nited S tates C ensus Bureau Employees -1st Reading B ackground: I n 2019, the C ity of Brooklyn C enter es tablished par.cipa.on in the 2020 Cens us by becoming a C omplete Count C ommi4ee (C C C). The C ity als o aligned with the City of Brooklyn Park to lead the Brooklyns 2020 Cens us Coali.on. The purpos e of the C C C and the Brooklyns 2020 C ensus C oali.on is to conduct ac.vi.es or efforts in order to increas e par.cipa.on by Brooklyn C enter residents in the 2020 C ensus. I n M ay, 2019, staff presented informa.on on the 2020 Cens us to the C ity C ouncil including: its purpose, .meline, challenges and efforts of the City. O ne of the challenges pres ented w as achieving high or full par.cipa.on in the 2020 Cens us by historically under-counted popula.ons . H istorically, under-counted popula.ons include: veterans, people w ith dis abili.es, homeless, renters , college students , immigrants , people of color, seniors, people living in poverty, and children under age five. Renters is one of the specific his torically under-counted popula.ons that the C ity is focused on increasing par.cipa.on. The S tate has developed template ordinance language for local units of government that would require property ow ners of mul.-unit hous ing to permit acces s to their proper.es by census bureau employees for purposes of gaining greater par.cipa.on in the 2020 C ensus by renters and/or reaching residents w ho have not yet par.cipated in the 2020 Cens us . The ci.es of Edina and Brooklyn Park have ini.ated an ordinance amendment proces s in order to permit census bureau employees access to mul.-unit housing (s ee a4ached copies of policies for by ci.es). A4ached for the review of C ouncil is a dra< ordinance amendment of the Brooklyn Center City Code of O rdinances regarding access to mul.-unit housing s tructures by United S tates Cens us Bureau employees. B udget I ssues: None. S trategic Priories and Values: Enhanced Community I mage, O pera.onal Excellence AT TA C H M E N TS : D escrip.on U pload D ate Type C ity of Edina O rdinance 1/21/2020 Cover Memo C ity of Brookyn Park O rdinance 1/21/2020 Cover Memo O rdiinance A llow ing A cces s by C ensus 1/22/2020 O rdinance 633579v1BR291-4 CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the ____ day of __________, 2020, at 7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to consider an ordinance related to providing access to multi-unit housing structures by United States Census Bureau employees. Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance. Please notify the City Clerk at 763-569-3306 to make arrangements. ORDINANCE NO. _____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 12 OF THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING ACCESS TO MULTI-UNIT HOUSING STRUCTURES BY UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU EMPLOYEES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I. Brooklyn Center City Code Section 12-1302 is hereby amended by renumbering it to 12-1303 and creating a new Section 12-302 as follows: Section 12-1302. ACCESS TO MULTI-UNIT HOUSING STRUCTURES BY UNITED STATES CENSUS BUREAU EMPLOYEES. 1. Declaration; Purpose. a. The United States Constitution directs a decennial census count of all persons living in the United States. b. Complete, accurate census data is of critical importance to all residents of Brooklyn Center for equal political representation, fair distribution of federal and state funding, and sound planning and investment in infrastructure, real estate, business development, and public policy and programming. c. During the decennial census, the United States Census Bureau conducts Non- Response Follow-up Operations (“NRFU”), when employees of the United States Census Bureau visit households that have not yet submitted a census form. d. Renters and others who live in multi-unit housing structures have historically been at higher risk of being undercounted in the decennial census, with the number of renter households in an area being the most influential variable affecting an area's census self- response rate; in other words, the more renters in an area, the lower the self-response rate of that area. 633579v1BR291-4 e. The risk of an undercount is compounded in areas with high concentrations of communities that have been consistently undercounted in the past and who are more likely to be renters, including low income households, communities of color, Native American/American Indian communities, immigrants and refugees, and young people. f. Multi-unit housing structures can be difficult for Census Bureau employees to enter due to security barriers. g. It is critical that Census Bureau employees have access to multi-unit housing structures during the decennial census, so they can reach households that have not yet participated. h. 13 U.S. Code § 223 authorizes Census Bureau employees to access “any hotel, apartment house, boarding or lodging house, tenement, or other building”. 2. Prohibition. It is unlawful for a person, either directly or indirectly, to deny access to an apartment building, dormitory, nursing home, manufactured home park, other multi-unit structure used as a residence, or an area in which one or more single-family dwellings are located on private roadways, to employees of the United States Census Bureau who display current, valid Census Bureau credentials and who are engaged in official census counting operations during the Census Bureau’s standard operational hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. during the decennial census. 3. Census materials. Census Bureau employees granted access must be permitted to leave census materials in an orderly manner for residents at their doors, except that the manager of a nursing home may direct that the materials be left at a central location within the facility. 4. Exceptions. This Section does not prohibit any of the following: a. Denial of admittance into a particular apartment, room, manufactured home, or personal residential unit; b. Denial of permission to visit certain persons for valid health reasons, in the case of a nursing home or a registered housing with services establishment providing assisted-living services meeting the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 144G.03, subdivision 2; c. Limiting visits to a reasonable number of census employees; d. Requiring a prior appointment or notification to gain access to the structure; or e. Denial of admittance to or expulsion of an individual employee from a multi-unit housing structure for good cause. 633579v1BR291-4 Section 12-13021303. PENALTIES. Any person or responsible party who violates any provision in Sections 12-101 through 12-14021302 is subject to the penalty provided under Section 12-1205 of this Code. Nothing in this Chapter however is deemed to limit other remedies or civil penalties available to the City under this Code or state law. Each day that a violation continues shall be deemed a separate punishable offense. No provision of this Chapter designating the duties of any official or employee of the City shall be so construed as to make such official or employee liable for the penalty provided in this Section because of failure to perform such duty, unless the intention of the City Council to impose such penalty on such official or employee is specifically and clearly expressed in the Section creating the duty. ARTICLE III . Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty days following its legal publication. Adopted this ___ day of __________, 2020. ____________________________ Mike Elliott, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________ City Clerk Date of Publication _________________________ Effective Date _____________________________ (Strikeout indicates matter to be deleted, double underline indicates new matter.) Council/E D A Work S ession City Hall Council Chambers J anuary 27, 2020 AGE NDA The City C ounc il requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting. A copy of the full C ity Council pac ket is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at the entrance of the council chambers. AC T I V E D I S C US S IO N I T E M S 1.Concept Review from J O Companies, L L C for the E D A -Owned P roperties L ocated at the Northwest Corner of 61st Avenue North and B rooklyn Boulevard (30 minutes) 2.Community Development Block Grant Funding Allocation Discussion (20 minutes) 3.Housing P olicy F ramework (45 minutes) 4.Opportunity S ite Update (30 minutes) P E ND I NG L I S T F O R F UT URE WO RK S E S S IO NS 1.Pending I tems Metro Transit Bus Hub - (upcomi ng CC presentati on) Census Update - 2/10 Commemoration of 400 years of Slavery A ctivities - 2/10 L ivable Wages - 2/10 Use of E D A Owned P roperty - 2/24 F ood Trucks - 3/9 Options for Use of A djacent S pace to L iquor Store - 3/9 Discussion of Mayor/City Council roles & responsibilities (CommonSense I nc.) MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Meg Beekman, C ommunity Development Director BY:G inny Mc Intosh, C ity P lanner/Zoning Adminis trator S UBJ EC T:C oncept R eview from J O C ompanies, LLC for the EDA-O wned P roperties Located at the Northwes t C orner of 61st Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard (30 minutes ) Recommendation: - P rovide staff feedback regarding the C oncept R eview. Background: Concept Review Process T he c o nc ep t review p ro cess is an o p p o rtunity fo r the C ity C o uncil to review a develo p ment concept prior to a formal p ro p o s al from an ap p licant, and p ro vide comments , ask ques tions , and ind ic ate whether o r no t the C ity would be open to the projec t. C onc ept reviews are helpful for projects that would involve EDA-owned land or public s ubsidy, as it provid es ins ight to s taff and the d eveloper as to the C ity C ounc il’s level of interes t, and any spec ific concerns related to a project. A c o nc ep t review is c o ns idered advis o ry and is no n-bind ing to the C ity and the applic ant. No formal action can b e taken at a wo rk s es s io n, and the C o uncil is no t b eing as ked to vo te on the proposal. If the developer choos es to s ubmit a fo rmal ap p lic atio n to the C ity to proc eed , it would b e s ub ject to the full review p ro cess, as with any other development application. Background T he four EDA-owned properties located at the no rthwest corner of 61st Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard, whic h total a combined 1.79 acres, initially generated interes t from T ho r Living, LLC (later C oalition Development, L L C ) in 2018, who pres ented p lans to the C ity C ounc il fo r a 113-unit, mixed income apartment b uilding. Although C oalition Develo p ment, LLC sec ured a P reliminary Develo p ment Agreement and P urc hase Agreement from the C ity, they were unable to fo llo w through with the c o ntingenc y period c onditions outlined under the P urchas e Agreement (e.g. sec ure financ ing, receive all nec es s ary land us e ap p ro vals fro m the C ity) by O ctober 23, 2019; therefore, the P urc hase Agreement was no longer valid. Development Plan T he configuration as c urrently p ro p o s ed o n the s ite p lan c o ntemp lates the red evelopment of the northwes t corner of 61st Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard into a four s tory, 83-unit apartment b uilding, altho ugh the developer (J O C o mp anies , LLC ) has indic ated the potential fo r up to 88 units o f hous ing. T he build ing would run lengthwis e alo ng 61st Avenue North and, as propos ed in the concept review, provide 53 surface parking s talls and 76 ind o o r p arking s talls for a to tal o f 129 on-s ite parking s talls . T his is a ratio of 1.55 parking s talls per unit (83 units) or 1.47 s talls per unit (88 units). As propos ed, 51-p ercent of the units in the development wo uld be three-bedrooms, which is uniq ue given that one and two -b ed ro o m units are more often the norm. As the projec t is intended to provide ho using o p tions to thos e making 50 to 60% AMI (Area Median Income) and 25-p ercent of the units s et aside for projec t-based S ection 8, the larger three-bedroom units wo uld be attractive fo r families looking fo r rental optio ns in Brooklyn C enter. T he b uilding amenities wo uld inc lude a fitnes s center, b usines s /c o mmunity c enter, and the units would feature in-unit washers and d ryers, b alconies , and be pet-friendly. T he gro und s would allow s p ace for community gardens and leverage a direc t connec tion to Wangs tad P ark, loc ated west of the property. Tax Increment F inancing T he p ro p o s ed develo p ment site is loc ated within the exis ting T I F Dis tric t #6, whic h was c reated to acc ommodate the S anc tuary at Brooklyn C enter. As s uc h, T I F #6 is a ho using district, whic h is res erved for development p ro jec ts whic h p ro vide a perc entage of units to income qualified renters fo r the d uratio n of the T I F Dis tric t. T he p ro jec t wo uld need to meet the rent req uirements that coincide with the income limits o f a hous ing dis tric t, and the d eveloper has indic ated that they intend to ap p ly for pub lic s ubs idy as p art of their application to the C ity. T he preliminary proforma provided (attached) indic ates a gap. W hile the p ro p o s ed projec t meets the minimum req uirements fo r T I F Dis tric t #6, in that the us e o f T I F would require that a p erc entage o f the units in the b uilding would b e affo rd ab le to tho s e making 50% of the area median inc o me (AMI) o r 60% AMI, the d eveloper may want to create a new T I F Dis tric t given that T I F Dis tric t #6 has been in existenc e for a c ouple years already. Conformance with City P olicies T he EDA has b een acquiring property along Brooklyn Boulevard fo r dec ad es with the intent of as s emb ling it for higher and b etter us e as the transportation and land us e p atterns of the corridor c hange. Brooklyn Boulevard is und ergoing a complete rec o ns truc tion which will have an effect on the land use p atterns as ac cess points are cons olidated and the roadway is altered. With the ad o p tion of the 2040 C o mp rehens ive P lan, the C ity ad o p ted new future land us e des ignatio ns for muc h of the Bro o klyn Bo ulevard c o rrid o r, whic h inc lud ed a new future land use des ignatio n o f “Neighborhood Mixed Us e (N-MU).” T he NMU future land us e d es ignation contemplates an allo wanc e of a mix o f medium density res id ential and /or c o mmercial us es on a given site depend ing o n its loc ation along the corridor. F or example, commerc ial us es , with a pos s ible mix o f hous ing, will likely converge aro und primary, signalized inters ections, whic h o ffer b etter ac cess and vis ib ility; while medium d ensity res id ential us es will make up the balanc e between these primary nodes. T he propos ed development projec t is in keeping with the goals of the c orridor, is cons is tent with the adjacent S anc tuary develo p ment, and p ro vides a highest and b es t use fo r the four affec ted EDA properties , three of which have b een held b y the C ity for many years . In additio n, the proposed d evelopment, paired with the S anc tuary at Brooklyn C enter would perhap s b egin to provid e mo mentum fo r future redevelo p ment to occ ur along the corridor. Next S teps T he develo p er (J O C o mp anies , L L C ) will take input from the C ity C o uncil and incorporate comments received into any ap p licatio ns intend ed for s ubmittal. T he develo p er has expres s ed interes t in applying for grant funding. C ity s taff met with the develo p er o n Wednes d ay, January 15th and F riday, January 17th, and disc ussed options fo r fund ing s o urc es . C ity s taff sub s eq uently p ro vided info rmation regarding funding from Hennepin C ounty fo r AHI F (Affordable Hous ing Inc entive F und), HO ME Inves tment P artners hip s , and TO D (Trans it O riented Development). T he application window closes on F ebruary 6, 2020. Policy Issues: Does the C ity C ounc il have any c omments or concerns regarding the s ite plan and layout of the project? Does the C ity C ounc il have any c omments or concerns regard ing the develo p ment plan o r us e of the properties as proposed? S trategic Priorities and Values: Targeted R edevelopment AT TAC HME N T S: Desc ription Upload Date Type C oncept R eview P acket-J O C ompanies LLC -61s t and Brooklyn Blvd 1/20/2020 Bac kup Material Workforce Housing development proposal for 61st & Brooklyn Blvd site Overview: Our development team is proposing a 4 story, 88-unit (83-88 unit mix range) workforce housing development in Brooklyn Center. The income/unit mix will consist of 50%-60% AMI. We will also apply for project-based section-8 for 25% of the units which will add deeper affordability for residents. 51% of the units in our proposed development are 3-bedrooms which is rare but needed for the growing, multi- generational community in Brooklyn Center. Our proposed development is already located is in a TIF housing district which we’ll be requesting from the city. We will be applying for 4% Tax Credits (Bonds) and state and county funds. The building amenities include a community garden, fitness center, business/community center, in-unit washer and dryer, pet-friendly, balconies. The site is located on the corner of Brooklyn Blvd and 61st Ave. We’ve been having conversations with the city to see how our team and the City (Parks & Rec) can partner and have Wangstead Park be one of the many destinations for the residents. Wangstead Park is located directly adjacent to the property and will be a wonderful added amenity for our proposed development. In addition to our proposed development, one of our goals is build authentic relationships both with the business community and residents in Brooklyn Center. Our site is next to the “The Sanctuary” an assisted living and memory care facility. Across the street is an Islamic Center. I’ve already made contact and have scheduled meetings to learn about their organization and their connection to the community. Income/Rents: The monthly rents we are looking to achieve are as follows: 1 BR 50% - $937 1BR 60% - $1125 2BR 50% - $1125 2BR 60% - $1350 3BR 50% - $1300 3BR 60% - $1560 JO Companies Bio/Development Partners: JO Companies is a real estate development company. Our company specializes in developing affordable & workforce housing, and residential real estate. Other real estate development areas include: mixed- use, market rate, and commercial development. Johnny Opara, President and CEO of JO Companies is new to the real estate development world. After spending over 17 years in corporate America in sales & leadership roles, he left to become an entrepreneur and pursue his passion for real estate. Johnny’s passion and motivation for developing affordable housing was fueled from his father. Johnny saw first- hand how important the lack of affordable and quality housing affects its residents and their family. From the owners/operators and property management team down, Johnny knows how critical those components play in residents living in a safe, quality, affordable place to live. Johnny’s fathers experience while living in affordable housing at times was unpleasant and Johnny was motivated to do something about it! Johnny helped his father move to another apartment complex. After his father moved, he could see new and great changes in his father. His morale and spirit changed. He didn’t complain anymore, he was proud to invite his family over and host them. Johnny’s father was very happy. Shortly after a month and a half, Johnny’s father passed away. From there, Johnny found his purpose to become a real estate developer and develop high quality multi-family housing. Johnny’s mission is to make sure nobody goes through what his father went through, and make sure people who may need a little help, aren’t judge or looked down upon because of how much money they have or because of where they live. Johnny believes we’re all human beings, everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, and live somewhere we can all be proud of! Johnny is also a licensed real estate agent in the state of Minnesota. Currently, JO Companies & Newport Midwest have been recommended for tentative developer status/site control for their proposed workforce housing development in Saint Paul. Since 2018, JO Companies has been working with the city and community to build a high-quality workforce housing development. JO Companies and his development partners have received support both from the leadership team, elected officials, business community and many stakeholders within the community. In addition, JO Companies has brought on partners for this proposed development on 61st & Brooklyn Blvd. JO Companies development partners are developers and owner & operators. Collectively they bring over 40 years of experience and success. They are well versed and known within the real estate development community. Their success and experience as developers & operators define them individually in their own right. We also will utilize a very experienced and reputable property management company. JO Companies and his partners will be long-term owners and operators for this proposed development Design: Pope Architects is the architectural firm that will design our proposed development for the 61st & Brooklyn Blvd. site. We believe and value partnerships. By partnering with the city and the community, we believe this will be key in the making this development a success! After many meetings with the city and its leaders, we believe we are moving in the right direction. Why we like the sites: Our team like this site for multiple reasons. The first reason is that we feel that there already is a strong market and demand for affordable/workforce housing in Brooklyn Center. With multi-generational families becoming the norm especially within the immigrant community, more quality affordable housing is needed more than ever. Brooklyn Blvd is a major street and provides access to all major highways for travel to work. Major retailers and businesses and transit are within minutes of walking distance. We like that this site already had council support for multi-unit housing and is in a current TIF district. Wangstead Park being next to the site is also beneficial for the residents. Benefits to City: The lack of affordable housing is plaguing our cities, and many families are rent burdened. The need for more newly constructed affordable/workforce housing is especially important in Brooklyn Center and its sister cities. Majority of apartments in Brooklyn Center were constructed many decades ago and only have 1 & 2 BR for the most part. Having a development with 3 BR will bring with a ton value and much needed space for families that need it most. This land been has sitting vacant for some time and we believe now is the best time to bring this development forward especially with the investments both city and business community are making. Taxes will be generated as revenue for the City long term. As has been previously stated, there will be a certain number of units set aside for designated residents who qualify for deeper affordability. Parking/Unit-Mix: Per our site plan we currently will have 53 surface parking stalls and 76 underground stalls totals 129 parking stalls. Our current breakdown of units are 14 one bedrooms, 27 two bedrooms and 42 three bedrooms which totals 83 units. Our updated site-plan shows 83 units, but we will be working with the city to see what it will take to bring the unit count back to its original unit count of 88 units. If we can’t find a solution, then the unit count and parking stalls will stay the same. We are averaging 1.6 stalls per bedroom for our proposed development. DEVELOPMENT COSTS 88 units Use Amount Per Unit % of TDC Land $712,000 $8,090.91 3% Hard Costs $16,728,770 $190,099.66 74% Soft Costs $3,011,885 $34,225.96 13% Developer Fee $2,070,000 $23,522.73 9% TDC $22,522,655 $255,939 FINANCING SOURCES Source Amount % of Total First Mortgage $11,901,000 53% LIHTC Equity $5,935,221 26% TIF $3,131,000 14% Met Council/ HOME $1,000,000 4% GP Equity $555,433 2% TDC $22,522,654 100% First Mortgage Sizing Term 35 Rate 5.40% MIN DSCR 1.15 INCOME/ RENTS Unit Size Tenant Mix Unit Sq Ft Monthly Rent PSF 1 BR 50% AMI 800 $937 $1.17 1 BR 60% AMI 800 $1,125 $1.41 2 BR 50% AMI 1020 $1,125 $1.10 2 BR 60% AMI 1020 $1,350 $1.32 3 BR 50% AMI 1150 $1,300 $1.13 3 BR 60% AMI 1150 $1,560 $1.36 OPERATING EXPENSES Per Unit 7,233 % of Effective Gross Income ~45% ASSUMPTIONS 5% Vacancy Rate No Resident Services No Commercial or Parking Revenue Brooklyn Boulevard Land Valuation Per unit Hard Cost $190,100 # of Units 88 Lot Value (estimate)$712,000 Dev Fee 10%Vacancy Factor 7%cost per sqft $9.13 Soft Cost %21%Operating Cost per Unit $7,233 Development Budget Units & Income Mortgage Sizing Land 712,000$ 1 BR # units Potential Rent Gross Potential Rent First Mortgage Sizing Hard Costs 16,728,770$ 50% AMI 5 $937 $56,220 Bank Loan 11,901,000$ Soft Costs 3,011,885$ 60% AMI 10 $1,125 $135,000 Annual Debt Service 617,298$ Developer Fee 2,070,000$ 15 $191,220 TDC 22,522,655$ 2 BR # units Potential Rent Gross Potential Rent 50% AMI 10 $1,125 $135,000 Sources & Uses 60% AMI 18 $1,350 $291,600 Construction Financing 28 $426,600 Construction Loan 16,649,177$ LIHTC Equity 1,187,044$ 3 BR # units Potential Rent Gross Potential Rent GAP 1,555,433$ 50% AMI 10 $1,300 $156,000 TIF 3,131,000$ 60% AMI 35 $1,560 $655,200 Total 22,522,654$ 45 $811,200 Permanent Financing Total Units 88 Permanent Loan 11,901,000$ LIHTC Equity 5,935,221$ GAP 1,555,433$ Annual Gross Potential Rent $1,429,020 TIF 3,131,000$ net of vacancy ($100,031) Total 22,522,654$ Net Projected Revenue $1,328,989 net of annual operating costs $0 Net Rental Income $1,328,989 End Loan Underwriting YEAR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Income (Net of vacancy)2%$1,328,989 $1,355,568 $1,382,680 $1,410,333 $1,438,540 $1,467,311 $1,496,657 $1,526,590 $1,557,122 $1,588,264 $1,620,030 $1,652,430 $1,685,479 $1,719,188 $1,753,572 Operating Expenses 3%($636,540)($655,636)($675,305)($695,564)($716,431)($737,924)($760,062)($782,864)($806,350)($830,540)($855,457)($881,120)($907,554)($934,780)($962,824) Debt Service ($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298) Net Operating Income $75,150 $82,634 $90,076 $97,470 $104,810 $112,088 $119,296 $126,428 $133,474 $140,426 $147,275 $154,012 $160,627 $167,110 $173,450 DSC 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.18 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.23 1.24 1.25 1.26 1.27 1.28 YEAR 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Income (Net of vacancy)2%$1,788,644 $1,824,417 $1,860,905 $1,898,123 $1,936,085 $1,974,807 $2,014,303 $2,054,589 $2,095,681 $2,137,595 $2,180,347 $2,223,954 $2,268,433 $2,313,801 $2,360,077 Operating Expenses 3%($991,709)($1,021,460)($1,052,104)($1,083,667)($1,116,177)($1,149,662)($1,184,152)($1,219,676)($1,256,267)($1,293,955)($1,332,773)($1,372,757)($1,413,939)($1,456,357)($1,500,048) Debt Service ($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298)($617,298) Net Operating Income $179,637 $185,658 $191,503 $197,158 $202,610 $207,847 $212,853 $217,614 $222,116 $226,342 $230,275 $233,899 $237,195 $240,145 $242,731 DSC 1.29 1.30 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.34 1.34 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.37 1.38 1.38 1.39 1.39 Brooklyn Boulevard TIF Loan 1 0 1.50%0 LTV Projection 2 $20,000,000 1.50%$300,000 NPV $3,914,327 3 $20,200,000 1.50%$303,000 Max LTV 80% 4 $20,402,000 1.50%$306,030 Allowable Loan $3,131,462 5 $20,606,020 1.50%$309,090 6 $20,812,080 1.50%$312,181 Term 20 7 $21,020,201 1.50%$315,303 Rate 5.00% 8 $21,230,403 1.50%$318,456 Monthly $20,666 9 $21,442,707 1.50%$321,641 Annual $247,995 10 $21,657,134 1.50%$324,857 11 $21,873,705 1.50%$328,106 12 $22,092,443 1.50%$331,387 13 $22,313,367 1.50%$334,701 14 $22,536,501 1.50%$338,048 15 $22,761,866 1.50%$341,428 16 $22,989,484 1.50%$344,842 17 $23,219,379 1.50%$348,291 18 $23,451,573 1.50%$351,774 19 $23,686,089 1.50%$355,291 20 $23,922,950 1.50%$358,844 $6,243,269 5% NPV 3,914,327 Apartments 1br 2 br 3 br unit type floor area floor area 800 1020 1150 unit area (gsf) per floor (nsf) per floor # floors total area sf/unit sf/unit sf/unit TOTAL Main Fl 23,600 18,880 1 18,880 6 6 7 19 Second Fl 29,000 23,200 1 23,200 3 7 12 22 Third Fl 29,000 23,200 1 23,200 3 7 12 22 Fourth Fl 27,120 21,696 1 21,696 3 6 11 20 subtotal 14 27 42 83 17% 32% 51% Office 1,000 Lobby 1,500 Community Room 1,500 Fitness Room 900 Business Center 500 5,400 subtotal Roof terrace 900 Community room 980 1,880 subtotal Parking - 29,000 76 cars LOWER LEVEL TOTAL AREA 145,000 TOTAL UNITS 83 Parking requirements units stalls 1 bedrooms 14 14 16 2 and 3 bedrooms 69 137.20 112 staff 1 129 Parking provided garage 76 surface 53 129 15-Jan-20 1 per unit 2 per unit JO Companies Housing Data MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Meg Beekman, C ommunity Development Director BY:Jesse Anders on, Deputy Direc tor of C ommunity Development S UBJ EC T:C ommunity Development Bloc k G rant F unding Allocation Dis cus s ion (20 minutes ) Recommendation: - It is recommended that the C ity C ouncil consider providing direction to staff regarding the C ommunity D evelopment B lock G rant (C D B G ) funding allocations. Background: C ity S taff is s eeking direction from the C ity C ounc il on the allocation of 2020-2021 C ommunity Development Bloc k G rants (C DBG ) funds. C DBG funds are provided by the U.S . Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to help with community development activities that benefit low and moderate inc ome persons . T he funds are primarily intended for bric ks and mortar improvements, as oppos ed to public s ervic e ac tivities. Hennepin C ounty rec eives C DBG funds directly from HUD as part of a c onsolidated pool of funds, whic h is administered on behalf of partic ipating s uburban Hennepin C ounty c ommunities. Boomington, Eden P rairie, Minnetonka and P lymouth do not partic ipate in the c onsolidated pool and receive C DBG funds direc tly from HUD. Brooklyn C enter is cons idered a Direct Allocation C ity and is a sub-recipient of the funds through Hennepin C ounty. C DB G S tatutory and Adm inistrative Requirements T he F ederal Authorizing S tatute for the C DBG program requires that eac h funded C DBG activity meet one of three national objec tives : 1. Benefiting low inc ome persons 2. P reventing or eliminating s lums and/or blight 3. Meeting urgent community needs. T he F ederal Law als o spec ifies that eac h recipient receiving funds must ins ure at leas t 70 perc ent of the C DBG expenditures during the program year be us ed for activities benefiting low and/or very low inc ome persons . Each c ity mus t meet this requirement at the local level. As part of the adminis tration of the C DBG funds, Hennepin C ounty adopts a 5-year funding plan, which further defines the priority needs of the program and clarifies what activities are eligible for funding. T his year Hennepin C ounty will adopt a new 5-year funding plan. W hile a new plan has not yet been finalized, Hennepin C ounty has provided a draft to cities . O verall, the priority needs are around continuing what’s working, while s hifting the focus to preserving affordability and reduc ing disparities in housing s tability. T hes e include: P riority Need 1: F ocus home ownership ac tivities on creation; on preserving affordability of home owners hip; on reducing dis parities P riority Need 2: R ehab multifamily rentals (espec ially for smaller NO AH / duplexes ) P riority Need 3: Increase funding and impac t of emergenc y as s is tance / homeless prevention P riority Need 4: Increase rental ins pections (code enforc ement) P riority Need 5: C reate deeply affordable senior rentals Because H ennepin C ounty is responsible for the monitoring and reporting of the C D B G funds, the C ounty oversees the use of funds within the consolidated pool. C ities that wish to diverge from the typical use of funds must seek permission from the County. P rior to 2018, c ities were allowed to allocate up to 15 percent of their C DBG funding to public services. W hile Brooklyn C enter regularly did so, other communities c hose not to. In addition, the reporting requirements for the funds are onerous, and the C ounty determined that it would be eas ier to pool the public s ervic e alloc ation and administer the dis tribution of thos e funds internally. Eac h city is now as ked to s end a representative to a committee, whic h reviews public s ervic e funding requests and makes a determination as a whole as to whic h public service organizations get funding and how muc h. Previous CDBG Allocation C D B G funding allocations run from July 1st-June 30th each year. T he 2019-2020 C D B G funding round was allocated by the City Council in F ebruary 2019 and is set through June 30, 2020. T he funding was allocated as follows: 2019 C D B G Amount Allocation determination Program $75,000 $75,000 C ode Enforcement and Neighborhood R evitalization $50,000 $50,000 Down P ayment As s is tance $132,550 R emaining T he remaining funds were alloc ated to the Hennepin C ounty Home rehab program T he us e of the funds is limited to allowed us es under HUD program eligibility and further narrowed by Hennepin C ounty's 5-year funding plan. Most c ities utilize C DBG to fund their hous ing rehab programs . T hes e are programs that provide deferred/forgivable loans to low inc ome home owners to make needed repairs and maintenance to their homes . F or c ommunities with an aging hous ing stock such as Brooklyn C enter's, this is the only source of funds available to as s is t with the maintenanc e and upkeep of homes . Brooklyn C enter has allocated roughly $85,000 to $132,550 annually to its hous ing rehab program. T he funds as s is t 8-10 hous eholds annually. T here is c urrently a waiting list of 61 people s eeking funding from the housing rehab program as additional funds bec ome available. Brooklyn C enter has allocated $150,000 of funds towards supporting the C ode Enforc ement and Neighborhood R evitalization P rogram since 2009, with 2019 funds being reduced to $75,000. T he 2020 budget removed C DBG funding for C ode Enforc ement Activity as antic ipated revenue. 2019-2020 C DB G Allocation Typically H ennepin C ounty notifies communities by D ecember as to their anticipated C D B G allocation for the following cycle and provides information about the upcoming consolidated R F P for public service applications. To date, the city has not yet received this information. Nevertheless, the city's resolution allocating its 2020-2021 C D B G funds is anticipated to be due by the end of F ebruary, and therefore staff did not want to wait to bring this discussion forward. W hile we do not yet know the exact amount of C D B G allocation for the next cycle, we have been advised by H ennepin C ounty to use the estimate of $258,000, based off last year's allocation, for the purposes of determining the allocation of funds. H owever, this allocation amount could be adjusted once H U D provides final amounts. H ennepin C ounty receives the lump sum from H U D and determines the allocation among the participating cities based on a formula that takes into account population and need. City 2020 Estimated Allocations 2019 Direct Allocation Brooklyn Center $258,000 $257,550 Brooklyn P ark $381,000 $394,400 Edina $116,000 $128,350 Hopkins $124,000 $134,300 Maple Grove $157,000 $161,500 Minnetonka $120,000 $131,750 New Hope $91,000 $92,650 Richfield $210,000 $192,100 St. Louis Park $147,000 $155,550 F unding Allocation O ptions Housing R ehab P rogram - As C DBG funds are the only s ourc e of funding to maintain the C ity's exis ting s ingle family housing s toc k, one option would be to inc reas e the allocation of C DBG funds to this use. 86 percent of Brooklyn C enter's housing s upply is s ingle family homes , nearly all of whic h were cons tructed prior to 1975. Many of these homes are in need of maintenance, and for low inc ome home owners this c os t can be overly burdensome. Maintaining the c ity's housing s toc k through this program not only provides stable home owners hip for low income home owners , but also maintains an affordable housing s toc k for new buyers as well. Down P ayment As s is tance - Brooklyn C enter alloc ated $50,000 towards home buyer as s is tance with the 2019 C DBG funding. T he C ity is c ontracting with C enter for Energy and Environment (C EE) to administer the program. It is anticipated that loan applic ations will begin being ac cepted toward the end of F ebruary. Loans of up to $7,500 towards down payment as s is tance for Brooklyn C enter residents looking to buy a home in Brooklyn C enter would be forgivable after 10 years of home ownership. Direct affordable apartment as s is tance - Brooklyn P ark offers a program that s upports exis ting naturally occ urring affordable multi-family buildings with maintenanc e and rehab. O ne c hallenge with this program is that the c os t of rehabilitation is generally quite high, whic h limits the us e of the funds to one or two properties a year. S cattered s ite acquis ition/rehab - T he scattered site acquisition is done in N ew H ope. It is similar to the C ity's previous buy and replace program. I t allows for the purchase and renovation or demo of a blighted structure, which is then sold to a low/moderate income household. T he individual cost per unit is high, minimizing the impact of this program. Infras tructure improvements - T hese are physic al improvements to c ommunity or public fac ilities that are utilized by low and moderate income res idents . S ome c ities have us e C DBG funds to purchas e play ground equipment or make other phys ical improvements. O ne challenge with the use of C DBG funds in this manner is that it triggers F ederal F air Wage standards, whic h require a signific ant amount of reporting and paperwork, and inc reas ing the cost of the projec t above what it would be if other funds were available, making s mall sc ale improvements more work and more expensive than the value of the funding being us ed. S mall Busines s Entrepreneur F unding - O ptions for us ing C DBG funds for programs to s upport the creation/s upport of s mall bus inesses were dis cus s ed with Hennepin C ounty s taff. HUD rules allow for C DBG funds to be used in this manner under c ertain c ircums tances and to s upport job creation. Acc ording to Hennepin C ounty staff, use of the funds requires demons trated job creation over an extended amount of time. Not unlike other us es of C DBG funds, it requires extens ive reporting, whic h falls on individual small busines s owners and monitoring is required over a number of years. F ederal funding often comes with s tringent reporting and monitoring requirements , which c an create a barrier. Alternatively, the c ity's EDA funds may be a better mec hanis m to serve small busines s es as the funds can be more nimbly applied. Recommendation: T he 2020 C DBG funding for Brooklyn C enter is anticipated to be $258,000. It is staffs rec ommendation to continue to fund the existing programs ; the Home Buyer Assistanc e P rogram and the Home R ehab P rogram. S taff recommends an increase of funding to both programs , which would be offset by the funds that have typically been alloc ated towards C ode Enforc ement Activities . T he recommended alloc ation would be $100,000 for the Home O wnership As s is tance P rogram and $158,000 alloc ated for the Home R ehab P rogram. Based on C ity C ounc il's direc tion a res olution will be prepared and a public hearing will be scheduled for the February 27, 2020 City Council M eeting. Attachm ents C DBG F unding His tory Housing R ehab P rogram Information Brooklyn C enter Home Buyer P rogram Information Policy Issues: D oes the City Council want to increase the funding for the H ome O wnership Assistance P rogram and the H ome Rehab P rogram with the removal of the funds allocated for Code E nforcement Activity? Are there any other programs or areas that city s taff s hould researc h? S trategic Priorities and Values: R es ident Ec onomic S tability AT TAC HME N T S: Desc ription Upload Date Type F unding His tory 1/21/2020 Bac kup Material Home O wnership As s itance P rogram G uidlines 1/13/2020 Bac kup Material R ehab P rogram S ummary 1/13/2020 Bac kup Material Public Service Funds 2019*$257,550 $236,300 * $75,000 $132,550 $50,000 2018*$236,300 $236,300 * $150,000 $86,300 2017 $255,616 $261,243 $34,840 $150,000 $76,403 2016 $258,779 $259,455 $38,816 $150,000 $70,639 2015 $243,462 $258,779 $36,519 $150,000 $72,260 2014 $239,249 $243,462 $35,887 $150,000 $57,575 2013 $211,641 $239,249 $31,740 $150,000 $57,509 2012 $170,294 $211,641 $31,745 $150,000 $29,896 2011 $203,588 $170,294 $25,510 $125,474 $19,310 2010 $188,965 $203,588 $28,345 $164,623 $10,620 2009 $186,215 $188,965 $27,935 $150,000 $11,030 $27,932 $158,283 $0 $108,283 Amended by Council 2007 $193,749 NA $29,062 $164,687 2006 $195,019 NA $29,250 $165,769 2005 $199,764 NA $29,820 $169,944 2004 $239,029 NA $35,500 $203,529 *2018 CDBG allocation doesn't include 15% Public service fees as Henneping County Directly distributed the funds. 2008 $186,968 $186,215 Funding Year Initial Budget Adjusted Neighborhood Stabilization/ Code Enforcement Initiatives Hennepin County Rehab Funds Home Owner Assistance Program $50,000 Amended by Council 1 EXHIBIT A City of Brooklyn Center First Time Homebuyer Program Part I: Program Overview The City of Brooklyn Center offers a financial assistance program for homeownership funded by the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The First Time Homebuyer Program provides financial assistance for low and moderate income households to become homeowners. Administration of the First Time Homebuyer Program and the functions and responsibilities shall be in compliance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) CDBG regulations as well as all Federal, State and local nondiscrimination laws and with the rules and regulations governing Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in housing and employment. No family or individual shall be denied the equal opportunity to apply for or receive assistance under the First Time Homebuyer Program on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, creed, national origin, age, familial or marital status, handicap or disability, sexual orientation or reliance on public assistance. Program Goals The First Time Homebuyer Program has the following two goals: a. Assist low and moderate income families to purchase homes within the City of Brooklyn Center by providing assistance with down payment, closing costs and mortgage principle reduction. b. Promote responsible home ownership Program Administration The Program will be administered through Center for Energy and Environment (CEE). PROGRAM POLICIES Financial Assistance The financial assistance is in the form of a loan of up to $7,500, but no more than 10% of the purchase price. There is no interest on the loan and no payments are required. The loan is forgiven after 10 years and is reduced by 20% each year after the 5th year. If the home is sold, the title transferred, or no longer owner-occupied, within the first 10 years after the purchase date, then the remaining pro- rated amount will be become due. The Financial Assistance may be used to:  Pay up to 50% of the amount the homebuyer is required to provide toward the down payment under the particular mortgage program they are utilizing. The homebuyer must contribute a minimum of $1,000 of their own funds towards the down payment.  Pay up to 100% of the homebuyer’s eligible closing costs. Borrowers are permitted to use program funds for interest rate buy downs if documentation is provided from the lender that 2 shows the buy down is necessary to secure their primary mortgage.  Reduce the mortgage principal up to 10% of the purchase price, up to $7,500. The applicant(s) housing ratio must be at least 25%, but cannot exceed 35% of their gross monthly qualifying income. The housing ratio is calculated using the current year’s projected income. Under certain circumstances, the HRA Executive Director may allow the DTI to exceed 35%. The financial assistance will be provided at a minimum amount of $5,000 and a maximum amount of $7,500. In certain situations, the City may allow assistance in excess of the maximum at their discretion. CEE will review the applicant’s verified income and assets, estimated closing costs, purchase agreement, and lender’s recommendations for financial assistance in compliance with uses described above. Lenders must provide a pre-approval letter indicating the maximum amount of financing the borrower would qualify for from the first mortgage lender. CEE will verify an applicant’s income and assets through written verifications as provided by either the lender or by the applicant. The City staff may re-verify income and asset information provided by the lender. The Center for Energy and Environment will calculate the applicant’s gross annual income using paystubs and recent tax returns or other qualifying verification as determined by City staff to ensure the applicant(s) qualifies as a low or moderate income household as required by CDBG regulations and to determine the maximum amount of assistance. Financial assistance will be provided at the time of closing on the property with the following conditions:  Selected applicants must meet the requirements of the program and be eligible for the financial assistance throughout the entire application process.  The housing unit to be purchased and the purchase price must be accepted by the City as meeting the intent and requirements of the program.  The financial assistance provided by the program is in the form of a no-interest loan that is forgiven 10 years from the initial purchase date. If the house is sold, transferred or no longer the primary place of residence within that 10 year period, the loan will be repaid on a pro-rated basis.  The homebuyers must enter into a second mortgage and execute a Repayment Agreement with the City providing for repayment of the indebtedness 10 years from the initial purchase date or when the house is sold, transferred or no longer the primary place of residence, whichever occurs first. Responsibilities of the First Time Homebuyer The responsibilities of the prospective homebuyers are to:  Obtain mortgage pre-qualification for a 1st mortgage  Submit a pre-application and mortgage pre-qualification to the HRA or CEE  Complete, sign and return the full application packet, authorization for release of information form, and other certification and verification forms within the time frame specified.  Register and attend the Home Stretch or Framework – Homebuyers workshop such as those offered by Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County (CAP-HC), Neighborhood 3 Development Alliance (NeDA), NeighborWorks Home Partners, or PRG Inc. More information about homebuyer education can be found online at: http://www.hocmn.org/buyingahome/homebuyer-education/. Classes must have been completed within 12 months prior to closing. The applicant will be provided with a certificate of attendance. A copy of this certificate should be forwarded to the lender and CEE.  Select a real estate agent, if one is desired.  Select a dwelling in Brooklyn Center for purchase that is an eligible dwelling under the program.  Provide information throughout the process as required by the lender or the City staff.  Execute a purchase agreement that includes the Environmental Review addendum supplied by the Hennepin County, and any subsequent Amendments.  Execute the lender’s mortgage and related documents.  Execute the City’s Mortgage and Promissory Note.  Close on the property within the time frame specified in the Purchase Agreement.  Execute other required forms within the time frame specified or required.  Take occupancy of the dwelling within 30 days after closing, homestead the property, and continue to occupy the dwelling as a Principal Place of Residence.  Make principal, interest, property tax and insurance payments as required.  Reimburse the City in accordance with the City’s Mortgage and Promissory Note should the First Time Homebuyer trigger repayment through sale, moving, transfer of ownership or foreclosure within 10 years or default on any other terms of these documents. Responsibilities of the Lender The lender must:  Verify the prospective homebuyer’s income and assets to determine that they meet the requirements of the program and submit a copy of the verification to CEE. These copies must be submitted to CEE as part of a completed application.  Compute the Mortgage, Down Payment, Mortgage payments and Closing Costs of Acceptable Loans approved by the Program to determine the most cost-effective and appropriate form of financing for the First Time Homebuyer to use.  Provide a title search and review the documents.  Provide CEE with a pre-approval letter stating the maximum mortgage amount the applicant is approved for.  Provide CEE other verification materials as requested by the City. 4  Process a mortgage consistent with the Program.  Meet all deadlines in a timely fashion, especially those that relate to the Closing. All documents must be completed and delivered to CEE at least 30 business days prior to the Closing.  Appraise property to determine the loan-to-value ratio. Provide copy to CEE. Responsibilities of the City: The responsibilities of the HRA for the Program are to:  Establish Program requirements  Modify or terminate the Program as may be appropriate or required.  Reimbursed CEE per contract between CEE and the City. Responsibilities of the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE): The responsibilities of the HRA for the Program are to:  Administer the Program. CEE is a Vendor and not a Sub-Recipient of the Program.  Send applicants the application form, the authorization for release of information form and other certification and verification forms.  Review the Application and other material for eligibility.  Establish the initial eligibility of participants via the information provided in the pre-application process. Full approval will be determined upon completion and submission of a full application and supporting documents.  Notify applicants when ineligible.  Direct prospective buyers to register for the homebuyer workshops and provide information and forms related to the Program.  Provide liaison services involving the prospective buyer, lender and any real estate agent that might be involved in the transaction.  Review appraisal, purchase agreement, eligibility and mortgage for consistency with the Program requirements.  Prepare and execute the Mortgage and Promissory Note.  Provide Funds, Mortgage and Promissory Note according to Program guidelines to the applicant or title company at the time of Closing.  Service the Mortgage and Promissory Note per Loan Servicing Contract with CEE.  Request reimbursement to the city per Program Contract between CEE and the City. 5  Provide income documentation relating to CDBG reporting requirements.  Pre-Application Process At the time of application, applicants must provide CEE with the following information and meet the eligibility requirements:  CDBG Participant Intake Form.  Complete Certification Application.  Total gross annual income documentation as listed on the Acceptable Form(s) of Verification list  Copy of Lease, which must include start and end dates.  Letter from lender indicating the amount of a home loan for which applicant is pre-qualified.  HC Housing Programs Authorization for Release of Information signed by all adults in the household.  Copy of Executed Purchase Agreement The information listed above will provide CEE sufficient information to determine if the applicant is applicant is eligible for the Program.. Applicants will be notified if they are eligible or ineligible based on the information provided in the application. It is the responsibility of each applicant to ensure that the information is correct and that CEE receives the application. 6 Eligibility Requirements To be eligible to participate in the Program, the applicant must meet the following requirements at the time of application and throughout the process up until Closing.  Must be a current resident in Brooklyn Center with verifiable with a lease agreement , valid identification, utility bills or other source of verification showing at least 6 months tenancy in Brooklyn Center.  Must have no prior home ownership in the past 3 years (unless displaced due to divorce).  Must be a U.S. citizen or have legal immigration status.  Must be a First Time Homebuyer, as defined in Appendix A.  Must not have a Gross annual Income that exceeds the maximum income limits which are revised annually to reflect the current year’s CDBG maximum income limits. Income is calculated using the required documentation as listed on the Acceptable Form(s) of Verification list. For information on calculating income, please contact a Brooklyn Center Housing Specialist. FY 2019 CDBG Income Limits Calculated as 80% of the Area Median Income. Source: https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/5334/cdbg-income-limits/ Household Size Household Income Limit 1 Person Household $52,850 2 Person Household $60,400 3 Person Household $67,950 4 Person Household $75,500 5 Person Household $81,550 6 Person Household $87,600 7 Person Household $93,650 8 Person Household $99,700  The household must not have Gross Assets exceeding $10,000, excluding retirement savings and assets used for borrowers down-payment and/or closing costs.  Borrowers are required to invest at least $1,000 of their own monies towards the purchase price of the home.  Must meet the requirements of a Lender and qualify for a first mortgage. 7  Borrowers cannot have a non-occupant cosigner.  Loan must be a fixed-rate, prime loan. No adjustable or balloon mortgages.  Must fulfill the Program obligations in a timely manner and must remain eligible to participate based on the program requirements and those of the lender through the time of Closing.  Must not have a previous loan through the City that ended in foreclosure or any other loan that ended in foreclosure within the previous five years. CEE will verify through the city (email or phone call).  Must not buy dwelling with a contract for deed.  Must meet the requirements as specified elsewhere in these First Time Homebuyer Program Guidelines. 8 Denial of Eligibility CEE will review and verify all applications for eligibility. Those applicants not meeting the eligibility requirements will be sent a written notice explaining the reason(s) for denial of program participation. Appeals regarding interpretation of eligibility requirements may be made in writing to the Deputy Director of Community Development for the city of Brooklyn Center, and then to the Director of Community Development and then to the City Manager. Appeals that clearly do not meet eligibility requirements will not be considered. Eligible Dwellings To be eligible the property must meet the following requirements:  Be located within the City of Brooklyn Center.  Be a single-family dwelling, a townhouse unit, duplex or a condominium unit.  Be a conforming use as defined by the Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance.  Be free of lead-based paint hazards at the time of Closing. This will be determined through the Environmental Review. See page 11 for more detailed information regarding lead-based paint hazards. Applicant Outreach The City and CEE will publicize and disseminate information to make known the availability of homeownership assistance on a regular basis through a variety of media and other suitable means. The availability of assistance will be communicated to other services providers, realtors, and lenders in the community and advise them of the guidelines so that they can make proper referrals for the Program. Realtors and lenders will be encouraged to provide additional services to eligible clients to ensure their successful utilization of the program. Applicant Pool The applicant pool for the Program shall consist of all those who have completed and returned the application and disclosures, CDBG Participant Intake Form, the Certification Application, written verification from their lender of pre-approval, and any other documentation requested by CEE or the City needed to verify eligibility. Funds will be available to the applicant pool on a first come, first serve basis. The following will be given priority if there are more complete applications than funding available.  Applicant with dependents under age 18  Applicant has lived in Brooklyn Center longer than 6 months prior to Closing  Head or co-head of household has primary, longer-term employment in Brooklyn Center  Applicant has never owned a home (versus having owned a home over three years ago) 9 Approval from the applicant pool is tentative and conditional. Families selected for participation must fulfill the Program obligations in a timely manner and must remain eligible to participate based on the Program requirements and those of the lender through the time of Closing. PART III: PROGRAM RULES Repayment of Assistance Repayment of the down payment assistance loan shall occur upon the earliest of:  Sale or transfer  The property ceases for any reason to be the homebuyer’s principal place of residence.  Default on the mortgage with the City or any superior mortgage on the property. Repayment of the loan shall be pro-rated, with the principal amount due reduced by 20% for each year after 5 years of the homeowner’s tenancy in their Brooklyn Center home, as established by the loan date on the filed mortgage with the HRA. AGE OF LOAN AMOUNT OF PRINCIPAL LOAN AMOUNT DUE 0 - 1 year 100 % of principal loan amount due 1 - 2 year 100 % of principal loan amount due 2 - 3 years 100 % of principal loan amount due 3 - 4 years 100 % of principal loan amount due 4 - 5 years 100 % of principal loan amount due 5 - 6 years 100 % of principal loan amount due 6 - 7 years 80% of principal loan amount due 7 - 8 years 60% of principal loan amount due 8 - 9 years 40% of principal loan amount due 9 - 10 years 20% of principal loan amount due 10+ years 0% due, Loan Fully forgiven When a loan made by the City is paid in full or forgiven, a document satisfying the lien will be prepared by CEE, executed by the City Manager or his or her delegate and delivered to the borrower for recording. The borrower is responsible for the cost of recording the satisfaction. Contact the Community Development Department for more information about repayment of a City loan. Subordination of Mortgages Brooklyn Center City loan recipients requesting subordination of the interest of the City in real property must submit a Subordination Request Form, the required supporting documentation, and a processing fee. Request should be made to CEE. 10 The following information must be submitted with the Subordination Request Form: 1. A typed letter dated and signed by the mortgagor, stating the reason for the requested subordination and the use of any equity being removed as part of the loan transaction. 2. A copy of the current appraisal (dated within six months of application), recent estimated property value as listed on the most recent property tax statement or other evidence of market value of the property that is acceptable to the HRA. 3. A copy of current title work (must indicate all debt against the property). 4. Explanation of remaining debts or liens with supporting documentation (i.e. most recent mortgage bill). 5. Estimated closing costs as listed on the Loan Estimate and/or Closing Disclosure. 6. A copy of the mortgagor’s loan application. 7. Additional documentation may be required. The City will subordinate its mortgage interest if all of the following conditions are met, to the extent that they are applicable: 1. Closing costs are reasonable. Generally this shall mean that the sum of all discount points, origination fees, and lender ancillary fees generally shall not exceed 3% of the new first mortgage amount. 2. If the City believes that the payment terms of the refinance are within the financial means of the borrower. 3. The overall value of superior debt must not be increased by more than 50%. 4. Property taxes, if not escrowed by the superior mortgage holder, must be current. The City will not subordinate to reverse mortgages. In most cases, interest-only loans or loans with interest-only options, revolving lines of credits or debt consolidation will not be allowed unless the City determines that an acceptable reason warrants this type of loan. The City may approve other subordination requests not meeting the conditions above on a case-by-case basis that are clearly in the best interests of the City, where the security of the City loan remains 11 acceptable, and denial of the request will cause or contribute to a documented hardship on the part of the borrower. Subordination requests will be processed by CEE staff, who will submit the request with a recommendation for action, to the City. The City Manager has the authority to grant a subordination request when, based on his or her discretion, the subordination is reasonable based on the criteria set forth in this Policy. Targeted Funding At various times, the City may target Program funding for purchases in specific developments. Applicants purchasing in those developments would receive Program funding prior to all other applications. Modification and Termination of Program The City may modify or terminate the Program as it deems appropriate or as required by HUD. Once the City has provided financial assistance and the mortgage executed, financial assistance shall not be rescinded except as provide for in the executed HRA Mortgage, Loan Agreement, and Promissory Note. 12 APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS Acceptable Loans – Portfolio Products, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, FHA, VA and ARM’s that at a minimum are at a fixed rate for the first seven years. Applicant – an individual or household submitting an application for a loan. Application – The form used to request assistance for the City’s First Time Homebuyer funds. ARM or Adjustable Rate Mortgage – a mortgage that offers an initial rate that is fixed for a certain number of years of repayment; the rate then adjusts every year thereafter for the remaining life of the loan. CEE – The Center for Energy and Environment, which administers the City’s First Time Homebuyer Program. CDBG or Community Development Block Grant Program – an annual entitlement program provided to the City of Brooklyn Center through the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). City – The City of Brooklyn Center. Clearance – A lead based paint Certification that all lead issues have been remediated. Closing – The consummation of the real estate transaction. The Closing includes the delivery of a deed, financial adjustments the signing of notes, mortgages, and the disbursement of funds necessary to complete the sale and loan transaction. Closing Costs – Those costs required by the lender to be paid by the buyer for various fees, credit report costs, insurance, etc., at the time of Closing on a property. Conventional Mortgage – A type of residential mortgage loan, usually from a bank or savings and loan association, with a fixed rate and term. It is repayable in fixed monthly payments over a period usually 30 – 40 years or less, secured by real property, and not insured by the Federal Housing Administration or guaranteed by the Veterans Administration. Down Payment – A type of payment made by a homebuyer indicating intention to purchase real estate offered for sale and obtain financing from a bank or mortgage company. Environmental Review – The process of verifying that a project meets federal, state, and local environmental standards. The environmental review process is required for all HUD-assisted projects to ensure that the proposed project does not negatively impact the surrounding environment and that the property site itself will not have an adverse environmental or health effect on end users. Hennepin County staff is responsible for the completion of the environmental review. Environmental Review Addendum – A Purchase Agreement Addendum to the purchase agreement that states an Environmental Review will be completed by Hennepin County prior to closing. The addendum must be a part of the purchase agreement in order to be valid. Environmental Reviews take approximately 45 days to be completed by Hennepin County. 13 Fannie Mae or Federal National Mortgage Association – A privately owned and operated corporation that buys mortgages from such lenders as banks and savings and loans, packages and resells them on the open market. FHA or Federal Housing Administration – A Federal agency that administers many loan programs, loan Guarantee programs, and Loan Insurance programs designed to make more housing available. First Time Homebuyer – A household who has not owned a dwelling of any kind within the preceding three years from the date of application or who has been displaced due to a divorce situation. Gross Annual Income – The Gross annual Income of a Household for the purposes of this program is defined for purposes of reporting under Internal Revenue Service Form 1040 for individual Federal annual income tax purposes as per 24 CFR 570.3 Income (1)(iii). Gross Assets – The current market value of the following minus existing indebtedness: (Typically, it does not include 401K funds, pensions or other deferred compensation funds.) 1. Cash on hand 2. Cash in checking accounts 3. Cash in savings accounts, including accounts held in trust. 4. Investment securities (government bonds, municipal bonds) 5. Stocks 6. Certificate of deposits and annuities Guidelines – The set of standards, criteria, and specifications to be used in administering the Program. Household – All persons residing in one housing unit; which may include one or more families, a single person, a married couple, or two or more unrelated persons. Housing Counselor – A person who provides direct customer services primarily to groups, individuals, households seeking information and assistance with housing issues. Housing Ratio - the percentage of income that goes toward housing costs including mortgage principal and interest, mortgage insurance premium, hazard insurance premium, property taxes, and homeowners association dues (when applicable). HUD or U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – The principal federal agency responsible for implementing certain federal housing and community development programs. Income - The amount of money or its equivalent received during a period of time in exchange for labor or services, from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments. 14 Lead Risk Assessment – A report that describes the health risk assessment, management process, estimates of the costs of recovery, and summaries of possible defensive measures required per HUD regulation CFR Part 35: Lead Based Paint Regulations. Lender – Individual or firm that extends money to a borrower with the expectation of being repaid, usually with interest. Loan Estimate – Document disclosing the approximate closing costs a mortgage applicant will pay at or before the mortgage settlement date. Low Income Household– A household whose annual income does not exceed the low income limit as established by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families. Minnesota Housing – The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; a Minnesota State agency that administers a variety of first time homebuyer loan programs. Moderate Income Household – A household whose annual income does not exceed 80 percent of the median income for the area, as determine by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families. Mortgage – The conveyance of an interest in real property given as security for the payment of a loan. Principal Place of Residence – To occupy the home as the primary residence on a permanent basis. Program – The City’s First Time Homebuyer Program. Promissory Note – A written instrument containing a promise by the signer to pay and agreed amount. Purchase Agreement – An agreement between buyer and seller of real property, setting forth the price, and terms of the sale. Also known as a sales contract. Reducing the Mortgage Principal Amount – A method of benefitting the buyer through the use of a portion or all of the HRA provided financial assistance to lower the mortgage principle amount. In effect, this assistance acts as a larger down payment and helps to reduce the monthly mortgage payments. The available amount of assistance is up to 10% of the purchase price to a maximum of $7,500. The buyer’s housing ratio must be between 25% and 35%. Satisfaction of Mortgage – A document releasing a mortgage lien, indicating the borrower has paid the debt in full. Second Mortgage – A loan on a property that already has an existing mortgage (the first mortgage). The second mortgage is subordinate to the first. VA Loan – Department of Veterans Affairs, providing below-market financing with no down payment to veterans of the U.S. Armed Services. City Total Funds Spent Projects Completed Loans Approved Amount Approved Applicants in Loan Process Funds Reserved for Applicants Residents waiting Funds Not Committed Program Income Funds Spent Projects Completed Loans Approved Amount Approved Program Income Brooklyn Center 50,865$ 3 1 30,000$ 2 30,000$ 61 39,767$ -$ 102,946$ 6 8 200,000$ -$ Brooklyn Park 73,017$ 4 4 55,500$ 8 134,000$ 114 42,321$ -$ 287,189$ 15 19 300,500$ 40,676$ Consolidated Pool 55,006$ 3 4 71,000$ 1 7,500$ 54 5,250$ -$ 381,923$ 11 18 397,896$ 65,417$ Edina 8,130$ 0 0 -$ 1 15,000$ 1 23,010$ -$ 25,597$ 1 1 30,000$ 44,267$ Hopkins 14,650$ 0 2 50,000$ 2 50,000$ 8 26,439$ 297$ 114,864$ 3 7 175,000$ 2,367$ Maple Grove 20,000$ 1 1 30,000$ 0 -$ 9 14,751$ -$ 25,897$ 1 1 30,000$ -$ Minnetonka 19,976$ 1 5 65,000$ 6 90,000$ 47 14,572$ -$ 69,532$ 4 8 110,000$ -$ New Hope -$ 0 0 -$ 1 30,000$ 10 1,486$ -$ 50,745$ 1 1 20,000$ 12,920$ Richfield 31,983$ 2 1 10,000$ 1 30,000$ 23 41,282$ 12,932$ 194,272$ 7 12 265,000$ 42,511$ St. Louis Park 28,910$ 1 2 60,000$ 2 45,000$ 33 49,077$ -$ 80,212$ 3 6 170,000$ -$ OVERALL TOTAL 302,537$ 15 20 371,500$ 24 431,500$ 360 257,955$ 13,228$ 1,333,178$ 52 81 1,698,396$ 208,158$ HENNEPIN COUNTY REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM QUARTERLY REPORT October 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019 Year to Date MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A BY:Meg Beekman, C ommunity Development Director S UBJ EC T:Hous ing P olic y F ramework (45 minutes) Recommendation: - C onsider the proposed housing policy framework, and provide direction relating to housing efforts. Background: Housing and the polic y is s ues related to hous ing have become s ome of the most pressing and important matters fac ing c ommunities today. F or mos t s uburban communities , hous ing c ompris es a s ignificant majority of a cities land us e and tax bas e. Maintaining and preserving a s afe, quality, and des irable housing s toc k is critical to a c ommunity's long term economic health. F urther, a diverse hous ing stock whic h offers a wide range of housing choices and price points ens ures that a c ommunity c an be resilient through economic ups and downs as well as provide housing options for a divers e population throughout their lives. In addition to maintaining a quality and divers e supply of housing, c ommunities are more and more bec oming focus ed on c onc erns regarding livability and acc es s ibility of hous ing. T he Twin C ities Metropolitan Area is currently experience record low vac anc y rates. Acc ording to Marquette Advis ors ’ midyear report from Augus t 2019, the average vac anc y rate across the seven-c ounty metro area is 2.3 perc ent. Experts agree that a balanc ed rental market will typically see an average vacancy rate of around 5 perc ent. T he Twin C ities has been experienc ing rec ord low vacancy rates for s everal years now as are many metro areas throughout the nation. S evere hous ing shortages are being c aused from spikes in c onstruc tion c os ts, c ombined with unprecedented demand for rental hous ing as millennial and baby boomer generations are finding s imilar des ires for lifes tyles that offer more mobility and convenienc e over the debt and maintenance of home owners hip. In addition, as the c os t of living out paces inc omes , for many families , home owners hip may feel out of reach, and renting bec omes the only c hoic e. T he effec t of low vacancy rates over time is inc reas ing rents, a growing interest from outs ide investors , and landlords in a position to be c hoosier about who they rent to. T his has borne out throughout the Twin C ities Metropolitan Area, with the average rent increasing nearly 8 perc ent year over year to a current unprec edented $1,254 per month. In addition, the Metropolitan C ouncil continues to s ee a reduc tion in the number of landlords acc epting S ection 8 vouchers . Ac cording to the Metropolitan C ouncil, landlords are citing the inc reas ed interest for their units from non-voucher holders as the primary reason for the c hange. Yet another impact of the increasing value of rental property is the growing number of investors purchas ing C las s B or C las s C rental properties , which are renting for naturally affordable rents , making cosmetic improvements, and increasing rents so that the units are no longer affordable. Acc ording to the Minnesota Housing P artners hip, the s ales of apartment buildings in the metro area jumped 165 percent between 2010 and 2015. O ften the c hange in owners hip will als o c ome with a change in polic y related to criminal his tory, acc eptance of S ec tion 8 vouc hers, or minimum income requirements, resulting in existing tenants being dis placed from the property. Bro o klyn Center’s Current R ental H o using T he result of the regional trends des cribed above are being felt in Brooklyn C enter. Vacancy rates in the community remain lower than the regional average, hovering around 2 percent. T his is c ommon in communities with more affordable rental units . 35 perc ent of Brooklyn C enter's hous ing stock is comprised of rental units. O f those, about 8 percent are s ingle family homes . T he C ommunity Development Department is preparing a summary report on the rental licens ing program whic h inc ludes a deeper analys is of rental housing in the C ity. T his will be pres ented as part of a s eparate memo. Acc ording to the Metropolitan C ounc il, the following table indicates what is cons idered affordable rents in the Twin C ities Metropolitan Area: *R ents include tenant-paid utilities According to the C ensus American C ommunity Survey indicates average gross rents in Brooklyn C enter: Average rents in Brooklyn C enter are c onsidered naturally oc curring affordable becaus e the market rents, based on the age and c ondition of the units make them affordable at around 50 percent AMI in the metropolitan area. R ents in Brooklyn C enter are lower than the regional average. Approximately 90 percent of all of the hous ing units in Brooklyn C enter are c onsidered naturally oc curring affordable hous ing (NO AH). W hile NO AH properties are c onsidered affordable, they can be at ris k of being los t as market demand inc reas es and rents continue to go up. T hey c an als o experienc e disinvestment over time, caus ing deterioration, los s of value, and mos t importantly poor quality or unsafe living s ituations . At pres ent only 3.7 percent of units are cons idered legally-binding, or subs idized affordable units. S ubs idized affordable units are hous ing units whic h are required to maintain an affordable rent regardles s of s hifts in market demand. Due to their financing s tructure, they also are required to be maintained to a c ertain minimum s tandard. O ne of the goals of affordable housing advoc ates is to preserve exis ting NO AH properties by converting them to legally binding affordable units through NO AH pres ervation programs. With the c onstruc tion of S onder Housing, R eal Es tate Equities will be adding 270 units of legally-binding new affordable housing units to the city. T hes e will be the first new cons truction multi-family hous ing units built in Brooklyn C enter s inc e 1971, and will inc reas e the percentage of legally-binding affordable units to 6 perc ent. The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies several broad housing goals 2040 Housing & Neighborhood Goals P romote a divers e housing s toc k that provides s afe, s table, and ac cessible hous ing options to all of Brooklyn C enter ’s residents. R ecognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn C enter’s hous ing with the C ity’s c hanging demographics. Explore opportunities to improve the C ity’s housing policies and ordinances to make them more res ponsive to c urrent and future res idents . Maintain the existing housing s toc k in primarily s ingle-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, inc entive programs and enforc ement. Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas that promote s afe, s ecure and ec onomic ally diverse neighborhoods . In addition to thes e goals , the 2040 C omprehens ive P lan identifies implementation s trategies as well as res ourc es and tools for achieving its hous ing goals . T hes e are contained in C hapters 4 and 9, of the Hous ing and Implementation chapters res pectively (attac hed). I ssue Identificatio n As engagement related to the comprehensive plan and various redevelopment s ites have oc curred throughout the c ommunity over the pas t few years, a number of is s ues, c onc erns, and priority areas have bubbled up related to hous ing. Many of these is s ues are identified in the 2040 C omprehens ive P lan. As it relates to housing policy within the C ity of Brooklyn C enter, these is s ues can be categorized into two dis tinct topic areas : 1. Housing choice - W hat is the c ompos ition and c ondition of the current housing s toc k? W hat are the current market demands for housing? How does the city's hous ing stock relate to the market, and does the c ity have enough and the right type to meet c urrent and future need? 2. Affordable housing policies - W hat can the city do to improve livability and ac cessibility to quality affordable housing for residents? W hat bes t practices exist to support an effective approach to addres s ing the need for affordable hous ing in the community? W hat policies are most effec tive to prevent dis placement? In order to addres s these topic areas related to hous ing, s taff is proposing a framework plan which takes a comprehensive review of the C ity's housing policy approac h, with an emphas is in key focus areas bas ed on priorities is s ues which merit spec ial attention. T he overall review would include identifying those housing issues which are currently surfacing in the community and prioritizing those which are most pressing. Issues which have broadly been identified that merit special attention include: Mitigating and preventing displac ement of existing residents as the community redevelops Tenant protections C reating and expanding home ownership opportunities F air housing policy Maintenanc e and preservation of s ingle family housing s toc k Expanding housing options Ho using Po licy Framewo rk In order to gather data and to identify the needs for additional housing choice in the c ommunity, staff is recommending working with a c onsultant to complete a hous ing study. A propos ed sc ope of work for the hous ing study is attached to this memo. T he study would inc lude an analys is of regional trends effecting Brooklyn C enter's hous ing, the c ity's exis ting hous ing stock, current rent trends , market demand and gaps analys is . T he housing study is also proposed to include a tenant and home owner survey in order to ascertain whether residents are satisfied with their current housing options, and what housing choices they anticipate needing/wanting over time. T he results of this analysis will assist with guiding land use and policy decisions as it pertains to housing stock and choice. As it relates to the needs around affordable hous ing, policy approac hes fall into one of three categories: 1) C onstruc tion of new legally-binding units ; 2) P res ervation of NO AH units ; 3) Tenant protections In April 2018, the C ity C ounc il disc ussed s everal pos s ible polic ies to address affordable housing is s ues. T he memo from that dis cus s ion is attac hed to this report. Based on that dis cus s ion, C ounc il direc ted s taff to move forward with a Tenant P rotec tion O rdinance, and in Dec ember 2018, the city adopted one. Additional polic ies whic h addres s affordable hous ing topics are desc ribed below. S taff is s eeking direction on which polic ies C ounc il would like to move forward with, would like additional information on, or would like to wait on. Inclus ionary Hous ing P olic y (C reation P olic y) – T hese are a collec tion of policies which would either enc ourage or require new affordable units to be included as part of new market-rate res idential development projects whic h receive public s ubsidy or other disc retionary C ity approvals . F requently it is in the form of a requirement that a perc entage of units be affordable in a new residential development in exc hange for public s ubsidy of the projec t. New developments s uc h as those in the O pportunity S ite would be required to inc lude a c ertain number of affordable units. Inclus ionary Hous ing polic ies ens ure that new affordable units are added as market-rate units are built, thus ensuring mixed-inc ome c ommunities. C ities s uc h as S t. Louis P ark and Minneapolis have found that in higher rent developments , a c ertain percentage of affordable units c an be required without increasing the need for additional public s ubsidy. T his is due to the higher than average market rents, whic h off-s et the affordable units. In Brooklyn C enter, as is true in communities with lower average rents , the c os t of the affordable units would require additional public s ubsidies in order for a projec t to be financ ially feas ible. Brooklyn P ark rec ently adopted an Inclus ionary Hous ing P olic y. As part of their analys is they concluded that any amount of included affordable would c reate a financ ial gap in the project and require s ubsidy. T he policy ac knowledges this and projects will be looked at on a projec t by project basis to determine if the gap c an be financ ed. C ommunity input on the O pportunity S ite has identified many c ommunity benefits and goals for the redevelopment in addition to affordable hous ing; affordable c ommercial s pace, a cultural c enter, c ivic s pace, event spac e, and a rec reation c enter to name a few. All of these uses would require public s ubsidy in s ome form or another, not to mention the infras tructure needs of the s ite. Identifying affordable hous ing as a singular or primary goal of the development through an inc lusionary hous ing polic y inevitably elevates it above other c ommunity goals for the site. NO AH P res ervation P rogram (P res ervation P olicy) – A preservation program c an be set up in various ways , but essentially how they work is to inc entivize existing NO AH property owners into s etting aside a perc entage of rental units as legally binding affordable for a set period of time. T he C ity would c reate a NO AH pres ervation fund and identify additional funding sources to grow it. S taff would work with existing property owners to provide a modes t s ubsidy for building rehabilitation, which would then be c ombined with a 4D tax classific ation, als o known as the Low Income R ental C lassific ation P rogram (LI R C ), to provide a property tax break, currently amounting to 40%. T he result is the pres ervation of NO AH units through legally binding contrac t. T he tax break would be proportional to the percentage of units which would be affordable, and not apply to the entire building. T he LI R C /4D statute defines eligible properties as those which meet two conditions : the owner of the property agrees to rent and inc ome restrictions (s erving hous eholds at 60% AMI or below) and receives “financ ial assistanc e” from federal, s tate or local government. T his pres ents the pos s ibility of creating a “Loc al 4D” program in whic h qualifying properties rec eive the 4D tax break in return for agreeing to conditions whic h meet certain local government policy goals . T he reduction in property taxes would not decrease the C ity’s revenue from property taxes , as the funds would be dis tributed to all other properties; however, it would reduc e that property’s s hare of loc al property taxes. T he amount of the tax break is a limiting factor as it equates to around $80/unit per year; however, the program may be an incentive for a property owner in a community where the market rents are already cons idered affordable, since they would not need to depres s their rent rates . T he c ity is es timated to have approximately $320,000 of Housing T I F #3 funds when T I F #3 dec ertifies at the end of 2021. T hes e funds could be used to s eed a NO AH pres ervation fund. NO AH pres ervation is a more c os t efficient form of creating legally binding affordable units c ompared with new c onstruc tion, and ensures families are not dis placed from their homes. A NO AH pres ervation program, c ombined with efforts to s upport tenant protec tions c ould be highly effective at addres s ing community concerns about dis placement. F urther, staff c ould begin to work on s etting up such a program in the near term, and begin to identify potential funding s ourc es for it. F air Hous ing P olic y (Tenant P rotection P olicy) - T itle VI I I of the Civil R ights Act establishes federal policy for providing fair housing throughout the United S tates. T he intent of Title VI I I is to assure equal housing opportunities for all citizens. Further, C ities as a recipient of federal community development funds under T itle I of the Housing and C ommunity D evelopment Act of 1974, is obligated to certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing. T he city of Bloomington's F air Housing P olicy is attached as an example. Many other cities within Minnesota have Fair H ousing P olicies that are written very similar to Bloomington's. At present Brooklyn C enter does not have a F air Housing P olicy. I t is staff's recommendation that this be addressed in the near term, and that the H ousing C ommission be tasked with reviewing and recommending a policy to be adopted by the City. R eview R ental Licens ing through the lend of Tenant P rotec tions (Tenant P rotec tion P olic y) - Nearly a third of the C ity's housing units are rental. With vacancy rates hovering near 3 percent, tenants are not in a favorable position when it comes to negotiating with landlords on lease terms or other accommodations. Nearly all of the City's multi-family residential is considered naturally occurring affordable housing (N O AH ). T his is primarily due to its age and condition. Brooklyn C enter hasn't had new multi-family housing constructed since 1971, and so this particular housing type, like most in the City, is aging. M aintenance varies significantly depending on ownership, as does the quality of property management. T herefore, it is important to continue to monitor the City's N O AH properties through a robust rental license program. However, when the rental license program was established tenant protections was not the focus of the program. A review of the City's ordinances, policies, and procedures through the lens of tenant protections would ensure that the program is serving residents as effectively as possible. Community engagement strategies would be necessary to identify problems and potential solutions. Suggested engagement strategies include listening s es s ions with tenants and landlords ; and engaging s takeholders s uc h as Homeline, Housing Justice C enter, AC ER , etc C ity staff have met with AC ER , Homeline, and the Hous ing Jus tic e C enter and dis cus s ed some of the is s ues affecting Brooklyn C enter residents already. In addition, the city's hous ing ins pectors spend a s ignificant amount of time interac ting with tenants and landlords and understand the c omplexities of the is s ues. T hese res ourc es c an be drawn upon to further explore ways to make adjustments to the C ity's ordinances, polic ies , and procedures to ens ure existing residents are provided safe, sec ure, stable hous ing and tenants are afforded protec tions under the law. S taff's recommendation is to move forward with reviewing the city's current polic y and ordinance, and to begin to implement improvements. Tenant input could be inc orporated into the tenant survey that is part of the hous ing study. S ingle F amily Hous ing S tabilization (P reservation P olic y) - Approximately 86 percent of B rooklyn Center's single family housing stock is more then 40 years old. T his is a significant portion of the City's housing, therefore it is important to track the condition of these older homes as they are at-risk of deferred maintenance. At the same time, well maintained older homes can be an important source of entry-level housing. When considering the type and age of housing in Brooklyn C enter, the 2040 C omprehensive plan recommended the following programs: Housing s tudy to as s es s the condition of the C ity's hous ing stock Home O wners hip P rogram Assistanc e P rogram Down P ayment As s is tance Home O wners hip Educ ation Additional Low or No C ost Home improvement funding S taff recommends moving forward with a review of the c ity's single family hous ing programs . T he first part of which would be incorporated into the housing s tudy. R eview of Additional Best P rac tic es to Mitigate and P revent Dis placement - Hous ing S tudy and Impact As s es s ment - As was mentioned above, staff is recommending moving forward with a housing study in the near- term. B ecause issues around the impact of significant development on the city's existing housing, particularly around displacement and gentrification, have been raised in the community, staff is proposing to include within the housing study an impact assessment to evaluate the potential impact of the O pportunity S ite in this way. T he study would include a literature review of existing research on the topic of displacement and gentrification as it may pertain to B rooklyn Center, as well as case studies and best practices from other places that the community might draw from. T he study, as the scope is currently proposed, would assist with providing an informed basis from which policy decisions can be made. T he outcome of the study would allow us to identify additional policies and best practices which may forward the city's priorities around housing policy. Implementation Housing policy is both an urgent and important need in the c ommunity; however, s taff capac ity is als o limited to addres s these is s ues in a timely manner. S ome items identified above c ould be undertaken immediately s uc h as the hous ing study and the creation of a fair housing policy. A NO AH preservation program may be a polic y which c ould als o be addres s ed in the near-term. O ther items will take longer to addres s such as reviewing of the c ity's rental licens ing ordinanc e. T he C ity of Brooklyn P ark currently facilitates a housing s takeholder group with many of the s ame s takeholders which Brooklyn C enter would very likely as k to partic ipate in s imilar c onvers ations . R ather than hold a sec ond meeting each month, Brooklyn P ark staff has sugges ted the two cities c ombine efforts with the group. T his also offers the opportunity to s hare res earch and resources on topic s whic h are likely to be of a s imilar nature in terms of hous ing issues . It may also be valuable to create subject spec ific Housing Task F orc es , over time, as each housing area is addres s ed. T his c an be vetting as work progres s es . Not only would this allow greater community engagement, but also ensure that as various areas of foc us are under review (i.e. tenant protections, single family pres ervation, multi-family preservation) that the right people are at the table to provide input and expertise. T hough, inevitably, task forc es and c ommittees take cons iderable staff time to fac ilitate and manage. Ens uring that any engagement that is done is intentional and on topics where input is warranted is c ritic al. Staff has identified 5 key areas to address over the next 18 months. Other priority areas may arise through continued engagement which would require an adjustment to this framework. Tentative T ime Line 1. Q 1 2020 F air Hous ing P olic y 2. Q 1 2020 Housing S tudy and Impac t Assessment - G aps analysis and identify bes t practices for anti- dis placement 3. Q 2 2020 NO AH P res ervation program 4. Q 4 2020 Tenant P rotections 5. Q 1 2021 S ingle F amily Hous ing S tabilization Next S teps S taff recommends moving forward initially with the Housing C ommis s ion undertaking the review and drafting of a F air Hous ing polic y, which would then go to the C ity C ouncil for final c onsideration. In addition, s taff would rec ommend proceeding with the housing s tudy and impact assessment as the initial step. Policy Issues: W hat hous ing-related is s ues/topic s do you see ris ing to the s urfac e in the community? Are there any major elements you s ee needing to be addres s ed in the hous ing study in order to create a thorough bas eline as s es s ment of the C ity's hous ing stock? S hould staff begin working with the Housing C ommis s ion on developing a F air Housing P olicy? Do you have any questions/concerns with the framework for a Hous ing P olic y P lan as it has been laid out? Is the C ounc il c omfortable with moving forward with the housing s tudy and gaps analys is ? S trategic Priorities and Values: R es ident Ec onomic S tability, S afe, S ec ure, S table C ommunity AT TAC HME N T S: Desc ription Upload Date Type Hous ing F ac t S heet 11/19/2019 Bac kup Material April 9, 2018 - C ity C ouncil Memo - Affordable Hous ing P olic y 11/19/2019 Bac kup Material Hous ing S tudy S c ope of Work 11/19/2019 Bac kup Material Example Hous ing G aps Analys is 11/19/2019 Bac kup Material C hapter 4 - Hous ing 6/10/2019 Bac kup Material C hapter 9 - Implementation C hapter 10/22/2019 Bac kup Material F air Housing P olicy Example 8/16/2019 Bac kup Material Distribution of Naturally O cc urring Affordable Housing Buildings in Hennepin C ounty 11/20/2019 Bac kup Material Brooklyn Center Housing Facts 11,764 total housing units in Brooklyn Center as of 2018 (Source: Metropolitan Council) 37% of all housing units are rental units (single family and multi-family residential) (Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC) 70% of housing units are single-family (Source: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC) 86% of housing stock is more than 40 years old (over 10,000 units) (Sources: US Census; SHC) 2019 Median Home Values: $198,000 -Brooklyn Center $298,400 -Hennepin County (Source: Hennepin County Assessment Report) 35% of households are housing cost burdened, meaning they pay at least 30% of their incomes on housing (Source: Metropolitan Council) Housing stock fairly homogenous which results in lack of choice (e.g. most homes less than 1,500 SF) 27.6% of housing units are in multi-family residential buildings (Source: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC) All of the City's multi- family residential was constructed between 1960 and 1971 Since 2010, 21 single family homes, 34 senior units, and 158 assisted senior units have been constructed 93% of housing units are considered "naturally occurring affordable" with 5% of housing considered "legally binding" affordable (2017) Median Gross Rent(2017): Brooklyn Center -$962 Metro Area -$1,001 (Source: 2013-2017 American Community Survey ) Metropolitan Council projects a demand of 2,258 new housing units in Brooklyn Center by 2040 One of the goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is to promote a diverse housing stock that identifies ways to match the City's housing stock with its changing demographics 40% of households in Brooklyn Center have children (well above County and Metro Area) City of Brooklyn Center | Community Development Department | www.cityofbrooklyncenter.org 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy. Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 | Phone: (763) 569-3300 | Fax: (763) 569-3494 MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment DATE: April 9, 2018 TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager FROM: Jesse Anderson, Deputy Director of Community Development THROUGH: Meg Beekman, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Policy Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council consider providing direction to staff regarding potential affordable housing policies for the City. Background: In May of 2017, the City Council received copies of emails forwarded by Councilmember Butler from African Career and Education Resource Inc. (ACER) requesting an opportunity to come before the City Council to discuss concerns about the need for affordable housing in Brooklyn Center. In addition Mayor Willson was in contact with a representative of Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County (CAPHC) regarding the same topic. On July 10, 2017, by consensus the City Council directed staff to invite representatives from ACER and CAPHC to a future work session to present information and have a dialogue on the issue of affordable housing. On August 14, 2017, the City Council received a presentation from ACER and CAPHC regarding the topic of affordable housing. At the presentation ACER and CAPHC advocated that the City consider adopting policies that would address the region’s need for affordable housing, protect tenants, and help preserve naturally occurring affordable housing. The Council directed staff to bring the subject back to a future work session for discussion. Regional Housing Trends: The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area is currently experience record low vacancy rates. According to Marquette Advisors’ midyear report in August 2017, the average vacancy rate across the Twin Cities metro was 2.4 percent. Experts agree that a balanced rental market will typically see an average vacancy rate of around 5 percent. The impact of low vacancy rates over time has increased rents, a growing interest from outside investors, and landlords in a position to be choosier about who they rent to. This has borne out throughout the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as rents have gone up throughout the region. The average rent at the end of July 2017 had increased 3.1-pecent year over year. In addition, the Metropolitan Council is seeing a reduction in the number of landlords accepting Section 8 MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment vouchers. According to the Metropolitan Council, landlords are citing the increased interest for their units from non-voucher holders as the primary reason for the change. Yet another impact of the increasing value of rental property is the growing number of investors purchasing Class B or Class C rental properties, which are renting for naturally affordable rents, making cosmetic improvements, and increasing rents so that the units are no longer affordable. According to the Minnesota Housing Partnership, the sales of apartment buildings in the metro area jumped 165 percent between 2010 and 2015. Often the change in ownership will also come with a change in policy related to criminal history, acceptance of Section 8 vouchers, or minimum income requirements, resulting in existing tenants being displaced from the property. The region is also seeing a loss of smaller-sized rental properties (1-4-units). This is due, in part to single family properties converting back into owner-occupied as the market recovers from the recession, but also a growing number of local investors purchasing smaller properties and flipping them. While some of the proposed policies would impact single family rentals, the primary focus of affordable housing advocates and media attention has been on larger properties (40-units or greater). Affordable housing advocates have identified potential policies designed to address these issues. The policies fall into one of three categories; 1) preservation policies designed to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing and prevent it from being flipped; 2) tenant protection policies designed to prevent or mitigate displacement; and 3) creation policies designed to create new, legally-binding, affordable housing that will replace the naturally occurring affordable housing that is being lost. Brooklyn Center’s Current Rental Housing: According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates what is considered affordable rents in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: # of Bedrooms 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI Efficiency $474 $791 $949 $1,265 1-Bedroom $508 $848 $1,017 $1,356 2-Bedroom $610 $1,017 $1,220 $1,627 3-Bedroom $705 $1,175 $1,410 $1,880 4-Bedroom $786 $1,311 $1,573 $2,097 *Rents include tenant-paid utilities According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates average rents in Brooklyn Center: # of Bedrooms Survey 5-Year Avg Efficiency $730 $744 1-Bedroom $869 $801 2-Bedroom $1,019 $925 3+ Bedroom $1,281 $1,147 MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment Brooklyn Center currently has 834 rental license holders. 713 of those are for single family homes. 71 of the licenses are for 2-4-unit properties. 24 are for properties with between 5 and 39 units. 27 licenses are for properties with greater than 40 units. There are approximately 4,300 rental units in the City. The average rents in Brooklyn Center are considered affordable for those making around 50 percent of the Area Median Income. Of the 11,608 total housing units (both rental and owner-occupied) in Brooklyn Center, 89.5 percent are naturally occurring affordable housing. There are currently 402 Section 8 voucher holders in the City. Brooklyn Center currently has five apartment building that are legally-binding affordable housing, Ewing Square Townhomes (23-units), The Crest Apartments (69-units), Unity Place (112-units), Emerson Chalet Apartments (18-units), and The Sanctuary (158-units). Also, Lynwood Apartment (50-units) is currently applying for Certified Low Income Status, which would make it a legally-binding affordable property. This equates to 3.7 percent of the City’s housing stock is legally-binding affordable housing. Anecdotally, a recent phone survey of 34 Brooklyn Center landlords found a current average vacancy rate of 1.3 percent. Rents in Brooklyn Center are currently very affordable compared to the region. Low rents may be contributing to the low vacancy rates. If the vacancy rates are in fact below 2 percent, and they remain that low over time, it would be reasonable to expect rents to increase. However, given the current low rents, even an increase in rents of 20-30 percent would result in rents still considered affordable for those making 60-80% AMI. Affordable Policy Options: Section 8 Ordinance (Tenant Protection) - Prohibiting discrimination against Section 8 voucher holders and other recipients of government programs. The policy would prohibit landlords from denying any tenants’ application based on the applicant receiving government assistance.  Staff surveyed 34 Brooklyn Center apartments and found that 50 percent indicated that they do not accept section 8 vouchers.  Minneapolis recently adopted this ordinance, which allows applicants who feel they have been discriminated against to seek damages through the city’s department of Civil Rights.  The City of Minneapolis has an active lawsuit filed against them by 55 apartment owners over the legality of this ordinance. The lawsuit argues the mandate conflicts with state law and unfairly forces them to comply with requirements of federal housing voucher programs for low-income residents. It also says the law violates the Minnesota Constitution because it reduces their property values, forces landlords to enter into contracts and represents an unnecessary government intervention in their businesses. Landlords also claim that this could cause landlords to increase rent and/or application criteria as to price out Section 8 vouchers.  Staff feels that if the ordinance is upheld by the courts, it could be a useful tool to ensure residents are not discriminated against based on their source of income; however additional review would be necessary related to the enforcement of the ordinance. Staff MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment recommends that the City monitor the Minneapolis lawsuit then review pending the outcome. Notice of Intent to Sell (Preservation) – Rental property owners must give advanced notice prior to the sale of a rental property. This gives a preservation buyer an opportunity to match the purchase price. It would also give service providers additional time to relocate residents who would be displaced as a result of the sale.  Landlords would be concerned about delaying the closing of a property sale, which could have a negative effect on price. Preservation companies such as Aeon have expressed concerns that this could increase the competition for these properties, and thusly increase sales prices.  Enforcement would be difficult because the penalty would come after the sale has occurred. If the property has sold, the seller no longer has ties to the property so enforcing a citation could be challenging and may not be a deterrent. In a workgroup in St. Louis Park landlords stated that if there was a $1000.00 citation for selling without notice, they would likely still sell the property and pay the citation.  It is unclear who the seller would need to notify of their intent to sell and what would be done with that information once it was known. Who would decide what buyers could have access to the information? Who would be responsible for disseminating the information?  It is possible that this ordinance would dissuade investors, who may opt to purchase property in cities that do not have the additional requirements.  St. Louis Park is looking at an alternative ordinance related to tenant transition/protection would address the need for additional time to relocate tenants.  Staff recommends that the city consider other options such as the tenant transition ordinance. Tenant Transition/Protection Ordinance (Tenant Protection) – This would require a new owner of a naturally occurring affordable housing property to pay relocation benefits to tenants if the new owner increases rent, rescreens existing residents or implements non-renewals without cause within 3 months after the purchase. The ordinance has the effect of freezing lease terms for 90 days after the sale of a property. The purpose is to allow tenants three (3) months to relocate if necessary.  This ordinance wouldn’t interfere with the sale of naturally occurring affordable housing, however; it would provide assistance to the tenants if necessary.  The ordinance would require new buyers to notify tenants within 30 days if substantive changes to the lease are forthcoming, giving tenants time to relocate if necessary.  St. Louis Park adopted the Tenant Protection Ordinance in March of 2018.  The policy could dissuade potential apartment buyers from buying in Brooklyn Center, who may opt to purchase a property in a city without this policy.  Staff recommends that the City review this policy further to determine the legality of it, the enforcement mechanism, and what the specific impacts in Brooklyn Center might be. MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment Just-Cause Eviction (Tenant Protection) – Also known as Just-Cause Non-Renewal, this would require a landlord to provide a reason if they were going to not renew a tenant ’s lease that was expiring. Currently landlords must provide a just cause for eviction, which a tenant can appeal in court. There is no appeal process available to tenants who lose their housing due to non-renewal of lease.  Landlords see this as taking away a valuable management tool for dealing with problem tenants and have the unintended consequence of increasing the number of evictions filed and strengthening screening standards.  When St. Louis Park conducted their meetings with landlords and the Multi-family Housing Association, this ordinance received the strongest opposition.  The enforcement of this policy would be through the court system and would require a tenant to take legal action against their landlord via a lawsuit.  Of the 34 landlords surveyed by staff, the majority of evictions or non-renewals are the result of non-payment of rent or criminal activity.  The intent of this ordinance would be to protect tenants from being non-renewed in the event a new owner wants to empty a building in order to do a substantial renovation with the goal of increasing rents.  Staff recommends that the City consider other options such as the tenant transition ordinance to protect tenants. Inclusionary Housing Policy (Creation) – These are a collection of policies that could be adopted by the city which would either encourage or require new affordable units to be included as part of new market-rate residential development projects which receive public subsidy or other discretionary City approvals. Frequently it is in the form of a requirement that a percentage of units be affordable in a new residential development in exchange for public subsidy of the project.  New developments such as the Opportunity Site would be required to include a certain number of affordable units.  Inclusionary Housing policies ensure that new affordable units are added as market -rate units are built, thus ensuring mixed-income communities.  Cities such as St. Louis Park and Minneapolis have found that in higher rent developments, a certain percentage of affordable units can be required without increasing the need for additional public subsidy. This is due to the higher than average market rents, which off-set the affordable units. In Brooklyn Center, as is true in communities with lower average rents, it is likely that the cost of the affordable units would require additional public subsidies in order for a project to be financially feasible.  If the Council would like to move forward with this police staff would recommend reviewing the feasibility of future development if an affordable housing policy is adopted. 4D Tax Breaks (Preservation) – Also known as the Low Income Rental Classification Program (LIRC), Minnesota provides a property tax break, currently amounting to 40%, to subsidi zed rental properties under LIRC, commonly referred to as the 4D program. There is the potential, MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment however, to extend 4D eligibility to certain currently unsubsidized affordable properties, without changing current law. This is because the LIRC/4D statute defines eligible properties as those which meet two conditions: the owner of the property agrees to rent and income restrictions (serving households at 60% AMI or below) and receives “financial assistance” from federal, state or local government. This presents the possibility of creating a “Local 4D” program in which qualifying properties receive the 4D tax break in return for agreeing to conditions which meet certain local government policy goals.  A government agency would need to provide a financial contribution to a rental apartment with a low income agreement placed on the property. The property could then be eligible to apply for 4D status. This would allow a landlord to make physical improvements to the property in exchange for affordable rents.  The reduction in property taxes would not decrease the City’s revenue from property taxes, as the funds would be distributed to all other properties; however, it would reduce that property’s share of local property taxes.  The amount of the tax break is a limiting factor as it equates to around $80/unit per year; however, the program may be an incentive for a property owner in a community where the market rents are already considered affordable, since they would not need to depress their rent rates.  Hennepin County is looking into a rehabilitation program for rental properties which would function similarly to the CDBG housing rehabilitation program, but be County funded.  The City could also look at funding a program for rental housing rehabilitation.  Staff recommends working with the County to determine the feasibility of a County-led program. The City could also review EDA or TIF 3 Housing funds to determine the availability of funds for a city program that would provide rental housing rehab assistance in exchange for a 5-10 year affordability requirement. This could be set up as a per unit matching forgivable loan. Other Policies/Programs  Identify buildings that are at-risk of being flipped. Reach out to owners of at-risk buildings and gauge their short and long-term plans. Help connect them with preservation buyers on a case-by-case basis.  Comprehensive Plan – the City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan. If the preservation and/or creation of affordable housing are a priority for the City, it should be reflected in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.  Education – Work with the Metropolitan Council to provide education on Section 8 voucher programs to dispel some of the negative perceptions of the program. Policy Issues: Does the Council believe that the information presented indicates a need for additional policy actions to address the concerns raised regarding affordable housing and the protection of tenant rights? MEMORANDUM – COUNCIL WORK SESSION Our Vision: We envision Brooklyn Center as a thriving, diverse community with a full range of housing, business, cultural and recreational offerings. It is a safe and inclusive place that people of all ages love to call home, and visitors enjoy due to its convenient location and commitment to a healthy environment Does the Council require additional information regarding these issues before concluding if further policy actions are necessary? Which policies if any would the Council want brought back for further consideration? Which policy does the council consider a higher priority? Strategic Priorities:  Resident Economic Stability Attachments: US Census Bureau Data Metropolitan Council Land use Chart August 14, 2017 Council Work Session Memo August 14, 2017 Council Work Session Minutes Housing Strategies Table Presented at Previous Work-Session Mixed-Income Housing Policies among Neighboring Cities Table Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Apartments Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Single Family Property Management Companies: US Census Bureau Data: Metropolitan Council Land Use Chart: Housing Strategies Table Presented at Previous Work-Session Mixed-Income Housing Policies among Neighboring Cities City Policy/Program Type Affordability Requirements Affordability Period Opt-out (alternative) options Enforcement Tool Other Notes St. Louis Park (2015)  City financial assistance for new developments creating at least 10 multi-family units or renovation of an existing multi-family development with at least 10 units.  18% of total units in the development required at 60% AMI or 10% of units required affordable at 50% AMI.  Families may remain in the dwelling unit as long as the income does not exceed 120% AMI.  25 year minimum (considering an increase).  Subject to City Council approval: o Dedication of existing units o Offsite construction near public transit o Participation in construction of affordable units by another developer within the City  Affordable Housing Performance Agreement between City and Developer prior to Zoning Compliance Permit being issued.  Implemented 2015 – 6/7 new developments triggered policy with 1,073 units and 281 affordable units produced.  No development has used an opt-out option.  Units must be located within the development and distributed throughout the building unless approved by City Council. Edina (2015)  Re-zoning or Comprehensive Plan Amendment for all new multi-family development of 20 or more units.  10% of all rentable area at 50% AMI or 20% of all rentable area at 60% AMI.  15 year minimum.  Dedication of existing units equal to 110%, must be equivalent quality.  New construction at a different site.  Participation in construction of affordable units by another developer within the City.  Land use restrictive covenant.  PUD ordinance states development must consider affordability.  City will consider incentives for developments with affordable housing including: Density bonuses, parking reductions, TIF, deferred low interest loans from the Edina Foundation, and Tax Abatement. Golden Valley (policy approved in 2017; ordinance in coming months)  Market rate residential development with 10 or more units and receive: o Conditional Use Permit (ord.) o Planned Unit Development o Zoning Map Amendment (ord.) o Comprehensive Plan Amendment o Or Financial Assistance  15% of total project units at 60% AMI or 10% of project units at 50% AMI.  Families may remain in the dwelling unit as long as the income does not exceed 120% AMI.  20 year minimum.  Equal or greater amount dedication of existing units.  Affordable Housing Performance Agreement.  Mix of policy and ordinance.  City will consider incentives including:  Minimum in 33% reduction in required parking spaces  Minimum of 10% density bonus Brooklyn Park  New market rate residential development with 10 or more units and receive: o Planned Development Overlay (ord. required) o Zoning Map Amendment (ord. required) o Comprehensive Plan Amendment  Or Financial Assistance  15% of units at 60% AMI or 10% of units at 50%AMI or 5% of units at 30%AMI  20 year minimum.  Consider an alternative proposed by developer.  Affordable Housing Performance Agreement.  Mix of policy and ordinance.  Units must be located within the development and distributed throughout the building unless approved by City Council. Minneapolis (2002)  City-assisted housing projects of 10 or more units.  City-assistance includes TIF, condemnation, land buy downs, issuance of bonds to finance project, pass-through funding, and other forms of  Varies based on funding source but generally is either 20% of units at 60% AMI or 20% of units at 50% AMI (AHTF)  15 year minimum.  None.  Only 1-2 projects have taken advantage of the incentive program since 2002.  Currently engaging a consultant to develop an effective system. direct subsidy.  Density bonus and parking reduction incentive Saint Paul (2014)  City/HRA assisted rentals and homeownership.  Rental development in selected zones – density bonus incentive  Rentals – 30% of units affordable to households earning 60% AMI, of which at least one third will be affordable to 50% AMI, and at least one third will affordable to 30% AMI.  Rental - 10 year minimum .  Development Agreement  Voluntary/incentive density bonus is not being used so policy is currently being revised. Minnetonka (2004)  City Assistance  Voluntary/incentive based for all developments.  Rentals – 10% of units at 50% AMI for all developments, 20% of units at 50% AMI if using TIF funding.  30 year minimum.  Considered on a case by case basis.  Development Agreement.  Produced over 500 affordable units since 2004. Eden Prairie  City Assistance  Using a voluntary/incentive based approach for all developments; exploring adopting a policy.  City subsidy – 20% of units at 50% AMI.  Voluntary/incentive – starts at 10% of units at 50% AMI. Woodbury (2012)  Voluntary/incentive based – density bonus policy  20% of units at 80% AMI or negotiated.  15 year minimum. Chaska  All developments that need City approval  30% of units at 80% AMI. Forest Lake (2014)  Voluntary/incentive based – density bonus policy  Negotiable  15% density bonus, flexible parking requirements. Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Apartments: Apartment Name number of Units number of vacant units Rent for a studio Rent for a 1 bedroom Rent for a 2 bedroom Rent for a 3 bedroom Rent for a 4 bedroom Do you accept section 8 Has rent increased over the past 2years? How much has rent increased? Most common reason for Eviction or non-renewal 4819 Azealia 12 0 750 800 no new yes $15-50 non-renewal 5207 Xerxes 12 0 0 Ave: $750 Ave $850 Yes yes 8% Disturbance 5240 Drew 10 0 845-950 yes no police calls for service The Avenue 36 0 755 929 1075 no yes 5% each month non-payment Beard Ave 24 0 $895 1 fl-$1025, 2-3 fl $1075 Yes (Typically don’t meet criteria) yes 100 - 2bd - 1bd 75 smoke in units, police calls (pattern) Brookside Manor 90 0 garden - $750 2- 3 floor $800 yes yes $20 police calls, disturbance, non-payment Carrington Dr 128 0 $735 $835-855 $945-975 no yes $50 disturbance, illegal activity, cleanliness, non-payment The Crest 122 3 for end of march $755 $935 yes yes 50 non-payment, crime free addendum Crossings - 6201 Lilac - 55+ 81 4 (0 in past few years) 1181-1275 (1bd + den 1081 1190-1750 No (inherited) yes 2-5% rarely - non-payment Crossings - 6125 Lilac - 55+ 65 1150 Earle Brown Farm 120 1 845-920 1010-190 No new ones yes 3% increase disturbance, non-payment Emerson Chalet 18 0 737 870 yes no non-payment, 3 strikes Gateway 252 3 775 850-875-895 995-1045 no yes 50 late payment, police calls, unit maintenance Granite City 72 0 849 949 1139 yes yes 34-55 smoking Granite Peaks 54 0 849 949 1139 no yes 34-55 non-payment Humboldt Courts 36 1 750 900-995 no yes 75-95 non-payment Lynwood - mark 50 0 895-925 1050-1190 yes Yes 2-4% non-payment of rent Melrose Gates 217 0 919-949 1129-1159 1159-1189 2bd+1.5ba 1209-1249 2bd+2ba no yes 100 non-payment River Glen 128 0 900 975-1000 1250 yes yes 50-75 non-payment/late rent Riverwood Estates 84 2 929 999-1050 no yes 40 lease violation Ryan Lake 22 1 800 800-1000 yes yes 75 non-payment Summerset 36 3 700 800-850 1150-1200 yes yes $50 non-payment, lease violations Twin Lake North 276 3 950+ 1105-1225+ yes yes 5% non-payment, behavior Unity Place 112 2 904-909 970 yes yes 30 non-payment Victoria Townhomes 48 4 1340-1400 no yes 40-60 tenant not renew Phone Survey of Brooklyn Center Single Family Property Management Companies: Management Agency number of Units number of vacant units Rent for a studio Rent for a 1 bedroom Rent for a 2 bedroom Rent for a 3 bedroom Rent for a 4 bedroom Rent for a 5 bedroom Do you accept section 8 Has rent increased over the past 2years? How much has rent increased? Most common reason for Eviction or non-renewal Prosperous 40 0 1050 1250 1450 1550 yes yes 2-3% non-payment Urban homes 2 1300 1400 1500 Yes NA Juliana Koi 2 1 1350 no yes 50 NA Kathleen Freitag 4 0 1235-1325 1410-1450 no no non-payment; destruction of property Tyang 1 0 1150 no no NA Michelle Nyarecha 1 0 1170-1250 yes no non-payment; police violations Nazeen 2 0 1000 1200 no yes 5% NA Tracy Hinkemyer 7 1350-2000 no no NA Dan tan 4 0 850-950 yes no non-payment drugs, noise Proposed Scope of Work for Housing Study and Gaps Analysis Understand Existing Conditions and Trends. Use Hennepin County and the Broader Twin Cities MSA as comparison points where that makes sense. Any overview of regional housing trends as well as forecasted regional housing demand will provide context to both the issues faced in Brooklyn Center as well as the market gaps that will surface. This includes attention to: • Housing units by type, tenure, year built, senior/general occupancy, formal affordability status (Costar) • Rent levels and trends, for recently built apartment buildings, and pre-2000 apartment buildings (Costar) • Household housing costs and trends (these are measures of the affordability of Brooklyn Center housing, regardless of affordability status of the development) (Census, ACS) o Reported housing cost o Reported cost as a percentage of household income o Cost-burdened households • Development trends (Costar, Brooklyn Park, Metropolitan Council) Analysis of Likely Impact. • Review of the literature on the impact of major area improvements on property values and rents—including local case studies such as Bottineau Housing Gaps Analysis —and apply the findings to Brooklyn Center’s context. The goal would be to estimate the impact on rents due to the proposed development improvements, above what is happening due to general city-wide market trends, and to estimate how distant from the development improvements the impact extends. • Conduct best practices research to include recent research and studies locally, including the work done by CURA and LISC on the topics of gentrification and displacement. Be sure to incorporate work that has local context. Survey of residents. A survey should be conducted to augment data related to cost-burdened households. Work with the City to conduct a survey of renters in the community. work with the city to identify appropriate questions. Questions may include: • Are you living in your desired area of Brooklyn Center? If not, what are your barriers to living somewhere else? • What drew you to live in this rental property? • Do you share rent with a partner or roommate? • What percentage of your gross annual salary (before taxes are taken out) do you pay for rent? • Do you anticipate your salary increasing steadily over the next 5 (or 10) years? • Has your rent increased over the last 2 years? 5 years? By how much? • Do you live in a studio, 1-br, 2-br, 3-br, or other? • How would you rate you’re the level of service you experience from your landlord/property manager? Has it increased or decreased in the last two years? Best practices research. Look at actions cities have taken, locally and nationally, to mitigate the impact on residential housing costs that stem from area improvements. Goal will be to identify strategies and best practices that are available and could be employed in Brooklyn Center either by the City, or by its development partners as identified in the City/developer development agreements. (Such provisions can be, but need not be, referred to as a community benefits agreement.) BOTTINEAU COMMUNITY WORKS STATION AREA HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS June 2018 Prepared by Blank Page HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Purpose 1 Report Format 1 Data Resources 2 Characteristics of the Housing Stock 3 Total Housing Units 3 Housing Unit Density 4 Structure Type 4 Household Tenure by Structure Type 6 Vacancy Trends 12 Bedroom Analysis 14 Housing Costs 16 Pricing Trends: Market Rate Rental Housing 16 Pricing Trends: For-Sale Housing 18 Affordability 20 Cost Burden 22 Restricted Housing 23 Development Trends 26 Demographic Characteristics 28 Median Age 28 Household Tenure (owners and renters) 30 Household Size 32 Household Type 33 Length of Residence 35 Race and Ethnicity 36 Household Income 38 HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works Socio-Economic Forecasts 40 Population and Household Forecast 40 Employment forecast 41 Population Projections by Age Group 42 Impacts of New LRT Service 43 Real Estate Agent Interviews 49 Community Stakeholder Interviews and Presentation 53 Gaps Analysis 57 Corridor-Wide Housing Gaps 58 Station Area Housing Gaps 61 Oak Grove Parkway 63 93rd Avenue 65 85th Avenue 67 Brooklyn Boulevard 69 63rd Avenue 71 Bass Lake Road 73 Robbinsdale 75 Golden Valley Road 77 Plymouth Avenue 79 Penn Avenue 81 Van White Boulevard 83 Appendices 85 Community Stakeholder Interview Notes 85 Data Tables 1 1 1 HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 1 INTRODUCTION Purpose The Bottineau Community Works Housing Gaps Analysis evaluates the existing and near term supply of housing along the Bottineau Corridor and compares it to important demographic and economic trends to determine whether there are critical gaps in the supply of housing. The METRO Blue Line Extension is a planned 13-mile light rail transit (LRT) line that will connect downtown Minneapolis to the communities of northwestern Hennepin County, including the neighborhoods of north Minneapolis, and the cities of Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, and Brooklyn Park. The LRT will terminate near the Brooklyn Park campus of Target Corporation. The METRO Blue Line Extension will be transformative by vastly increasing the mobility of people who live and work along the Corridor today, but also increasing the Corridor’s accessibility to the entire region. As a result, demand for housing along the Corridor will increase substantially. Therefore, one of the main purposes of this study is to determine not only where existing housing gaps need to be addressed but also understand how future growth pressures may exacerbate those gaps. This second point means using this study to inform appropriate policy responses at the city level (i.e., zoning) in order to position each of the LRT station areas along the Corridor to be able to close any future housing gaps once the transit line is operational. Report Format This report is broken into seven major sections or chapters. The first two sections address characteristics of Bottineau Corridor’s housing stock and household base. These sections mostly consist of data Source: Metropolitan Council HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works2 from the US Census and other relevant secondary sources. It should provide the reader with a solid foundation of objective data with which to assess each station area’s current housing situation. The third section is a brief review of the socio-economic trends affecting the demand for housing through 2040. The fourth through sixth sections step beyond the quantitative analysis presented in the first three sections by providing the reader with qualitative data about the housing stock. It includes a summary of findings from a literature review of LRT impacts on housing costs, interviews with residential real estate agents, and interviews with community stakeholders regarding important housing issues and concerns. The concluding section of the report builds upon the previous six sections. This is the gap analysis, which is an assessment of the types of housing needed in each station area in order to provide a full continuum of housing choice for its residents in a transit-supportive environment. Data Resources The majority of data presented in this report is secondary data from the US Census, including the decennial censuses from 2000 and 2010, and the American Community Survey (ACS), which is a rolling 1-, 3-, and 5-year survey of a statistically significant sample of the US population. For this study, the 2011-2015 American Community Survey was used for many variables. In addition to the US Census, other data sources included each city along the Corridor, Hennepin County, Esri, CoStar, Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Twin Cities Senior Housing Guide, Housing Link, and apartment websites. Although these sources generally augmented the US Census data, in many cases they were valuable in either filling in holes not covered by or to corroborate the Census data. Although these sources are judged to be reliable, it is impossible to authenticate all data. The analyst does not guarantee the data and assumes no liability for any errors in fact, analysis, or judgment. The secondary data used in this study are the most recent available at the time of the report preparation. The objective of this report is to gather, analyze, and present as many housing components as reasonably possible within the time constraints agreed upon. The conclusions contained in this report are based on the best judgments of the analysts; Perkins+Will and its project partners make no guarantees or assurances that the projections or conclusions will be realized as stated. It is Perkins+Will’s function to provide our best effort in data aggregation, and to express opinions based on our evaluation. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSING STOCK Total Housing Units The amount of housing varies significantly from station area to station area. As of data from 2016, the station with the least amount of housing within ½-mile of a station is 93rd Avenue with 265 units and the most is Penn Avenue with nearly 2,300 units. This variation in the number of units is due to a number of reasons. For example, the Oak Grove Parkway station area is mostly vacant and undeveloped. Other station areas are dominated by non-residential land uses; the Brooklyn Boulevard and Bass Lake Road station areas contain large shopping centers; 93rd Avenue has significant industrial and office uses; and the Golden Valley Road and Plymouth Avenue station areas are dominated by Theodore Wirth Park. Generally, though, the number of housing units within a ½-mile radius of a given station tends to decrease from south to north along the Corridor largely because older areas of the Corridor (in the south) were originally developed at higher densities compared to newer areas of the Corridor (in the north). Figure 1: Total Housing Units by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius)1 Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate 1. The 42nd Ave Station Area noted on all figures has been renamed to “Robbinsdale Station Area” or “Robbinsdale” station. The Station name change has been updated and noted within the text, tables and maps of this report. 42 265 1,263 728 2,058 951 1,879 1,152 1,352 2,290 1,857 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 Oak Grove Pkwy 93rd Ave 85th Ave Brooklyn Blvd 63rd Ave Bass Lake Rd 42nd Ave Golden Valley Rd Plymouth Ave Penn Ave Van White Blvd Ho u s i n g U n i t s Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works4 Housing Unit Density The density gradient is more obvious when non-residential land uses are subtracted out of the ½-mile radius. Figure 2 shows how density of housing per acre starts high in the Van White Boulevard station area and then decreases rapidly once the station areas are outside of the city of Minneapolis. Most station areas have a residential density of between five and eight units per acre. For comparison purposes, density along the Green Line in Saint Paul between Lexington Avenue and Rice Street ranges between 10 and 14 units per residential acre. Many newer multifamily developments located along either the Blue or Green Lines often have more than 60 units per acre. Figure 2: Housing Units per Acre of Residential Land (1/2-Mile Radius) 1.4 4.5 5.9 5.3 7.7 5.8 7.9 6.1 8.3 10.0 16.2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Oak Grove Pkwy 93rd Ave 85th Ave Brooklyn Blvd 63rd Ave Bass Lake Rd 42nd Ave Golden Valley Rd Plymouth Ave Penn Ave Van White Blvd Ho u s i n g U n i t s Source: Met Council; SHC; Perkins+Will Structure Type Housing is not monolithic. It often comes in a variety of shapes, sizes, and structure types. The number of housing units in a given building is a basic way to differentiate housing types. There is a great deal of variety among the station areas along the Bottineau Corridor. In several station areas, larger multifamily buildings account for a significant proportion of units, especially in the 63rd Avenue, Robbinsdale, and Van White Boulevard station areas. The presence of large multifamily buildings is also correlated with a higher density of units. The Penn Avenue station area, however, is able to achieve the highest overall density despite having more units in HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 5 smaller multifamily buildings compared to larger multifamily buildings. Other station areas, however, can often have a dominant housing type, such as Golden Valley Road and Plymouth Avenue, where nearly all of the units are detached, single-family homes. Figure 3: Housing Units by Structure Size (1/2-Mile Radius) 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Oak Grove Pkwy 93rd Ave 85th Ave Brooklyn Blvd 63rd Ave Bass Lake Rd 42nd Ave Golden Valley Rd Plymouth Ave Penn Ave Van White Blvd Ho u s i n g U n i t s Other 20+ Unit Bldgs 5-19 Unit Bldgs 2-4 Unit Bldgs Attached (THs) SF Homes Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate Although the detached, single-family house is synonymous with the concept of the American dream, there is no ideal structure type for housing. So many factors influence our housing needs that it is best to assume that a range of housing choices will not only meet the broadest range of needs but also be able to easily respond to changing market and demographic conditions. Figure 4 compares the distribution of the housing types not only among the station areas but also to the Corridor2, each city along the Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metropolitan statistical area3. Although there is a lot of variety in the housing structure types from station area to station area, the Corridor as a whole has a very similar distribution of housing structures compared to the Metro Area. Although the Corridor-wide profile reflects the general historical pattern of building less dense homes in more recently developed areas, it underscores the fact that policy changes will likely be needed to promote/support transit supportive housing development in the station areas. 2. In most cases, and especially when comparing geographies, the Bottineau Corridor is defined as a 1-mile buffer surrounding the planned LRT route. 3. There are a variety of ways to define metropolitan areas. In the Twin Cities, there are two common definitions. The first is the seven core counties that are under the purview of the Metropolitan Council. The second is defined by the US Census and is based on commuter travel sheds. For the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, the Census currently defines the metropolitan area as a 16-county region that also includes portions of Western Wisconsin. This is known as the MSA or Metropolitan Statistical Area. Due to various data sources, this report references both definitions. Because any “metro area” statistics referred to in this report are primarily used as basis to compare a station area or the Bottineau Corridor to a much larger geographic area in order to establish a “norm” or baseline, the authors of this report are comfortable using the two definitions as the availability of data dictates. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works6 Figure 4: Distribution of Housing by Units in Structure (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe r c e n t a g e o f H o u s i n g U n i t s Other 20+ Unit Bldgs 5-19 Unit Bldgs 2-4 Unit Bldgs Attached (THs) SF Homes Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate Household Tenure by Structure Type The type of housing structure is strongly correlated with whether an occupant owns or rents the unit they are living in, also referred to as household tenure. Figure 5 is a series of charts that break down the number of housing units by structure size and type of tenure (i.e., own vs. rent) for each city along the Bottineau Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metro area. It corroborates the fact that the vast majority of owned housing are single-family homes. However, single-family homes represent a significant portion of rented housing as well. Small to medium size structures are generally rented, though outside the Corridor it is more common to find owned units in such structures. Attached or townhome-style housing is more commonly owned, but rented forms are prominent as well. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 7 Figure 5: Rented vs Owned Housing by Units in Structure CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK 5,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 Single Family Homes Townhomes 2 to 4 Unit Buildings 5 to 19 Unit Buildings 20 or More Unit Buildings Other Structure Types Households Renter Occupied Owner Occupied CITY OF CRYSTAL 2,000 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Single Family Homes Townhomes 2 to 4 Unit Buildings 5 to 19 Unit Buildings 20 or More Unit Buildings Other Structure Types Households Renter Occupied Owner Occupied CITY OF ROBBINSDALE 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Single Family Homes Townhomes 2 to 4 Unit Buildings 5 to 19 Unit Buildings 20 or More Unit Buildings Other Structure Types Households Renter Occupied Owner Occupied Sources: US Census; Tangible Consulting Services Un i t s Un i t s Un i t s HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works8 CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY 1,000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Single Family Homes Townhomes 2 to 4 Unit Buildings 5 to 19 Unit Buildings 20 or More Unit Buildings Other Structure Types Households Renter Occupied Owner Occupied HENNEPIN COUNTY 100,000 50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Single Family Homes Townhomes 2 to 4 Unit Buildings 5 to 19 Unit Buildings 20 or More Unit Buildings Other Structure Types Households Renter Occupied Owner Occupied TWIN CITIES MSA 100,000 50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 Single Family Homes Townhomes 2 to 4 Unit Buildings 5 to 19 Unit Buildings 20 or More Unit Buildings Other Structure Types Households Renter Occupied Owner Occupied Sources: US Census; Tangible Consulting Services Un i t s Un i t s Un i t s HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 9 Figures 6 and 7 present data on the number of rental units by structure size and the year built. Rented housing tends to have shorter-term occupants compared to owner-occupied housing and, therefore, is more susceptible to wear and tear. The age of the units can be an important indicator of the likely condition of this portion of the housing stock. In Figure 6, which includes data for the entire Bottineau Corridor, the majority of rental housing is in larger multifamily buildings (10 or more units). Within this category, most buildings were built between 1960 and 1979, which means they are now old enough to require major maintenance projects to keep them habitable, such as new roofs, windows, and critical mechanical systems (i.e., furnace, hot water heater, etc.). Among the small structure types, the rental housing stock is even older. For example, among the single- family and duplex/triplex categories, the overwhelming majority of the rental units are more than 50 years old. Figure 6: Rental Housing by Units in Structure and Year Built (1-Mile Corridor) 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) Un i t s Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting ServicesSources: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works10 Figure 7 on the following two pages is a series of charts that highlights the age and size of rental properties within one mile of each station area. The age and type of rental housing differs significantly from station area to station area. In the Brooklyn Boulevard and 63rd Avenue station areas, there is very little variety of rental housing types. Almost all of the rental housing is in large buildings built between 1960 and 1979. Single-family or attached housing dominates the rental housing stock in the 93rd Avenue, 85th Avenue, Golden Valley Road, and Plymouth Avenue station areas. It is important to note that there are very few rental units that have been built within the last 20 years throughout the Corridor. Only in the Oak Grove Parkway (due to a new development) and the Van White Boulevard station areas are there any significant amounts of newer rental housing. Figure 7: Rental Housing by Units in Structure and Year Built (1-Mile Radius) OAK GROVE PARKWAY 85TH AVENUE 93RD AVENUE BROOKLYN BOULEVARD 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) Sources: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) Un i t s Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 11 63RD AVENUE ROBBINSDALE PLYMOUTH AVENUE VAN WHITE BOULEVARD BASS LAKE ROAD GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD PENN AVENUE 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4 -9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) Sources: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) Un i t s Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) Un i t s Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) Un i t s Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) Un i t s Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Single Family Townhomes Duplex & Triplex Apartment (4-9 Units) Apartment (10+ Units) Un i t s Before 1940 1940 to 1959 1960 to 1979 1980 to 1999 2000 and Later Source: CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works12 Vacancy Trends Figure 8 presents data on the general availability of market rate rental housing within the Bottineau Corridor and the broader metro area. The rental market is extremely tight everywhere with very little available units throughout the Corridor or the metro area. The current vacancy rate is just above 2.5% in the Corridor. This is well below what is generally accepted among housing experts as market equilibrium, the point at which supply is high enough to accommodate most households in need of housing, but not so high that land lords are unable to maintain their properties due to low revenues caused by excessive numbers of vacant units. This is an extremely low rate of vacancy. Furthermore, the vacancy rate has been low for many years. The impact of persistently low vacancy is that many households that want to relocate to the area are unable to do so due to a lack of availability. It also means landlords are in a position to raise rents, sometimes excessively. In many cases, this results in the need to combine households, either because of inability to keep up with rising rents or a simple lack of housing options. In either case, it can often result in rapid wear and tear on units not designed for such occupancy conditions. Figure 8: Market Rate Apartments – Average Vacancy Rate 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0% 6.5% 7.0% 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 YTD Va c a n c y Ra t e Corridor (1-mi buf.)Hennepin County 7-County Metro Equilibrium Sources: CoStar; Perkins+Will Vacancy data for owner-occupied units is less reliably tracked compared to rental housing. Nevertheless, Figure 9 displays data on the vacancy rate of owned housing from the US Census for each City along the Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metro area. The figure compares the vacancy rate of 2010 (the height of the for-sale housing bust) and 2016. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 13 Throughout the region, even owned housing has experienced a decline in vacant units since the beginning of the decade. This is a testament of how the improved economy of the region is creating demand for all types of housing. In Robbinsdale and Golden Valley the vacancy of owned housing is extremely low. In Crystal the rate is on par with the County. The exception is Brooklyn Park. One possible explanation for the shown increase is that Brooklyn Park is the only city along the corridor with significant tracts of vacant land available for traditional subdivision development. During the housing bust, new housing construction dramatically declined, which meant homes newly constructed and not yet occupied were rare. Now with the improved economy, Brooklyn Park has a number of active housing subdivisions. Figure 9: Estimated Vacancy of Owned Housing (2010 and 2016) 3.7% 2.4% 2.8% 1.2% 3.1% 2.4% 4.7% 2.4% 1.1%1.2% 2.4% 1.6% 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% Brooklyn Park Crystal Robbinsdale Golden Valley Hennepin County Twin Cities MSA Va c a n c y R a t e 2010 2016 Source: US Census, ACS 2012-2016 Estimate HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works14 Bedroom Analysis The size of individual housing units is important to understand because it is correlated with housing cost and impacts the types of choices households have depending on where they are in their lifecycle. Younger and older households, for example, tend to be smaller and have lower incomes. Therefore, they tend to demand smaller unit types, such as studio, one-, or two-bedroom units. Families with several children and multiple wage earners not only have more people per household but also have higher incomes compared to older and younger households. Figures 10 and 11 display the percentage of housing units in each station area according to the number of bedrooms. Data for owned and rented housing is presented separately because so much of the owner- occupied housing stock is dominated by detached, single-family homes. For comparison purposes, data is also presented for each city along the Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metro area. Owner-occupied housing, regardless of station area, does not have significant percentage of units with two or fewer bedrooms. This is consistent with Hennepin County and the Metro Area. The lack of smaller unit sizes among the owned housing stock is a reflection of lifecycle conditions as noted above. However, it can be a barrier to those who want to access homeownership. The other important finding from Table 10 is that the station areas with the newest housing tend to have a much larger proportion of units with four or more bedrooms. Figure 10: Bedrooms per Housing Unit - Owner-Occupied Housing (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe r c e n t a g e o f O c c u p i e d H o u s i n g U n i t s 5+Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 1 Bedroom No Bedrooms Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate;Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 15 In Figure 11 the percentage of units with more bedrooms is correlated with the presence of rented single-family homes. For example, the Bass Lake Road and Golden Valley Road station areas have more than 50% of their rental housing stock containing three or more bedrooms. These are station areas with a lot of rented single-family homes. Figure 11: Bedroom per Housing Unit – Renter-Occupied Housing (1/2-Mile Radius) Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate;Tangible Consulting Services Data from Figures 10 and 11 were further analyzed to generate Table 12 that show the number of persons per bedroom in each station area. The data include both owner- and renter-occupied data. High rates of person per bedroom can signal not only a mismatch between housing need and supply, but also the potential for excessive wear and tear on the housing stock. Across the metro area, the average number of persons per bedroom is 0.92. In areas with an older population, the number of persons per bedroom can be quite low due to empty-nest situations. However, in areas well above the metro area rate is evidence of the lack of supply for larger unit sizes. In particular, the 63rd Avenue, Bass Lake Road, Penn Avenue, and Van White Boulevard station areas have rates well above the metro area rate. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe r c e n t a g e o f O c c u p i e d H o u s i n g U n i t s 5+Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 1 Bedroom No Bedrooms HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works16 Figure 12: Persons per Bedroom (1/2-Mile Radius) 0.84 0.84 0.99 1.20 1.21 1.00 0.82 0.92 1.12 1.14 1.00 0.88 0.87 0.78 0.92 0.92 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate;Tangible Consulting Services Housing Costs The cost of housing has profound impact on the ability to afford and access adequate housing. This section provides data from a number of sources and perspectives to better understand the current situation with respect to housing costs in the Bottineau Corridor and within each station area. Pricing Trends: Market Rate Rental Housing As noted previously, the vacancy rate for market rate apartments has been persistently low for many years. This has resulted in sharp increases in the average monthly asking rent. Figure 13 presents this data for buildings more than 20 years old4. Although the average asking rent in the Bottineau Corridor is about 7-8% lower when compared to the metro area average, it nevertheless has experienced an increase of roughly $200 since 2009, which is a 25% increase. 4. Because there are so few newer rental units in the Bottineau Corridor, it is important to compare data for older properties instead of all properties. Many of the newest rental properties being built today in the Twin Cities metro area are luxury product with pricing significantly above the average. Therefore, to include these newer properties in the analysis would skew the results. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 17 For those with lower incomes who are unable to access income-restricted or rent-controlled housing this is a significant increase that undoubtedly has squeezed a number of households out of the market and into dire arrangements. Moreover, since 2012, the annual change has been increasing at a more rapid rate. Figure 13: Average Monthly Asking Rent – Market Rate Apartments More than 20 Years Old $750 $800 $850 $900 $950 $1,000 $1,050 $1,100 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 YTD Av e r a g e M o n t h l y R e n t Corridor (1-mi buf.)Hennepin County 7-County Metro Sources: CoStar; Perkins+Will Figure 14 presents apartment rent trends within ½-mile of each station area. According to the figure, most station areas have an average asking rent well below the County and metro area average asking rent. The Plymouth Avenue and Van White Boulevard station areas are the exceptions. This is due to upscale properties at the periphery of these station areas (one overlooks Wirth Park and another is in the rapidly growing North Loop area). Despite overall lower average rents, several of the station areas have experienced rent increases since 2011 that have exceeded the County or metro area rate of rent growth. This indicates how overall economic conditions can have an outsized impact on area with more affordably priced housing and lower incomes. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works18 Figure 14: Average Monthly Asking Rent and Percentage Change – Market Rate Apartments More than 20 Years Old (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $1,000 $1,100 $1,200 $1,300 $1,400 $1,500 Pe r c e n t a g e C h a n g e i n R e n t Mo n t h l y R e n t 2017 Avg Rent % Change in Avg Rent '11-'17 N/A Sources: CoStar; Perkins+Will Pricing Trends: For-Sale Housing Figure 15 presents a dense set of information characterizing the nature of the for-sale housing market in each station area (1/2-mile radius). It shows the most recent median sales price, the rate of change in the median sales since before the housing bust (2005), the volume of sales in 2017, and the median age of homes sold. Most of the station areas when compared to the metro area have a lower median sales price and have yet to return to their pre-bust pricing (as noted by the dashed line in the graph). The lower median sales price is somewhat reflected in the age of the for-sale housing stock. Several of the station areas have a median age well below that of the metro area. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 19 The Van White Boulevard and 93rd Avenue station areas have a higher median sales price than the metro area, which can be explained somewhat by their newer housing stock. However, neither station area has been able to attain their pre-bust pricing. The Penn Avenue station area is the only area whose median sales price has substantially exceeded its pre-bust levels. Home pricing can be influenced by the number of sales in a given area. The fewer the number of sales, the more the median sales price can wildly fluctuate. The station areas with the most number of recorded home sales in 2017 are Robbinsdale and 85th Avenue. Figure 15: Home Sales Statistics by Station Area (1/2-mile radius), Corridor City, and Twin Cities Metro Area Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service Figure 16 presents data that focuses on the change in the Median Sales from 2005 (pre-bust) to 2017. Homes located closer to downtown Minneapolis have been able to rebound from the bust more successfully than those located further out. The only exception is the Van White Boulevard station area. However, data for this station area is heavily impacted by a large, upscale condominium building that opened just prior to the housing bust that was saddled with many foreclosures. Therefore, statistically speaking it has a much deeper hole to climb out of compared to other station areas. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works20 Figure 16: Median Home Sales Price (1/2-Mile Radius) Source: Minneapolis Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service Affordability A survey of all rental housing properties with 10 or more units was conducted for an area within one mile of the planned LRT line. Information on individual properties, such as age of building, asking rents, unit mix (i.e., proportion of units that have one, two, or three bedrooms), unit square footages, and the presence of any restrictions (e.g., income or age requirements), were collected and analyzed in support of the gaps analysis. Figure 17 presents data on the number of existing rental units that are affordable5 to households at varying income levels. The income levels are set by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and benchmarked against the Twin Cities’ area median income (AMI), which was $90,400 in 2017. The income categories used to determine affordability levels area defined as follows: Extremely Low Income (30% of AMI or less); Very Low Income (31% to 50% of AMI); and Low Income (51% to 80% of AMI). Corresponding to these income levels are HUD rent tables that identify the amount of rent that would be considered affordable at each income level according to unit size (i.e., number of bedrooms). These rent tables were used to analyze the affordability of rental units captured in the housing survey. Based on the above definitions, Figure 17 breaks out units that have some level of rent or income restriction versus those that have no restrictions (i.e., market rate). In the case of market rate units that meet some level of affordability, these are commonly referred to as naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). 5. Affordability, as defined here, is based on the assumption that housing costs should not be more than 30% of gross income to allow for other household needs, such as food, clothing, transportation, and healthcare. For example, if monthly housing costs (i.e., gross rent) are $750 per month this would translate to an annual cost ($750 x 12 months) of $9,000. Therefore, if a household should be spending no more than 30% of their income on housing, they would need an annual income of at least $30,000 to afford such a rent. $2 7 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 5 , 0 0 0 $2 2 3 , 9 0 0 $1 8 8 , 2 0 0 $1 9 4 , 0 0 0 $1 9 7 , 5 0 0 $2 2 8 , 0 0 0 $1 6 9 , 9 0 0 $1 6 1 , 0 5 0 $3 0 3 , 1 0 0 $2 2 9 , 0 0 0 $1 9 7 , 5 0 0 $1 9 6 , 9 0 0 $2 6 0 , 5 0 0 $1 5 9 , 0 0 0 $2 2 8 , 9 0 0 $2 6 4 , 0 0 0 $1 8 3 , 0 0 0 $2 0 6 , 5 0 0 $1 7 8 , 8 0 0 $1 8 0 , 5 0 0 $2 0 1 , 0 0 0 $2 4 1 , 8 7 5 $1 7 3 , 0 0 0 $1 8 6 , 3 0 0 $2 6 0 , 0 0 0 $2 3 0 , 0 0 0 $2 0 0 , 4 5 0 $2 0 4 , 0 0 0 $3 1 0 , 0 0 0 $1 4 9 , 9 0 0 $2 4 6 , 0 0 0 $125,000 $150,000 $175,000 $200,000 $225,000 $250,000 $275,000 $300,000 Me d i a n S a l e s P r i c e 2005 2017 N/A $4 7 8 , 0 0 0 HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 21 All of the rental housing along the Bottineau Corridor meets some level of affordability with over 80% of the units affordable to households with incomes at or below 60% of AMI. In Brooklyn Park and Robbinsdale very few of the rental units have a restriction. Almost all of the rental housing are naturally occurring affordable housing or NOAH. In Crystal and Minneapolis, the inverse is true in which all or the vast majority of units are restricted with very little NOAH. Not surprisingly, the restricted units tend to concentrate below 60% of AMI, meanwhile the NOAH units are mostly above 50% of AMI. Figure 17: Affordability of Rental Units Based on Income Levels (in Buildings with 10+ Units) MINNEAPOLIS (WITHIN 1 MILE OF CORRIDOR)ROBBINSDALE (WITHIN 1 MILE OF CORRIDOR) CORRIDOR-WIDE (1-MILE BUFFER) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI Not Affordable* Ho u s i n g U n i t s Rent Restricted Market Rate (NOAH) Source:CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI Not Affordable* Ho u s i n g U n i t s Rent Restricted Market Rate (NOAH) Source:CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI Not Affordable* Ho u s i n g U n i t s Rent Restricted Market Rate (NOAH) Source:CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services BROOKLYN PARK (WITHIN 1-MILE OF CORRIDOR)CRYSTAL (WITHIN 1 MILE OF CORRIDOR) 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI Not Affordable* Ho u s i n g U n i t s Rent Restricted Market Rate (NOAH) Source:CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 30% AMI 50% AMI 60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI Not Affordable* Ho u s i n g U n i t s Rent Restricted Market Rate (NOAH) Source:CoStar;Tangible Consulting Services Sources: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works22 Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) A simple definition for NOAH is any housing unit that meets some definition of affordability without any restriction on who can live there (other than what a landlord is legally allowed to screen). In most areas, the vast majority of what would be considered affordably priced housing does not have a restriction. Prices are generally set by the market place and what a landlord can achieve in a competitive environment. However, due to the condition of a property, the presence (or lack thereof) of essential unit features, its location, or a glut of available units, many times housing can be priced to be affordable to many households “naturally” or without public subsidy. When markets function under ideal conditions for both renters and landlords, property owners invest in their properties to keep them marketable yet sufficient competition means they are unable to raise prices beyond what the market can comfortably bear. However, NOAH is very susceptible to rapidly changing market conditions. If household growth outpaces housing supply or wage increases are unfairly distributed, landlords of NOAH properties may be able to raise rents to the point that segments of the market are often left unable to afford rent increases. Cost Burden Although many households may be living in housing that meets some definition of affordability, this does not mean that the cost of housing is not a burden (i.e., paying more than 30% of income toward housing costs). Figure 18 presents data on the proportion of owner- and renter-occupied households that are cost burdened for each station area, each city along the Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metro area. From the figure, many of the renters living along the Corridor are more cost burdened than compared to other renters across in the County or across the metro area. This is despite the fact that housing in the Corridor tends to be more “affordable.” Renters in the Brooklyn Boulevard station area are especially burdened with nearly 70% meeting the definition. The figure also shows the cost burden for owner-occupied households. Although the prevalence of being cost burdened is not as high among homeowners, in some station areas nearly one-third of these households would be considered cost burdened. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 23 Figure 18: Cost Burdened Households by Tenure (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Pe r c e n t o f H o u s e h o l d s b y T e n u r e Cost - Burdened Owners Cost - Burdened Renters Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will Restricted Housing Figure 19 displays data on the number of rental units according to the type of restriction (i.e., income- restricted or age-restricted) or lack of restriction (i.e., general-occupancy). Also indicated in the figure is the whether the units have been built since 1983 or are older. Figure 20 is a companion chart showing the same data for the Twin Cities metro area. Nearly 50% of the rental units in the Corridor have some type of restriction. Of these, more than half have been built since 1983. The vast majority of general-occupancy rental units without any restrictions were built before 1983 and are more than 35 years old. This is in contrast to other parts of the metro area in which a much higher proportion of general-occupancy rental units have been built since 1983. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works24 Figure 19: Restricted Rental Housing (1-Mile Corridor) 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 Senior -Market Rate Senior -Income- Restricted General Occupancy - Market Rate General Occupancy - Income-Restricted General Occupancy - Mixed-Income Un i t s 1983- Present Pre-1983 Source: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will Figure 20: Restricted Rental Housing (Twin Cities MSA) 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Senior -Market Rate Senior -Income- Restricted General Occupancy - Market Rate General Occupancy - Income-Restricted General Occupancy - Mixed-Income Un i t s 1983- Present Pre-1983 Source: CoStar; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 25 Many income-restricted properties are funded through multiple sources. Furthermore, many funding sources have an expiration date in which the owners of the properties are no longer required to restrict tenancy to their properties based on income. This is one of the most common ways in which communities can lose housing that is affordable to lower-income households. Based on data from HousingLink.Org and Hennepin County, Table 1 lists each of the income-restricted properties in the Corridor with an expiration date associated with the restriction. In total, just over 2,000 units exist within a mile of the LRT line. Roughly 200 of the units are set to expire within the next five years and unless the property owner decides to reapply to a funding program that supports the restriction, these units are at risk of being priced according to market forces and, thus, may lose their affordability. Table 1: Income-Restricted Properties in which Restrictions are Set to Expire Name Address City Station Area #Units Expiration Year Park Haven 6917 76th Ave N Brooklyn Park Brooklyn Blvd 176 2033 Autumn Ridge 8500 63rd Ave N Brooklyn Park 63rd Ave 366 2037 Kentucky Lane Apts 6910 54th Ave N Crystal Bass Lake Rd 67 2030 Cavanagh Senior Apts 5401 51st Ave N Crystal Bass Lake Rd 130 2044 Bass Lake Court Townhomes 7300 Bass Lake Rd New Hope Bass Lake Rd 60 2019 Bridgeway Apartments 3755 Hubbard Ave N Robbinsdale Robbinsdale 45 2047 Copperfield Hill - The Manor 4200 40th Ave N Robbinsdale Robbinsdale 150 2024 The Commons at Penn Ave 2211 Golden Valley Rd Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd 47 2046 St. Anne’s Senior Housing 2323 26th Ave N Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd 61 2037 Gateway Lofts 2623 W Broadway Ave Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd 46 2040 Broadway Flats 2505 Penn Ave N Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd 102 2047 Lindquist Apartments 1931 W Broadway Ave Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd/ Plymouth Rd 21 2034 West Broadway Crescent 2022-1926 W Broadway Ave Minneapolis Golden Valley Rd/ Plymouth Rd 54 2045 Ripley Gardens 301 Penn Ave N Minneapolis Plymouth Rd/Penn Ave 52 2026 Homewoods 1239 Sheridan Ave N Minneapolis Penn Ave/Van White 35 2024 1618 Glenwood Ave N Minneapolis Penn Ave/Van White 12 2029 Park Plaza Apts 525 Humboldt Ave N Minneapolis Van White/Penn Ave 134 2021 610 Logan Ave N Minneapolis Van White/Penn Ave 12 2040 Heritage Park Apts 1000 Olson Memorial Hwy Minneapolis Van White/Penn Ave 440 2033 Total Units 2,010 Units Set to Expire within 5 Years 194 Sources: HousingLink.Org; Hennepin County HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works26 Development Trends Housing production is an important strategy for maintaining an adequate and healthy stock of housing. New construction replaces obsolete or poorly maintained units. It adds to the supply and meets demand driven by growth. It also introduces new types of housing that meets the needs of ever evolving demographic and economic conditions. Figure 21 displays the number of new housing units constructed in Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, and Brooklyn Park from 2004 to 2016. Figure 22 presents the breakdown of those units by structure type. Data for Minneapolis is not included in Figures 21 and 22 for two reasons: 1) data specific to the portion of Minneapolis within or near the Bottineau Corridor is not readily available; and 2) Minneapolis is sufficiently large that including city-wide data would have skewed the numbers and not provided meaningful conclusions. From the Figures 21 and 22, it is evident how much the housing bust from the late 2000s slowed new construction. At the bust’s nadir, less than 100 new units were constructed annually compared to 850 units during the peak in 2005. Although not quite to the pre-bust levels, housing construction is adding significant numbers to the housing stock of Corridor communities. Pre-bust, Brooklyn Park was capturing the majority of housing development. Post-bust, Golden Valley has begun to add significant numbers of new units as well. Although much of this recent development is in the form of larger multifamily buildings, very little of it has been occurring in or near the station areas. Figure 21: Total Housing Units Permitted for Construction in Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, and Brooklyn Park from 2004 to 2016 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ho u s i n g U n i t s Golden Valley Robbinsdale Crystal Brooklyn Park Source: Metropolitan Council HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 27 Figure 22: The Structure Type of Housing Units Permitted for Construction in Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Crystal, and Brooklyn Park from 2004 to 2016 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Ho u s i n g U n i t s MF (5+ unit bldgs) Townhomes Single-Family Source: Metropolitan Council As previously noted, there has not been a significant amount of multifamily development within 1-mile of the Bottineau Corridor for over 30 years. As the LRT project gets closer to fruition and the market for new rental housing strengthens in suburban areas, there is evidence of new development occurring in the Corridor. In Brooklyn Park, Doran Development opened the first new multifamily project in decades in 2016 and is currently constructing a second phase. There are also two proposals for new multifamily projects in Robbinsdale, which would be the first such development in several decades as well. Although the LRT line is likely a number of years from being operational, it is valuable to compare what level of activity is occurring in the other LRT corridors. Table 2 highlights the number of units currently under construction or have reached some level of approvals to consider them likely developments according to CoStar, a nationally-based provider of commercial real estate information. The existing Green Line in St. Paul and the planned extension into the western suburbs both have well over 2,000 units of housing under development. In contrast, the Blue Line extension has approximately 550 units in development. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works28 Table 2: Multifamily Units under Development along Metro Area LRT Corridors LRT Line*Units Under Construction Units Proposed**Total Units in Development Blue Line Ext 202 347 549 Blue Line 53 830 883 Green Line Ext 51 2,522 2,573 Green Line 841 1,403 2,244 * Excludes Downtown Minneapolis ** According to CoStar, these are the number proposed units in each corridor that have reached some level of approvals to consider them likely developments. In most cases, this means the proposed project has received approvals from a city. However, it can also be influenced by the track record of the developer. Source: CoStar DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Median Age The age profile of the population has a direct impact on housing needs. Figure 23 depicts the current median age of the population in each station area, in each community along the Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metro area. Figure 24 depicts the recent and anticipated future trend with respect to aging. Overall, the Corridor is younger than the metro area or Hennepin County. The population in the Van White Boulevard, Penn Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard, and 63rd Avenue station areas are especially youthful with a median age well below the metro area median. Balancing out some of the more youthful station areas are the Golden Valley Road, Robbinsdale, and Bass Lake Road station areas which are older than the metro area median. The Robbinsdale and Bass Lake Road station areas have multiple senior housing properties which explain the older median in these areas. For the Golden Valley Road station area, the higher median age likely has to do with a more expensive, owner-occupied housing stock relative to nearby neighborhoods, which is a barrier to entry for younger households. Although several station areas experienced a drop in the median age from 2000 to 2010, despite continued aging of the County as a whole, all of the stations are expected to increase their median age in the foreseeable future. An aging population within the station areas will increase demand for certain types of housing and decrease demand for other types. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 29 Figure 23: Median Age of Station Areas (1/2-Mile Radius) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Me d i a n A g e Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri;Tangible Consulting Services Figure 24: Aging Trends of Station Areas 2000-2022 (1/2-Mile Radius) 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Me d i a n A g e Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works30 Household Tenure (owners and renters) Housing tenure is important to track because it provides insight into the potential to respond to a changing age profile or shocks to the economy, such as a recession. For example, many older households often transition out of homeownership into rental housing as they require more assistance with activities of daily living. Figure 25 presents data on the breakdown between owners and renters while Figure 26 presents data on recent and anticipated changes in the homeownership rate. There is wide variation in tenure from station area to station area. Some station areas, such as those at the north end of the Corridor, mostly consist of households that own their housing. Other station areas, such as 63rd Avenue and Van White Boulevard, mostly consist of renters. The recent and future trend, regardless of the station area, is toward lower levels of homeownership. Evidence appears to be growing that younger age groups are not embracing homeownership the way previous generations did. First, mortgage standards have returned to more stringent levels where the barrier to entry is much higher due to substantially larger down payments that are required on the part of mortgagors. Second, with housing no longer seen as a “safe” investment due to the housing bust the nest egg that so many previous generations created through homeownership is no longer seen as attainable. Third, many younger households are now saddled with tremendous student debt and qualifying for, much less affording, a mortgage is much more difficult than compared to previous generations. Finally, with an increasingly digital-based economy, gone are the expectations that one works for a single employer for most of their career. Therefore, homeownership can be viewed as reducing employment flexibility which further depresses demand for for-sale housing. As a result, younger households are starting to choose rental housing as a preferred arrangement rather than a temporary situation prior to homeownership. If these trends persist or become deeply established, the demand for rental housing could remain high for many years. These trends, however, are difficult to predict because of the large impact Federal policies have on homeownership. For instance, if the Federal government revamps Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two big institutions that help support homeownership, in a way that help loosen lending standards, homeownership may again regain its value to younger generations. Conversely, given the recent changes to the mortgage interest deduction allowed through the Federal tax code, this may have a profound impact on the rental market. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 31 Figure 25: Household Tenure by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe r c e n t a g e o f H o u s e h o l d s Renter- Occupied Owner- Occupied Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate Figure 26: Homeownership Rate 2000-2022 (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Ho m e o w n e r s h i p R a t e Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works32 Household Size Figures 27 and 28 present data on household size. Household size has a direct impact on the types of housing needed. Furthermore, data on household size can reveal where the housing stock may be most stressed in meeting the needs of a changing demographic. Within the Corridor, station areas with larger multifamily properties tend to attract smaller households. Conversely, station areas with a higher proportion of single-family homes tend to attract larger households. Exceptions are station areas where the aging of the population has yet to result in a turnover to younger households (e.g., Golden Valley Road) or areas with a high number of larger apartment units that can support families (e.g., Van White Boulevard). Figure 27: Average Household Size by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius) 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 Pe r s o n s p e r H o u s e h o l d Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri;Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will Figure 28: Household Size Trends 2000-2022 (1/2-Mile Radius) 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 Ho u s e h o l d S i z e Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+WillSources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 33 Household Type Related to household size is household type. Changes in household type can place pressure on the types of rental units needed in a community. For example, increasing numbers of renter households with children will place greater demand for units with three or more bedrooms, not to mention amenities such as play areas and accessibility to nearby schools. Household structure throughout the Corridor is generally similar to the Metro Area and Hennepin County – though the Corridor tends to have slightly more non-traditional families and persons living alone. Within station areas, though, there is significant variation of household types. The Oak Grove Parkway and 93rd Avenue station areas have a high percentage of married couples with families. The Robbinsdale station area has a high percentage of persons living alone. The Van White Boulevard, Penn Avenue, Brooklyn Boulevard, and 63rd Avenue station areas have higher percentages of non-traditional families with children. Recent trends indicate that the proportion of households with children is increasing across the metro area and within most of the station areas. Single-person households, which have different housing needs than households with children, are starting to stabilize after a large increase between 2000 and 2010. Figure 29: Household Type by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe r c e n t a g e o f H o u s e h o l d s Living Alone Non-family (2+ persons) Other Family w/o Children Other Family w/ Children Married-Couple w/o Children Married-Couple w/ Children Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri;Tangible Consulting Services Household Size Figures 27 and 28 present data on household size. Household size has a direct impact on the types of housing needed. Furthermore, data on household size can reveal where the housing stock may be most stressed in meeting the needs of a changing demographic. Within the Corridor, station areas with larger multifamily properties tend to attract smaller households. Conversely, station areas with a higher proportion of single-family homes tend to attract larger households. Exceptions are station areas where the aging of the population has yet to result in a turnover to younger households (e.g., Golden Valley Road) or areas with a high number of larger apartment units that can support families (e.g., Van White Boulevard). Figure 27: Average Household Size by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius) 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 Pe r s o n s p e r H o u s e h o l d Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri;Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will Figure 28: Household Size Trends 2000-2022 (1/2-Mile Radius) 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 3.60 3.80 Ho u s e h o l d S i z e Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+WillSources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works34 Figure 30: Households with Children 2000-2015 (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Ho u s e h o l d s w i t h C h i l d r e n Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+WillSources: U.S. Census Bureau; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will Figure 31: Single-Person Households 2000-2015 (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% S i n g l e -Pe r s o n H o u s e h o l d s Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+WillSources: U.S. Census Bureau; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 35 Length of Residence Length of residence indicates how much turnover there is in the housing stock. Frequent turnover can result in greater wear and tear on the housing stock. It can also be an indicator of community involvement and participation among residents since it is often difficult to get involved in community issues and concerns when your residence is short term. Longer-term residencies tend to be more associated with owner-occupied housing. This is generally due to the fact that younger and older households, which have a propensity to rent, do so because their expectation is for shorter-term residencies. Also, being more affordable, rental housing tends to accommodate households with financial and/or employment situations that are tenuous, which may precipitate a shorter-term residency. Figure 32: Year Householder Moved into Dwelling Unit by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe r c e n t a g e o f H o u s e h o l d s Moved in 2010 or later Moved in 2000 to 2009 Moved in 1990 to 1999 Moved in 1980 to 1989 Moved in 1979 and Earlier Sources: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri Figure 33 presents data for Hennepin County and the Twin Cities metro area showing the difference in the percentage of households that moved into their housing unit within the past year between 2010 and 2015. Regardless of whether the unit is owner- or renter-occupied, the trend has been toward far less movement among households in the last six years. This indicates how a tight housing market can not only displace households due to rising rents or other landlord driven circumstances, but that it can cause households to remain in the same home despite changing life circumstances and the inability to find housing that better meets their needs. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works36 Figure 33: Households that Moved into Dwelling Unit within the Last Year Sources: US Census; Perkins+Will Race and Ethnicity Figures 34 and 35 present data on the race/ethnicity and Hispanic origin of station area residents. Racial and ethnic diversity is very high throughout the Corridor. The number of people of color in the station areas is well above the Metro Area rate. African Americans are an important part of the population base throughout the Corridor. Asian Americans are a significant component to the population in the southern and northern station areas. Figure 34: Race and Ethnicity by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe r c e n t a g e o f P o p u l a t i o n White African Amer.Amer. Indian Asian Pacific Islander Other Race Two or More Races Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 37 The Hispanic population, which can be of any race, are prominent throughout the Corridor as well. Concentrations of Hispanic persons are in the Van White Boulevard, Bass Lake Road, and 63rd Avenue station areas. Figure 35: Hispanic Origin by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% Pe r c e n t a g e o f P o p u l a t i o n Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will Critical housing gaps are often correlated with race or ethnicity. Figures 36 and 37 highlight the stark differences in the rate of homeownership throughout the corridor between white households and households of color. Only in station areas where there is an almost complete lack of rental housing (e.g., Oak Grove Parkway, 93rd Avenue, and 85th Avenue) is the homeownership rate between whites and persons of color relatively similar. Otherwise, white households have a rate of homeownership that is typically twice -- sometimes three times -- the rate of households of color. This underscores how housing gaps that fall along race and ethnic lines may not be overcome by simply building more housing, but addressing other issues, such as homeownership assistance, fair housing policies, and similar strategies aimed at equity and equal access to resources. Figure 36: Household Tenure by Station Area for White Households (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe r c e n t a g e o f H o u s e h o l d s Renter- Occupied Owner- Occupied Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2012-2016 Estimate HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works38 Figure 37: Household Tenure by Station Area for Households of Color (1/2-Mile Radius) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Pe r c e n t a g e o f H o u s e h o l d s Renter- Occupied Owner- Occupied Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2012-2016 Estimate Household Income Household income is important to track because it is strongly correlated with age and also directly affects the spending power of area residents and their ability to afford housing. Figures 36 and 37 display data on median household incomes for each station area, the Corridor, each city along the Corridor, Hennepin County, and the Twin Cities metro area. Except for the Golden Valley Road station area, all of the station areas from Brooklyn Boulevard and southward have median incomes well below the metro area median. Stations at the northern end of the Corridor where the housing consists mostly of newer, larger, owned single-family homes have median incomes above the metro area median. In terms of income trends, there is a great deal of variation throughout the Corridor. By and large, it appears that income trends tend to correlate with whether households are getting younger or much older (i.e., entering retirement). Because homeownership often has a significant financial barrier to entry, rental housing tends to have a larger proportion of lower-income households, though many middle- and higher-income households choose to rent as well. Furthermore, households at the two ends of the age spectrum, younger and older households, often prefer renting because it provides greater flexibility and requires less maintenance. Yet, these same households also have lower incomes because of limited earning potential (i.e., little work experience or retirement). HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 39 Figure 38: Median Household Income by Station Area (1/2-Mile Radius) $0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Me d i a n H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services Figure 39: Median Household Income Trends 2000-2022 (1/2-Mile Radius) 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 Me d i a n H o u s e h o l d I n c o m e 2000*2013*2015*2017**2022** Sources: * US Census; ** Esri; Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works40 SOCIO-ECONOMIC FORECASTS Previous sections addressed the current and recent demographic situation for each station area and communities along the Bottineau Corridor. This section presents data of several types of forecasts that provide insight into the potential increase in demand for housing due to population, household, and employment growth. Population and Household Forecast Table 3 presents data on the forecasted population and household growth of each community along the Bottineau Corridor as well as Hennepin County and the Twin Cities Metro Area. With the exception of a small portion of Brooklyn Park, the communities along the Bottineau Corridor are fully developed, which helps explain why their forecasted growth rates do not equal that of the entire Metro Area. The Metro Area figures include both fully developed communities as well as those communities with large tracts of vacant land that can accommodate large scale residential construction. Communities with significant amounts of new residential construction are typically the ones that experience the largest population increases. Table 3: Population and Household Forecasts for Corridor Communities, Hennepin County, & Twin Cities Metro Area Forecast Numeric Change Percentage Change Community 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010s 2020s 2030s 2010s 2020s 2030s POPULATION Brooklyn Park 67,388 75,781 86,700 91,800 97,900 10,919 5,100 6,100 14.4%5.9%6.6% Crystal 22,698 22,151 22,700 23,200 23,800 549 500 600 2.5%2.2%2.6% Robbinsdale 14,123 13,953 14,750 15,100 15,300 797 350 200 5.7%2.4%1.3% Golden Valley 20,281 20,371 21,300 22,000 22,900 929 700 900 4.6%3.3%4.1% Corridor Communities 124,490 132,256 145,450 152,100 159,900 13,194 6,650 7,800 10.0%4.6%5.1% Minneapolis 382,618 382,578 423,300 439,100 459,200 40,722 15,800 20,100 10.6%3.7%4.6% Hennepin County 1,116,200 1,152,425 1,255,520 1,330,480 1,407,640 103,095 74,960 77,160 8.9%6.0%5.8% 7-County Metro Area 2,642,056 2,849,567 3,160,000 3,459,000 3,738,000 310,433 299,000 279,000 10.9%9.5%8.1% HOUSEHOLDS Brooklyn Park 24,432 26,229 30,000 32,200 34,300 3,771 2,200 2,100 14.4%7.3%6.5% Crystal 9,389 9,183 9,500 9,600 9,700 317 100 100 3.5%1.1%1.0% Robbinsdale 6,097 6,032 6,300 6,600 6,800 268 300 200 4.4%4.8%3.0% Golden Valley 8,449 8,816 9,300 9,600 9,800 484 300 200 5.5%3.2%2.1% Corridor Communities 48,367 50,260 55,100 58,000 60,600 4,840 2,900 2,600 9.6%5.3%4.5% Minneapolis 162,352 163,540 183,800 194,000 204,000 20,260 10,200 10,000 12.4%5.5%5.2% Hennepin County 456,129 475,913 528,090 566,560 600,930 52,177 38,470 34,370 11.0%7.3%6.1% 7-County Metro Area 1,021,454 1,117,749 1,264,000 1,402,000 1,537,000 146,251 138,000 135,000 13.1%10.9%9.6% Sources: US Census; Metropolitan Council; Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 41 Although the Bottineau Corridor is mostly developed, the Metropolitan Council expects an important amount of household growth to occur over the next 20-25 years due to redevelopment opportunities of older, underutilized parcels. According to the table, the communities along the Corridor, excluding Minneapolis, can anticipate roughly 3,000 new households each decade. In order to accommodate this new household growth, substantial amounts of new multifamily housing will need to be built because the economic feasibility of replacing non-residential uses with single- family housing is very challenging without substantial public support and subsidy. Employment Forecast Employment growth in and near the Bottineau Corridor will be a key driver of housing demand in the coming decades. According to Table 4, the communities along the Bottineau Corridor are anticipated to add nearly 6000 jobs in the 2020s and 2030s. Even if a small proportion of those new workers want to live along the Corridor it will place a great deal of demand on the local housing supply. If a range of new product types at varying price points is not added to the housing stock, this will result in significant increases in housing costs. Table 4: Employment Forecasts for Corridor Communities, Hennepin County, and Twin Cities Metro Area Forecast Numeric Change Percentage Change Community 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2010s 2020s 2030s 2010s 2020s 2030s EMPLOYMENT Brooklyn Park 23,692 24,084 32,100 36,100 40,200 8,016 4,000 4,100 33.3%12.5%11.4% Crystal 5,638 3,929 4,400 4,640 4,900 471 240 260 12.0%5.5%5.6% Robbinsdale 7,109 6,858 7,000 7,100 7,200 142 100 100 2.1%1.4%1.4% Golden Valley 30,142 33,194 36,000 37,500 38,900 2,806 1,500 1,400 8.5%4.2%3.7% Corridor Communities 66,581 68,065 79,500 85,340 91,200 11,435 5,840 5,860 16.8%7.3%6.9% Minneapolis 308,127 281,732 315,300 332,400 350,000 33,568 17,100 17,600 11.9%5.4%5.3% Hennepin County 877,346 805,089 924,710 981,800 1,038,140 119,621 57,090 56,340 14.9%6.2%5.7% 7-County Metro Area 1,606,263 1,543,872 1,828,000 1,910,000 2,039,000 284,128 82,000 129,000 18.4%4.5%6.8% Sources: US Census; Metropolitan Council; Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works42 Population Projections by Age Group As presented previously, it is important to understand the age breakdown of the population because there is a strong correlation between one’s age and the type of housing desired. Although long range age forecasts are not available at the municipal level, the Minnesota State Demographer recently released projections for Hennepin County, which are presented in Table 5. According to the table, the age groups under 25 and over 65 will grow substantially through 2030. Therefore, macro demographic trends suggest numeric growth will increase demand for both larger unit types that can accommodate families while at the same time smaller unit styles focused on aging adults wanting to downsize. Table 5: Hennepin County Population Forecast by Age Group Population Age 2010 2020 2030 2040 Numeric Change Percent Change 2010s 2020s 2030s 2010s 2020s 2030s Under 18 Years 261,596 300,118 321,408 334,524 38,522 21,290 13,116 14.7%7.1%4.1% 18 to 24 years 113,300 112,122 137,640 149,718 -1,178 25,518 12,078 -1.0%22.8%8.8% 25 to 34 years 187,523 198,711 212,434 247,227 11,188 13,723 34,793 6.0%6.9%16.4% 35 to 44 years 154,304 169,184 155,538 163,307 14,880 -13,646 7,769 9.6%-8.1%5.0% 45 to 54 years 171,130 160,088 176,320 158,642 -11,042 16,232 -17,678 -6.5%10.1%-10.0% 55 to 64 years 133,758 165,602 161,777 175,103 31,844 -3,825 13,326 23.8%-2.3%8.2% 65 to 74 years 66,516 117,183 145,800 139,920 50,667 28,617 -5,880 76.2%24.4%-4.0% 75 to 84 years 42,476 42,104 68,109 82,280 -372 26,005 14,171 -0.9%61.8%20.8% 85 years and over 21,822 29,259 28,306 47,670 7,437 -953 19,364 34.1%-3.3%68.4% Total Population 1,152,425 1,294,371 1,407,332 1,498,391 141,946 112,961 91,059 12.3%8.7%6.5% Source: Minnesota State Demographer HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 43 IMPACTS OF NEW LRT SERVICE The planned light rail transit (LRT) in the Bottineau Corridor will provide significantly enhanced transit service for residents and workers near the stations. Access to faster, high-frequency transit will reduce travel costs (in both time and money) and provide transportation flexibility. The result will be greater demand to live and work near a station. Research and experience show that there are a range of additional impacts that can result from new transit service, such as: • Property values tend to increase near transit stations, benefiting homeowners and other property owners. • Station areas may attract new housing and commercial development that would otherwise not occur. • Commercial businesses may benefit from increased visibility and sales. • Investment in existing property tends to increase. • In certain locations the impact on the area is multiplied by the emergence of broader place-making changes, which transform the market context, character and vibrancy of an area, inviting subsequent development and area changes. • Value increases in station areas, and the increased attractiveness of the location for rental households, leads to rent increases in existing rental properties. In order to better understand the potential impact of new LRT service on Blue Line communities, and especially on those living near future station areas, we did additional research on the impacts of new transit service—specifically its impact on property values, property investment, new development, and rent levels. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works44 The Impact of New LRT Service on Property Values and Property Investment A number of studies have explored the relationship between new LRT transit service, and increases in surrounding property values. Such studies have been conducted in contexts across the country, looking at the question from a range of perspectives. Given that the existing Blue Line and Green Line transit lines offer the closest comparison to the future Blue Line extension, the impacts of those lines are particularly relevant. Fortunately, there have been prominent studies by the Center for Transit Studies (CTS) which have specifically looked at property value impacts from the Hiawatha Light Rail Line (now the Blue Line). Key findings from those reports are summarized below. The Hiawatha Line: Impacts on Land Use and Residential Housing Value (CTS, 2010) This study used property sale records for a period of time before the opening of the Hiawatha (Blue) Line, and after the opening of the Hiawatha Line. It compared the change in sale prices for properties within a half mile of the station to the change in sale prices for properties further distant from the stations. Trends in sale prices were examined for both single family homes and multifamily residential properties. The researchers also looked at whether area investment increased due to the new transit service. They did this by comparing property expenditures, as represented by 2000 to 2007 building permit records, between the period before 2004 and the period after 2004. Key findings of the study included the following: • Before light rail service began in 2004, single family homes in the half mile station area radius sold for an average of 16% lower than homes in the broader area. After 2004, single family homes in the station area sold for an average of 4% higher than homes in the broader area. The value premium that station area homes achieved compared with more distant homes equates to around $5,000 per home. • The increases in home value were significantly diminished for homes on the east side of Hiawatha Avenue. Those homes faced two barriers to accessing the station area—the difficulty of crossing the arterial corridor, and the visual barrier of a set of older industrial properties between the residential neighborhoods and Hiawatha Avenue. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 45 • Property sale records showed that multifamily properties increased in value as well, due to the new transit service. The gain in value, after the opening of the transit service, was an estimated $15,755 per multifamily property. • The new transit service prompted additional investment in new home construction and home improvement. • There was an increase of 187% in the number of new single family homes constructed in the station areas. »The aggregate home improvement permit value was 50% higher in the station areas than it was for the comparison area for the 2000 – 2007 period. Impacts of the Hiawatha Light Rail Line on Commercial and Industrial Property Values in Minneapolis (CTS, 2010) This study utilized property sale records from before and after the opening of the Hiawatha (Blue) Line to assess the impact of new LRT service on commercial property values. It found a clear positive impact on property values, which extended out to almost a mile from the station locations. The value appreciation that resulted from the new transit service varied according to the proximity to the station. The closer the property was to the station, the greater the resulting appreciation in property value. The study estimated that, for the average commercial property that is 400 meters (around 1,300 feet) from the station, its value would increase by $6,500 for each meter it was closer to the station. The Impact of New LRT Service on Attracting New Development There is a growing literature that looks at the development that occurs in areas near new transit stations. Questions asked in these studies include: • Why does development occur in some instances, and not in others? • What steps can be taken to increase the likelihood that new development will be attracted to a station area? HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works46 A 2011 study by the Center for Transit Oriented Development (Rails to Real Estate: Development Patterns along Three New Transit Lines, CTOD, 2011) was influential in understanding these dynamics. Moreover, one of the study’s three focus areas included the Hiawatha (Blue) Line, which has particular relevance to this housing gaps analysis. The study documented real estate development patterns in the areas around transit lines in Minneapolis, Denver, and Charlotte. The researchers reviewed development records, and interviewed city planners and developers in each area. The report makes qualitative findings concerning the development that occurred, and why. Key findings from the report are as follows: • Development has occurred on all three lines that may otherwise not have occurred. • The character of development near the stations is shaped by its location, tending to be higher density and more pedestrian oriented than development in other locations. • Developers (and their equity partners) are attracted to station area locations because they are viewed as having the potential to achieve faster absorption rates, higher occupancy rates, and higher sale prices or rents. • Transit station areas in and close to existing employment centers and downtowns are most attractive to developers. • Locations where there are major opportunities for infill development on vacant or lightly developed land are most attractive. • Public actions to surmount barriers and improve the area context can be key to attracting development. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 47 The Impact of New LRT Service on Rent Levels in Existing Rental Properties New transit service makes an area more desirable, for both property owners and renters. Because of that, rents can go up with the arrival of the service. That’s relevant in the Bottineau Corridor because communities want to understand how the new transit service might impact renter households in the station areas. There seems, however, to have been less research on the impact of transit service on rent levels than there has been on the impact on property values. Researchers contacted at the University of Minnesota’s Center for Transit Studies were not aware of either local or national research that explores that relationship. And our own internet search didn’t turn up any useful research. There is a local organization that has done some work in this area. Twin Cities LISC (Local Initiatives Support Coalition) has been working with Minneapolis and St. Paul neighborhoods to set goals and monitor change relative to development in the Green Line station areas. The initiative is called “The Big Picture Project.” Their 2016 progress report included a light analysis of rent changes in the corridor. It found a 44% rent increase in the Green Line corridor between 2011 and 2015 compared with a 22% rent increase across Minneapolis and St. Paul. The analysis was based on advertised rent listings, which limits the validity of the findings because new apartment developments are likely to be overrepresented in advertised rent listings. For our purposes, the rent levels in new apartment buildings are less interesting than how rents change for tenants of existing apartment buildings. Given the limitations of existing research, we decided it would be beneficial to look at the question ourselves. We were in a good position to assess the rent impacts of new transit service for two reasons: 1) the Green Line provides a great context for the analysis, since there is an abundance of rental properties in the neighborhoods between the two downtowns; and 2) CoStar data offers a record of rents in most of the large apartment buildings in those neighborhoods, going back to 2000. That allowed us to build a record of rent changes over time, before and after the start of the Green Line service. Using the CoStar platform, we selected all multifamily properties in the CoStar-defined multifamily submarkets between Highway 280 and St. Paul’s Capitol Area. The selected geography excluded multifamily properties in the two downtowns and the area around the University of Minnesota, which are presumably subject to a more complex market context. From that list, we chose developments built before 2000 that had not been the subject of a major renovation since 2000. We eliminated affordable housing developments, which would be restricted in their ability to raise rents. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works48 The preceding steps yielded an inventory of 376 properties in housing submarkets along the transit corridor. Those properties were divided into 114 properties (station area properties) that are located within a half mile of a Green Line station, and 262 properties (control group) that are not. Figure 38 shows that average rents in the station area properties are lower than the average rents in the control group; and they remain lower over the period of study. Figure 40: Average Asking Rent Central Corridor (Green Line LRT) Submarkets $550 $600 $650 $700 $750 $800 $850 $900 Mo n t h l y A s k i n g R e n t Outside of Station Areas In Station Areas Green Line Construction Source: Tangible Consulting Services; CoStar However, when one focuses not on the rent level, but on how rents changed over time, an interesting pattern emerges. The rent changes were almost identical between the two groups until around 2012. But starting in 2012, the average rent in the station area properties increased more than it did in for control group properties. The simplest explanation is that starting in 2012 the new transit service was cause for charging a rent premium in station area apartment buildings. Figure 41: Rent Growth from 2000 Central Corridor (Green Line LRT) Submarkets -4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% 20% 24% Pe r c e n t C h a n g e S i n c e 2 0 0 0 Outside of Station Areas In Station Areas Green Line Construction Source: Tangible Consulting Services; CoStar HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 49 The analysis indicates that the rent premium associated with the new transit service is around $20 per month for properties located within a half mile of a station compared to those located between a half mile and one mile from a station. This suggests that rent increase due to proximity to LRT service are likely to be higher for properties closer to the stations. REAL ESTATE EXPERT INTERVIEWS In addition to analyzing quantitative housing data, interviews with residential real estate agents and multifamily developers were conducted to better understand the current and future housing needs along the Bottineau Corridor and within each station area. Residential Real Estate Agents Although residential real estate agents typically focus on the buying and selling of detached, single- family homes, which are not usually considered TOD, the prevalence of this housing type and the frequency of sales means that many agents often have a very good understanding of the ever changing housing needs of home buyers and homeowners in a given area. The following is a list real estate agents that primarily work along the Bottineau Corridor and were willing to share their insights and perspectives on the for-sale housing market: • Tom Slupske, RE/MAX Results • Emily Green, Sandy Green Realty • Becky O’Brien, RE/MAX Results • Joe Houghton, RE/MAX Results • Kerby Skurat, RE/MAX Results The overarching perspective of those interviewed was that the for-sale housing market in communities along the Bottineau Corridor is robust. There is a low inventory of properties being sold. Moreover, the housing in most of these communities is available at an affordable price by metropolitan standards. The interviewees offered the following additional considerations: • Sellers: In many cases older people are moving out of their homes. Many would like to remain in the community. This is especially true in Robbinsdale. People who delayed selling their homes due to the housing HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works50 crisis (2006-2010) are now finding it a good time to sell as well. Investors who purchased properties when prices were low are now selling them. • Buyers: Younger people began moving into Robbinsdale a few years ago. Now this trend is happening in Crystal and Brooklyn Park. Affordable homes make it easier for first time homebuyers to move into this area. Those who suffered foreclosures are now back on track. Their credit is repaired, and they are looking to buy. High rents are causing some renters to buy homes instead. Many of the buyers today in this area are first-time homebuyers. People who move into these communities tend to have connections to the area. They are from here and/or they have friends and families here. There are some buyers who are downsizing from other communities, looking for living space all on one floor. • Product Demand: There is demand for larger homes for families. Three- bedroom, two-bath homes are in great demand. Buyers are looking to put down roots here. “Move-in ready” homes are in demand. Two- and three-bedroom townhomes also sell quickly. People will pay a premium for new construction in this area. Many of the homes in these communities, particularly in North Minneapolis and Brooklyn Park are older, not updated, and in some cases, moldy/musty, and sloping. Some buyers are drawn further out to Maple Grove and Rogers in search of larger homes. Senior housing, particularly in Crystal, is lacking. The abundance of mid- century ramblers presents an opportunity. They are one-level, and with some redesign can be good places for seniors to live. More studio and other small apartments are not needed in these communities. New higher end apartment developments have not opened up single family housing for younger buyers as some expected. • Desired Amenities: These communities are desirable places to live. They are near downtown Minneapolis and the amenities, such as parks and the swimming pool in Crystal, draw families. Robbinsdale’s downtown is walkable, has good restaurants, and is very attractive to people. Lower housing prices are also a big draw. It’s an area where a buyer can find a home for less than $200,000. More mid- and higher-end restaurants would increase desirability. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 51 • Perceived LRT Impact: LRT may not change the housing market much, and it will take time for impacts to be felt. LRT will have a positive impact on the communities, as it will provide transportation options. It may invite new housing product that includes larger single-family homes. New construction, and housing product that is new and forward-thinking will attract people. Homes close to LRT stations will likely gain desirability, although those adjacent to stations may be less desirable, and will probably be rented. Housing market conditions and availability of financing will continue to be the big influencers. The number of people in these communities that commute via LRT will grow. Multifamily Housing Developers Although the market for owner-occupied single-family housing is a major component of the overall housing market, the Bottineau Corridor also consists of a significant amount of rental housing as well. Moreover, multifamily housing, whether owner- or renter-occupied, tends to also occur at densities much more supportive of TOD. Therefore, in order to gain greater insight into the current and future multifamily housing market, interviews were conducted with a number of multifamily developers active along the Bottineau Corridor. The following is a list multifamily developers interviewed as part of this study. The developer backgrounds include market rate housing, affordable housing, senior housing, and student housing. • Beard Group – Bill Beard • Inland Development Partners – Kent Carlson • Common Bond – Diana Dyste, Kayla Schuchman • Aeon – Blake Hopkins • Doran Companies – Kelly Doran • Ron Clark Construction & Design – Mike Waldo, Ron Clark HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works52 It should be noted that many of these developers also have experience developing commercial properties integrated with housing (i.e., mixed-use development). A companion study that researched the commercial market conditions and development potential in each station area also summarizes feedback from these experts. The following are key findings from the interviews specific to housing: • LRT will be a catalyst for housing development, though other factors, such as the availability of neighborhood amenities (e.g., schools, parks, grocery stores, trails, etc.) and the regional economy, will play an important role in determining when and where development will most likely occur. • Regardless of the LRT, there currently is and will be a high demand for middle-market multifamily development (i.e., properties with fewer on-site amenities and not as high of unit finishes as the luxury product being built in the downtowns or more affluent suburban locations). • Affordable housing is in high demand, and sites near stations can attract favorable tax credits necessary to support development. • Land values are already beginning to increase in expectation of future development, which will increase the financial need to develop multi-story, multifamily housing on the part of developers. • Neighborhood amenities (e.g., schools, parks, grocery stores, trails, etc.) are important and help attract and support new housing development. • Regardless of the type of development, interviewees stressed the need to design appropriate pedestrian and vehicular infrastructure that encourages the use of the LRT (i.e., reimagining streets, improved sidewalks, and safer street crossings). HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 53 COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS AND PRESENTATION Overview Quantitative data on the supply and demand of housing does not always provide a complete picture of the real-world issues that often result from a housing gap or housing need. Therefore, qualitative research was conducted with community members and housing advocates familiar with the Bottineau Corridor to better understand the types of housing issues and needs not apparent from the quantitative research. Outreach for the qualitative research consisted of engaging representatives of a number of community- based organizations active along the Bottineau Corridor with an interest in housing issues. The engagement was in two forms: 1) one-on-one interviews with organization leadership regarding housing issues and concerns; and 2) a presentation to members of the Blue Line Coalition and the Health Equity Engagement Cohort to solicit their input regarding preliminary findings from the quantitative portion of the study. The one-on-one interviews were conducted in November and December 2017. The purpose of these meetings was to understand housing barriers, needs, and opportunities within the planned METRO Blue Line Extension (Bottineau LRT) corridor. The persons interviewed and organizations they represented are listed below. • Nelima Sitati Munene, African, Career, Education and Resources Inc., November 27, 2017 • Sebastian Rivera, La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles, December 05, 2017 • Christine Hart, Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County, December 05, 2017 • Staci Howritz, City of Lakes Community Land Trust, December 06, 2017 • Martine Smaller, Northside Residents Redevelopment Council, December 07, 2017 • Pastor Kelly Chatman, Redeemer Lutheran Church/Redeemer Center for Life, December 07, 2017 HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works54 The presentation of preliminary findings occurred on December 13, 2017 at the Brookdale Library in Brooklyn Center. Below are key themes from the one-on-one interviews and comments received in response to the presentation of findings. Detailed notes from the interviews and specific comments from the presentation attendees are in the appendices. Key Themes The following is a summary of the key discussion themes from the stakeholder interviews. The opinions presented herein are of the persons interviewed and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the report authors or report sponsor (Hennepin County). Detailed meeting notes from the stakeholder interviews are included as an appendix. Rental Housing • Most stakeholders felt that there is an abundance of rental housing within the study area, and that it tends to be in large- and mid-size apartment complexes. However, some felt that there is not an adequate supply of quality [i.e., safe and desirable condition] affordable housing. • Most stakeholders agreed that much of the rental housing is considered affordable. However, several interviewees felt strongly that much of this housing is in older buildings that is often not adequately maintained, which often leads to health concerns. Examples of property issues cited by interviewees include poor heating and cooling, improperly functioning appliances, and leaky ceilings. • Many stakeholders noted that there are very few rental units in the market with three or more bedrooms, which are needed for families. This is especially the case in the Latino and Asian communities, who often have larger households. Some stakeholders noted that it is not uncommon for a family of six to live in a small two-bedroom apartment because of the lack of larger unit types. Owner-Occupied Housing • Stakeholders reported an abundance of single family homes within the study area, many of which are considered affordable. However, demand for homeownership is high and inventory is low, which tends to put upward pressure on price and can limit affordability. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 55 • It was noted that there are few townhomes or other multifamily ownership options within the corridor, which tend to be more affordable because they occupy less land. • Stakeholders who focus on North Minneapolis noted that there is a lot of quality housing (e.g., bricked homes with stucco) in North Minneapolis that should be preserved. In contrast, they noted an increase in the use of poor quality materials (e.g., low grade vinyl siding) among newly built housing. • Most stakeholders expressed the need for more opportunities for homeownership and homeownership assistance strategies. While some cities have first time homeowner resources, there is still an unmet need. • Some felt that there is a need for more transitional and smaller houses (1-bedroom and smaller footprint) with less maintenance for seniors to transition from their 3 to 4-bedroom homes. Affordability • Many stakeholders made the point that even with the prevalence of naturally occurring affordable housing in the corridor, many people are still spending over 50% of their income on rent alone and are therefore “housing cost burdened.” • Several stakeholders cited current market conditions as exacerbating affordability issues. For example, it was noted that low vacancy is a barrier to accessing quality affordable housing, and, for many households, this means that if they are unable to renew their lease or are evicted without cause they have no other housing option. Concerns about Discriminatory Practices • Several stakeholders reported that some landlords engage in discriminatory practices, especially during the application/screening process. Examples cited by those interviewed include refusing to accept Section 8 housing vouchers, charging higher application fees and rents to those who lack identification, such as social security cards or car insurance, and the use of credit checks, which penalize people who lack good credit or those trying to establish credit. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works56 • Some stakeholders also cited the lack of [or perceived lack of] tenant protection policies as contributing to an environment in which tenants are fearful of reporting legitimate issues, such as plumbing or HVAC problems, for fear that they may be evicted. Exacerbating the situation, according to those interviewed, is when markets are extremely tight with few if any available units at other properties. Under these conditions, tenants are even more fearful of potential evictions because there are so few housing options. Concerns about Gentrification/Displacement • While the stakeholders interviewed were generally supportive of the proposed LRT project, gentrification is a major concern. It is important for the LRT to serve not only new residents, but also the people who currently live in the affected areas. For example, rent control policies were suggested as a possible strategy to limit displacement among existing residents who would be unable to afford any significant rent increases due to the LRT. Connectivity and Access to Goods and Services • Many stakeholders expressed a desire for improved multimodal facilities, such as sidewalks and bicycle facilities. They also mentioned access to transit, such as buses, is limited, and access to goods and services (e.g., groceries) within walking distance is a challenge, particularly for older adults and those who do not have access to a personal vehicle. Other • Some stakeholders noted the idea of “owning” and “investing” in something can be a difficult conversation to have with some religious and cultural communities. For example, Sharia finance rules won’t allow Muslim communities to pay interest, such as the interest in a conventional mortgage which is often needed to purchase a home. • Historically, there is a lack of attractive retail sites and a disparity in neighborhood investment, particularly in North Minneapolis. It would be beneficial to have more user-friendly community retail that has a stronger sense of community investment (i.e., Whole Foods, coffee shops, cooperatives, replace the smoke shop with other retails, etc.). HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 57 GAPS ANALYSIS Findings from the previous sections were synthesized into a Gaps Analysis focused on each station area as well as corridor-wide concerns. Although the methodology of identifying and subsequently determining the scale of a “housing gap” starts with the process of comparing supply against demand to see where gaps may exist, it doesn’t stop there. Housing need, which the gaps analysis is fundamentally trying to address, is more nuanced than that. Therefore, quantitative data was augmented with qualitative data gleaned from interviews with housing advocates and experts familiar with the housing supply and needs of the local population. Another key purpose of the gaps analysis is not to simply address existing gaps, but to draw attention to how each station area could accommodate future housing demand and thus prevent the creation of new gaps or the exacerbation of existing gaps. Therefore, the gaps analysis also takes into consideration forecasted household growth in each of the Corridor communities. Because the METRO Blue Line Extension will have an obvious impact on mobility and accessibility, it is likely to profoundly influence housing need, particularly through the pricing of housing. Therefore, the gaps analysis also factors in potential impacts on housing costs as well. A simplified methodological approach to the gaps analysis is as follows: Figure 42: Methodological Steps of the Gaps Analysis STEP 1 Evaluate station area plans for housing development potential STEP 2 Quantify Supply of Housing STEP 3 Assess Socio- Economic Factors STEP 4 Augment with Insight from Housing Advocates/Experts When thinking about a gaps analysis it is important to be reflective of two considerations which sometimes support the same housing prescriptions but in some cases can be different or complementary. 1. Housing gaps. The lack of housing types in the existing housing stock, filling gaps in the array of existing housing types. 1. Household gaps. The unmet housing needs of current residents, allowing them new options that meet identified needs. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works58 Corridor-Wide Housing Gaps Closing a housing gap observed within a station area may not always require a station-specific prescription. For example, this can be seen in station areas where there is very little diversity in the housing supply or very little housing altogether. However, due to the station area plan, which may be more focused on non-residential uses, or a lack of developable sites, it may make more sense to consider housing prescriptions that are distributed throughout the corridor instead within a given station area. To address such considerations, the following are corridor-wide housing observations and prescriptions: • Housing age. Housing age analysis suggests the need to build new multifamily housing in many portions of the corridor because the housing stock is aging with little replacement. Generally, this is true at every station area since there has been so little new multifamily housing constructed over the last 30 years throughout the corridor. However, multifamily development is particularly limited in the 93rd Avenue, 85th Avenue, and the Golden Valley Road station areas. There are also parts of the corridor where the initial era of housing development was many decades ago, and, thus, there is a strong need for newer multifamily housing that can complement an older apartment stock. This is particularly true of the Brooklyn Boulevard and 63rd Avenue station areas in Brooklyn Park where essentially all of the apartment stock was built before 1980 as well as the Minneapolis station areas, which has an even older multifamily stock. • Housing maintenance. Maintaining the quality, condition, and marketability of the existing housing stock reduces the pressure to build new housing needed to replace obsolete or uninhabitable housing. Moreover, community input suggests that there are significant management and maintenance issues with the existing rental housing. This is true of both multifamily and single family rental housing, and it suggests: »Continued attention to oversight through rental licensing and other approaches »Support for capital investment in the existing housing stock (e.g., new roofs, windows, HVAC systems, etc.) HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 59 »Programs to help educate and support landlords in how to manage properties with tenants of diverse needs, such as aging residents, non-English speakers, families with young children, new arrivals unaccustomed to a cold climate, etc. »Programs to help educate and support landlords new to renting and unfamiliar with the rights afforded to both owners and renters, especially in terms of maintenance responsibilities • Housing affordability. This is an area where gaps in the housing stock and gaps in household needs suggest the need for different housing types—which could be thought of as complementary as opposed to contradictory. »New market rate or even upscale rental housing are in scarce supply in many of the station areas. High quality market-rate apartments and townhomes would fill gaps in the housing stock at every station. But it may be particularly needed as an action step that can improve market perceptions in the station areas that have the most dated existing apartment stock (noted above). »Affordable housing. The station areas are appropriate locations for affordable housing because they provide access without the need of a car to jobs in a large portion of the metro area. From a housing stock perspective, new affordable housing would add diversity in the available housing stock in the more affluent parts of the corridor such as at Oak Grove and Golden Valley Road station areas. From the standpoint of meeting the needs of existing households, new affordable housing can reduce cost burdens or offer an improvement in quality and property management for existing households. From this standpoint, new affordable housing may be particularly needed in lower income areas. The median household income is lowest (around $40,000 or lower) in the 63rd Avenue, Penn Avenue, and Van White station areas, followed by the Brooklyn Boulevard, Bass Lake Road, Robbinsdale, and Plymouth Ave station areas (around $50,000). It’s $70,000 or more in the other station areas. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works60 • Workforce housing. Used in a nontechnical sense, housing at all stations along the corridor support workers who commute to downtown, the airport, Target headquarters, and other employment destinations served by LRT. There is a particular need for housing at the employment nodes of Oak Grove Parkway, 93rd Avenue, and 85th Avenue, and at the retail hubs at Bass Lake Road and Brooklyn Boulevard. Housing for workers in these locations can be both market rate and income restricted. • Household age. Demographic trends suggest that there will be an ongoing need for a range of senior housing options throughout the corridor. The one exception is the Robbinsdale station area, which accounts for roughly one-third of all the age-restricted housing within a mile of the corridor. In all the other station areas, senior housing would fill an existing gap and any growing gaps due to an aging population. In particular, there is a strong need for housing that provides assistance, such as assisted living and memory care services. Currently, less than one-quarter of the age-restricted units in the corridor have such types of assistance. For more independent seniors, the best locations will offer other amenities, such as close proximity to walking trails and shopping. Therefore, it may be particularly appropriate at 85th Avenue, Bass Lake Road, Golden Valley Road, or Van White Boulevard station areas (if developed as a mixed use node). • Unit type. A bedroom analysis combined with comments from community stakeholders revealed a gap between the number of rental units with three or more bedrooms and the number of households with children. Most larger rental properties are dominated by one- and two-bedroom units because the traditional target market for these properties when built were young singles living alone or with a roommate or older households that have downsized from a single-family home. Households with children unable to afford homeownership, therefore, have had very limited housing options. Every station area has this housing gap because it is a need that is pervasive throughout the corridor and the region. • Medium density structures. Duplexes, triplexes, and many types of townhome product are a good way to achieve TOD densities without significantly changing the character of a station area. Furthermore, these product types can often be delivered as a more affordable option to HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 61 traditional single-family product because they use less land yet retain some of the attributes often desired in single-family homes, such as private- entry, space for a patio or garden, and larger unit sizes (i.e., three or more bedrooms). These types of units can also be a complement to larger mixed- use developments where distances beyond ¼ or ½-mile from the station may make them more feasible. This would be especially relevant in stations such as Oak Grove Parkway and Bass Lake Road. Station Area Housing Gaps Although corridor-wide housing gaps are important to understand how wide spread gaps may be and that responses to a gap may need to be thought of more holistically, one of the purposes of this study is to provide insight at the station area level to help inform the creation of zoning codes that will support TOD and remove barriers to closing any critical housing gaps. For each station area a gaps analysis was prepared in order to identify short-term (pre-LRT) and long- term (post-LRT) housing need. Each analysis includes the following components: • Map of existing general-occupancy (i.e., non-senior or age-restricted) multifamily properties with 10 or more units. • Map of existing senior or age-restricted multifamily properties. • Summary of demographic and housing statistics presented previously in the report. For comparison purposes, Hennepin County statistics are also included as a benchmark since it is a much larger unit of geography and would represent a regional norm or average for these type of data. • A basic description of the station area vision included as part of the station area plan. • Estimate of housing demand through 2040. This estimate is based on household growth forecasts prepared by the Metropolitan Council for each city along the Corridor. Based on the station area plan, the amount of existing developable land, opportunities for redevelopment (i.e., presence of underutilized, aging, or obsolete properties), and market dynamics, a proportion the city’s forecasted household growth was assigned to the station area and considered to be its future housing demand. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works62 For example, in the Oak Grove Parkway station area, there is a significant amount of vacant land. Moreover, given the station area plan to create a new transit oriented village, it was assumed the station area could capture 20-25% of the City of Brooklyn Park’s forecasted household growth through 2040, which translates 1,500-2,000 housing units. • List of most appropriate new housing types that would best address current gaps and future demand. • Narrative that describes the housing gap situation in each station area. The narrative provides context and understanding of the factors contributing to a housing gap (if any) and possible prescriptions for how to address current and future needs taking into consideration the unique circumstances of each station area. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 63 Oak Grove Parkway 2903+0 0 2904+0 0 2905+0 0 2906+00 2907+00 2908+00 2909+00 2910+00 2911+00 2912+0 0 2913+00 2914+00 2915+00 2916+00 2917+00 2918+00 2919+00 2920+00 2921+00 2922+00 2923+00 2924+00 2925+00 2926+00 2927+00 2928+00 2929+00 2930+00 2 9 3 1 +00 2932+00 2933+00 2934+00 2935+00 2936+00 2937+00 2938+00 2939+00 2940+00 2941+00 2942+00 2943+00 2944+00 2945+00 2946+00 2947+00 2948+00 2949+00 2950+00 2 9 5 1 +00 2952+00 2 9 5 3 +00 2954+00 2955+00 2956+00 2957+00 2958+00 2959+00 2960+00 2961+00 2962+00 2963+00 2964+00 2965+00 2966+00 2967+00 2968+00 2969+00 2970+002971+002972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+00 2978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+00 2988+00 99+06 1903+00 1904+00 1905+00 1906+0 0 1907+0 0 1908+0 0 1909+0 0 1910+0 0 1911+0 0 1912+00 1913+00 1914+00 1915+0 0 1916+0 0 1917+0 0 1918+00 1919+00 1920+0 0 1921+0 0 1922+0 0 1923+00 1924+00 1925+00 1926+00 1927+00 1928+00 1929+00 1930+00 1 9 3 1 +00 1932+00 1933+00 1934+00 1935+00 1936+00 1937+00 1938+00 1939+00 1940+00 1941+00 1942+00 1943+00 1944+00 1945+00 1946+00 1947+00 1948+00 1949+00 1950+00 1 9 5 1 +00 1952+00 1 9 5 3 +00 1954+00 1955+00 1956+00 1957+00 1958+00 1959+00 1960+00 1961+00 1962+00 1963+00 1964+00 1965+00 1966+00 1967+00 1968+00 1969+001970+001971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+00 1978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+00 1988+00 130+50 93RD AVENUE STATION OAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION !( !( 93 r d 93rd 610610 Z a n e W e s t B r o a d w a y 93rd 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 6 9 W e s t B r o a d w a y W e s t B r o a d w a y T a r g e t Z a n e D o u g l a s D o u g l a sWinnetka F F 1-Mile k 169 k 610 General Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 2903+00 2904+00 2905+00 2906+00 2907+00 2908+00 2909+00 2910+00 2911+00 2912+00 2913+00 2914+00 2915+00 2916+00 2917+00 2918+00 2919+00 2920+00 2921+00 2922+00 2923+00 2924+00 2925+00 2926+00 2927+00 2928+00 2929+00 2930+00 2931+00 2932+00 2933+00 2934+00 2935+00 2936+00 2937+0 0 2938+00 2939+00 2940+00 2941+00 2942+00 2943+00 2944+00 2945+00 2946+00 2947+00 2948+00 2949+00 2950+00 2951+00 2952+00 2953+00 2954+00 2955+00 2956+00 2957+00 2958+00 2959+00 2960+00 2961+00 2962+00 2963+00 2964+00 2965+00 2966+00 2967+00 2968+00 2969+00 2970+002971+002972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+00 2978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+00 2988+0099+06 1903+00 1904+00 1905+00 1906+00 1907+00 1908+00 1909+00 1910+00 1911+00 1912+00 1913+00 1914+00 1915+00 1916+00 1917+00 1918+00 1919+00 1920+00 1921+00 1922+00 1923+00 1924+00 1925+00 1926+00 1927+00 1928+00 1929+00 1930+00 1931+00 1932+00 1933+00 1934+00 1935+00 1936+00 1937+0 0 1938+0 0 1939+00 1940+00 1941+00 1942+00 1943+00 1944+00 1945+00 1946+00 1947+00 1948+00 1949+00 1950+00 1951+00 1952+00 1953+00 1 9 5 4 +00 1955+00 1956+00 1957+00 1958+00 1959+00 1960+00 1961+00 1962+00 1963+00 1964+00 1965+00 1966+00 1967+00 1968+00 1969+001970+001971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+00 1978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+00 1988+00130+50 93RD AVENUE STATION OAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION !( !( 9 3 r d 93rd 610610 Z a n e W e s t B r o a d w a y 93rd 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 6 9 W e s t B r o a d w a y W e s t B r o a d w a y T a r g e t Z a n e D o u g l a s D o u g l a sWinnetka F F 1-Mile k 169 k 610 Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 1/2-Mile STATISTIC OAK GROVE PKWY HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 291 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 88 490,196 Median Age1,2 37.5 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 23%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 13%12% Average Household Size1,2 2.7 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 --0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $71,454 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 90.9%49.0% Households with Children1,2 44.7%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 21.1%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 31.5%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 10.4%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 42 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 4.8%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 0.0%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 45.2%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 50.0%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 2016 1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 2004 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $477,874 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $1,491 $1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $2,012 $1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $2,288 $1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will Station Area Plan • New village concept with areas for mixing of uses, including residential, retail, and office. Major growth district. Housing Demand through 2040 • 1,500-2,000 units (20-25% of projected Brooklyn Park household growth through 2040) New Housing Types Needed • Market rate rental apartments • Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Senior housing (market rate and affordable) • Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both market rate and affordable units) • Multi-story condominiums (multiple price points) • Owner-occupied townhomes (multiple price points) 1/2-Mile Map 1: Oak Grove Parkway - Multifamily Properties Map 2: Oak Grove Parkway – Senior Properties HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works64 Housing Gaps Analysis Being mostly vacant, the Oak Grove Parkway station area currently does not have a housing gap in the way other fully developed station areas have housing gaps. However, this is the one station area that will be able to accommodate a significant amount of new housing along the Corridor. Therefore, a range of housing product types and price points should be supported through zoning and other policies. The timing of development will be highly dependent on the introduction of new infrastructure into the station area. Given the rapid absorption of the 610 West apartments, which are located east of the station area just beyond its ½-mile radius, the market for market rate, transit-oriented development is strong and would support more near-term development. With that being said, the amount of vacant, developable land is large enough that full build out the station area will take many years even when factoring in the operation of the LRT. In order to fully leverage the opportunity of building in essence a new neighborhood, densities should be highest nearest the station. However, further from the station, densities can drop down to much lower levels. A wide variety of housing types will allow for not only a range household types but also a variety of price points, which will be extremely important. As a growing area with the potential to attract residents drawn to nearby high paying jobs, some type of inclusionary policy guaranteeing a portion of all housing development be of a certain type and affordability would likely be feasible in this station area. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 65 93 rd Avenue 2864+00 2865+00 2866+00 2867+00 2868+00 2869+00 2870+00 2871+00 2872+00 2873+00 2874+00 2875+00 2876+00 2877+00 2878+00 2879+00 2880+00 2881+00 2882+00 2883+00 2884+00 2885+00 2886+00 2887+00 2888+00 2889+00 2890+00 2891+00 2892+00 2893+00 2894+00 2895+00 2896+00 2897+00 2898+00 2899+00 2900+00 2901+00 2902+00 2903+00 2904+00 2905+00 2906+00 2907+00 2908+00 2909+00 2910+00 2911+00 2912+00 2913+00 2914+00 2915+00 2916+00 2917+00 2918+00 2919+00 2920+00 2921+00 2922+00 2923+00 2924+00 2925+00 2926+00 2 9 2 7 +00 2 9 2 8 +00 2 9 2 9 +00 2 9 3 0 +00 2931+00 2932+00 2933+00 2934+00 2935+00 2936+00 2937+00 2938+00 2939+00 2940+00 2941+00 2942+00 2943+00 2944+00 2945+00 2946+00 2947+00 2948+00 2949+00 2950+00 2951+00 2 9 5 2 +00 2953+00 2954+00 2955+00 2956+00 2957+00 2958+00 2959+00 2960+00 2961+00 2962+00 2963+00 2964+00 2965+00 2966+00 2967+00 2968+00 2969+002970+002971+00 2972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+002978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+00 2988+00 99+06 1864+00 1865+00 1866+00 1867+00 1868+00 1869+00 1870+00 1871+00 1872+00 1873+00 1874+00 1875+00 1876+00 1877+00 1878+00 1879+00 1880+00 1881+00 1882+00 1883+00 1884+00 1885+00 1886+00 1887+00 1888+00 1889+00 1890+00 1891+00 1892+00 1893+00 1894+00 1895+00 1896+00 1897+00 1898+00 1899+00 1900+00 1901+00 1902+00 1903+00 1904+00 1905+00 1906+00 1907+00 1908+00 1909+00 1910+00 1911+00 1912+00 1913+00 1914+00 1915+00 1916+00 1917+00 1918+00 1919+00 1920+00 1921+00 1922+00 1923+00 1924+00 1925+00 1926+00 1 9 2 7 +00 1 9 2 8 +00 1 9 2 9 +00 1 9 3 0 +00 1931+00 1932+00 1933+00 1934+00 1935+00 1936+00 1937+00 1938+00 1939+00 1940+00 1941+00 1942+00 1943+00 1944+00 1945+00 1946+00 1947+00 1948+00 1949+00 1950+00 1951+00 1 9 5 2 +00 1953+00 1954+00 1955+00 1956+00 1957+00 1958+00 1959+00 1960+00 1961+00 1962+00 1963+00 1964+00 1965+00 1966+00 1967+00 1968+00 1969+001970+00 1971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+001978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+00 1 9 8 8 +00130+50 85TH AVENUE STATION 93RD AVENUE STATION OAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION !( !( !( W e s t B r o a d w a y 93 r d 93rd 85th Z a n e 610610 D o u g l a s D o u g l a s 93rd 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 6 9 W e s t B r o a d w a y W e s t B r o a d w a y Z a n e Z a n e W e s t B r o a d w a y T a r g e t W i n n e t k a F F 1-Mile k 169 k k 610 General Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 2864+00 2865+00 2866+00 2867+00 2868+00 2869+00 2870+00 2871+00 2872+00 2873+00 2874+00 2875+00 2876+00 2877+00 2878+00 2879+00 2880+00 2881+00 2882+00 2883+00 2884+00 2885+00 2886+00 2887+00 2888+00 2889+00 2890+00 2891+00 2892+00 2893+00 2894+00 2895+00 2896+00 2897+00 2898+00 2899+00 2900+00 2901+00 2902+00 2903+00 2904+00 2905+00 2906+00 2907+00 2908+00 2909+00 2910+00 2911+00 2912+00 2913+00 2914+00 2915+00 2916+00 2917+00 2918+00 2919+00 2920+00 2921+00 2922+00 2923+00 2924+00 2925+00 2926+00 2 9 2 7 +00 2 9 2 8 +00 2 9 2 9 +00 2 9 3 0 +00 2931+00 2932+00 2933+00 2934+00 2935+00 2936+00 2937+00 2938+00 2939+00 2940+00 2941+00 2942+00 2943+00 2944+00 2945+00 2946+00 2947+00 2948+00 2949+00 2950+00 2951+00 2 9 5 2 +00 2953+00 2954+00 2955+00 2956+00 2957+00 2958+00 2959+00 2960+00 2961+00 2962+00 2963+00 2964+00 2965+00 2966+00 2967+00 2968+00 2969+002970+002971+00 2972+002973+002974+002975+002976+002977+002978+002979+002980+002981+002982+002983+002984+002985+002986+002987+00 2988+00 99+06 1864+00 1865+00 1866+00 1867+00 1868+00 1869+00 1870+00 1871+00 1872+00 1873+00 1874+00 1875+00 1876+00 1877+00 1878+00 1879+00 1880+00 1881+00 1882+00 1883+00 1884+00 1885+00 1886+00 1887+00 1888+00 1889+00 1890+00 1891+00 1892+00 1893+00 1894+00 1895+00 1896+00 1897+00 1898+00 1899+00 1900+00 1901+00 1902+00 1903+00 1904+00 1905+00 1906+00 1907+00 1908+00 1909+00 1910+00 1911+00 1912+00 1913+00 1914+00 1915+00 1916+00 1917+00 1918+00 1919+00 1920+00 1921+00 1922+00 1923+00 1924+00 1925+00 1926+00 1 9 2 7 +00 1 9 2 8 +00 1 9 2 9 +00 1 9 3 0 +00 1931+00 1932+00 1933+00 1934+00 1935+00 1936+00 1937+00 1938+00 1939+00 1940+00 1941+00 1942+00 1943+00 1944+00 1945+00 1946+00 1947+00 1948+00 1949+00 1950+00 1951+00 1 9 5 2 +00 1953+00 1954+00 1955+00 1956+00 1957+00 1958+00 1959+00 1960+00 1961+00 1962+00 1963+00 1964+00 1965+00 1966+00 1967+00 1968+00 1969+001970+00 1971+001972+001973+001974+001975+001976+001977+001978+001979+001980+001981+001982+001983+001984+001985+001986+001987+00 1 9 8 8 +00130+50 85TH AVENUE STATION 93RD AVENUE STATION OAK GROVE PARKWAY STATION !( !( !( W e s t B r o a d w a y 93 r d 93rd 85th Z a n e 610610 D o u g l a s D o u g l a s 93rd 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 6 9 W e s t B r o a d w a y W e s t B r o a d w a y Z a n e Z a n e W e s t B r o a d w a y T a r g e t W i n n e t k a F F 1-Mile k 169 k k 610 Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services Station Area Plan • Support current trend of new employment/business growth with emphasis on stronger multimodal connections throughout station area. Minimal residential vision. Housing Demand through 2040 • 100-200 units (1-2% of projected Brooklyn Park household growth through 2040) New Housing Types Needed • Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Senior housing (market rate and affordable) • Owner-occupied townhomes (middle market price points) 1/2-Mile1/2-Mile Map 4: 93rd Avenue – Multifamily Properties Map 3: 93rd Avenue – Senior Properties STATISTIC 93rd AVE HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,000 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 274 490,196 Median Age1,2 33.9 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 30%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 9%12% Average Household Size1,2 3.2 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 0.84 0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $88,134 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 91.6%49.0% Households with Children1,2 54.9%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 14.1%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 53.8%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 27.5%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 265 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 2.3%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 1.1%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 13.6%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 82.6%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 --1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1991 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $264,000 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 --$1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 --$1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 --$1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works66 Housing Gaps Analysis The existing housing stock within the 93rd Avenue station area is newer and mostly consists of detached, single-family homes. The median home sales price is one of the highest along the Corridor, which suggests that most of the stock is not at risk for deferred maintenance. Therefore, there are minimal gaps that can be closed through modifying the existing housing supply. Adding new housing is the most likely path to addressing any housing gaps in the station area. However, near-term opportunities for new housing development are limited. The undeveloped portions of the station area are guided for industry and are currently being rapidly developed. Nevertheless, some non-residential properties that are relatively older will experience redevelopment pressure once the LRT is established. At locations closest to existing housing or adjacent to uses complementary with housing, there would be the opportunity to introduce new housing. In the interest of broadening the limited housing choices that currently exist, any new development should consider affordable rental housing in the form of apartments or townhomes, depending on the site. Introducing more affordable housing product would provide additional choice because the cost of the existing housing in the station area is at or above the regional median. Therefore, new housing affordable to lower-income households will be especially attractive given the strong concentration of employment in this station area. Senior housing will also be a likely need in the future as there currently are few senior housing options in the vicinity today6. As residents of the existing residential neighborhoods to the south and east continue to age, there will likely be a need for senior housing at some point in the future. 6 At the time this report was being prepared, the local media reported that a senior housing project was proposed approximately 1 mile east of the station. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 67 85 th Avenue 2 8 0 4 +0 0 2 8 0 5 +0 0 2806+00 2807+00 2808+00 2809+0 0 2810+00 2811+00 2812+00 2813+00 2814+00 2815+00 2816+00 2817+00 2 8 1 8 +0 0 2 8 1 9 +0 0 2 8 2 0 +0 0 2 8 2 1 +0 0 2 8 2 2 +0 0 2823+00 2824+00 2825+00 2826+00 2827+00 2828+00 2829+00 2830+00 2831+00 2832+00 2833+00 2834+00 2835+00 2836+00 2837+00 2838+00 2839+00 2840+00 2 8 4 1 +0 0 2842+00 2843+00 2844+00 2845+00 2846+00 2847+00 2 8 4 8 +0 0 2 8 4 9 +0 0 2 8 5 0 +0 0 2 8 5 1 +0 0 2 8 5 2 +0 0 2 8 5 3 +0 0 2 8 5 4 +0 0 2 8 5 5 +0 0 2 8 5 6 +0 0 2 8 5 7 +0 0 2858+00 2859+00 2860+00 2861+00 2862+00 2863+00 2864+00 2865+00 2866+00 2867+00 2868+00 2869+00 2870+00 2 8 7 1 +00 2872+00 2873+00 2874+00 2875+00 2876+00 2877+00 2878+00 2879+00 2880+0 0 2881+0 0 2882+0 0 2883+0 0 2884+0 0 2885+0 0 2886+0 0 2887+0 0 2888+0 0 2889+00 2890+00 2891+00 2892+00 2893+00 2894+00 2895+00 2896+00 2897+00 2898+00 2899+00 2900+00 2901+00 2902+00 2903+00 2904+00 2905+00 2906+00 2907+00 2908+00 2909+00 2910+00 2911+00 2912+00 2913+00 2914+00 2915+00 2916+00 2917+00 2918+00 2919+00 2920+00 2921+00 2922+00 2923+00 2924+00 2925+00 2926+00 2927+00 2928+00 1804+00 1805+00 1806+00 1807+00 1808+00 1809+00 1810+00 1811+00 1812+00 1813+00 1814+00 1815+00 1816+00 1817+00 1818+00 1819+00 1820+00 1821+00 1822+00 1823+00 1824+00 1825+00 1826+00 1827+00 1828+00 1829+00 1830+00 1831+00 1832+00 1833+00 1834+00 1835+00 1836+00 1837+00 1838+00 1839+00 1840+00 1841+00 1842+00 1843+00 1844+00 1845+00 1846+00 1847+00 1848+00 1849+00 1850+00 1851+00 1852+00 1853+00 1854+00 1855+00 1856+00 1857+00 1858+00 1859+00 1860+00 1861+00 1862+00 1863+00 1864+00 1865+00 1866+00 1867+00 1868+00 1869+00 1870+00 1871+00 1872+00 1873+00 1874+00 1875+00 1876+00 1877+00 1878+00 1879+00 1880+00 1881+00 1882+00 1883+00 1884+00 1885+00 1886+00 1887+00 1888+00 1 8 8 9 +0 0 1 8 9 0 +0 0 1 8 9 1 +0 0 1 8 9 2 +0 0 1 8 9 3 +0 0 1894+0 0 1895+0 0 1896+0 0 1897+0 0 1898+00 1899+00 1900+00 1901+00 1902+00 1903+00 1904+00 1905+00 1906+00 1907+00 1908+00 1909+00 1910+00 1911+00 1912+00 1913+00 1914+00 1915+00 1916+00 1917+00 1918+00 1919+00 1920+00 1921+00 1922+00 1923+00 1924+00 1925+00 1926+00 1927+00 1928+00 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION 85TH AVENUE STATION 93RD AVENUE STATION !( !( !( 93rd 9 3 r d W e s t B r o a d w a y 85th 85th Brooklyn Brooklyn W e s t B r o a d w a y 8 18 1 93rd 93 r d 85th 85th 85th 85th 8 1 Z a n e 93rd 93rd 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 6 9 W e s t B r o a d w a y Z a n e Z a n e F F 1-Mile k 169 k k General Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 2804+00 2805+00 2806+00 2807+00 2808+00 2809+00 2810+00 2811+00 2812+00 2813+00 2814+00 2815+00 2816+00 2817+00 2818+00 2819+00 2820+00 2821+00 2822+00 2823+00 2824+00 2825+00 2826+00 2827+00 2828+00 2829+00 2830+00 2831+00 2832+00 2833+00 2834+00 2835+00 2836+00 2837+00 2838+00 2839+00 2840+00 2841+00 2842+00 2843+00 2844+00 2845+00 2846+00 2847+00 2848+00 2849+00 2850+00 2851+00 2852+00 2853+00 2854+00 2855+00 2856+00 2857+00 2858+00 2859+00 2860+00 2861+00 2862+00 2863+00 2864+00 2865+00 2866+00 2867+00 2868+00 2869+00 2870+00 2871+00 2872+00 2873+00 2874+00 2875+00 2876+00 2877+00 2878+00 2879+00 2880+00 2881+00 2882+00 2883+00 2884+00 2885+00 2886+00 2887+00 2888+00 2889+00 2890+00 2891+00 2892+00 2893+00 2894+00 2895+00 2896+00 2897+00 2898+00 2899+00 2900+00 2901+00 2902+00 2903+00 2904+00 2905+00 2906+00 2907+00 2908+00 2909+00 2910+00 2911+00 2912+00 2913+00 2914+00 2915+00 2916+00 2917+00 2918+00 2919+00 2920+00 2921+00 2922+00 2923+00 2924+00 2925+00 2926+00 2927+00 2928+00 1804+00 1805+00 1806+00 1807+00 1808+00 1809+00 1810+00 1811+00 1812+00 1813+00 1814+00 1815+00 1816+00 1817+00 1818+00 1819+00 1820+00 1821+00 1822+00 1823+00 1824+00 1825+00 1826+00 1827+00 1828+00 1829+00 1830+00 1831+00 1832+00 1833+00 1834+00 1835+00 1836+00 1837+00 1838+00 1839+00 1840+00 1841+00 1842+00 1843+00 1844+00 1845+00 1846+00 1847+00 1848+00 1849+00 1850+00 1851+00 1852+00 1853+00 1854+00 1855+00 1856+00 1857+00 1858+00 1859+00 1860+00 1861+00 1862+00 1863+00 1864+00 1865+00 1866+00 1867+00 1868+00 1869+00 1870+00 1871+00 1872+00 1873+00 1874+00 1875+00 1876+00 1877+00 1878+00 1879+00 1880+00 1881+00 1882+00 1883+00 1884+00 1885+00 1886+00 1887+00 1888+00 1889+00 1890+00 1891+00 1892+00 1893+00 1894+00 1895+00 1896+00 1897+00 1898+00 1899+00 1900+00 1901+00 1902+00 1903+00 1904+00 1905+00 1906+00 1907+00 1908+00 1909+00 1910+00 1911+00 1912+00 1913+00 1914+00 1915+00 1916+00 1917+00 1918+00 1919+00 1920+00 1921+00 1922+00 1923+00 1924+00 1925+00 1926+00 1927+00 1928+00 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION 85TH AVENUE STATION 93RD AVENUE STATION !( !( !( 93rd 9 3 r d W e s t B r o a d w a y 85th85th Brooklyn Brooklyn W e s t B r o a d w a y 8 18 1 93rd 93rd 85th 85th 85th 85th 8 1 Z a n e 93rd 93rd 1 6 9 1 6 9 1 6 9 W e s t B r o a d w a y Z a n e Z a n e F F Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units 1-Mile k 169 k k Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services Station Area Plan • Support growth and expansion of institutional uses. Select sites identified as opportunities to introduce new housing. Housing Demand through 2040 • 300-600 units (3-6% of projected Brooklyn Park household growth through 2040) Housing Types • Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both market rate and affordable units) • Senior housing (affordable) 1/2-Mile1/2-Mile Map 6: 85th Avenue – Multifamily Properties Map 5: 85th Avenue – Senior Properties STATISTIC 85th AVE HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 3,589 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,299 490,196 Median Age1,2 35.7 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 26%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 12%12% Average Household Size1,2 2.7 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 0.84 0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $76,323 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 85.2%49.0% Households with Children1,2 38.9%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 27.3%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 51.0%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 30.3%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,263 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 5.0%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 4.7%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 34.5%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 55.8%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1983 1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1978 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $183,000 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $871 $1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $994 $1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $1,361 $1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works68 Housing Gaps Analysis Homeownership is currently very high in the 85th Avenue station area. The median home sales price is below the County median, but this is likely due to a high percentage of owner-occupied townhomes, which tend to be smaller than detached, single-family homes and thus less expensive. There are two sites with strong development potential. One site is vacant and owned by North Hennepin Community College, which has identified the site as housing in their most recent campus plan. The other is an existing strip retail center that would front the station and is currently for –sale. The status of these prime sites increases the possibility of near-term housing development. With the North Hennepin Community College anchoring the station area, there is a clear need for rental housing that would accommodate some of their student population. Currently, there is very little rental housing in the station area. Any new rental housing targeted to students of the community college does not need to be designed for the traditional college student because community college students often work and have families. Therefore, the strongest need would be affordably-priced rental housing that could accommodate a family. The advantage of promoting a more standard housing design that does not specifically cater to a traditional student population is that it could meet the needs of non-students as well. Although townhomes are plentiful in the station area, rental townhomes are a good way to provide larger unit types to households that are unable to access homeownership. If such a development is professionally managed this would potentially mitigate some of the landlord issues that come with the renting of individually owned rental units. There is one senior housing development near the station area. Similar to the 93rd Avenue station, in all likelihood as the existing household base continues to age, providing housing that older adults can transition into can help them remain in the community and make housing available for new households that want to live in the station area. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 69 Brooklyn Boulevard 2746+00 2747+00 2 7 4 8 +00 2749+00 2750+00 2751+00 2752+00 2753+00 2754+00 2755+00 2756+00 2757+00 2758+00 2759+00 2760+00 2 7 6 1 +00 2 7 6 2 +00 2763+00 2764+00 2765+00 2766+00 2767+00 2768+00 2769+00 2770+00 2771+00 2772+00 2773+00 2 7 7 4 +00 2 7 7 5 +00 2776+00 2777+00 2778+00 2779+00 2780+00 2781+00 2782+00 2783+00 2784+00 2785+00 2786+00 2787+00 2788+00 2789+00 2790+00 2791+00 2792+00 2793+00 2794+00 2795+00 2796+0 0 2797+00 2798+00 2799+00 2800+00 2801+00 2802+00 2803+00 2804+00 2805+00 2806+00 2807+00 2808+00 2809+00 2810+00 2811+00 2812+00 2813+00 2814+00 2815+00 2816+00 2817+00 2818+00 2819+00 2820+00 2821+00 2822+00 2823+00 2824+00 2825+00 2826+00 2827+00 2828+00 2829+00 2830+00 2831+00 2832+00 2833+00 2834+00 2835+00 2836+00 2837+00 2838+00 2839+00 2840+00 2841+00 2842+00 2843+00 2844+00 2845+00 2846+00 2847+00 2848+00 2849+00 2850+00 2851+00 2852+00 2853+00 2854+00 2855+00 2856+00 2857+00 2858+00 2859+00 2860+00 2861+00 2862+00 2863+00 2864+00 2865+00 2866+00 2867+00 2868+00 2869+00 2870+00 2871+00 2872+00 2873+00 2874+00 2875+00 2876+00 3 7 4 6 +00 3 7 4 7 +00 3748+00 3749+00 3750+00 3751+00 3752+00 3753+00 3754+00 3755+00 3756+00 3757+00 3758+00 3759+00 3 7 6 0 +00 3 7 6 1 +00 3762+00 3763+00 3764+00 3765+00 3766+00 3767+00 3768+00 3769+00 3770+00 3771+00 3772+00 3 7 7 3 +00 3 7 7 4 +00 3775+00 3776+00 3777+00 3778+00 3779+00 3780+00 3781+00 3782+00 3783+00 3784+00 3785+00 1746+00 1 7 4 7 +00 1 7 4 8 +00 1749+00 1750+00 1751+00 1752+00 1753+00 1754+00 1755+00 1756+00 1757+00 1758+00 1759+00 1760+00 1 7 6 1 +00 1 7 6 2 +00 1763+00 1764+00 1765+00 1766+00 1767+00 1768+00 1769+00 1770+00 1771+00 1772+00 1773+00 1 7 7 4 +00 1 7 7 5 +00 1776+00 1777+00 1778+00 1779+00 1780+00 1781+00 1782+00 1783+00 1784+00 1785+00 1786+00 1787+00 1788+00 1789+00 1790+00 1791+00 1792+00 1793+00 1794+00 1795+00 1796+0 0 1797+00 1798+00 1799+00 1800+00 1801+00 1802+00 1803+00 1804+00 1805+00 1806+00 1807+00 1808+00 1809+00 1810+00 1811+00 1812+00 1813+00 1814+00 1815+00 1816+00 1817+00 1818+00 1819+00 1820+00 1821+00 1822+00 1823+00 1824+00 1825+00 1826+00 1827+00 1828+00 1829+00 1830+00 1831+00 1832+00 1833+00 1834+00 1835+00 1836+00 1837+00 1838+00 1839+00 1840+00 1841+00 1842+00 1843+00 1844+00 1845+00 1846+00 1847+00 1848+00 1849+00 1850+00 1851+00 1852+00 1853+00 1854+00 1855+00 1856+00 1857+00 1858+00 1859+00 1860+00 1861+00 1862+00 1863+00 1864+00 1865+00 1866+00 1867+00 1868+00 1869+00 1870+00 1871+00 1872+00 1873+00 1874+00 1875+00 1876+00 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION 85TH AVENUE STATION !( !( W e s t B r o a d w a y 85th 85th Z a n e Brooklyn Brooklyn W e s t B r o a d w a y 8 1 8 1 1 6 9 L a k e l a n d 694694 85th 85th 85th 85th 8 1 Z a n e 68th 8 1 69th 1 6 9 W e s t B r o a d w a y Z a n e W e s t B r o a d w a y F F694 1-Mile k 169 k General Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 2746+00 2 7 4 7 +00 2 7 4 8 +00 2749+00 2750+00 2751+00 2752+00 2753+00 2754+00 2755+00 2756+00 2757+00 2758+00 2759+00 2760+00 2 7 6 1 +00 2 7 6 2 +00 2763+00 2764+00 2765+00 2766+00 2767+00 2768+00 2769+00 2770+00 2771+00 2772+00 2773+00 2 7 7 4 +00 2 7 7 5 +00 2776+00 2777+00 2778+00 2779+00 2780+00 2781+00 2782+00 2783+00 2784+00 2785+00 2786+00 2787+00 2788+00 2789+00 2790+00 2791+00 2792+00 2793+00 2794+00 2795+00 2796+0 0 2797+00 2798+00 2799+00 2800+00 2801+00 2802+00 2803+00 2804+00 2805+00 2806+00 2807+00 2808+00 2809+00 2810+00 2811+00 2812+00 2813+00 2814+00 2815+00 2816+00 2817+00 2818+00 2819+00 2820+00 2821+00 2822+00 2823+00 2824+00 2825+00 2826+00 2827+00 2828+00 2829+00 2830+00 2831+00 2832+00 2833+00 2834+00 2835+00 2836+00 2837+00 2838+00 2839+00 2840+00 2841+00 2842+00 2843+00 2844+00 2845+00 2846+00 2847+00 2848+00 2849+00 2850+00 2851+00 2852+00 2853+00 2854+00 2855+00 2856+00 2857+00 2858+00 2859+00 2860+00 2861+00 2862+00 2863+00 2864+00 2865+00 2866+00 2867+00 2868+00 2869+00 2870+00 2871+00 2872+00 2873+00 2874+00 2875+00 2876+00 3 7 4 6 +00 3 7 4 7 +00 3748+00 3749+00 3750+00 3751+00 3752+00 3753+00 3754+00 3755+00 3756+00 3757+00 3758+00 3759+00 3 7 6 0 +00 3 7 6 1 +00 3762+00 3763+00 3764+00 3765+00 3766+00 3767+00 3768+00 3769+00 3770+00 3771+00 3772+00 3 7 7 3 +00 3 7 7 4 +00 3775+00 3776+00 3777+00 3778+00 3779+00 3780+00 3781+00 3782+00 3783+00 3784+00 3785+00 1746+00 1 7 4 7 +00 1 7 4 8 +00 1749+00 1750+00 1751+00 1752+00 1753+00 1754+00 1755+00 1756+00 1757+00 1758+00 1759+00 1760+00 1 7 6 1 +00 1 7 6 2 +00 1763+00 1764+00 1765+00 1766+00 1767+00 1768+00 1769+00 1770+00 1771+00 1772+00 1773+00 1 7 7 4 +00 1 7 7 5 +00 1776+00 1777+00 1778+00 1779+00 1780+00 1781+00 1782+00 1783+00 1784+00 1785+00 1786+00 1787+00 1788+00 1789+00 1790+00 1791+00 1792+00 1793+00 1794+00 1795+00 1796+00 1797+00 1798+00 1799+00 1800+00 1801+00 1802+00 1803+00 1804+00 1805+00 1806+00 1807+00 1808+00 1809+00 1810+00 1811+00 1812+00 1813+00 1814+00 1815+00 1816+00 1817+00 1818+00 1819+00 1820+00 1821+00 1822+00 1823+00 1824+00 1825+00 1826+00 1827+00 1828+00 1829+00 1830+00 1831+00 1832+00 1833+00 1834+00 1835+00 1836+00 1837+00 1838+00 1839+00 1840+00 1841+00 1842+00 1843+00 1844+00 1845+00 1846+00 1847+00 1848+00 1849+00 1850+00 1851+00 1852+00 1853+00 1854+00 1855+00 1856+00 1857+00 1858+00 1859+00 1860+00 1861+00 1862+00 1863+00 1864+00 1865+00 1866+00 1867+00 1868+00 1869+00 1870+00 1871+00 1872+00 1873+00 1874+00 1875+00 1876+00 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD STATION 85TH AVENUE STATION !( !( W e s t B r o a d w a y 85th85th Z a n e Brooklyn Brooklyn W e s t B r o a d w a y 8 1 8 1 1 6 9 L a k e l a n d 694694 85th 85th 85th 85th 8 1 Z a n e 68th 8 1 69th 1 6 9 W e s t B r o a d w a y Z a n e W e s t B r o a d w a y F F694 1-Mile k 169 Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units k Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services Station Area Plan • Maintain commercial character with emphasis on stronger multimodal connections throughout station area. Minimal residential vision. Housing Demand through 2040 • 300-600 units (3-6% of projected Brooklyn Park household growth through 2040) New Housing Types Needed • Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Senior housing (affordable) • Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both market rate and affordable units) • Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Owner-occupied townhomes (middle market price points) 1/2-Mile1/2-Mile Map 7: Brooklyn Boulevard – Multifamily Properties Map 8: Brooklyn Boulevard – Senior Properties STATISTIC BROOKLYN BLVD HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 2,231 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 746 490,196 Median Age1,2 31.5 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 30%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 10%12% Average Household Size1,2 2.9 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 0.99 0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $50,160 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 62.7%49.0% Households with Children1,2 44.6%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 17.4%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 63.5%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 54.3%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 728 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 22.5%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 5.5%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 9.6%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 62.4%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1970 1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1970 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $206,500 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $833 $1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $1,050 $1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 --$1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works70 Housing Gaps Analysis The Brooklyn Boulevard station area is dominated by auto-oriented, big-box retail. There has been substantial reinvestment to many of the retail properties in recent years. Therefore, redevelopment opportunities will be limited to a small number of older retail centers or freestanding retail buildings. Due to the lack of immediate opportunities and the challenge of introducing new multi-modal infrastructure supportive of TOD, the Brooklyn Boulevard station area is envisioned to remain a commercial district with its current character in the near-term. However, with the advent of LRT, any future redevelopment of a major commercial parcel could easily accommodate some type of multi-story housing. In such cases, a mixed-income rental project that would include both market rate and income-restricted units would help close the gap on the need for affordably-priced housing. Despite the lack of immediate development opportunities adjacent or near the station, there are potential sites approximately a ½-mile north and south of the station that would have more immediate, near-term potential. Given their distance from the station itself, these sites may likely be able to support lower-density development that is still transit supportive, such as townhomes, both affordable rentals and middle market owner-occupied product, because the land would less expensive than land adjacent or closer to the station. Most of the existing rental product in the vicinity of the station area is beyond the ½-mile radius. Therefore, it will not be as subject to rent inflation due to the LRT as other station areas. Nevertheless, renters in the Brooklyn Boulevard station area are already extremely cost burdened. Therefore, any measures to reduce this burden, such preserving affordability of units, would greatly assist the local population. The Brooklyn Boulevard station area is also an area mentioned by representatives of several community-based organizations and housing advocates as having a concentration of rental housing that is in poor condition or in need of updating. Although such units may meet the City’s maintenance codes, the livability issues of certain properties remains a concern. Therefore, additional policies that would address apartment conditions and their enforcement should be evaluated. Also, the construction of new high-quality affordable housing can not only increase the number of desirable housing units but can also serve to raise the market standard for many NOAH properties, which often results in improved maintenance and upkeep by landlords of existing properties. The median age of single-family homes in the station area is nearing 50 years. This is the point in the age of house in which routine maintenance of important systems (e.g., roof, HVAC, plumbing, windows, etc.) is critical or else a house will fall into serious disrepair quickly. Well-maintained older homes are often an important source of affordable housing and are an entry point into homeownership for many younger households. Therefore, home improvement programs and homeownership assistance are strategies to help maintain the owner-occupied housing stock. Although the population in the Brooklyn Boulevard station area tends to skew younger, the needs of the existing senior population are not being met. Many of the existing rental apartments do not have design features that assist with aging. For example, many buildings do not have elevators and units on upper floors must be accessed by walking up and down stairs. New senior housing with universal design features would address this gap. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 71 63rd Avenue 3554+00 3555+00 3556+00 3557+00 3558+00 3 5 5 9 +00 3 5 6 0 +00 3 5 6 1 +00 3 5 6 2 +00 3 5 6 3 +00 3564+00 3565+00 3566+00 3567+00 3568+00 3569+00 3570+00 3571+00 3572+00 3573+00 3574+00 3575+00 3576+00 3577+00 3578+00 3579+00 3580+00 3581+00 3582+00 3583+00 3584+00 3585+00 3586+00 3 5 8 7 +00 3 5 8 8 +00 3 5 8 9 +00 3 5 9 0 +00 3 5 9 1 +00 3592+00 3593+00 3594+00 3595+00 3596+00 3597+00 3598+00 3599+00 3600+00 3601+00 3602+00 3603+00 3700+00 1554+00 1555+00 1556+00 1557+00 1558+00 1559+00 1 5 6 0 +00 1 5 6 1 +00 1 5 6 2 +00 1 5 6 3 +00 1 5 6 4 +00 1565+00 1566+00 1567+00 1568+00 1569+00 1570+00 1571+00 1572+00 1573+00 1574+00 1575+00 1576+00 1577+00 1578+00 1579+00 1580+00 1581+00 1582+00 1583+00 1584+00 1585+00 1586+00 1587+00 1588+00 1 5 8 9 +00 1 5 9 0 +00 1 5 9 1 +00 1 5 9 2 +00 1593+00 1594+00 1595+00 1596+00 1597+00 1598+00 1599+00 1600+00 1601+00 1602+00 1603+00 1700+00 2554+00 2555+00 2556+00 2557+00 2558+00 2559+00 2560+00 2 5 6 1 +00 2 5 6 2 +00 2 5 6 3 +00 2 5 6 4 +00 2565+00 2566+00 2567+00 2568+00 2569+00 2570+00 2571+00 2572+00 2573+00 2574+00 2575+00 2576+00 2577+00 2578+00 2579+00 2580+00 2581+00 2582+00 2583+00 2584+00 2585+00 2586+00 2587+00 2588+00 2 5 8 9 +00 2 5 9 0 +00 2 5 9 1 +00 2 5 9 2 +00 2593+00 2594+00 2595+00 2596+00 2597+00 2598+00 2599+00 2600+00 2601+00 2602+00 2603+00 2700+002700+00 2701+00 2702+00 2703+00 2704+00 2705+00 2706+00 2707+00 2708+00 2709+00 2710+00 2711+00 2712+00 2713+00 2 7 1 4 +00 2 7 1 5 +00 2 7 1 6 +00 2 7 1 7 +00 2 7 1 8 +00 2719+00 2720+00 2721+00 2722+00 2723+00 2724+00 2725+00 2726+00 2727+00 2728+00 2729+00 2730+00 2731+00 2732+00 2733+00 2734+00 2735+00 2736+00 2737+00 2738+00 2739+00 2740+00 2741+00 2 7 4 2 +00 2 7 4 3 +00 2 7 4 4 +00 2 7 4 5 +00 2 7 4 6 +00 2747+00 2748+00 2749+00 2750+00 2751+00 2752+00 2753+00 2754+00 2755+00 2756+00 2757+00 2758+00 2759+00 2760+00 2761+00 2762+00 2763+00 2764+00 2765+00 2766+00 2767+00 2768+00 2769+00 2770+00 2 7 7 1 +00 2 7 7 2 +00 2 7 7 3 +00 2 7 7 4 +00 2775+00 2776+00 2777+00 2778+00 2779+00 2780+00 2781+00 2782+00 2783+00 2784+00 2785+00 2786+00 2787+00 3700+00 3701+00 3702+00 3703+00 3704+00 3705+00 3706+00 3707+00 3708+00 3709+00 3710+00 3711+00 3 7 1 2 +00 3 7 1 3 +00 3 7 1 4 +00 3 7 1 5 +00 3 7 1 6 +00 3717+00 3718+00 3719+00 3720+00 3721+00 3722+00 3723+00 3724+00 3725+00 3726+00 3727+00 3728+00 3729+00 3730+00 3731+00 3732+00 3733+00 3734+00 3735+00 3736+00 3737+00 3738+00 3739+00 3740+00 3 7 4 1 +00 3 7 4 2 +00 3 7 4 3 +00 3 7 4 4 +00 3745+00 3746+00 3747+00 3748+00 3749+00 3750+00 3751+00 3752+00 3753+00 3754+00 3755+00 3756+00 3757+00 3758+00 3759+00 3760+00 3761+00 3762+00 3763+00 3764+00 3765+00 3766+00 3767+00 3768+00 3 7 6 9 +00 3 7 7 0 +00 3 7 7 1 +00 3 7 7 2 +00 3 7 7 3 +00 3774+00 3775+00 3776+00 3777+00 3778+00 3779+00 3780+00 3781+00 3782+00 3783+00 3784+00 3785+00 1700+00 1701+00 1702+00 1703+00 1704+00 1705+00 1706+00 1707+00 1708+00 1709+00 1710+00 1711+00 1712+00 1713+00 1 7 1 4 +00 1 7 1 5 +00 1 7 1 6 +00 1 7 1 7 +00 1718+00 1719+00 1720+00 1721+00 1722+00 1723+00 1724+00 1725+00 1726+00 1727+00 1728+00 1729+00 1730+00 1731+00 1732+00 1733+00 1734+00 1735+00 1736+00 1737+00 1738+00 1739+00 1740+00 1741+00 1 7 4 2 +00 1 7 4 3 +00 1 7 4 4 +00 1 7 4 5 +00 1 7 4 6 +00 1747+00 1748+00 1749+00 1750+00 1751+00 1752+00 1753+00 1754+00 1755+00 1756+00 1757+00 1758+00 1759+00 1760+00 1761+00 1762+00 1763+00 1764+00 1765+00 1766+00 1767+00 1768+00 1769+00 1 7 7 0 +00 1 7 7 1 +00 1 7 7 2 +00 1 7 7 3 +00 1 7 7 4 +00 1775+00 1776+00 1777+00 1778+00 1779+00 1780+00 1781+00 1782+00 1783+00 1784+00 1785+00 1786+00 1787+00 B A SS LAKE ROAD STATION 63RD AVENUE STATION !( !( 56th W e s t B r o a d w a y 56th W e s t B r o a d w a y L a k e l a n d 8 1 Bass Lake 694 694 69th 8 1 56thBass Lake BassLake 68th Bass Lake 56th BassLake 8 1 56th W e s t B r o a d w a y 94 94 W e s t B r o a d w a y F F 694 1-Mile k k General Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 3554+00 3555+00 3556+00 3557+00 3 5 5 8 +00 3 5 5 9 +00 3560+00 3561+00 3562+00 3563+00 3564+00 3565+00 3566+00 3567+00 3568+00 3569+00 3570+00 3571+00 3 5 7 2 +00 3 5 7 3 +00 3574+00 3575+00 3576+00 3577+00 3578+00 3579+00 3580+00 3581+00 3582+00 3583+00 3584+00 3585+00 3 5 8 6 +00 3 5 8 7 +00 3588+00 3589+00 3590+00 3591+00 3592+00 3593+00 3594+00 3595+00 3596+00 3597+00 3598+00 3 5 9 9 +00 3 6 0 0 +00 3 6 0 1 +00 3602+00 3603+00 3700+00 1554+00 1555+00 1556+00 1557+00 1558+00 1 5 5 9 +00 1 5 6 0 +00 1561+00 1562+00 1563+00 1564+00 1565+00 1566+00 1567+00 1568+00 1569+00 1570+00 1571+00 1572+00 1 5 7 3 +00 1 5 7 4 +00 1575+00 1576+00 1577+00 1578+00 1579+00 1580+00 1581+00 1582+00 1583+00 1584+00 1585+00 1586+00 1 5 8 7 +00 1 5 8 8 +00 1589+00 1590+00 1591+00 1592+00 1593+00 1594+00 1595+00 1596+00 1597+00 1598+00 1599+00 1600+00 1 6 0 1 +00 1 6 0 2 +00 1603+00 1700+00 2554+00 2555+00 2556+00 2557+00 2558+00 2559+00 2 5 6 0 +00 2 5 6 1 +00 2562+00 2563+00 2564+00 2565+00 2566+00 2567+00 2568+00 2569+00 2570+00 2571+00 2572+00 2573+00 2 5 7 4 +00 2 5 7 5 +00 2576+00 2577+00 2578+00 2579+00 2580+00 2581+00 2582+00 2583+00 2584+00 2585+00 2586+00 2 5 8 7 +00 2 5 8 8 +00 2589+00 2590+00 2591+00 2592+00 2593+00 2594+00 2595+00 2596+00 2597+00 2598+00 2599+00 2600+00 2 6 0 1 +00 2 6 0 2 +00 2603+00 2700+002700+00 2701+00 2702+00 2703+00 2704+00 2705+00 2706+00 2707+00 2708+00 2709+00 2710+00 2 7 1 1 +00 2 7 1 2 +00 2713+00 2714+00 2715+00 2716+00 2717+00 2718+00 2719+00 2720+00 2721+00 2722+00 2723+00 2724+00 2 7 2 5 +00 2 7 2 6 +00 2727+00 2728+00 2729+00 2730+00 2731+00 2732+00 2733+00 2734+00 2735+00 2736+00 2737+00 2 7 3 8 +00 2 7 3 9 +00 2740+00 2741+00 2742+00 2743+00 2744+00 2745+00 2746+00 2747+00 2748+00 2749+00 2750+00 2751+00 2 7 5 2 +00 2 7 5 3 +00 2754+00 2755+00 2756+00 2757+00 2758+00 2759+00 2760+00 2761+00 2762+00 2763+00 2764+00 2765+00 2 7 6 6 +00 2767+00 2768+00 2769+00 2770+00 2771+00 2772+00 2773+00 2774+00 2775+00 2776+00 2777+00 2778+00 2 7 7 9 +00 2 7 8 0 +00 2781+00 2782+00 2783+00 2784+00 2785+00 2786+00 2787+00 3700+00 3701+00 3702+00 3703+00 3704+00 3705+00 3706+00 3707+00 3708+00 3709+00 3 7 1 0 +00 3 7 1 1 +00 3712+00 3713+00 3714+00 3715+00 3716+00 3717+00 3718+00 3719+00 3720+00 3721+00 3722+00 3 7 2 3 +00 3 7 2 4 +00 3725+00 3726+00 3727+00 3728+00 3729+00 3730+00 3731+00 3732+00 3733+00 3734+00 3735+00 3736+00 3 7 3 7 +00 3 7 3 8 +00 3739+00 3740+00 3741+00 3742+00 3743+00 3744+00 3745+00 3746+00 3747+00 3748+00 3749+00 3750+00 3 7 5 1 +00 3 7 5 2 +00 3753+00 3754+00 3755+00 3756+00 3757+00 3758+00 3759+00 3760+00 3761+00 3762+00 3763+00 3 7 6 4 +00 3 7 6 5 +00 3766+00 3767+00 3768+00 3769+00 3770+00 3771+00 3772+00 3773+00 3774+00 3775+00 3776+00 3777+00 3 7 7 8 +00 3 7 7 9 +00 3780+00 3781+00 3782+00 3783+00 3784+00 3785+00 1700+00 1701+00 1702+00 1703+00 1704+00 1705+00 1706+00 1707+00 1708+00 1709+00 1710+00 1 7 1 1 +00 1 7 1 2 +00 1713+00 1714+00 1715+00 1716+00 1717+00 1718+00 1719+00 1720+00 1721+00 1722+00 1723+00 1 7 2 4 +00 1 7 2 5 +00 1726+00 1727+00 1728+00 1729+00 1730+00 1731+00 1732+00 1733+00 1734+00 1735+00 1736+00 1737+00 1 7 3 8 +00 1 7 3 9 +00 1740+00 1741+00 1742+00 1743+00 1744+00 1745+00 1746+00 1747+00 1748+00 1749+00 1750+00 1751+00 1 7 5 2 +00 1753+00 1754+00 1755+00 1756+00 1757+00 1758+00 1759+00 1760+00 1761+00 1762+00 1763+00 1764+00 1 7 6 5 +00 1 7 6 6 +00 1767+00 1768+00 1769+00 1770+00 1771+00 1772+00 1773+00 1774+00 1775+00 1776+00 1777+00 1 7 7 8 +00 1 7 7 9 +00 1780+00 1781+00 1782+00 1783+00 1784+00 1785+00 1786+00 1787+00 B A SS LAKE ROAD STATION 63RD AVENUE STATION !( !( 56th W e s t B r o a d w a y 56th W e s t B r o a d w a y L a k e l a n d 8 1 Bass Lake 694 694 69th 8 1 56thBass Lake BassLake 68th Bass Lake 56th BassLake 8 1 56th W e s t B r o a d w a y 94 94 W e s t B r o a d w a y F F 694 1-Mile k k Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services Station Area Plan • Allow residential uses to transition to TOD in select areas. Housing Demand through 2040 • 300-600 units (3-6% of projected Brooklyn Park household growth through 2040) New Housing Types Needed • Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both market rate and affordable units) • Owner-occupied townhomes (middle market price points) • Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) 1/2-Mile1/2-Mile Map 9: 63rd Avenue – Multifamily Properties Map 10: 63rd Avenue – Senior Properties STATISTIC 63rd AVE HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 4,649 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,848 490,196 Median Age1,2 32 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 28%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 13%12% Average Household Size1,2 2.5 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 1.20 0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $41,101 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 32.1%49.0% Households with Children1,2 40.0%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 27.2%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 59.3%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 52.4%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 2,058 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 63.9%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 1.0%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 4.4%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 30.8%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1971 1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1955 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $178,800 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $851 $1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $986 $1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $1,397 $1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works72 Housing Gaps Analysis The 63rd Avenue station area mostly consists of residential uses with a mix of rental apartments, single- family homes, and senior housing. With the exception of one identified site, most of the station area is expected to take many years to transition from its current low-density character to a higher-density, TOD character. Therefore, the opportunities to address any existing housing gaps have more to with physical preservation and/or enhancement of existing properties than with new construction. The 63rd Avenue station has one of the highest concentrations of rental housing along the Corridor. Most of it was built between 40 and 60 years ago and, if not suffering from deferred maintenance, is at risk to do so. The vast majority of the rental housing is market rate, but well below the County average and thus would be considered naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). Given this condition, the station area is at risk of losing substantial amounts of affordable housing due to: 1) future redevelopment of properties in poor condition; or 2) rising rents caused by market demand or the impact of the LRT. Therefore, physical preservation strategies should be considered to help maintain the existing rental stock, and financial preservation programs should be considered to help maintain affordability of the existing rental stock. Where newer housing could be developed in coming years, higher-quality product that would be available to households at a mix of income levels would help close the gap on the need for better conditioned homes. Allowing increased density at sites closest to the station is one possible strategy that could help with introducing more affordably-priced, higher quality units. In areas further from the station, townhome product may be appropriate, both owned and rented. Rental townhomes would help with the lack of rented three-bedroom units in the station area. Townhomes would also help provide a transition between areas of single-family homes and higher- density sites closer to the station. Although the 63rd Avenue station already has a fair amount of senior housing, single-level townhomes would meet the needs of many seniors who are still independent, but want to remain in the community. One possible housing strategy that would be appropriate in this station area would be to allow in-fill development on larger lots with existing homes. This would increase density of the station area without significantly changing the character of the area as well. In-fill development could happen on a fine grain level. Therefore, market forces could dictate a large portion of this type of development. However, because of the small-scale of such developments, they could also be attractive to wide range of programs that fund affordable housing development. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 73 Bass Lake Road 1421+00 1422+00 1423+00 1424+00 1425+00 1426+00 1427+00 1428+00 1429+00 1430+00 1431+00 1432+00 1433+00 1434+00 1435+00 1500+00 2421+00 2422+00 2423+00 2424+00 2425+00 2426+00 2427+00 2428+00 2429+00 2430+00 2431+00 2432+00 2433+00 2434+00 2435+00 2500+00 3421+00 3422+00 3423+00 3424+00 3425+00 3426+00 3427+00 3428+00 3429+00 3430+00 3431+00 3432+00 3433+00 3434+00 3435+00 3436+003500+003500+00 3501+00 3502+00 3503+00 3504+00 3505+00 3506+00 3507+00 3508+00 3509+00 3510+00 3511+00 3512+00 3513+00 3514+00 3515+00 3516+00 3517+00 3518+00 3519+00 3520+00 3521+00 3522+00 3523+00 3524+00 3525+00 3526+00 3527+00 3528+00 3529+00 3530+00 3531+00 3532+00 3533+00 3534+00 3535+00 3536+00 3537+00 3538+00 3539+00 3540+00 3541+00 3542+00 3543+00 3544+00 3545+00 3546+00 3547+00 3548+00 3549+00 3550+00 3551+00 3552+00 3553+00 3554+00 3555+00 3556+00 3557+00 3558+00 3559+00 3560+00 3561+00 3562+00 3563+00 3564+00 3565+00 3566+00 3567+00 3568+00 3569+00 3570+00 3571+00 3572+00 3573+00 3574+00 3575+00 3576+00 3577+00 3578+00 3579+00 3580+00 3581+00 3582+00 3583+00 3584+00 3585+00 3586+00 3587+00 3588+00 3589+00 3590+00 3591+00 3592+00 3593+00 3594+00 3595+00 3596+00 3597+00 3598+00 3599+00 3600+00 3601+00 3602+00 3603+00 3700+00 1500+00 1501+00 1502+00 1503+00 1504+00 1505+00 1506+00 1507+00 1508+00 1509+00 1510+00 1511+00 1512+00 1513+00 1514+00 1515+00 1516+00 1517+00 1518+00 1519+00 1520+00 1521+00 1522+00 1523+00 1524+00 1525+00 1526+00 1527+00 1528+00 1529+00 1530+00 1531+00 1532+00 1533+00 1534+00 1535+00 1536+00 1537+00 1538+00 1539+00 1540+00 1541+00 1542+00 1543+00 1544+00 1545+00 1546+00 1547+00 1548+00 1549+00 1550+00 1551+00 1552+00 1553+00 1554+00 1555+00 1556+00 1557+00 1558+00 1559+00 1560+00 1561+00 1562+00 1563+00 1564+00 1565+00 1566+00 1567+00 1568+00 1569+00 1570+00 1571+00 1572+00 1573+00 1574+00 1575+00 1576+00 1577+00 1578+00 1579+00 1580+00 1581+00 1582+00 1583+00 1584+00 1585+00 1586+00 1587+00 1588+00 1589+00 1590+00 1591+00 1592+00 1593+00 1594+00 1595+00 1596+00 1597+00 1598+00 1599+00 1600+00 1601+00 1602+00 1603+00 1700+00 2500+00 2501+00 2502+00 2503+00 2504+00 2505+00 2506+00 2507+00 2508+00 2509+00 2510+00 2511+00 2512+00 2513+00 2514+00 2515+00 2516+00 2517+00 2518+00 2519+00 2520+00 2521+00 2522+00 2523+00 2524+00 2525+00 2526+00 2527+00 2528+00 2529+00 2530+00 2531+00 2532+00 2533+00 2534+00 2535+00 2536+00 2537+00 2538+00 2539+00 2540+00 2541+00 2542+00 2543+00 2544+00 2545+00 2546+00 2547+00 2548+00 2549+00 2550+00 2551+00 2552+00 2553+00 2554+00 2555+00 2556+00 2557+00 2558+00 2559+00 2560+00 2561+00 2562+00 2563+00 2564+00 2565+00 2566+00 2567+00 2568+00 2569+00 2570+00 2571+00 2572+00 2573+00 2574+00 2575+00 2576+00 2577+00 2578+00 2579+00 2580+00 2581+00 2582+00 2583+00 2584+00 2585+00 2586+00 2587+00 2588+00 2589+00 2590+00 2591+00 2592+00 2593+00 2594+00 2595+00 2596+00 2597+00 2598+00 2599+00 2600+00 2601+00 2602+00 2603+00 2700+002700+00 2701+00 2702+00 2703+00 2704+00 2705+00 2706+00 2707+00 2708+00 2709+00 2710+00 2711+00 2712+00 2713+00 2714+00 2715+00 2716+00 2717+00 2718+00 2719+00 2720+00 3700+00 3701+00 3702+00 3703+00 3704+00 3705+00 3706+00 3707+00 3708+00 3709+00 3710+00 3711+00 3712+00 3713+00 3714+00 3715+00 3716+00 3717+00 3718+00 3719+00 3720+00 1700+00 1701+00 1702+00 1703+00 1704+00 1705+00 1706+00 1707+00 1708+00 1709+00 1710+00 1711+00 1712+00 1713+00 1714+00 1715+00 1716+00 1717+00 1718+00 1719+00 1720+00 BASS LAKE ROAD STATION 63RD AVENUE STATION !( !( 8 1 56th 8 1 W i n n e t k a W e st B r o a d w a y 56th W e st B ro a d w a y Bass Lake Bass Lake BassLake 56th Bass Lake 56th56th 1 0 0 58th O r c h a r d 1 0 0 D o u g l a s F F 1-Mile k 100 General Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 1421+00 1422+00 1423+00 1424+00 1425+00 1426+00 1427+00 1428+00 1429+00 1430+00 1431+00 1432+00 1433+00 1434+00 1435+00 1500+00 2421+00 2422+00 2423+00 2424+00 2425+00 2426+00 2427+00 2428+00 2429+00 2430+00 2431+00 2432+00 2433+00 2434+00 2435+00 2500+00 3421+00 3422+00 3423+00 3424+00 3425+00 3426+00 3427+00 3428+00 3429+00 3430+00 3431+00 3432+00 3433+00 3434+00 3435+00 3436+003500+003500+00 3501+00 3502+00 3503+00 3504+00 3505+00 3506+00 3507+00 3508+00 3509+00 3510+00 3511+00 3512+00 3513+00 3514+00 3515+00 3516+00 3517+00 3518+00 3519+00 3520+00 3521+00 3522+00 3523+00 3524+00 3525+00 3526+00 3527+00 3528+00 3529+00 3530+00 3531+00 3532+00 3533+00 3534+00 3535+00 3536+00 3537+00 3538+00 3539+00 3540+00 3541+00 3542+00 3543+00 3544+00 3545+00 3546+00 3547+00 3548+00 3549+00 3550+00 3551+00 3552+00 3553+00 3554+00 3555+00 3556+00 3557+00 3558+00 3559+00 3560+00 3561+00 3562+00 3563+00 3564+00 3565+00 3566+00 3567+00 3568+00 3569+00 3570+00 3571+00 3572+00 3573+00 3574+00 3575+00 3576+00 3577+00 3578+00 3579+00 3580+00 3581+00 3582+00 3583+00 3584+00 3585+00 3586+00 3587+00 3588+00 3589+00 3590+00 3591+00 3592+00 3593+00 3594+00 3595+00 3596+00 3597+00 3598+00 3599+00 3600+00 3601+00 3602+00 3603+00 3700+00 1500+00 1501+00 1502+00 1503+00 1504+00 1505+00 1506+00 1507+00 1508+00 1509+00 1510+00 1511+00 1512+00 1513+00 1514+00 1515+00 1516+00 1517+00 1518+00 1519+00 1520+00 1521+00 1522+00 1523+00 1524+00 1525+00 1526+00 1527+00 1528+00 1529+00 1530+00 1531+00 1532+00 1533+00 1534+00 1535+00 1536+00 1537+00 1538+00 1539+00 1540+00 1541+00 1542+00 1543+00 1544+00 1545+00 1546+00 1547+00 1548+00 1549+00 1550+00 1551+00 1552+00 1553+00 1554+00 1555+00 1556+00 1557+00 1558+00 1559+00 1560+00 1561+00 1562+00 1563+00 1564+00 1565+00 1566+00 1567+00 1568+00 1569+00 1570+00 1571+00 1572+00 1573+00 1574+00 1575+00 1576+00 1577+00 1578+00 1579+00 1580+00 1581+00 1582+00 1583+00 1584+00 1585+00 1586+00 1587+00 1588+00 1589+00 1590+00 1591+00 1592+00 1593+00 1594+00 1595+00 1596+00 1597+00 1598+00 1599+00 1600+00 1601+00 1602+00 1603+00 1700+00 2500+00 2501+00 2502+00 2503+00 2504+00 2505+00 2506+00 2507+00 2508+00 2509+00 2510+00 2511+00 2512+00 2513+00 2514+00 2515+00 2516+00 2517+00 2518+00 2519+00 2520+00 2521+00 2522+00 2523+00 2524+00 2525+00 2526+00 2527+00 2528+00 2529+00 2530+00 2531+00 2532+00 2533+00 2534+00 2535+00 2536+00 2537+00 2538+00 2539+00 2540+00 2541+00 2542+00 2543+00 2544+00 2545+00 2546+00 2547+00 2548+00 2549+00 2550+00 2551+00 2552+00 2553+00 2554+00 2555+00 2556+00 2557+00 2558+00 2559+00 2560+00 2561+00 2562+00 2563+00 2564+00 2565+00 2566+00 2567+00 2568+00 2569+00 2570+00 2571+00 2572+00 2573+00 2574+00 2575+00 2576+00 2577+00 2578+00 2579+00 2580+00 2581+00 2582+00 2583+00 2584+00 2585+00 2586+00 2587+00 2588+00 2589+00 2590+00 2591+00 2592+00 2593+00 2594+00 2595+00 2596+00 2597+00 2598+00 2599+00 2600+00 2601+00 2602+00 2603+00 2700+002700+00 2701+00 2702+00 2703+00 2704+00 2705+00 2706+00 2707+00 2708+00 2709+00 2710+00 2711+00 2712+00 2713+00 2714+00 2715+00 2716+00 2717+00 2718+00 2719+00 2720+00 3700+00 3701+00 3702+00 3703+00 3704+00 3705+00 3706+00 3707+00 3708+00 3709+00 3710+00 3711+00 3712+00 3713+00 3714+00 3715+00 3716+00 3717+00 3718+00 3719+00 3720+00 1700+00 1701+00 1702+00 1703+00 1704+00 1705+00 1706+00 1707+00 1708+00 1709+00 1710+00 1711+00 1712+00 1713+00 1714+00 1715+00 1716+00 1717+00 1718+00 1719+00 1720+00 BASS LAKE ROAD STATION 63RD AVENUE STATION !( !( 8 1 56th 8 1 W i n n e t k a W e st B r o a d w a y 56th W est B ro a d w a y Bass Lake Bass Lake BassLake 56th Bass Lake 56th56th 1 0 0 58th O r c h a r d 1 0 0 D o u g l a s F F 1-Mile k 100 Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services Station Area Plan • Establish Becker Park as a town square surrounded by TOD; strengthen connections between station and Crystal Shopping Center Housing Demand through 2040 • 400-600 units (80-100% of projected Crystal household growth through 2040) New Housing Types Needed • Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both market rate and affordable units) • Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Senior housing (market rate and affordable) • Multi-story condominiums and cooperatives (multiple price points) 1/2-Mile1/2-Mile Map 11: Bass Lake Road – Multifamily Properties Map 12: Bass Lake Road –Senior Properties STATISTIC BASS LAKE RD HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 2,364 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 948 490,196 Median Age1,2 38.2 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 22%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 13%12% Average Household Size1,2 2.3 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 1.21 0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $51,914 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 57.2%49.0% Households with Children1,2 28.6%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 38.8%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 39.1%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 49.3%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 951 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 39.9%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 4.2%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 0.7%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 55.1%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1983 1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1949 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $180,500 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $700 $1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $811 $1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 --$1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works74 Housing Gaps Analysis A great deal of new investment beyond the LRT is planned for the Bass Lake Road station area; Becker Park will be reconstructed and Bass Lake Road will receive a new streetscape. These investments have the potential to significantly change the perception of the station area. Currently, many of the households living in the station area pay an exorbitant share of their income for housing. If these investments do change the perception of the station area, existing residents that are cost burdened are at an even higher risk of being displaced because of potential rising housing costs. Therefore, policies should be considered that would help existing residents remain in the community once the LRT is operational. Such approaches can include preserving the condition and affordability of properties that are older yet well-maintained, mixing market rate and income-restricted units in any new development, and encouraging a wide range in product types. Also, the station area has a very high rate of persons per bedroom, which suggest a housing market that is out of equilibrium, both in terms of housing cost burden and availability of larger rental unit styles (e.g., 3+ bedroom units), and therefore is not meeting the needs of the local population. With several potential redevelopment areas within a few blocks of the station, the Bass Lake Road station area could accommodate most of Crystal’s projected household growth through 2040. In order to truly leverage all this investment and accommodate the Met Council’s forecasted household growth, this would require primarily multifamily housing. This should include a range of product type and styles. In addition to traditional market rate rental housing, the station area could help close some of the housing gaps by also including senior housing and affordable rental and owner-occupied multifamily housing. One example of affordable owner-occupied multifamily housing that has been very successful in the Twin Cities is the limited-equity cooperative. In the region, these types of properties are often age- restricted and targeted to seniors because banks are otherwise reluctant to prepare mortgages for these types of properties. The buildings look and operate very much a like a multifamily condominium property. However, instead of owning title to an individual unit, the owner owns shares in the cooperative that owns the building. An individual’s shares entitle them to live in a particular unit. In a limited-equity model, the share prices increase on an annual set rate and not according to market pricing. This “limits” the equity needed to buy into the cooperative making it more affordable. In return, the residents do not expect as much return on the value of their shares when they go to sell. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 75 Robbinsdale ROBBINSDALE STATION 1328+00 1329+00 1330+00 1331+00 1332+00 1333+00 1334+00 1335+00 1336+00 1337+00 1338+00 1339+00 1340+00 1341+00 1342+00 1343+00 1344+00 1345+00 1346+00 1347+00 1348+00 1349+00 1350+00 1351+00 1352+00 1353+00 1354+00 1355+00 1356+00 1357+00 1358+00 1359+00 1360+00 1361+00 1362+00 1363+00 1364+00 1365+00 1366+00 1367+00 1368+00 1369+00 1370+00 1371+00 1372+00 1373+00 1374+00 1375+00 1376+00 1377+00 1378+00 1379+00 1380+00 1381+00 1382+00 1383+00 1384+00 1385+00 1386+00 1387+00 1388+00 1389+00 1390+00 1391+00 1392+00 1393+00 1394+00 1395+00 1396+00 1397+00 1398+00 1399+00 1400+00 1401+00 1402+00 1403+00 1404+00 1405+00 1406+00 1407+00 1408+00 1409+00 1410+00 1411+00 1412+00 1413+00 1414+00 1415+00 1416+00 1417+00 1418+00 1419+00 1420+00 1421+00 1422+00 1423+00 1424+00 1425+00 1426+00 1427+00 1428+00 1429+00 1430+00 1431+00 1432+00 1433+00 1434+00 1435+00 1500+00 2328+00 2329+00 2330+00 2331+00 2332+00 2333+00 2334+00 2335+00 2336+00 2337+00 2338+00 2339+00 2340+00 2341+00 2342+00 2343+00 2344+00 2345+00 2346+00 2347+00 2348+00 2349+00 2350+00 2351+00 2352+00 2353+00 2354+00 2355+00 2356+00 2357+00 2358+00 2359+00 2360+00 2361+00 2362+00 2363+00 2364+00 2365+00 2366+00 2367+00 2368+00 2369+00 2370+00 2371+00 2372+00 2373+00 2374+00 2375+00 2376+00 2377+00 2378+00 2379+00 2380+00 2381+00 2382+00 2383+00 2384+00 2385+00 2386+00 2387+00 2388+00 2389+00 2390+00 2391+00 2392+00 2393+00 2394+00 2395+00 2396+00 2397+00 2398+00 2399+00 2400+00 2401+00 2402+00 2403+00 2404+00 2405+00 2406+00 2407+00 2408+00 2409+00 2410+00 2411+00 2412+00 2413+00 2414+00 2415+00 2416+00 2417+00 2418+00 2419+00 2420+00 2421+00 2422+00 2423+00 2424+00 2425+00 2426+00 2427+00 2428+00 2429+00 2430+00 2431+00 2432+00 2433+00 2434+00 2435+00 2500+00 3328+00 3329+00 3330+00 3331+00 3332+00 3333+00 3334+00 3335+00 3336+00 3337+00 3338+00 3339+00 3340+00 3341+00 3342+00 3343+00 3344+00 3345+00 3346+00 3347+00 3348+00 3349+00 3350+00 3351+00 3352+00 3353+00 3354+00 3355+00 3356+00 3357+00 3358+00 3359+00 3360+00 3361+00 3362+00 3363+00 3364+00 3365+00 3366+00 3367+00 3368+00 3369+00 3370+00 3371+00 3372+00 3373+00 3374+00 3375+00 3376+00 3377+00 3378+00 3379+00 3380+00 3381+00 3382+00 3383+00 3384+00 3385+00 3386+00 3387+00 3388+00 3389+00 3390+00 3391+00 3392+00 3393+00 3394+00 3395+00 3396+00 3397+00 3398+00 3399+00 3400+00 3401+00 3402+00 3403+00 3404+00 3405+00 3406+00 3407+00 3408+00 3409+00 3410+00 3411+00 3412+00 3413+00 3414+00 3415+00 3416+00 3417+00 3418+00 3419+00 3420+00 3421+00 3422+00 3423+00 3424+00 3425+00 3426+00 3427+00 3428+00 3429+00 3430+00 3431+00 3432+00 3433+00 3434+00 3435+00 3436+003500+003500+00 3501+00 3502+00 3503+00 3504+00 3505+00 3506+00 3507+00 3508+00 3509+00 3510+00 3511+00 3512+00 3513+00 3514+00 3515+00 3516+00 3517+00 3518+00 3519+00 3520+00 3521+00 3522+00 3523+00 3524+00 3525+00 3526+00 3527+00 3528+00 3529+00 3530+00 3531+00 1500+00 1501+00 1502+00 1503+00 1504+00 1505+00 1506+00 1507+00 1508+00 1509+00 1510+00 1511+00 1512+00 1513+00 1514+00 1515+00 1516+00 1517+00 1518+00 1519+00 1520+00 1521+00 1522+00 1523+00 1524+00 1525+00 1526+00 1527+00 1528+00 1529+00 1530+00 1531+00 2500+00 2501+00 2502+00 2503+00 2504+00 2505+00 2506+00 2507+00 2508+00 2509+00 2510+00 2511+00 2512+00 2513+00 2514+00 2515+00 2516+00 2517+00 2518+00 2519+00 2520+00 2521+00 2522+00 2523+00 2524+00 2525+00 2526+00 2527+00 2528+00 2529+00 2530+00 2531+00 !( 42nd O s s e o 42nd W e s t B r o a d w a y L a k e 1 0 0 1 0 0 B r o o k l y n 45th 8 1 8 1 4 6 t h D o u g l a s F F 1-Mile k 100 100General Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services ROBBINSDALE STATION 1327+00 1328+00 1329+00 1330+00 1331+00 1332+00 1333+00 1334+00 1335+00 1336+00 1337+00 1338+00 1339+00 1340+00 1341+00 1342+00 1343+00 1344+00 1345+00 1346+00 1347+00 1348+00 1349+00 1350+00 1351+00 1352+00 1353+00 1354+00 1355+00 1356+00 1357+00 1358+00 1359+00 1360+00 1361+00 1362+00 1363+00 1364+00 1365+00 1366+00 1367+00 1368+00 1369+00 1370+00 1371+00 1372+00 1373+00 1374+00 1375+00 1376+00 1377+00 1378+00 1379+00 1380+00 1381+00 1382+00 1383+00 1384+00 1385+00 1386+00 1387+00 1388+00 1389+00 1390+00 1391+00 1392+00 1393+00 1394+00 1395+00 1396+00 1397+00 1398+00 1399+00 1400+00 1401+00 1402+00 1403+00 1404+00 1405+00 1406+00 1407+00 1408+00 1409+00 1410+00 1411+00 1412+00 1413+00 1414+00 1415+00 1416+00 1417+00 1418+00 1419+00 1420+00 1421+00 1422+00 1423+00 1424+00 1425+00 1426+00 1427+00 1428+00 1429+00 1430+00 1431+00 1432+00 1433+00 1434+00 1435+00 1500+00 2327+00 2328+00 2329+00 2330+00 2331+00 2332+00 2333+00 2334+00 2335+00 2336+00 2337+00 2338+00 2339+00 2340+00 2341+00 2342+00 2343+00 2344+00 2345+00 2346+00 2347+00 2348+00 2349+00 2350+00 2351+00 2352+00 2353+00 2354+00 2355+00 2356+00 2357+00 2358+00 2359+00 2360+00 2361+00 2362+00 2363+00 2364+00 2365+00 2366+00 2367+00 2368+00 2369+00 2370+00 2371+00 2372+00 2373+00 2374+00 2375+00 2376+00 2377+00 2378+00 2379+00 2380+00 2381+00 2382+00 2383+00 2384+00 2385+00 2386+00 2387+00 2388+00 2389+00 2390+00 2391+00 2392+00 2393+00 2394+00 2395+00 2396+00 2397+00 2398+00 2399+00 2400+00 2401+00 2402+00 2403+00 2404+00 2405+00 2406+00 2407+00 2408+00 2409+00 2410+00 2411+00 2412+00 2413+00 2414+00 2415+00 2416+00 2417+00 2418+00 2419+00 2420+00 2421+00 2422+00 2423+00 2424+00 2425+00 2426+00 2427+00 2428+00 2429+00 2430+00 2431+00 2432+00 2433+00 2434+00 2435+00 2500+00 3327+00 3328+00 3329+00 3330+00 3331+00 3332+00 3333+00 3334+00 3335+00 3336+00 3337+00 3338+00 3339+00 3340+00 3341+00 3342+00 3343+00 3344+00 3345+00 3346+00 3347+00 3348+00 3349+00 3350+00 3351+00 3352+00 3353+00 3354+00 3355+00 3356+00 3357+00 3358+00 3359+00 3360+00 3361+00 3362+00 3363+00 3364+00 3365+00 3366+00 3367+00 3368+00 3369+00 3370+00 3371+00 3372+00 3373+00 3374+00 3375+00 3376+00 3377+00 3378+00 3379+00 3380+00 3381+00 3382+00 3383+00 3384+00 3385+00 3386+00 3387+00 3388+00 3389+00 3390+00 3391+00 3392+00 3393+00 3394+00 3395+00 3396+00 3397+00 3398+00 3399+00 3400+00 3401+00 3402+00 3403+00 3404+00 3405+00 3406+00 3407+00 3408+00 3409+00 3410+00 3411+00 3412+00 3413+00 3414+00 3415+00 3416+00 3417+00 3418+00 3419+00 3420+00 3421+00 3422+00 3423+00 3424+00 3425+00 3426+00 3427+00 3428+00 3429+00 3430+00 3431+00 3432+00 3433+00 3434+00 3435+00 3436+003500+003500+00 3501+00 3502+00 3503+00 3504+00 3505+00 3506+00 3507+00 3508+00 3509+00 3510+00 3511+00 3512+00 3513+00 3514+00 3515+00 3516+00 3517+00 3518+00 3519+00 3520+00 3521+00 3522+00 3523+00 3524+00 3525+00 3526+00 3527+00 3528+00 3529+00 3530+00 1500+00 1501+00 1502+00 1503+00 1504+00 1505+00 1506+00 1507+00 1508+00 1509+00 1510+00 1511+00 1512+00 1513+00 1514+00 1515+00 1516+00 1517+00 1518+00 1519+00 1520+00 1521+00 1522+00 1523+00 1524+00 1525+00 1526+00 1527+00 1528+00 1529+00 1530+00 1531+00 2500+00 2501+00 2502+00 2503+00 2504+00 2505+00 2506+00 2507+00 2508+00 2509+00 2510+00 2511+00 2512+00 2513+00 2514+00 2515+00 2516+00 2517+00 2518+00 2519+00 2520+00 2521+00 2522+00 2523+00 2524+00 2525+00 2526+00 2527+00 2528+00 2529+00 2530+00 2531+00 !( 42nd 42nd O s s e o W e s t B r o a d w a y L a k e 1 0 0 1 0 0 B r o o k l y n 45th 8 1 8 1 4 6 t h D o u g l a s F F 1-Mile k 100 100Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services Station Area Plan • Preserve/protect West Broadway as a main street; promote TOD around the periphery of the downtown. Housing Demand through 2040 • 600-800 units (80-100% of projected Robbinsdale household growth through 2040) New Housing Types Needed • Market rate rental apartments • Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both market rate and affordable units) • Owner-occupied townhomes (multiple price points) • Multi-story condominiums (multiple price points) 1/2-Mile 1/2-Mile Map 14: Robbinsdale – Multifamily Properties Map 13: Robbinsdale –Senior Properties STATISTIC 42nd AVE HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 4,181 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,953 490,196 Median Age1,2 38.9 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 21%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 16%12% Average Household Size1,2 1.9 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 1.00 0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $48,121 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 54.3%49.0% Households with Children1,2 19.0%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 44.3%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 30.5%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 32.3%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,879 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 41.3%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 2.4%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 11.3%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 44.8%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1980 1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1949 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $201,000 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $670 $1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $1,104 $1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $1,665 $1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works76 Housing Gaps Analysis The Robbinsdale station area has the greatest mixing of uses of any station area along the Corridor. In recent decades there has been substantial multifamily development both in the core and around the periphery of what is considered downtown Robbinsdale. However, almost all of this development has been senior housing. Therefore, like many other station areas along the Corridor, there is a distinct absence of newer, market rate, general occupancy apartments. This is likely to change in the near future, though. Unlike most of the other stations areas, there are currently two proposals for large, market rate apartments just south of the station area that would be at higher densities not typically found in Robbinsdale. This is a clear example of the current strength of the broader housing market, but it also demonstrates that the mixed-use environment in the station area is a factor in attracting residents to the area. Once the LRT is operational, any such momentum will only increase. Market rate rental apartments will satisfy most of the future housing gaps in the Robbinsdale station area. Given the existing pedestrian scale of the station area, demand for this product will only accelerate. Therefore, consideration should be given to promoting mixed-income developments. In many cases, this product type is most successful in areas where growth will be strongest. With the pressure to develop market rate apartments, an important gap that may need to be addressed would be units for families or other larger household types. Therefore, consideration should be given to where certain types of townhome product can complement traditional apartment development. Townhomes use less land than typical detached, single-family homes. However, much of the single- family housing stock in Robbinsdale, especially near the station, is older, smaller, and located on very small lots. Thus, it is challenging to modify these existing homes to accommodate larger homes. Townhome product located on strategic parcels can provide larger home sizes and help control for costs by using less land. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 77 Golden Valley Road 3 0 0 0 +00 3 0 0 1 +00 3 0 0 2 +00 3003+00 3004+00 3005+00 3006+00 3007+00 3008+00 3009+00 3010+00 3011+00 3012+00 1053+001054+001055+00 1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00 1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00 1066+00 1067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00 1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00 1083+00 1084+001085+00 1086+00 1087+00 1088+001089+00 1090+00 1091+00 1092+001093+00 1094+0 0 1095+00 1 0 9 6 +00 1 0 9 7 +00 1 0 9 8 +00 1 0 9 9 +00 1100+00 1101+00 1102+00 1103+00 1104+00 1105+00 1106+00 1107+00 1108+00 1109+00 1131+83 2053+002054+002055+00 2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00 2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00 2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00 2083+00 2084+002085+00 2086+00 2087+00 2088+002089+00 2090+00 2091+00 2092+002093+00 2094+0 0 2095+00 2 0 9 6 +00 2 0 9 7 +00 2 0 9 8 +00 2 0 9 9 +00 2 1 0 0 +00 2101+00 2102+00 2103+00 2104+00 2105+00 2106+00 2107+00 2108+00 2109+00 1201+00 1202+00 1203+00 1204+00 1205+00 1206+00 1207+00 1208+00 1209+00 1210+00 1211+00 1212+00 1213+00 1214+00 1215+00 1216+00 1217+00 1218+00 1219+00 1220+00 1221+00 1222+00 1223+00 1224+00 1225+00 1226+00 1227+00 1228+00 1229+00 1230+00 1231+00 1232+00 1233+00 1234+00 1235+00 1237+00 1238+00 1 2 3 9 +00 1 2 4 0 +00 1 2 4 1 +00 1242+00 1243+00 1244+00 1245+00 1246+00 1247+00 1248+00 1249+00 1250+00 1251+00 1252+00 1253+00 1254+00 1255+00 1256+00 1257+00 1258+00 1 2 5 9 +00 1 2 6 0 +00 1 2 6 1 +00 1262+00 1263+00 1264+00 1265+00 1266+00 1267+00 1268+00 1269+00 1270+00 1271+00 1272+00 1273+00 1274+00 1 2 7 5 +00 3201+00 3202+00 3203+00 3204+00 3205+00 3206+00 3207+00 3208+00 3209+00 3210+00 3211+00 3212+00 3213+00 3214+00 3215+00 3216+00 3217+00 3218+00 3219+00 3220+00 3221+00 3222+00 3223+00 3224+00 3225+00 3226+00 3227+00 3228+00 3229+00 3230+00 3231+00 3232+00 3233+00 3234+00 3235+00 3236+00 3237+00 3 2 3 8 +00 3 2 3 9 +00 3 2 4 0 +00 3241+00 3242+00 3243+00 3244+00 3245+00 3246+00 3247+00 3248+00 3249+00 3250+00 3251+00 3252+00 3253+00 3254+00 3255+00 3256+00 3257+00 3258+00 3 2 5 9 +00 3 2 6 0 +00 3261+00 3262+00 3263+00 3264+00 3265+00 3266+00 3267+00 3268+00 3269+00 3270+00 3271+00 3272+00 3273+00 3274+00 3 2 7 5 +00 2200+00 2201+00 2202+00 2203+00 2204+00 2205+00 2206+00 2207+00 2208+00 2209+00 2210+00 2211+00 2212+00 2213+00 2214+00 2215+00 2216+00 2217+00 2218+00 2219+00 2220+00 2221+00 2222+00 2223+00 2224+00 2225+00 2226+00 2227+00 2228+00 2229+00 2230+00 2231+00 2232+00 2233+00 2234+00 2235+00 2236+00 2237+00 2238+00 2 2 3 9 +00 2 2 4 0 +00 2 2 4 1 +00 2 2 4 2 +00 2243+00 2244+00 2245+00 2246+00 2247+00 2248+00 2249+00 2250+00 2251+00 2252+00 2253+00 2254+00 2255+00 2256+00 2257+00 2258+00 2 2 5 9 +00 2 2 6 0 +00 2 2 6 1 +00 2262+00 2263+00 2264+00 2265+00 2266+00 2267+00 2268+00 2269+00 2270+00 2271+00 2272+00 2273+00 2274+00 2275+00 1 3 0 1 +00 1 3 0 2 +00 1 3 0 3 +00 1304+00 1305+00 1306+00 1307+00 1308+00 1309+00 1310+00 1311+00 1312+00 1313+00 1314+00 1315+00 1316+00 1317+00 1318+00 1319+00 1320+00 1321+00 1322+00 1323+00 1324+00 1325+00 1326+00 1327+00 1328+00 1329+00 1330+00 1331+00 1332+00 1333+00 1334+00 1335+00 1336+00 1337+00 1338+00 1339+00 1340+00 1341+00 1342+00 2 3 0 1 +00 2 3 0 2 +00 2 3 0 3 +00 2 3 0 4 +00 2305+00 2306+00 2307+00 2308+00 2309+00 2310+00 2311+00 2312+00 2313+00 2314+00 2315+00 2316+00 2317+00 2318+00 2319+00 2320+00 2321+00 2322+00 2323+00 2324+00 2325+00 2326+00 2327+00 2328+00 2329+00 2330+00 2331+00 2332+00 2333+00 2334+00 2335+00 2336+00 2337+00 2338+00 2339+00 2340+00 2341+00 2342+00 3 3 0 1 +00 3 3 0 2 +00 3 3 0 3 +00 3304+00 3305+00 3306+00 3307+00 3308+00 3309+00 3310+00 3311+00 3312+00 3313+00 3314+00 3315+00 3316+00 3317+00 3318+00 3319+00 3320+00 3321+00 3322+00 3323+00 3324+00 3325+00 3326+00 3327+00 3328+00 3329+00 3330+00 3331+00 3332+00 3333+00 3334+00 3335+00 3336+00 3337+00 3338+00 3339+00 3340+00 3341+00 3342+00 PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATION GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION !( !( !( P e n n Golden Valley Olson M em ori a l Olson Memorial Lowry W e st B r o a d w a y W e s t B r o a d w a y T h e o d o r e W i r t h Lowry D ul u t h Duluth Duluth X e r x e s T h e o d o r e W i r t h W e s t Broadway F F 1-Mile k k k55 General Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 3000+00 3 0 0 1 +00 3 0 0 2 +00 3003+00 3004+00 3005+00 3006+00 3007+00 3008+00 3009+00 3010+00 3011+00 3012+00 1053+001054+001055+00 1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00 1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00 1066+00 1067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00 1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00 1083+00 1084+001085+00 1086+00 1087+00 1088+001089+00 1090+00 1091+00 1092+001093+0 01094+00 1095+00 1096+00 1097+00 1 0 9 8 +00 1 0 9 9 +00 1100+00 1101+00 1102+00 1103+00 1104+00 1105+00 1106+00 1107+00 1108+00 1109+00 1131+83 2053+002054+002055+00 2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00 2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00 2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00 2083+00 2084+002085+00 2086+00 2087+00 2088+002089+00 2090+00 2091+00 2092+002093+0 02094+00 2095+00 2096+00 2097+00 2 0 9 8 +00 2 0 9 9 +00 2100+00 2101+00 2102+00 2103+00 2104+00 2105+00 2106+00 2107+00 2108+00 2109+00 1201+00 1 2 0 2 +00 1 2 0 3 +00 1204+00 1205+00 1206+00 1207+00 1208+00 1209+00 1210+00 1211+00 1212+00 1213+00 1214+00 1215+00 1216+00 1217+00 1218+00 1219+00 1220+00 1221+00 1222+00 1223+00 1224+00 1225+00 1226+00 1227+00 1228+00 1229+00 1230+00 1231+00 1232+00 1233+00 1234+00 1235+00 1237+00 1238+00 1 2 3 9 +00 1240+00 1241+00 1242+00 1243+00 1244+00 1245+00 1246+00 1247+00 1248+00 1 2 4 9 +00 1250+00 1251+00 1252+00 1253+00 1254+00 1255+00 1256+00 1257+00 1 2 5 8 +00 1259+00 1260+00 1261+00 1262+00 1263+00 1264+00 1265+00 1266+00 1 2 6 7 +00 1268+00 1269+00 1270+00 1271+00 1272+00 1273+00 1274+00 1 2 7 5 +00 3 2 0 1 +00 3 2 0 2 +00 3203+00 3204+00 3205+00 3206+00 3207+00 3208+00 3209+00 3210+00 3211+00 3212+00 3213+00 3214+00 3215+00 3216+00 3217+00 3218+00 3219+00 3220+00 3221+00 3222+00 3223+00 3224+00 3225+00 3226+00 3227+00 3228+00 3229+00 3230+00 3231+00 3232+00 3233+00 3234+00 3235+00 3236+00 3237+00 3 2 3 8 +00 3239+00 3240+00 3241+00 3242+00 3243+00 3244+00 3245+00 3246+00 3247+00 3 2 4 8 +00 3249+00 3250+00 3251+00 3252+00 3253+00 3254+00 3255+00 3256+00 3 2 5 7 +00 3 2 5 8 +00 3259+00 3260+00 3261+00 3262+00 3263+00 3264+00 3265+00 3 2 6 6 +00 3267+00 3268+00 3269+00 3270+00 3271+00 3272+00 3273+00 3274+00 3 2 7 5 +00 2200+00 2201+00 2 2 0 2 +00 2 2 0 3 +00 2204+00 2205+00 2206+00 2207+00 2208+00 2209+00 2210+00 2211+00 2212+00 2213+00 2214+00 2215+00 2216+00 2217+00 2218+00 2219+00 2220+00 2221+00 2222+00 2223+00 2224+00 2225+00 2226+00 2227+00 2228+00 2229+00 2230+00 2231+00 2232+00 2233+00 2234+00 2235+00 2236+00 2237+00 2238+00 2 2 3 9 +00 2240+00 2241+00 2242+00 2243+00 2244+00 2245+00 2246+00 2247+00 2248+00 2 2 4 9 +00 2 2 5 0 +00 2251+00 2252+00 2253+00 2254+00 2255+00 2256+00 2257+00 2 2 5 8 +00 2259+00 2260+00 2261+00 2262+00 2263+00 2264+00 2265+00 2266+00 2 2 6 7 +00 2268+00 2269+00 2270+00 2271+00 2272+00 2273+00 2274+00 2275+00 1 3 0 1 +00 1302+00 1303+00 1304+00 1305+00 1306+00 1307+00 1308+00 1309+00 1310+00 1311+00 1312+00 1313+00 1314+00 1315+00 1316+00 1317+00 1318+00 1 3 1 9 +00 1 3 2 0 +00 1 3 2 1 +00 1322+00 1323+00 1324+00 1325+00 1326+00 1327+00 1328+00 1329+00 1330+00 1331+00 1332+00 1333+00 1334+00 1335+00 1336+00 1337+00 1338+00 1339+00 1340+00 1341+00 1342+00 2 3 0 1 +00 2302+00 2303+00 2304+00 2305+00 2306+00 2307+00 2308+00 2309+00 2310+00 2311+00 2312+00 2313+00 2314+00 2315+00 2316+00 2317+00 2318+00 2319+00 2 3 2 0 +00 2 3 2 1 +00 2322+00 2323+00 2324+00 2325+00 2326+00 2327+00 2328+00 2329+00 2330+00 2331+00 2332+00 2333+00 2334+00 2335+00 2336+00 2337+00 2338+00 2339+00 2340+00 2341+00 2342+00 3301+00 3302+00 3303+00 3304+00 3305+00 3306+00 3307+00 3308+00 3309+00 3310+00 3311+00 3312+00 3313+00 3314+00 3315+00 3316+00 3317+00 3 3 1 8 +00 3 3 1 9 +00 3 3 2 0 +00 3321+00 3322+00 3323+00 3324+00 3325+00 3326+00 3327+00 3328+00 3329+00 3330+00 3331+00 3332+00 3333+00 3334+00 3335+00 3336+00 3337+00 3338+00 3339+00 3340+00 3341+00 3342+00 PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATION GOLDEN VALLEY R OAD STATION !( !( !( P e n n Golden Valley Olson M em ori al Olson Memorial Lowry W e st B r o a d w a y W e s t B r o a d w a y T h e o d o r e W i r t h Lowry D ul u th Duluth D uluth X e r x e s T h e o d o r e W i r t h W e s t Broadway F F 1-Mile k k k55 Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services Station Area Plan • Maintain residential character and feel of station area. Some potential long-term residential opportunities on currently institutional lands. Housing Demand through 2040 • 100-200 units (10-20% of projected Golden Valley household growth through 2040) New Housing Types Needed • Senior housing (market rate and affordable) • Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) 1/2-Mile 1/2-Mile Map 15: Golden Valley Road – Multifamily Properties Map 16: Golden Valley Road – Senior Properties STATISTIC GOLDEN VALLEY RD HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 2,778 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,090 490,196 Median Age1,2 39.7 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 23%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 14%12% Average Household Size1,2 2.5 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 0.82 0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $75,360 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 80.6%49.0% Households with Children1,2 28.2%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 26.4%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 46.9%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 39.4%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,152 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 6.8%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 2.4%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 2.2%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 88.5%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1940 1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1941 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $241,875 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $791 $1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $996 $1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $998 $1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works78 Housing Gaps Analysis The Golden Valley Road station area consists mainly of park land (Theodore Wirth Park) or detached, single-family homes. The only exceptions are a few institutional uses (e.g., church, fire station, and care center) in scattered locations. Because single-family housing is such a dominant use in the station area, multifamily housing should be added to diversify housing choice and provide more affordable options. The challenge to increasing housing choice through development is that there are so few readily available redevelopment opportunities in the station area. As determined through the station area planning process, the Church of St. Margaret Mary controls a site that is large enough to accommodate substantial new development either on land that is vacant or underutilized (i.e., surface parking) or through redevelopment of existing structures. However, if the church does not see a need to sell their land for development or redevelopment then the timing of any new housing of a significant scale in the station area would be uncertain. Due to station area population that is significantly older than the Corridor or County average, there is an obvious gap and need for senior housing. A multifamily senior housing development on a sufficiently large site would provide greater housing choices to local residents and potentially open up some of the existing single-family housing stock to younger households. The persons per bedroom in the station area is well below the Hennepin County rate, which indicates that there is a lot of excess housing not being utilized in the form of empty bedrooms. This is likely the result of an aging population staying in their homes as children grow up and leave the household. In addition, the small amount of rental housing that does exist in the station area is very affordable with average rents being well the County average. This is likely because the rental housing stock is concentrated in the Minneapolis portion of the station area where the age of the stock is significantly older and likely liking in amenities and other features. New rental apartments at a variety of price points would introduce additional housing choice in the station area currently not available. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 79 Plymouth Avenue 3000+00 3001+00 3002+00 3003+00 3004+00 3 0 0 5 +00 3 0 0 6 +00 3007+00 3008+00 3009+00 3010+00 3011+00 3012+00 1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+00 1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00 1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00 1066+00 1067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00 1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00 1083+00 1084+001085+00 1086+00 1087+00 1088+001089+00 1090+00 1 0 9 1 + 0 0 1 0 9 2 + 0 0 1093+001094+00 1095+00 1096+00 1097+00 1098+00 1099+00 1100+00 1101+00 1102+00 1 1 0 3 +00 1 1 0 4 +00 1105+00 1106+00 1107+00 1108+00 1109+00 1131+83 2040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+00 2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00 2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00 2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00 2083+00 2084+002085+00 2086+00 2087+00 2088+002089+00 2090+00 2091+00 2 0 9 2 + 0 0 2093+002094+00 2095+00 2096+00 2097+00 2098+00 2099+00 2100+00 2101+00 2102+00 2 1 0 3 +00 2 1 0 4 +00 2105+00 2106+00 2107+00 2108+00 2109+00 1201+00 1202+00 1203+00 1204+00 1205+00 1206+00 1207+00 1208+00 1209+00 1210+00 1211+00 1212+00 1213+00 1214+00 1215+00 1216+00 1217+00 1218+00 1219+00 1220+00 1221+00 1222+00 1223+00 1224+00 1225+00 1226+00 1227+00 1228+00 1 2 2 9 +00 1 2 3 0 +00 1 2 3 1 +00 1232+00 1233+00 1234+00 1235+00 1237+00 1238+00 1239+00 1240+00 1241+00 1242+00 1 2 4 3 +00 1244+00 1245+00 1246+00 1247+00 1248+00 1249+00 1250+00 1251+00 1 2 5 2 +00 1253+00 1254+00 1255+00 1256+00 1257+00 1258+00 1259+00 1260+00 1 2 6 1 +00 1262+00 1263+00 1264+00 1265+00 1266+00 1267+00 1268+00 1269+00 1 2 7 0 +00 1271+00 1272+00 1273+00 1274+00 1275+00 3201+00 3202+00 3203+00 3204+00 3205+00 3206+00 3207+00 3208+00 3209+00 3210+00 3211+00 3212+00 3213+00 3214+00 3215+00 3216+00 3217+00 3218+00 3219+00 3220+00 3221+00 3222+00 3223+00 3224+00 3225+00 3 2 2 6 +00 3 2 2 7 +00 3 2 2 8 +00 3 2 2 9 +00 3 2 3 0 +00 3231+00 3232+00 3233+00 3234+00 3235+00 3236+00 3237+00 3238+00 3239+00 3240+00 3241+00 3 2 4 2 +00 3243+00 3244+00 3245+00 3246+00 3247+00 3248+00 3249+00 3250+00 3251+00 3 2 5 2 +00 3253+00 3254+00 3255+00 3256+00 3257+00 3258+00 3259+00 3260+00 3261+00 3262+00 3263+00 3264+00 3265+00 3266+00 3267+00 3268+00 3 2 6 9 +00 3270+00 3271+00 3272+00 3273+00 3274+00 3275+00 2200+00 2201+00 2202+00 2203+00 2204+00 2205+00 2206+00 2207+00 2208+00 2209+00 2210+00 2211+00 2212+00 2213+00 2214+00 2215+00 2216+00 2217+00 2218+00 2219+00 2220+00 2221+00 2222+00 2223+00 2224+00 2225+00 2226+00 2227+00 2228+00 2 2 2 9 +00 2 2 3 0 +00 2 2 3 1 +00 2 2 3 2 +00 2233+00 2234+00 2235+00 2236+00 2237+00 2238+00 2239+00 2240+00 2241+00 2242+00 2 2 4 3 +00 2244+00 2245+00 2246+00 2247+00 2248+00 2249+00 2250+00 2251+00 2252+00 2 2 5 3 +00 2254+00 2255+00 2256+00 2257+00 2258+00 2259+00 2260+00 2 2 6 1 +00 2262+00 2263+00 2264+00 2265+00 2266+00 2267+00 2268+00 2269+00 2 2 7 0 +00 2271+00 2272+00 2273+00 2274+00 2275+00 1301+00 1302+00 1303+00 1304+00 1305+00 1306+00 1 3 0 7 +00 1 3 0 8 +00 1309+00 1310+00 2301+00 2302+00 2303+00 2304+00 2305+00 2306+00 2 3 0 7 +00 2 3 0 8 +00 2 3 0 9 +00 2310+00 3301+00 3302+00 3303+00 3304+00 3305+00 3 3 0 6 +00 3 3 0 7 +00 3308+00 3309+00 3310+00 PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATION G O LDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION !( !( !(!( Glenwood Olso n Memorial Ol so n M em orial P e n n W est Broad w ay G i r a r dGolden Valley Glenwood X e r x e s T h e o d o r e W i r t h WestBroadway F F 55 1-Mile k k kGeneral Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 3 0 0 0 +00 3 0 0 1 +00 3002+00 3003+00 3004+00 3005+00 3006+00 3007+00 3008+00 3009+00 3010+00 3011+00 3012+00 1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+00 1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00 1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00 1066+00 1067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00 1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00 1083+00 1084+001085+00 1086+00 1087+00 1088+001089+00 1090+00 1 0 9 1 + 0 0 1 0 9 2 + 0 0 1093+001094+00 1095+00 1096+00 1097+00 1 0 9 8 +00 1 0 9 9 +00 1100+00 1101+00 1102+00 1103+00 1104+00 1105+00 1106+00 1107+00 1108+00 1109+00 1131+83 2040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+00 2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00 2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00 2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00 2083+00 2084+002085+00 2086+00 2087+00 2088+002089+00 2090+00 2091+00 2 0 9 2 + 0 0 2093+002094+00 2095+00 2096+00 2097+00 2 0 9 8 +00 2 0 9 9 +00 2100+00 2101+00 2102+00 2103+00 2104+00 2105+00 2106+00 2107+00 2108+00 2109+00 1201+00 1 2 0 2 +00 1 2 0 3 +00 1204+00 1205+00 1206+00 1207+00 1208+00 1209+00 1210+00 1211+00 1212+00 1213+00 1214+00 1215+00 1216+00 1217+00 1218+00 1219+00 1220+00 1221+00 1222+00 1223+00 1224+00 1225+00 1226+00 1227+00 1228+00 1229+00 1230+00 1231+00 1232+00 1233+00 1234+00 1235+00 1237+00 1238+00 1 2 3 9 +00 1240+00 1241+00 1242+00 1243+00 1244+00 1245+00 1246+00 1247+00 1248+00 1 2 4 9 +00 1250+00 1251+00 1252+00 1253+00 1254+00 1255+00 1256+00 1257+00 1 2 5 8 +00 1259+00 1260+00 1261+00 1262+00 1263+00 1264+00 1265+00 1266+00 1 2 6 7 +00 1268+00 1269+00 1270+00 1271+00 1272+00 1273+00 1274+00 1 2 7 5 +00 3 2 0 1 +00 3202+00 3203+00 3204+00 3205+00 3206+00 3207+00 3208+00 3209+00 3210+00 3211+00 3212+00 3213+00 3214+00 3215+00 3216+00 3217+00 3218+00 3219+00 3220+00 3221+00 3222+00 3223+00 3224+00 3225+00 3226+00 3227+00 3228+00 3229+00 3230+00 3231+00 3232+00 3233+00 3234+00 3235+00 3236+00 3237+00 3 2 3 8 +00 3239+00 3240+00 3241+00 3242+00 3243+00 3244+00 3245+00 3246+00 3247+00 3 2 4 8 +00 3249+00 3250+00 3251+00 3252+00 3253+00 3254+00 3255+00 3256+00 3 2 5 7 +00 3258+00 3259+00 3260+00 3261+00 3262+00 3263+00 3264+00 3265+00 3 2 6 6 +00 3267+00 3268+00 3269+00 3270+00 3271+00 3272+00 3273+00 3 2 7 4 +00 3 2 7 5 +00 2200+00 2201+00 2 2 0 2 +00 2 2 0 3 +00 2204+00 2205+00 2206+00 2207+00 2208+00 2209+00 2210+00 2211+00 2212+00 2213+00 2214+00 2215+00 2216+00 2217+00 2218+00 2219+00 2220+00 2221+00 2222+00 2223+00 2224+00 2225+00 2226+00 2227+00 2228+00 2229+00 2230+00 2231+00 2232+00 2233+00 2234+00 2235+00 2236+00 2237+00 2238+00 2 2 3 9 +00 2240+00 2241+00 2242+00 2243+00 2244+00 2245+00 2246+00 2247+00 2248+00 2 2 4 9 +00 2 2 5 0 +00 2251+00 2252+00 2253+00 2254+00 2255+00 2256+00 2257+00 2 2 5 8 +00 2259+00 2260+00 2261+00 2262+00 2263+00 2264+00 2265+00 2266+00 2 2 6 7 +00 2268+00 2269+00 2270+00 2271+00 2272+00 2273+00 2274+00 2 2 7 5 +00 1301+00 1302+00 1303+00 1304+00 1305+00 1306+00 1307+00 1308+00 1309+00 1310+00 2 3 0 1 +00 2302+00 2303+00 2304+00 2305+00 2306+00 2307+00 2308+00 2309+00 2310+00 3301+00 3302+00 3303+00 3304+00 3305+00 3306+00 3307+00 3308+00 3309+00 3310+00 PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATION GOLDEN VALLEY R OAD STATION !( !( !(!( Glenwood Olson Memorial Olson M em orial P e n n W est Broad w ay G i r a r dGolden Valley Glenwood X e r x e s T h e o d o r e W i r t h WestBroadway F F 1-Mile k k k55Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services Station Area Plan • Maintain current residential character. Minimal redevelopment opportunities. Potential to infill on numerous vacant lots throughout station area. Housing Demand through 2040 • <100 units New Housing Types Needed Small-scale infill development on small urban lots, such as: • Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) • Townhomes • Small multifamily properties (<5 units) Map 17: Plymouth Avenue – Multifamily Properties Map 18: Plymouth Avenue – Senior Properties STATISTIC PLYMOUTH AVE HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 3,921 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,264 490,196 Median Age1,2 33.3 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 28%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 12%12% Average Household Size1,2 2.9 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 0.92 0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $53,189 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 66.5%49.0% Households with Children1,2 37.4%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 23.6%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 75.3%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 46.4%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,352 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 7.4%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 5.0%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 2.5%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 84.9%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1949 1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1938 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $173,000 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $658 $1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $777 $1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 $998 $1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will 1/2-Mile 1/2-Mile HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works80 Housing Gaps Analysis Due its proximity to Theodore Wirth Park and its prevalence of detached, single-family homes, the Plymouth Avenue station area is not envisioned to change significantly through redevelopment in the coming years. Therefore, addressing its housing gaps will not be achieved through significant, large- scale development. Instead, infill on small sites consisting mostly of vacant single-family lots will be the primary method of addressing housing gaps. In recent years, portions of the station area have seen a fair amount of infill development on vacant lots due to a tornado that severely damaged many homes in this area. Based on interviews with community stakeholders, one of the concerns that emerged out of this rush to rebuild was the quality of the newly built housing stock. The stock of single-family homes in the station area is generally priced below the County median. Therefore, to help prevent further erosion of market pricing in this area, it would be important to have policies in place that ensure a higher standard in the quality of the construction. Although new, large-scale development is not likely in this station area, one possibility that would help create new housing is to promote accessory dwelling units, which are already allowed under Minneapolis’s zoning code. Many of the blocks in the station area have alleys, which are ideal for accommodating accessory dwelling units. These units could either support extended families living together or be rented to boarders, which would help homeowners stay in their homes by providing a source of income to help cover housing costs. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 81 Penn Avenue 3000+00 3001+00 3002+00 3003+00 3004+00 3005+00 3006+00 3 0 0 7 +00 3 0 0 8 +00 3009+00 3010+00 3011+00 3012+00 1012+001013+001014+001015+001016+001017+001018+001019+001020+001021+001022+001023+001024+001025+001026+001027+001028+001029+001030+001031+001032+001033+001034+001035+001036+001037+001038+001039+00 1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+00 1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+00 1062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+00 1077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00 1083+00 1084+001085+00 1086+00 1087+00 1088+001089+00 1090+00 1091+00 1092+001093+00 1094+00 1095+00 1096+00 1097+00 1098+00 1099+00 1100+00 1101+00 1102+00 1103+00 1 1 0 4 +00 1 1 0 5 +00 1106+00 1107+00 1108+00 1109+00 1131+83 2012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+002023+002024+002025+002026+002027+002028+002029+002030+00 2031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+00 2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+00 2062+002063+002064+002065+002066+00 2067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00 2083+00 2084+002085+00 2086+00 2087+00 2088+002089+00 2090+00 2091+00 2092+002093+00 2094+00 2095+00 2096+00 2097+00 2098+00 2099+00 2100+00 2101+00 2102+00 2103+00 2104+00 2 1 0 5 +00 2106+00 2107+00 2108+00 2109+00 1201+00 1202+00 1203+00 1204+00 1205+00 1206+00 1207+00 1208+00 1209+00 1210+00 1211+00 1212+00 1213+00 1214+00 1215+00 1216+00 1217+00 1218+00 1219+00 1220+00 1221+00 1222+00 1223+00 1224+00 1225+00 1226+00 1227+00 1228+00 1229+00 1230+00 1 2 3 1 +00 1 2 3 2 +00 1 2 3 3 +00 1234+00 1235+00 1237+00 1238+00 1239+00 1240+00 1241+00 1242+00 1243+00 1 2 4 4 +00 1245+00 1246+00 1247+00 1248+00 1249+00 1250+00 1251+00 1252+00 1 2 5 3 +00 1254+00 1255+00 1256+00 3201+00 3202+00 3203+00 3204+00 3205+00 3206+00 3207+00 3208+00 3209+00 3210+00 3211+00 3212+00 3213+00 3214+00 3215+00 3216+00 3217+00 3218+00 3219+00 3220+00 3221+00 3222+00 3223+00 3224+00 3225+00 3226+00 3227+00 3228+00 3229+00 3 2 3 0 +00 3 2 3 1 +00 3 2 3 2 +00 3233+00 3234+00 3235+00 3236+00 3237+00 3238+00 3239+00 3240+00 3241+00 3242+00 3 2 4 3 +00 3244+00 3245+00 3246+00 3247+00 3248+00 3249+00 3250+00 3251+00 3252+00 3 2 5 3 +00 3254+00 3255+00 3256+00 2200+00 2201+00 2202+00 2203+00 2204+00 2205+00 2206+00 2207+00 2208+00 2209+00 2210+00 2211+00 2212+00 2213+00 2214+00 2215+00 2216+00 2217+00 2218+00 2219+00 2220+00 2221+00 2222+00 2223+00 2224+00 2225+00 2226+00 2227+00 2228+00 2229+00 2230+00 2231+00 2 2 3 2 +00 2 2 3 3 +00 2234+00 2235+00 2236+00 2237+00 2238+00 2239+00 2240+00 2241+00 2242+00 2243+00 2 2 4 4 +00 2245+00 2246+00 2247+00 2248+00 2249+00 2250+00 2251+00 2252+0 0 2253+00 2 2 5 4 +00 2255+00 2256+00 PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE WIRTH PARK STATION GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION !( !( !(!( Glenwood 3 9 4394 O ls o n MemorialOlson Memorial P e n n WestBroadway P e n n West Broadway G i r a r dGolden Valley E a s t L y n d a l e Dunwoody Dunwoody L a k e s i d e X e r x e s 9 4 9 4 9 4 E a s t L y n d a l e F F 1-Mile k55 k k k 94 394 General Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 3000+00 3001+00 3002+00 3 0 0 3 +00 3 0 0 4 +00 3005+00 3006+00 3007+00 3008+00 3009+00 3010+00 3011+00 3012+00 1012+001013+001014+001015+001016+001017+001018+001019+001020+001021+001022+001023+001024+001025+001026+001027+001028+001029+001030+001031+001032+001033+001034+001035+001036+001037+001038+001039+00 1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+001054+001055+00 1056+001057+001058+001059+001060+001061+00 1062+001063+001064+001065+001066+001067+001068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+001076+00 1077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00 1083+00 1084+001085+00 1086+00 1087+00 1088+001089+00 1090+00 1091+00 1092+001093+00 1094+00 1095+00 1096+00 1097+00 1098+00 1099+00 1100+00 1 1 0 1 +00 1 1 0 2 +00 1103+00 1104+00 1105+00 1106+00 1107+00 1108+00 1109+00 1131+83 2012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+002023+002024+002025+002026+002027+002028+002029+002030+00 2031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+002055+00 2056+002057+002058+002059+002060+002061+00 2062+002063+002064+002065+002066+00 2067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00 2083+00 2084+002085+00 2086+00 2087+00 2088+002089+00 2090+00 2091+00 2092+002093+00 2094+00 2095+00 2096+00 2097+00 2098+00 2099+00 2100+00 2 1 0 1 +00 2 1 0 2 +00 2103+00 2104+00 2105+00 2106+00 2107+00 2108+00 2109+00 1201+00 1202+00 1203+00 1204+00 1205+00 1206+00 1 2 0 7 +00 1 2 0 8 +00 1 2 0 9 +00 1210+00 1211+00 1212+00 1213+00 1214+00 1215+00 1216+00 1217+00 1218+00 1219+00 1220+00 1221+00 1222+00 1223+00 1224+00 1225+00 1226+00 1227+00 1228+00 1229+00 1230+00 1231+00 1232+00 1233+00 1234+00 1235+00 1237+00 1238+00 1239+00 1240+00 1 2 4 1 +00 1 2 4 2 +00 1243+00 1244+00 1245+00 1246+00 1247+00 1248+00 1249+00 1250+00 1 2 5 1 +00 1252+00 1253+00 1254+00 1255+00 1256+00 3201+00 3202+00 3203+00 3204+00 3 2 0 5 +00 3 2 0 6 +00 3207+00 3208+00 3209+00 3210+00 3211+00 3212+00 3213+00 3214+00 3215+00 3216+00 3217+00 3218+00 3219+00 3220+00 3221+00 3222+00 3223+00 3224+00 3225+00 3226+00 3227+00 3228+00 3229+00 3230+00 3231+00 3232+00 3233+00 3234+00 3235+00 3236+00 3237+00 3238+00 3239+00 3 2 4 0 +00 3 2 4 1 +00 3242+00 3243+00 3244+00 3245+00 3246+00 3247+00 3248+00 3249+00 3 2 5 0 +00 3251+00 3252+00 3253+00 3254+00 3255+00 3256+00 2200+00 2201+00 2202+00 2203+00 2204+00 2205+00 2206+00 2207+00 2208+00 2209+00 2 2 1 0 +00 2 2 1 1 +00 2212+00 2213+00 2214+00 2215+00 2216+00 2217+00 2218+00 2 2 1 9 +00 2 2 2 0 +00 2221+00 2222+00 2223+00 2224+00 2225+00 2226+00 2227+00 2228+00 2229+00 2230+00 2231+00 2232+00 2233+00 2234+00 2235+00 2236+00 2237+00 2238+00 2239+00 2240+00 2 2 4 1 +00 2 2 4 2 +00 2243+00 2244+00 2245+00 2246+00 2247+00 2248+00 2249+00 2250+00 2251+00 2 2 5 2 +00 2253+00 2254+00 2255+00 2256+00 PLYMOUTH AVENUE/THEODORE W IRTH PARK STATION G O LDEN VALLEY ROAD STATION !( !( !(!( Glenwood 3 9 4394 Olso n MemorialOlson Memorial P e n n WestBroadway P e n n West Broadway G i r a r dGolden Valley E a s t L y n d a l e Dunwoody Dunwoody L a k e s i d e X e r x e s 9 4 9 4 9 4 E a s t L y n d a l e F F 1-Mile k55 k k k 94 394 Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services Station Area Plan • Primarily maintain residential character of existing neighborhoods. Intersection of Penn and Highway 55 is envisioned to have higher density (up to 5 stories) in order to anchor the station and provide a mixture of commercial and higher density residential. Housing Demand through 2040 • 200-400 units New Housing Types Needed • Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both market rate and affordable units) • Affordable rental apartments (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Affordable rental townhomes (<30% AMI; 31-50% AMI; 51%-80% AMI) • Senior housing (market rate and affordable) 1/2-Mile 1/2-Mile Map 19: Penn Avenue – Multifamily Properties Map 20: Penn Avenue – Senior Properties STATISTIC PENN AVE HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 6,246 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,986 490,196 Median Age1,2 29 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger 1,2 31%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 9%12% Average Household Size1,2 2.7 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 1.12 0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $32,276 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 39.6%49.0% Households with Children1,2 40.5%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 28.8%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 80.7%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 54.4%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 2,290 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 17.5%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 26.2%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 7.5%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 48.6%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1937 1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1933 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $186,300 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $807 $1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $946 $1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 --$1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works82 Housing Gaps Analysis The Penn Avenue station area has the highest population and number of households of any station area along the Bottineau Corridor. This is attributable to the overwhelmingly residential character of the station area and its mix of all types of housing from single-family homes to small multifamily properties to large multifamily properties. Housing cost burden is significant in the station area despite lower overall costs for housing. Due to the station area’s proximity to downtown and Theodore Wirth Park, the area is highly susceptible displacement of existing households due to rapidly rising prices for housing. Based on interviews with community stakeholders, there already is strong evidence of rising prices and concerns over displacement. Therefore, any new housing development should be seen as an opportunity to help retain existing residents. Mixed-income rental apartments is an obvious strategy. Per the station area plan, these could be located closest to the station. Other strategies could include helping existing households that rent their housing to access homeownership before pricing becomes too unobtainable. Given the rich diversity of housing options already in place, promoting accessory dwelling units may be a low impact path to maintaining affordability and helping existing residents remain in the community (also see discussion under Plymouth Avenue station area). Other possibilities to be explored may be co-housing arrangements. These are not common in the United States, but have been proven to help housing affordability issues in areas of rapid price increases in Europe. The Penn Avenue station area has a lot of older housing stock, which can often be difficult for older residents to safely age-in-place. New senior housing options, or at least properties developed with principles of Universal Design, which allow persons of varying physical abilities to live safely and comfortably, should be considered for the station area. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 83 Van White Boulevard 3000+00 3 0 0 1 +00 3 0 0 2 +00 3003+00 3004+00 3005+00 1005+291006+00 1007+00 1008+00 1009+00 1010+001011+001012+001013+001014+001015+001016+001017+001018+001019+001020+001021+00 1022+001023+001024+001025+00 1026+001027+001028+001029+001030+001031+001032+001033+001034+001035+001036+001037+001038+001039+00 1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+00 1054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00 1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00 1066+001067+00 1068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00 1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00 1083+001084+00 1085+00 1086+00 1087+001088+00 1089+00 1090+00 1091+001092+00 1093+00 1094+00 1095+00 1096+00 1097+00 1098+00 1 0 9 9 +00 1 1 0 0 +00 1101+00 1102+00 1103+00 2000+0 0 2001+0 0 2002+002003+002004+00 2005+002006+002007+00 2008+00 2009+00 2010+002011+002012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+00 2023+002024+002025+00 2026+002027+002028+002029+00 2030+002031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+00 2055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00 2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00 2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00 2083+002084+00 2085+00 2086+00 2087+002088+00 2089+00 2090+00 2091+002092+00 2093+00 2094+00 2095+00 2096+00 2097+00 2098+00 2 0 9 9 +00 2 1 0 0 +00 2101+00 2102+00 2103+00 !( !(!( Glenwood Glenwood P e n n 9 4 7th West Broadway 7th 3 9 4 3 9 4 R i v e r Olson Memorial Olson Mem orial West Broadway Glenwood W estBroadway P e n n G i r a r dGolden Valley E a s t L y n d a l e Dunwoody Dunwoody N i c o l l e t L a k e s i d e 2 n d 2 n d Broadway W a shin gto n 9 4 W a s h i n g t o n E a s t L y n d a l e F F 1-Mile Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services 94 394 55 k General Occupancy Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units k 3000+00 3001+00 3 0 0 2 +00 3003+00 3004+00 3005+00 1005+291006+00 1007+00 1008+00 1009+0 0 1010+001011+001012+001013+001014+001015+001016+001017+001018+001019+001020+001021+00 1022+001023+001024+001025+00 1026+001027+001028+001029+001030+001031+001032+001033+001034+001035+001036+001037+001038+001039+00 1040+001041+001042+001043+001044+001045+001046+001047+001048+001049+001050+001051+001052+001053+00 1054+001055+001056+001057+001058+001059+001060+00 1061+001062+001063+001064+001065+00 1066+001067+00 1068+001069+001070+001071+001072+001073+001074+001075+00 1076+001077+001078+001079+001080+001081+001082+00 1083+001084+00 1085+00 1086+00 1087+001088+00 1089+00 1090+00 1091+001092+00 1093+00 1094+00 1095+00 1096+00 1097+00 1098+00 1 0 9 9 +00 1 1 0 0 +00 1101+00 1102+00 1103+00 2000+00 2001+00 2002+0 0 2003+002004+00 2005+002006+002007+00 2008+00 2009+0 0 2010+002011+002012+002013+002014+002015+002016+002017+002018+002019+002020+002021+002022+00 2023+002024+002025+00 2026+002027+002028+002029+00 2030+002031+002032+002033+002034+002035+002036+002037+002038+002039+002040+002041+002042+002043+002044+002045+002046+002047+002048+002049+002050+002051+002052+002053+002054+00 2055+002056+002057+002058+002059+002060+00 2061+002062+002063+002064+002065+00 2066+002067+002068+002069+002070+002071+002072+002073+002074+002075+002076+002077+002078+002079+002080+002081+002082+00 2083+002084+00 2085+00 2086+00 2087+002088+00 2089+00 2090+00 2091+002092+00 2093+00 2094+0 0 2095+00 2096+00 2097+00 2098+00 2 0 9 9 +00 2 1 0 0 +00 2101+00 2102+00 2103+00 !( !(!( Glenwood Glenwood P e n n 9 4 7th West Broadway 7th 3 9 4 3 9 4 R i v e r Olson Memorial Olson Memorial West Broadway Glenwood W estBroadway P e n n G i r a r dGolden Valley E a s t L y n d a l e Dunwoody Dunwoody N i c o l l e t L a k e s i d e 2 n d 2 n d Broadway W as hin gto n 9 4 W a s h i n g t o n E a s t L y n d a l e F F 1-Mile k 94 394 55 Source: MNGEO, Hennepin County, Perkins+Will, Tangible Consulting Services k Senior/ Disabled Market Affordable Subsidized <5050-100 101-200 200+ Number of Units Station Area Plan • Intensify land uses within 1-3 blocks of the station. Strong vision for TOD in this area with 5+ story buildings. Primary land uses would be residential with some commercial at the street level. Housing Demand through 2040 • >500 units Housing Types • Mixed-income housing (properties inclusive of both market rate and affordable units) • Owner-occupied townhomes (multiple price points) • Multi-story condominiums (multiple price points) Map 21: Van White Boulevard – Multifamily Properties Map 22: Van White Boulevard Senior Properties STATISTIC VAN WHITE BLVD HENNEPIN COUNTY Total Population (1/2-mi radius)1,2 4,899 1,197,776 Toal Households (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,828 490,196 Median Age1,2 26.7 36.1 Population Age 18 and Younger1,2 36%25% Population Age 65 and Older1,2 8%12% Average Household Size1,2 2.6 2.4 Persons per Bedroom1,2 1.14 0.92 Median Household Income1,2 $20,186 $65,834 Homeownership Rate1,2 18.2%49.0% Households with Children1,2 47.4%28.0% Single-Person Households1,2 34.5%33.0% Persons of Color1,2 84.1%26.0% Households that are Housing Cost Burdened1,6,7 56.7%36.2% Total Housing Units (1/2-mi radius)1,2 1,857 518,332 Units in Buildings with 5+ Units1,2 63.5%29.9% Units in Buildings with 2-4 Units1,2 11.3%5.8% Townhome Units1,2 10.1%8.7% Single-Family Units1,2 15.1%55.3% Median Year Built (Multifamily Units)3,6,7 1978 1973 Median Year Built (Single-Family Units)5,6,7 1937 1958 Median Home Sales Price4 $260,000 $264,000 Average Monthly Rent - 1BR Units3,6 $794 $1,105 Average Monthly Rent - 2BR Units3,6 $977 $1,427 Average Monthly Rent - 3BR+ Units3,6 --$1,819 1 US Census, American Community Survey 2011-2015 Five-Year Estimate 2 Esri 3 CoStar 4 Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, Multiple Listing Service 5 Hennepin County Assessor 6 Tangible Consulting Services 7 Perkins+Will 1/2-Mile 1/2-Mile HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works84 Housing Gaps Analysis The Van White station area has the largest concentration of income-restricted housing along the Corridor. Therefore, it is somewhat well positioned to preserve critical affordable housing when inevitable price increases begin the happen. The station area is too close to downtown Minneapolis to not be impacted by gentrification. Although most of the income-restricted housing is preserved through the next 20 years, it will still be important to maintain these funding sources or find other strategies for preserving affordable housing. The station area plan envisions a significant amount of new, higher density housing. Making sure new development has a mixture of income requirements will be an important strategy for ensuring the station area will retain current residents. Owner-occupied housing is limited in the station area. Therefore, by encouraging certain types of owner-occupied product this will help diversify the housing stock and provide opportunities for some households to access ownership who currently are not able to do so. Smaller unit types often found in townhomes and multifamily condominiums can often be source of more affordably priced owner-occupied housing. At the station area’s periphery there have been examples of new multifamily condominium development in recent years. Thus, it is likely that when the LRT becomes operational the demand for this type of housing may increase. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 85 APPENDICES Community Stakeholder Interview Notes African Career, Education and Resources Inc. (ACER) Attending: Nelima Sitati Munene (ACER Inc.), Dan Edgerton (Zan), Faith Xiong (Zan) 1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor? Identifying specific populations, geographies and station areas, if possible. Organization and Background »African Career, Education, and Resource Inc. (ACER) is a grassroots organization. The mission of the organization is to create equitable communities by addressing health, education, housing, and community inequality. »Geographies and Population »ACER serves communities in the northwest suburbs (Brooklyn Center, Brooklyn Park, New Hope, Robbinsdale, and Crystal), and the communities ACER works with are primarily African-American and immigrant communities. »Immigrant communities includes both West African and East African (i.e., Somali, Uganda, Kenya, etc.). ACER also partner and work with other communities including the Latino community and Southeast Asian communities. Organization Projects/Programs »Some of the projects ACER are working on focus around housing justice, immigration, transportation equity, and health equity. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works86 2. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type” of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older adults or persons with disabilities; etc. »There is a lot of apartment housing and single-family rental. Most of the housing units tend to be old rentals and are “unhealthy housing.” Statistically there are a lot of affordable housing units, but they are really not affordable to the populations served by ACER. People are spending over 50% of their income on rent alone for both apartment and single- family housing and are therefore “housing cost burdened.” »Rental units are often small, 1-2 bedroom units. Eden Park and Park Haven are the two largest apartment rentals in the area. There are a few 3-bedroom apartments located at Park Haven. The rental units tend to be small for the families ACER serves. »It is not uncommon for a 1-bedroom unit to house a family of four people, a 2-bedroom unit can house six people, and a 3-bedroom unit can house larger families, however, there are very few 3-bedroom or larger units (mostly at Park Haven). »We need healthier housing, more affordable housing and more opportunities for homeownership/homeownership strategies. For example, the City of Brooklyn Park is among the cities with the highest level of homeownership in the metro, but also has the second highest racial disparity in homeownership. »Healthier housing means better-maintained housing. For example, the existing housing doesn’t have adequate lighting (indoor or outdoor), often has roof leakage, and there is not enough security at Park Haven and Eden Park Apartments. The doors to the apartment complexes are not secure, and sometimes there are people who don’t live in the apartments loitering inside the apartment complexes. There is also a lack of management. »Many apartments are old and dirty with bad refrigerators/other appliances that can cause food poisoning. The playgrounds are not well kept, which is an unhealthy environment for kids. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 87 3. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing? For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers. »Available and adequate housing in the community does not exist. There are also discriminatory practices in housing, such as landlords refusing to accept Section 8 housing vouchers. The application screening is also discriminatory. People with immigrant status can’t get housing or will have to pay more if they don’t have a social security card. »Another barrier is having large families in small housing units, as the kind of housing needed (i.e., 3+ bedroom units) in these neighborhoods is not available. 4. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/ format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with disabilities; other design issues. »See answers to questions #1, #2 and # 3. 5. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit; too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc. »Park Haven Apartment is not a senior apartment, but there are a lot of seniors/elderly African population that live there. Access to transit, such as buses, is limited, and while it is within walking distance of a grocery store (i.e., Cub is approximately one-half mile), it is difficult for seniors carry more than two bags of grocery for that distance. »Another barrier is the application process for affordable housing. There are a lot of people that lack credit and some places require a credit check. Currently there are no policy strategies to address issue of displacement and gentrification. »Data is outdated, and existing trend analysis alone is not enough to address the issue of displacement and gentrification as well as racially HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works88 concentrated areas of poverty. We need analyses to forecast the supply of housing (and affordable housing, considering the gentrification likely to occur) into the future. »At the policy level, no one is talking about gentrification and affordable housing, and there is no action being taken to address the question: “Why are they poor”. We need to get to the root cause of the issue. We need to consider a private and public partnership strategy. »City policies and practices are also a barrier. For example, there is a monthly landlord crime and safety meeting. At these meetings they will look at a 911 call catalog, and if there are a lot of calls at a given complex, they assume it is a high crime area. But they never really look at the root cause. At Park Haven, there are a lot of seniors, and the high volume of 911 calls could be for medical purposes rather than a crime prevention concern. »There are intentional restrictions and discriminatory practices, such as parking restrictions to restrict certain types of people from accessing housing. 6. Other issues »Displacement and gentrification are a concern. There are currently no policies in place to prevent displacement. For example, ACER lost a senior housing complex in New Hope and seniors are being displaced. In Brooklyn Park, ACER almost lost a senior housing complex, but because of community action Aeon got involved and purchased the complex. Across the metro, we are losing 100 units every week, and this may not include some of the smaller buildings which are often not counted. »No analysis has been done to look at displacement and dealing with affordable housing. »The Hennepin County preliminary study (affordable housing study) assumes that people are choosing to rent rather than buy houses. This is a false assumption; people just can’t afford to buy houses. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 89 La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles Attending: Sebastián Rivera (La Asamblea) Dan Edgerton (Zan), Faith Xiong (Zan) 1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor? Identifying specific populations, geographies and station areas, if possible. Organization and Background »La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles is a faith-based organization that started 19 years ago with its core work focusing on social justice ministry and immigration issues. The organization was first established in Minneapolis. Today La Asamblea has several congregations located in Minneapolis, Brooklyn Park and St. Cloud. Geographies and Population »La Asamblea primarily serves undocumented populations: Latino, African, and Southeast Asian immigrants. Most of their work is focused on immigrant families living in apartments and mobile homes. Organization Projects/Programs »La Asamblea projects and programs seek to identify social justice for immigrant families. »La Asamblea and ACER are partner organizations working on housing and economic development efforts in both the Latino and East African communities – emphasizing that both Latino and East African communities are experiencing similar issues. »In Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center, La Asamblea’s core work focuses on ensuring that immigrant communities thrive while still living in the shadow. With this focus, the organization provides services in housing and economic development, education on civil rights and immigrant rights, and education on landlord-tenant rights. »Some of the areas most impacted by inequality and injustice are the Grove Apartments, Park Haven Apartments, and Autumn Ridge Apartments. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works90 Grove Apartments have a large population of Latino, Liberian, Somali, Vietnamese and Hmong population. This apartment complex has been targeted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) many times, and a lot of breadwinners have been taken. Park Haven Apartments have a huge senior African community. Autumn Ridge Apartments was the first building to be focused on when the Blue Line LRT was being studied and planned. There are 970+ units, and many of these units were infested with bedbugs, rats and mice. The apartments primarily house African and African-American families who are on Section 8 vouchers. La Asamblea’s role was to ensure the city provided code enforcement, which the city is currently working on. La Asamblea notices that as the Blue Line LRT is coming in, rent is also going up. »The organization also work towards minimizing the gap between the community and the cities. To do this, the organization educates the community about available resources and create various opportunities for cities to connect with the community. One example of this work is the creation of the Civil Rights Blue Print put together for the City of Brooklyn Center and Brooklyn Park by La Asamblea and ACER. In the process of designing the Civil Rights Blue Print, the organizations were able to engage the community, and connect community members with elected officials. »The blue print was created to help cities create policies that reflect the communities they serve. Under this blue print, La Asamblea and other organizations are working to get buy-ins from the cities for the following policies: • Just Clause Eviction • Section 8 Protection • Inclusionary Housing • Right of First Refusal Clause HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 91 2. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type” of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older adults or persons with disabilities; etc. »South of Brooklyn Park, there are more single-family homes and some duplexes. After the 2008 housing crash, bigger homes were transformed into duplexes and multi-family housing. »There is an abundance of older housing stock (mid-70s and mid-80s). These homes are affordable, but are in bad conditions – emphasizing that conditions are inhumane. »South of Crystal and Brooklyn Park, there are a few 15-20-unit housing renting out units at $1000-$1200/month. These are harder to find, but are easier to get into because of the high turnover rate. »Compared to Robbinsdale and Crystal, Brooklyn Park has larger apartment complexes. »La Asamblea emphasizes the need for more multi-family housing with more than 2-bedrooms. A 2-bedroom unit does not suffice for the communities they serve, particularly Latino and Southeast Asian communities, who often have larger households. »While some cities have first time homeowner resources, there is a great need here for homeownership resources and opportunities. »Park Haven has a few 3-bedroom units, all located on the top floor. Most of these larger units often house families with younger children, which is inconvenient for seniors. »Bigger housing tends to be more expensive, especially in Crystal, Robbinsdale, New Hope, and anywhere along the Blue Line LRT. There is not a chance for affordable housing along the Blue Line LRT. »There are some affordable starter homes in Robbinsdale. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works92 3. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing? For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers. »Parking ordinances are a barrier. While the shift in parking time makes it easier for snow plowing, it gets difficult when residents’ vehicles are being towed. »The assumption that everyone has a car is a false assumption. »Lack of sidewalk connections make it difficult for seniors to walk in the middle of winter. There is also a lack of sidewalk connection from the neighborhood area to the busy intersection. »The Blue Line LRT corridor’s busy intersection discourages people from walking. »There are no bike lanes. »Gentrification is a barrier to accessing housing. There is a huge influx of immigrant and people of color (Hmong, Vietnamese, Liberian, etc.), and there is an old mentality of keeping the suburb the way it should be. However, this new form of gentrification is problematic because it pushes more people into the suburbs without any resources. »Discriminatory practices are also barriers to accessing housing. Undocumented immigrants usually pay $75 to $100 more in fees and rent than any other tenants. Landlords are now asking for car insurance to get a parking space, which targets undocumented immigrants. Often the extra money, advocated with the help of La Asamblea, is used to pay for towing fees and not rental fees. »Accessing information and resources on the city websites is difficult for Spanish, Somali and Hmong speakers. It would be beneficial for cities to send yearly and/or quarterly newsletters about available resources provided at the city. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 93 »Identifying landlords is very difficult. When an apartment management company changes, La Asamblea goes door-to-door letting people know about what to expect from new management; frequently screening criteria changes. 4. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/ format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with disabilities; other design issues. »See question #2 5. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit; too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc. »See question #3 6. Other issues »There is an apparent disconnect between the cities and the county. »Hennepin County housing inventory is very helpful, and the organization would like the cities to also know about this document. The document is beneficial for the cities because it talks about housing cost burden, who is impacted, and what are the housing needs in the county and cities. »Homelessness is rising in the suburbs. La Asamblea want the cities and county to work together to prevent the increase of homelessness (i.e., loitering in the LRT) when the Blue Line LRT comes in. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works94 Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County Attending: Christine Hart (CAP-HC) Dan Edgerton (Zan), Faith Xiong (Zan) 1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor? Identifying specific populations, geographies and station areas, if possible. Organization and Background »Community Action Partnership of Hennepin County (CAP-HC) is a service provider organization, and is the only CAP organization that services all of Hennepin County. A few of the programs established by the organization focus on homeownership, economic stability, and housing stability. Geographies and Population »CAP-HC serves all communities along the Blue Line LRT. The organization primarily works with low-income families at 125%-200% of the federal poverty guideline. Organization Projects/Programs »CAP-HC provide energy assistantship, financial services (i.e., financial literacy workshops, financial and employment counseling, etc.), and housing stabilization services. The housing stabilization program provides case management services for someone transitioning from shelter to affordable housing. »CAP-HC would like to increase and preserve affordable housing in Brooklyn Park. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 95 2. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type” of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older adults or persons with disabilities; etc. »There is an abundance of affordable old housing stock in Robbinsdale, Crystal and New Hope. »There is less than a 2% vacancy rate for affordable housing ($1,200 or less) in the county, which is a challenge because people will move out of the county to find affordable housing elsewhere. The vacancy rate is nearing 0%, and if people are terminated from their current rental, they basically have nowhere to go. »In the current market, there are a lot of families in rental units/housing because people can’t afford to own a home. There is also a lack of 3 or more-bedroom rentals. Frequently there are six people living in 1-2-bedroom unit housing, which gets tenants in trouble and creates an ongoing problem for tenants. Three or more-bedroom housing is needed across Hennepin County. »Senior housing is also needed. The rent for the New Hope senior apartment complex that was sold has gone up by $200. In Golden Valley, there is a community housing team comprised of 3-4 seniors. These seniors are looking to move out of homeownership because they can no longer maintain their home; but they also face a challenge with finding affordable rental housing in the neighborhood. There is a shortage of affordable senior housing for rent. 3. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing? For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers. »Low vacancy rates and discriminatory practices are barriers to accessible housing. People with housing subsidies (i.e., Section 8 vouchers) experience discrimination by landlords. Many landlords do not want to work with people with housing subsidies because they don’t want to take the extra step to fill out additional paperwork. In some cases, people with HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works96 housing subsidies are being discriminated by property managers because of their race. »Rent increases are also a challenge. For example, rent used to be $800/ month, now rents are going up to $1,400/month. This barrier is not only a hurdle for accessible housing, but also impacts people’s employment and where children are going to school. 4. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/ format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with disabilities; other design issues. »While there are many issues with layout and design, at the end of the day these issues do not matter. As long as people have housing, they are satisfied with whatever housing layout they have. Layout and design are not a priority for many people. »There is no tenant protection. Tenants would prefer to not complain because of the fear of having nowhere to go if they get terminated for complaining about small things like plumbing. »There are four policies CAP-HC is pushing for city buy-in: • Just cost eviction or non-renewal -Landlords cannot terminate tenants unless there is a just cause. • Section 8 ordinances -Whether or not rent is being paid through housing subsidies, landlords cannot discriminate potential tenants by how their rent is being paid. -Right of First Refusal If the owner/landlord sells the property, they need to give 90-day notice to tenants. This allows the city or other agencies to get involved with rehab or making the property more affordable for the tenants. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 97 • Inclusionary Housing -Requires any new development to contribute a percentage of the total units as permanently affordable housing. -Brooklyn Park and Golden Valley both have inclusionary housing ordinances, and the organization is working to get other cities on board. 5. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit; too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc. »Walkability – having more sidewalks in neighborhood area. »Transit – always an issue in the suburbs. Seniors rely on Metro Mobility to get around, but this service is not enough. »Cities should prioritize community-building opportunities. In most cities, community building is not a priority for funding. CAP-HC emphasized that it is in the city’s best interest to prioritize community connection opportunities. While cities are aware of this need, there have been no action to build capacity in moving forward with community building in the neighborhood. 6 . Other issues »There is a disconnect between the county and the cities; they are not working together. The county and cities don’t really have a clear understanding of what the other is doing. »CAP-HC would like to have county take a stronger leadership role to help guide cities with planning for equity. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works98 City of Lakes Community Land Trust Attending: Staci Howritz (CLCLT), Dan Edgerton (Zan), and Faith Xiong (Zan) 1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor? Identifying specific populations, geographies and station areas, if possible. Organization and Background »City of Lakes Community Land Trust is a business that focuses on homeownership opportunities in Minneapolis. The organization’s mission is to “create community ownership that preserves affordability and inclusivity.” »CLCLT began in 2002 as a non-profit organization. This year is CLCLT’s second business year. They are projected to have 38 home closings in the following year. On average, CLCLT,on average, closes 25-30 houses per year, earning about $2-4 million in capital. »CLCLT is marketed through homebuyer education courses, partnerships and lender referrals, and by word of mouth by current homeowners. Geographies and Population »CLCLT serves populations with 80% or less of the median average income. Most of the people they serve have an average median income of 5% or lower. »53% of CLCLT homeowners are communities of color (African- American, East African, Somali, Hmong, and Latino), and 54% of CLCLT homeowners are single. »CLCLT only serves the City of Minneapolis Organization Projects/Programs »CLCLT’s primary role is to invest in land and make it affordable for potential homeowners to own a home on the land. While CLCLT owns the land, the homeowner takes title of the home. Any changes to the net worth of the home are shared between homeowner and CLCLT. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 99 »CLCLT currently has 250 homes, ranging from single-family homes to duplexes, condos, and townhomes. The organization also has 50 resales. While the organization mostly focuses on homeownership, they also have rental properties near their business. 2. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type” of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older adults or persons with disabilities; etc. »CLCLT needs a range of housing, however their main concern is not about the type of housing they need, but about who gets to live in Minneapolis. »Minneapolis used to be against duplexes, but there is also a need for density. CLCLT emphasizes that when thinking about filling up empty city lots in Minneapolis, it is also important to think strategically about the need for density. »There is a decent stock of single-family and multi-family housing, and it is important for the city and county to create different housing options along LRT. 3. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing? For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers. »Credit is the biggest barrier for homeownership. »There are a lot of rental properties in Minneapolis, but not enough homes for people to own in Minneapolis. The demand for homeownership is high, but home inventory is low. »There is still a traditional mindset that, in order to own a home, one must have $20,000-$30,000 for closing costs. CLCLT is modeling homeownership, but it is still difficult. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works100 »Cultural religious policy is also a barrier to homeownership. The idea of “owning” and “investing” in something is a difficult conversation to have with religious and cultural communities. For example, Sharia finance won’t allow Muslim communities to pay interest, but a conventional mortgage with interest is recommended for owning a home. »Land ownership has always been a barrier towards homeownership for many of the cultural and religious communities CLCLT work with. However, homeownership is possible within these communities when people accept changes (i.e., Little Earth community). 4. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/ format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with disabilities; other design issues. »There is a need for larger family homes with 4 to 6-bedrooms. »There is also a need for accessible and visible homes, particularly for seniors and people with disabilities. »CLCLT is interested in more transitional and smaller houses (1-bedroom and smaller footprint) with less maintenance for seniors to transition from their 3 to 4-bedroom homes. »CLCLT is also interested in mixed-generational homes and mixed-income homes in Minneapolis. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 101 5. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit; too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc. »North Minneapolis is a great place, but it also has a very bad reputation for crime. »97% of the people who live in Minneapolis live within a six-block radius to transit. While there is certainly transit accessibility, there is no accessibility to amenities (i.e., banks, grocery stores, coffee shop, restaurant options, etc.) where people live. »It is important to be mindful of creating an economic center where people can live, work, and play. 6. Other issues »CLCLT encourages the Blue Line LRT study to think creatively in the future about landownership and community ownership opportunities. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works102 Northside Residents Redevelopment Council (NRRC) Attending: Martine Smaller (NRRC), Gale (NRRC), Dan Edgerton (Zan), and Faith Xiong (Zan) 1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor? Identifying specific populations, geographies and station areas, if possible. Organization and Background »Northside Residents Redevelopment Council is non-profit neighborhood organization that serves both the Willard-Hay and Near North neighborhoods in North Minneapolis. Their role as a neighborhood organization is to empower residents to make changes in their community. Geographies and Population »NRRC serves a range of communities. The residents they serve are African-American, Hmong, Latino, and European American with a wide range of income. Organization Projects/Programs »Some of the programs and services NRRC provides include block grants, first time homebuyer loans, and reviewing/making recommendations on development proposals. 1. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type” of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older adults or persons with disabilities; etc. »There is a lot of quality housing (bricked homes) that should be preserved and respected, and there is also an increase in housing built using poor quality materials. The quality that housing developers are putting up does not fit the characteristic and aesthetic of the community. These poor- quality homes frequently, after a short period of ownership, are turned HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 103 into rental properties. When developers are putting resources in an old narrative (social service neighborhood), the community is losing income and the tax base that contributes to the wealth of our neighborhood. There is a need for more relevant details. »The definition of affordable housing is a challenge. While there is an abundance of extremely low-income housing, there is a lack of affordable housing for younger, talented people. Without any affordable housing stock, the community is losing young talented people who are choosing to live elsewhere in the city. 2. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing? For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers. »There are a lot of owner-occupied homes and there are also several rentals that are owned by slum lords. There is a lack of quality rentals in the neighborhood. »There are a lot of entities financially dependent on the old narrative (a community needing of social services resources), and it is not helping the community. »Data is also feeding the old narrative, so there is a need to collect new data and more relevant details to support the neighborhood’s new narrative. »The disconnect within Hennepin County and the disconnect between the county and the city makes it difficult for NRRC to align its neighborhood small area plan with them. »NRRC’s role is to gather data from residents and to share it with the city and the county. In the future, NRRC wants to work more with the city and the county in this aspect. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works104 3. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/ format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with disabilities; other design issues. »Most of the homes in the neighborhood are stucco and brick homes. New sidings do not fit in, and we would like to see strategies for preserving the character of neighborhood. If you look down Plymouth Avenue, there is a mix of housing/building types which is not cohesive. 4. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit; too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc. »The organization expressed that zoning is the biggest problem. The current zoning codes have not been changed since the protest and burning of the small businesses along the corridor. Plymouth Avenue and Penn Avenue used to be commercial corridors, similar to 50th and France in South Minneapolis. However, when the city rezoned the neighborhood into residential zoning, it deprived the community of the opportunity to grow economically. There is a need for a more proactive approach to zoning and more commercial zoning in the neighborhood. »Zoning is also designed specifically for vehicles and not pedestrians, which is hindering people from getting to know each other. »Crime is not an issue, but the organization is concerned about the potential of crime when there is an increase in pedestrian traffic outside of walkshed. »Many essential goods are too far for people to walk to. NRRC want more pedestrian--friendly and walkable neighborhoods. »NRRC expressed that the Blue Line LRT was planned without seniors in mind. The organization would like to have more special bus services to serve senior citizens to get to the Blue Line LRT. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 105 Redeemer Lutheran Church/Redeemer Center for Life Attending: Pastor Kelly Chatman (Redeemer), Dan Edgerton (Zan), and Faith Xiong (Zan) 1. What communities do you work with in the Bottineau Corridor? Identifying specific populations, geographies and station areas, if possible. Organization and Background »Redeemer Lutheran Church/Redeemer Center for Life is a church and non-profit organization in the Harrison Neighborhood. There are over 4,000 people in the community, in which 39% are African American and 60% rentals in the Harrison neighborhood. Geographies and Population »Harrison Neighborhood is considered near-north due to its proximity to Downtown Minneapolis. 2. What type of housing is abundant in the community you represent? What type of housing is most needed in the community you represent? This is intended to be very open ended. “Type” of housing, could mean any styles or arrangement. For example: rental vs. owned; townhomes vs single-family vs multi-story; large homes vs small homes; old homes vs new homes; homes affordable to low-income households; homes designed for children; homes designed for older adults or persons with disabilities; etc. »The neighborhood is primarily industrial and single-family residential. A few of these single-family homes are Pride for Project Living (PPL) housing projects. There is also an abundance of single-family rentals, some apartment complexes, and vacant lots in the neighborhood. »There are more investors than there are foreclosures in the community. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works106 »There is an early sign of gentrification that is changing the neighborhood because there is a limited amount of affordable housing, which is pressuring people to move out. There is an increase of younger people in the community today. »As development is coming in, rents will most likely increase. Rent control is needed when LRT comes in. 3. What barriers does the community you represent have in accessing housing? For example cost; discrimination; physical accessibility; other barriers. »The Neighborhood Association wants to advocate more for homeowners and become a homeowner association. »Historically, there is a lack of attractive retail sites and a disparity in neighborhood investment. It would be beneficial to have more user- friendly community retail that has a stronger sense of community investment (i.e., Whole Foods, coffee shops, cooperatives, replace the smoke shop with other retails, etc.). The people in this neighborhood deserve amenities present in other neighborhoods too. »As gentrification comes in, it is likely that the impound lot and industrial sites will turn into retail locations. While adding more commercial sites is a positive thing, there is the risk of further gentrification. 4. Are there design issues with the type of housing available? Are there design features that are desired by the community you represent? For example, not enough bedrooms; bad layout/ format; not designed to accommodate children; not designed to accommodate people with disabilities; other design issues. »There is a need to create healthy design to improve community health. The organization wants to see height limitations, as designs from the city do not fit the characteristic of the community. The organization doesn’t want a “downtown/Grand Canyon” feel, but urges planning and design to maintain the “small town” feel. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 107 5. What are the desirable neighborhood features in the communities you represent? Are there neighborhood location issues with the housing available? For example, too far from transit; too much crime; too far from essential goods and services; not in a walkable neighborhood; etc. »There is a need to expand mobility options (bike lanes, sidewalks, buses, etc.) to improve connectivity to amenities and facilities in the neighborhood. It is inaccessible for Minneapolis residents to get to Theodore Wirth Park, an urban park used for skiing and golfing. • Theodore Wirth Park facility also needs to program and promote their facility as a part of the neighborhood. Today, Edina residents are using the park more than local residents. • Harrison Neighborhood is a food desert. Access to healthy food is limited. 6. Other issues »Try to encourage more homeownership and longer-term leases. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works108 Comments Received in Response to Presentation of Draft Findings to members of the Blue Line Coalition and Health Equity Engagement Cohort (December 13, 2017 – Brookdale Library) Attendee #1: • The number of new affordable units (as listed by the Met Council) seems small compared to the number of total new units • Van White will be a busy station. Students coming and going, start of the corridor • Like how universal design is being addressed • Long term affordability »This needs to be addressed--especially the fact that some developments are halfway thru their affordability period and will be close to finished by opening day »NOAH--be clear on “relative” affordability. Be aware of the pushback by city officials….”We have NOAH, why do we need more”. Many NOAH units are substandard. • Potentially creating homelessness because not producing housing stock that folks are looking for or need Attendee #2: • Much of the naturally-occurring affordable housing in the corridor is uninhabitable or significantly aged. Poor housing stock is bad for residents, obviously, but it also increases the risk that these buildings will be targets for redevelopment. I’d like the report to emphasize that NOAH is unlikely to remain naturally affordable as the corridor becomes a more attractive real estate market. The report should encourage cities to be proactive about preserving affordability either by adding new units or adding rent protections (and renovations) to current NOAH properties. Cities cannot rely on their current NOAH stock to continue meeting the affordability needs of their residents. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 109 • Along this theme, a lot of the current rental housing of all types is aging and likely in need of capital investment. The increased costs of these improvements often push property owners to raise their rents. I’d like to see the report discuss this phenomenon and include recommendations about how cities can help landlords maintain quality housing stock while preserving affordability. • Given the age of the corridor’s housing stock, I would also like to see the report discuss whether any current affordable housing properties that were built under Section 42 or similar programs are nearing the end of their affordability term commitment. Again, this represents another threat to affordable housing in the corridor as property owners seek to take advantage of the rising rental market and/or can’t afford capital investments in their properties without raising rents. • The corridor’s housing density is currently well under the recommended levels of density for TOD. I’d like to see the report emphasize that permitting higher-density development is one way to make affordable housing and commercial space more financially feasible. • Concerns were raised about the shortage of 3+ bedroom units in the corridor, and I worry that pushback about developing larger units could be a smokescreen for discrimination against immigrant families who tend to be larger. The report should encourage cities to prioritize housing units of all sizes in both the ownership and rental markets. • The report should discuss the current status of owner-occupied multifamily housing stock within the corridor and include recommendations for affordable homeownership as an important strategy. Density, homeownership, and affordability do not need to be mutually exclusive goals. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works110 Attendee #3: My apologies for being unable to attend this session but I’m confident that my fellow BLC members were a great representation. My comments are listed below and as indicated represent a context outside of being in attendance and outside of receiving or providing direct input from the presenters. a. I would have welcomed better identification of the areas being addressed at the beginning of the report b. My understanding of a Gap Analysis involves the “comparison of actual performance with potential or desired performance” and ways to bridge the “Gap”. c. I was unable to match the “Purpose of a Gap Analysis” with many of the Takeaways. The first sentence can be said about most major cities but would have preferred to see Takeaways specific to the Blue Line corridor and its specific needs. In addition, other than “upgrading current limited stock” there was no need identified for new development in the “under 3 bdrm market.” d. Without a Glossary, I’m unclear on the definition of an “owner-occupied MF unit” or where are the “Hennepin County and Twin Cities MSA areas might be located. e. I would like to see the source document indicating that affordable housing is available as stated in your document. f. In that same vein, I disagree and have seen reports that dispute the premise in this report that most housing along the corridor is owned and not rental, especially when the same report touts the large population of people of color along this same corridor. g. I am in disagreement with Page 16’s premise that the median income of people on Golden Valley Rd. is $80,000 and I would also challenge the amount attributed to Plymouth Ave too. h. Page 36 graph-2017 Household Size does not include “Oak Grove Parkway” or “Corridor 1-mile” (whatever that is) data. i. Page 41 does not reference any cost-burdened renters in Oak Grove Parkway or at 93rd Ave, is that correct? j. Page 46 Development Trends do not reference a specific area or areas. k. Page 51 I would suggest an increase in the Community Experts going forward. this group(s) do not mention government policies around density and zoning that impact housing. They failed to mention high construction costs, bias against those with criminal backgrounds and those with unlawful detainers. They did not mention red-lining by banks and lenders and many other factors impacting construction and rehab of affordable housing. l. Page 53, I’m unclear on who may have been asked a question and what was the question they were attempting to answer. m. There is no reference to gentrification and its related displacement of community members. n. There appears to be no Equity or Racial Disparity lens applied to any of the captured data and potential Takeaways. o. On the “Why Do A Gap Analysis” page, four items (or conclusions) are referenced but none of the Takeaway’s offer alternatives or solutions to any of these items. HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 111 DATA TABLES Housing Units by Units in Structure SF Homes Attached (THs) 2-4 Unit Bldgs 5-19 Unit Bldgs 20+ Unit Bldgs Other All Housing Units Oak Grove Pkwy 21 19 0 2 0 0 42 93rd Ave 219 36 3 0 6 0 265 85th Ave 705 436 59 17 46 0 1,263 Brooklyn Blvd 454 70 40 62 102 0 728 63rd Ave 633 90 21 421 894 0 2,058 Bass Lake Rd 524 7 40 126 253 0 951 Robbinsdale 841 212 46 178 598 4 1,879 Golden Valley Rd 1,020 25 28 72 6 0 1,152 Plymouth Ave 1,148 34 68 77 23 3 1,352 Penn Ave 1,113 172 601 184 217 2 2,290 Van White Blvd 281 188 209 423 757 0 1,857 Corridor - 1/2 Mile 11,703 1,585 1,199 1,936 3,392 12 19,827 Corridor - 1 Mile 24,071 3,229 2,234 3,141 9,792 47 42,515 Brooklyn Park 16,410 4,001 544 1,151 4,623 29 26,758 Crystal 7,113 159 236 495 1,345 0 9,348 Robbinsdale 4,066 414 150 503 1,014 14 6,161 Golden Valley 6,289 643 123 677 1,145 28 8,905 Minneapolis 75,287 6,533 22,052 19,183 44,989 341 168,385 Hennepin County 271,200 42,701 28,395 38,148 108,263 1,489 490,196 Twin Cities MSA 826,141 143,539 58,862 81,791 202,845 21,217 1,334,395 Source: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works112 Rental Housing by Type and Year Built (1-mile Buffer) Oak Grove Pkwy Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 1 1 1940 to 1959 0 1960 to 1979 0 1980 to 1999 0 2000 and Later 2 279 281 Total 3 0 0 0 279 282 93rd Ave Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 0 1940 to 1959 0 1960 to 1979 1 1 1980 to 1999 22 22 2000 and Later 1 1 Total 24 0 0 0 0 24 85th Ave Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 2 2 1940 to 1959 0 1960 to 1979 38 42 80 1980 to 1999 23 93 116 2000 and Later 3 16 19 Total 66 109 42 0 0 217 Brooklyn Blvd Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 0 1940 to 1959 2 2 1960 to 1979 31 46 14 268 359 1980 to 1999 25 2 27 2000 and Later 1 1 Total 59 0 48 14 268 389 63rd Ave Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 0 1940 to 1959 56 28 27 111 1960 to 1979 9 19 56 1,445 1,529 1980 to 1999 3 7 73 83 2000 and Later 1 7 122 130 Total 69 28 46 70 1,640 1,853 Bass Lake Rd Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 1 2 3 1940 to 1959 60 4 14 78 1960 to 1979 4 28 111 143 1980 to 1999 4 241 245 2000 and Later 0 Total 69 0 6 42 352 469 HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 113 Robbinsdale Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 41 30 71 1940 to 1959 38 71 55 164 1960 to 1979 8 11 20 14 185 238 1980 to 1999 11 4 331 346 2000 and Later 2 20 7 36 65 Total 100 31 125 21 607 884 Golden Valley Rd Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 77 13 16 24 130 1940 to 1959 48 6 35 89 1960 to 1979 6 3 13 22 1980 to 1999 10 10 2000 and Later 4 4 Total 145 0 22 51 37 255 Plymouth Ave Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 220 2 62 21 12 317 1940 to 1959 29 6 21 35 91 1960 to 1979 7 5 7 72 91 1980 to 1999 7 7 2000 and Later 7 7 14 Total 270 15 88 63 84 520 Penn Ave Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 237 371 213 88 909 1940 to 1959 39 6 52 14 111 1960 to 1979 43 5 49 63 243 403 1980 to 1999 33 12 11 7 63 2000 and Later 14 7 11 14 46 Total 366 30 494 311 331 1,532 Van White Blvd Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 28 19 83 90 12 232 1940 to 1959 2 2 1960 to 1979 15 8 28 703 754 1980 to 1999 7 6 7 14 88 122 2000 and Later 10 25 8 84 588 715 Total 60 50 108 216 1,391 1,825 Corridor Single Family Town- homes Duplex/ Triplex Apt, 4-9 Units Apts 10+ Units Total Before 1940 1,531 290 1,132 666 147 3,766 1940 to 1959 1,054 23 362 174 172 1,785 1960 to 1979 444 449 534 757 5,152 7,336 1980 to 1999 289 271 52 123 834 1,569 2000 and Later 153 390 19 273 1,641 2,476 Total 3,471 1,423 2,099 1,993 7,946 16,932 HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works114 Housing Cost-Burdened Status of Households (2015) Owner Households Renter Households Owner Households Renter Households Cost- Burdened Not Cost- Burdened Cost- Burdened Not Cost- Burdened Cost- Burdened Not Cost- Burdened Cost- Burdened Not Cost- Burdened Oak Grove Pkwy 7 28 0 32 10.4%41.8%0.0%47.8% 93rd Ave 74 163 0 32 27.5%60.6%0.0%11.9% 85th Ave 294 788 116 153 21.8%58.3%8.6%11.3% Brooklyn Blvd 104 332 656 308 7.4%23.7%46.9%22.0% 63rd Ave 203 415 1,422 1,063 6.5%13.4%45.8%34.3% Bass Lake Rd 150 321 604 455 9.8%21.0%39.5%29.7% Robbinsdale 901 3,393 1,195 999 13.9%52.3%18.4%15.4% Golden Valley Rd 173 651 573 496 9.1%34.4%30.3%26.2% Plymouth Ave 201 587 708 461 10.3%30.0%36.2%23.6% Penn Ave 250 506 1,870 1,274 6.4%13.0%47.9%32.7% Van White Blvd 95 234 1,875 1,271 2.7%6.7%54.0%36.6% Brooklyn Park 4,195 10,248 4,477 3,239 18.9%46.2%20.2%14.6% Crystal 1,374 3,309 1,514 1,171 18.6%44.9%20.5%15.9% Golden Valley 1,121 3,506 924 997 15.4%45.2%20.4%19.0% Robbinsdale 786 2,306 1,041 967 17.1%53.5%14.1%15.2% Hennepin County 60,081 163,163 84,579 91,932 15.0%40.8%21.2%23.0% Twin Cities MSA 180,536 504,729 186,397 198,387 16.9%47.2%17.4%18.5% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services; Perkins+Will HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 115 Age Distribution 2015 (Numeric) 1/2 Mile Radius 0-18 19-24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total Median Oak Grove Pkwy 67 17 49 43 37 40 24 12 2 291 37.5 93rd Ave 298 69 152 156 140 102 49 26 8 1,000 33.9 85th Ave 931 240 585 505 446 427 266 142 47 3,589 35.7 Brooklyn Blvd 672 211 346 256 253 268 169 47 9 2,231 31.5 63rd Ave 1,298 493 755 599 453 402 291 197 161 4,649 32.0 Bass Lake Rd 531 191 345 345 332 300 180 82 58 2,364 38.2 Robbinsdale 871 330 618 635 530 518 337 181 161 4,181 38.9 Golden Valley Rd 637 226 333 398 383 403 258 97 43 2,778 39.7 Plymouth Ave 1,093 400 554 490 438 458 312 128 48 3,921 33.3 Penn Ave 1,929 775 951 775 702 594 345 128 47 6,246 29.0 Van White 1,755 521 932 581 382 340 259 93 36 4,899 26.7 Corridor (1/2-mile)12,556 4,157 7,647 6,286 6,107 4,716 2,377 1,627 821 46,294 34.9 1 Mile Radius 0-18 19-24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total Median Oak Grove Pkwy 417 111 291 258 226 225 130 63 9 1,730 36.6 93rd Ave 1,521 384 911 821 773 641 354 243 105 5,753 35.7 85th Ave 2,930 861 1,706 1,460 1,343 1,266 782 354 126 10,828 34.5 Brooklyn Blvd 2,787 894 1,610 1,252 1,134 1,189 758 259 68 9,951 33.0 63rd Ave 3,979 1,516 2,433 1,983 1,638 1,439 996 559 329 14,872 32.9 Bass Lake Rd 2,427 858 1,602 1,627 1,511 1,421 880 434 255 11,015 38.6 Robbinsdale 3,267 1,121 2,251 2,210 1,985 1,954 1,244 665 489 15,186 39.1 Golden Valley Rd 4,139 1,600 2,027 1,960 1,758 1,702 1,032 419 166 14,803 33.1 Plymouth Ave 4,361 1,770 2,148 1,821 1,669 1,558 946 390 152 14,815 30.5 Penn Ave 5,732 2,062 2,919 2,335 1,969 1,780 1,133 408 147 18,485 29.6 Van White 5,218 2,494 4,724 2,859 2,360 2,037 1,115 387 127 21,321 30.5 Corridor 25,330 9,055 16,900 13,377 13,210 10,019 4,821 3,306 1,688 97,706 34.7 Cities & Region 0 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total Median Golden Valley 4,382 730 2,671 2,149 3,130 3,526 2,251 1,126 875 20,845 46.5 Robbinsdale 3,001 800 2,615 2,015 2,015 1,600 941 646 379 14,046 36.8 Crystal 5,471 746 3,662 3,459 3,233 2,916 1,513 1,084 497 22,584 38.9 Brooklyn Park 24,006 5,317 12,355 10,244 10,947 8,445 4,466 1,959 627 78,351 32.8 Hennepin County 297,048 79,053 203,622 158,106 166,491 148,524 79,053 43,120 22,758 1,197,776 36.1 Twin Cities MSA 930,415 217,904 508,442 460,019 508,442 425,431 224,821 121,058 58,799 3,458,790 36.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works116 Age Distribution 2015 (Percentage) 1/2 Mile Radius 0 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total Oak Grove Pkwy 23%6%17%15%13%14%8%4%1%100% 93rd Ave 30%7%15%16%14%10%5%3%1%100% 85th Ave 26%7%16%14%12%12%7%4%1%100% Brooklyn Blvd 30%9%16%11%11%12%8%2%0%100% 63rd Ave 28%11%16%13%10%9%6%4%3%100% Bass Lake Rd 22%8%15%15%14%13%8%3%2%100% Robbinsdale 21%8%15%15%13%12%8%4%4%100% Golden Valley Rd 23%8%12%14%14%15%9%3%2%100% Plymouth Ave 28%10%14%12%11%12%8%3%1%100% Penn Ave 31%12%15%12%11%10%6%2%1%100% Van White 36%11%19%12%8%7%5%2%1%100% 1 Mile Radius 0 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total Oak Grove Pkwy 24%6%17%15%13%13%8%4%1%100% 93rd Ave 26%7%16%14%13%11%6%4%2%100% 85th Ave 27%8%16%13%12%12%7%3%1%100% Brooklyn Blvd 28%9%16%13%11%12%8%3%1%100% 63rd Ave 27%10%16%13%11%10%7%4%2%100% Bass Lake Rd 22%8%15%15%14%13%8%4%2%100% Robbinsdale 22%7%15%15%13%13%8%4%3%100% Golden Valley Rd 28%11%14%13%12%11%7%3%1%100% Plymouth Ave 29%12%14%12%11%11%6%3%1%100% Penn Ave 31%11%16%13%11%10%6%2%1%100% Van White 24%12%22%13%11%10%5%2%1%100% Corridor Cities & Region 0 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65-74 75-84 85+Total Golden Valley 21%4%13%10%15%17%11%5%4%100% Robbinsdale 21%6%19%14%14%11%7%5%3%100% Crystal 24%3%16%15%14%13%7%5%2%100% Brooklyn Park 31%7%16%13%14%11%6%3%1%100% Hennepin County 25%7%17%13%14%12%7%4%2%100% Twin Cities MSA 27%6%15%13%15%12%7%4%2%100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 117 Median Age (2000-2022) 1/2 Mile Radius 2000 2010 2017 2022 Oak Grove Pkwy 39.0 36.4 37.5 38.2 93rd Ave 29.6 32.8 33.9 35.7 85th Ave 35.3 34.6 35.7 36.7 Brooklyn Blvd 31.9 30.2 31.5 32.1 63rd Ave 30.4 30.6 32.0 32.6 Bass Lake Rd 35.7 37.0 38.2 39.0 Robbinsdale 38.2 36.7 38.9 40.4 Golden Valley Rd 34.9 37.8 39.7 41.2 Plymouth Ave 29.5 31.3 33.3 34.8 Penn Ave 24.9 28.1 29.0 29.4 Van White 21.8 25.5 26.7 27.3 Golden Valley 42.7 45.7 47.4 47.9 Robbinsdale 37.6 36.9 38.7 39.9 Crystal 36.9 38.0 39.5 40.3 Brooklyn Park 32.0 32.6 33.6 34.6 Hennepin County 34.9 35.9 37.3 38.1 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works118 Household Size 2015 1/2-Mile Radius Oak Grove Pkwy 3.3 93rd Ave 3.7 85th Ave 2.8 Brooklyn Blvd 3.0 63rd Ave 2.5 Bass Lake Rd 2.5 Robbinsdale 2.1 Golden Valley Rd 2.5 Plymouth Ave 3.1 Penn Ave 3.1 Van White 2.7 Corridor (1/2-mile)2.5 Corridor (1-mile)2.6 1- Mile Radius Oak Grove Pkwy 2.8 93rd Ave 2.8 85th Ave 2.9 Brooklyn Blvd 2.8 63rd Ave 2.6 Bass Lake Rd 2.4 Robbinsdale 2.3 Golden Valley Rd 2.7 Plymouth Ave 2.8 Penn Ave 2.7 Van White 2.2 Corridor 2.4 Cities & Region Brooklyn Park 2.9 Crystal 2.4 Robbinsdale 2.3 Golden Valley 2.3 Hennepin County 2.3 Twin Cities MSA 2.5 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 5-year ACS, Esri, Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 119 Household Type (2015) Household Type Married Couple w/ Children Married Couple w/o Children Other Family w/ Children Other Family w/o Children Non- family (2+ persons) Living Alone Half Mile Radius Oak Grove Pkwy 13 9 4 3 1 8 93rd Ave 91 62 61 17 7 39 85th Ave 354 335 114 36 36 329 Brooklyn Blvd 151 165 167 83 23 124 63rd Ave 362 400 428 132 115 538 Bass Lake Rd 174 157 89 57 86 357 Robbinsdale 154 325 185 120 209 790 Golden Valley Rd 174 342 133 64 89 288 Plymouth Ave 190 260 271 74 148 291 Penn Ave 264 254 594 180 214 610 Van White 176 124 658 76 118 607 Corridor (1/2-Mile)3,329 3,920 3,417 1,247 1,488 5,486 One Mile Radius Oak Grove Pkwy 138 96 55 29 7 77 93rd Ave 564 480 251 99 42 456 85th Ave 984 872 611 157 128 827 Brooklyn Blvd 660 706 679 214 125 865 63rd Ave 1,175 1,025 1,148 417 297 1,664 Bass Lake Rd 938 889 504 257 372 1,352 Robbinsdale 1,021 1,501 769 494 622 2,056 Golden Valley Rd 887 978 959 361 424 1,276 Plymouth Ave 739 813 1,174 374 414 1,261 Penn Ave 858 887 1,716 433 613 1,851 Van White 729 1,133 1,628 387 841 3,706 Corridor 7,010 8,058 6,619 2,507 3,060 12,797 Cities & Region Brooklyn Park 6,543 6,694 4,436 1,776 1,107 6,202 Crystal 1,735 2,085 1,058 707 737 3,026 Robbinsdale 1,033 1,416 715 371 610 2,016 Golden Valley 1,578 2,844 707 542 514 2,720 Hennepin County 94,700 120,473 44,999 23,774 45,563 160,687 Twin Cities MSA 305,630 367,720 127,855 64,344 98,744 370,102 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works120 Households by Number of Bedrooms Owner- Occupied Total No Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5+ Bedrooms Total Bedrooms Oak Grove N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 93rd Ave 649 0 10 170 161 254 54 2,130 85th Ave 2,407 12 29 576 626 1,008 156 7,914 Brooklyn Blvd 3,183 12 119 641 1,108 1,118 185 10,171 63rd Ave 2,552 0 112 495 1,352 486 107 7,658 Bass Lake Rd 2,334 0 24 418 1,417 397 78 7,105 Robbinsdale 2,609 14 122 502 1,457 427 87 7,671 Golden Valley Rd 3,357 0 35 533 1,771 831 187 10,710 Plymouth Ave 2,048 0 14 277 1,087 501 169 6,712 Penn Ave 2,502 0 50 602 1,155 519 176 7,710 Van White 1,871 7 105 385 743 438 193 5,867 Brooklyn Park 18,743 12 267 3,446 6,963 6,278 1,777 62,412 Crystal 6,594 0 107 1,134 3,794 1,345 214 20,250 Robbinsdale 4,083 14 105 791 2,312 732 129 12,236 Golden Valley 6,851 0 127 915 3,179 2,070 560 22,686 Hennepin County 307,395 595 12,504 67,039 118,634 81,659 26,964 969,928 Twin Cities MSA 932,769 1,449 23,571 185,911 371,780 268,897 81,161 3,009,807 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 121 Households by Number of Bedrooms – Renter-Occupied 2015 Renter- Occupied Total No Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5+ Bedrooms Total Bedrooms Oak Grove N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 93rd Ave 45 0 0 32 13 0 0 103 85th Ave 528 0 97 187 135 84 25 1,342 Brooklyn Blvd 964 0 293 306 216 124 25 2,179 63rd Ave 2,124 79 652 1,042 263 81 7 3,964 Bass Lake Rd 576 6 71 191 217 91 0 1,474 Robbinsdale 1,805 50 739 747 213 30 26 3,177 Golden Valley Rd 1,320 14 104 481 491 215 15 3,491 Plymouth Ave 1,194 39 233 426 305 176 15 2,821 Penn Ave 3,343 198 801 1,109 758 359 118 7,541 Van White 3,295 220 957 1,143 598 266 111 6,898 Brooklyn Park 8,015 250 2,749 3,116 1,063 597 240 16,056 Crystal 2,754 75 932 939 643 159 6 5,481 Robbinsdale 2,078 50 739 914 323 26 26 3,825 Golden Valley 2,054 42 698 821 391 85 17 3,983 Hennepin County 182,801 12,192 72,588 64,026 23,385 7,690 2,920 328,931 Twin Cities MSA 401,626 21,118 140,480 152,216 61,485 19,819 6,508 763,603 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works122 Households by Number of Bedrooms – All Occupied Households 2015 Total-Occupied Total No Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms 5+ Bedrooms Total Bedrooms Oak Grove N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 93rd Ave 694 0 10 202 174 254 54 2,233 85th Ave 2,935 12 126 763 761 1,092 181 9,256 Brooklyn Blvd 4,147 12 412 947 1,324 1,242 210 12,350 63rd Ave 4,676 79 764 1,537 1,615 567 114 11,623 Bass Lake Rd 2,910 6 95 609 1,634 488 78 8,579 Robbinsdale 4,414 64 861 1,249 1,670 457 113 10,849 Golden Valley Rd 4,677 14 139 1,014 2,262 1,046 202 14,201 Plymouth Ave 3,242 39 247 703 1,392 677 184 9,533 Penn Ave 5,845 198 851 1,711 1,913 878 294 15,251 Van White 5,166 227 1,062 1,528 1,341 704 304 12,765 Brooklyn Park 26,758 262 3,016 6,562 8,026 6,875 2,017 78,468 Crystal 9,348 75 1,039 2,073 4,437 1,504 220 25,731 Robbinsdale 6,161 64 844 1,705 2,635 758 155 16,061 Golden Valley 8,905 42 825 1,736 3,570 2,155 577 26,669 Hennepin County 490,196 12,787 85,092 131,065 142,019 89,349 29,884 1,298,859 Twin Cities MSA 1,334,395 22,567 164,051 338,127 433,265 288,716 87,669 3,773,410 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 123 Year Householder Moved Into Dwelling Unit (2015) 1/2 Mile Radius Moved in 2010 or later Moved in 2000 to 2009 Moved in 1990 to 1999 Moved in 1980 to 1989 Moved in 1979 and Earlier Oak Grove Pkwy 113 195 47 22 26 93rd Ave 534 846 365 88 59 85th Ave 1,028 1,446 628 249 227 Brooklyn Blvd 960 1,256 532 216 285 63rd Ave 2,371 1,675 755 349 576 Bass Lake Rd 1,310 1,365 617 385 634 Robbinsdale 2,027 2,227 1,007 437 764 Golden Valley Rd 1,874 1,427 653 339 591 Plymouth Ave 2,189 1,165 557 307 557 Penn Ave 2,855 2,030 583 290 599 Van White Blvd 4,319 2,733 500 268 604 Corridor (1/2-mile)14,819 13,304 5,255 2,602 4,071 Brooklyn Park 8,816 9,739 4,702 1,928 1,573 Crystal 2,693 2,803 1,513 954 1,385 Golden Valley 1,956 3,175 1,655 932 1,187 Minneapolis 74,762 52,112 20,714 10,650 10,147 Robbinsdale 2,027 2,251 939 358 586 Hennepin County 172,848 161,342 79,003 39,882 37,121 Twin Cities MSA 417,614 472,598 230,987 110,528 102,668 Sources: US Census, ACS 2011-2015 Estimate; Esri HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works124 Number of Vehicles Available to Households All Occupied Housing Units None 1 2 3 or More Oak Grove Pkwy 1 111 212 70 93rd Ave 59 546 869 325 85th Ave 115 1,055 1,711 486 Brooklyn Blvd 338 1,055 1,261 366 63rd Ave 610 2,391 1,900 613 Bass Lake Rd 344 1,716 1,606 502 Robbinsdale 762 2,345 2,369 786 Golden Valley Rd 649 1,668 1,941 470 Plymouth Ave 895 1,733 1,540 426 Penn Ave 1,472 2,463 1,814 408 Van White Blvd 2,316 3,857 1,789 321 Corridor (1-mile)5,345 15,505 13,930 3,962 Brooklyn Park 2,156 7,734 10,541 6,327 Crystal 747 3,403 3,836 1,362 Robbinsdale 727 2,196 2,367 871 Golden Valley 497 3,162 4,012 1,234 Minneapolis 30,549 70,851 52,200 14,785 Hennepin County 50,479 176,114 189,982 73,621 Twin Cities MSA 100,220 411,746 549,084 273,345 Source: Esri, Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 125 Race, Ethnicity, and Hispanic Origin (2015) 1/2 Mile Radius White African Amer. Amer. Indian Asian Pacific Islander Other Race Two or More Races Total Hispanic* Oak Grove Pkwy 198 44 1 33 1 4 8 289 7 93rd Ave 462 174 2 321 0 14 26 999 28 85th Ave 1,760 707 7 883 7 68 158 3,591 133 Brooklyn Blvd 814 818 18 421 0 49 107 2,229 143 63rd Ave 1,891 1,654 19 325 0 544 214 4,647 823 Bass Lake Rd 1,440 487 14 142 0 168 111 2,365 270 Robbinsdale 2,907 820 13 172 0 92 176 4,183 234 Golden Valley Rd 1,475 878 14 197 0 58 156 2,778 142 Plymouth Ave 968 2,137 43 416 0 125 227 3,921 227 Penn Ave 1,206 3,255 87 1,081 0 250 362 6,248 481 Van White 779 3,047 39 558 0 240 230 4,899 554 Corridor 24,951 15,304 354 5,505 0 2,020 2,374 50,508 3,889 1 Mile Radius Oak Grove Pkwy 1,114 273 5 263 5 24 43 1,730 40 93rd Ave 3,118 874 17 1,484 0 92 167 5,753 184 85th Ave 5,188 2,513 43 2,339 11 271 455 10,831 520 Brooklyn Blvd 4,109 3,254 60 1,711 10 338 468 9,950 687 63rd Ave 7,019 4,520 74 1,234 0 1,368 654 14,870 2,141 Bass Lake Rd 7,467 1,817 77 617 0 485 562 11,014 859 Robbinsdale 11,330 2,111 76 623 15 349 699 15,188 835 Golden Valley Rd 5,477 6,173 148 1,688 15 444 859 14,804 933 Plymouth Ave 3,601 7,557 193 2,045 15 489 919 14,817 978 Penn Ave 4,455 9,668 222 2,440 18 702 980 18,486 1,405 Van White 7,291 9,295 277 2,622 21 682 1,109 21,319 1,684 Corridor 55,610 30,489 859 11,272 107 3,972 5,046 107,356 7,944 Cities & Region Golden Valley 17,352 1,787 132 860 0 126 609 20,866 529 Robbinsdale 11,353 1,992 58 218 0 180 488 14,289 507 Crystal 18,429 2,337 161 804 0 312 564 22,607 1,858 Brooklyn Park 40,851 20,998 246 11,986 57 1,617 2,440 78,195 5,133 Hennepin County 889,634 145,718 8,273 81,406 475 30,305 41,965 1,197,776 81,719 Twin Cities MSA 2,790,735 262,209 20,834 211,862 1,192 64,386 107,572 3,458,790 192,461 * Persons of Hispanic origin can be of any race Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 5-year ACS, Esri, Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works126 Household Income 2015 1/2 Mile Radius <$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 -$74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Median Oak Grove Pkwy 4 4 10 8 20 13 18 5 6 88 $71,454 93rd Ave 6 13 18 20 49 52 79 26 12 275 $88,134 85th Ave 52 66 97 153 270 172 227 161 102 1,300 $76,323 Brooklyn Blvd 93 119 44 116 108 130 79 41 16 746 $50,160 63rd Ave 183 316 255 342 401 156 140 39 16 1,848 $41,101 Bass Lake Rd 97 131 111 103 256 118 101 10 21 948 $51,914 Robbinsdale 218 321 160 307 407 181 230 96 34 1,954 $48,121 Golden Valley Rd 69 97 77 116 185 108 235 115 90 1,092 $75,360 Plymouth Ave 159 139 118 175 225 143 172 71 61 1,263 $53,189 Penn Ave 451 352 243 330 300 142 116 36 15 1,985 $32,276 Van White 703 338 242 237 153 66 53 15 21 1,828 $20,186 Corridor (1/2-mile)2,298 2,380 1,881 2,716 3,813 2,218 2,570 843 550 19,269 $51,570 Corridor (1-mile)4,351 4,520 4,114 5,547 7,922 5,045 6,140 2,137 1,768 41,544 $55,170 1 Mile Radius <$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Median Oak Grove Pkwy 23 26 64 56 135 100 138 37 40 619 $76,002 93rd Ave 78 115 161 233 374 293 437 197 116 2,004 $77,670 85th Ave 171 226 341 462 762 570 691 328 170 3,721 $70,407 Brooklyn Blvd 334 366 365 493 688 504 443 152 75 3,420 $53,887 63rd Ave 568 853 757 958 1,162 594 521 145 79 5,637 $43,841 Bass Lake Rd 359 445 473 543 1,077 669 655 156 124 4,501 $57,408 Robbinsdale 489 761 555 950 1,488 822 1,079 330 137 6,611 $56,833 Golden Valley Rd 512 562 521 643 872 562 776 261 202 4,911 $54,553 Plymouth Ave 752 701 502 696 775 429 536 216 167 4,774 $43,146 Penn Ave 1,413 942 762 926 893 493 458 239 193 6,319 $35,492 Van White 1,744 1,099 866 1,056 1,154 819 1,080 451 655 8,924 $44,753 Corridor 4,351 4,520 4,114 5,547 7,922 5,045 6,140 2,137 1,768 41,544 $55,170 Cities & Region <$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Median Brooklyn Park 2,049 2,323 2,483 4,128 4,511 4,212 4,586 1,490 976 26,758 $62,974 Crystal 710 882 965 1,311 2,266 1,275 1,435 371 133 9,348 $59,188 Robbinsdale 795 530 463 935 1,066 911 1,098 262 101 6,161 $57,357 Golden Valley 546 697 585 717 1,631 1,031 1,813 797 1,088 8,905 $81,534 Hennepin County 49,098 41,037 40,528 58,734 83,304 63,792 78,453 34,052 41,198 490,196 $65,834 Twin Cities MSA 111,789 104,137 105,671 158,769 242,392 191,985 234,382 95,089 90,181 1,334,395 $68,778 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 5-year ACS, Esri, Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 127 Household Income by Age of Householder 2015 (1-mile Radius) Age: Under 25 <$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Oak Grove Pkwy 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 12 93rd Ave 2 5 6 7 8 6 5 1 1 41 85th Ave 7 12 15 17 21 12 8 3 1 96 Brooklyn Blvd 32 30 22 23 26 15 5 2 1 156 63rd Ave 68 93 62 67 53 17 9 4 1 374 Bass Lake Rd 15 18 20 15 25 10 4 5 0 112 Robbinsdale 19 30 20 34 38 15 8 3 0 167 Golden Valley Rd 35 42 27 26 31 12 6 2 0 181 Plymouth Ave 50 51 28 33 31 12 6 4 0 215 Penn Ave 126 77 43 51 36 14 7 2 0 356 Van White 217 129 112 117 83 49 48 20 18 793 Corridor 403 359 286 312 296 137 96 40 22 1,951 Age: 25-44 <$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Oak Grove Pkwy 2 3 9 9 27 21 31 11 12 125 93rd Ave 10 12 26 40 70 68 107 62 30 425 85th Ave 21 24 48 76 147 127 162 100 47 752 Brooklyn Blvd 48 43 49 79 134 101 104 46 22 626 63rd Ave 78 92 102 149 212 120 112 42 25 932 Bass Lake Rd 54 53 65 90 227 146 151 47 41 874 Robbinsdale 56 85 76 152 277 165 240 96 39 1,186 Golden Valley Rd 80 72 80 110 171 111 175 78 54 931 Plymouth Ave 134 98 81 125 148 82 116 63 46 893 Penn Ave 207 119 115 165 172 95 102 81 60 1,116 Van White 231 129 113 168 197 128 176 95 144 1,381 Corridor 1395 1,394 1,588 2,096 3,245 2,231 2,860 906 738 16,453 Age: 45-64 <$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Oak Grove Pkwy 8 8 22 20 54 39 58 17 20 246 93rd Ave 30 31 57 79 145 121 187 94 55 799 85th Ave 63 64 113 155 300 241 302 162 86 1,486 Brooklyn Blvd 127 105 113 165 272 203 198 78 39 1,300 63rd Ave 174 195 197 284 395 221 209 67 44 1,786 Bass Lake Rd 133 125 142 180 432 269 289 77 70 1,717 Robbinsdale 156 213 165 309 555 320 469 161 65 2,413 Golden Valley Rd 194 167 166 222 331 225 339 140 111 1,895 Plymouth Ave 299 216 156 244 287 164 230 112 91 1,799 Penn Ave 462 259 222 312 327 184 192 131 113 2,202 Van White 561 291 213 309 366 231 316 150 255 2,692 Corridor 1460 1225 1,177 1,759 2,899 1,901 2,514 998 850 14,783 HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works128 Age: 65+<$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Oak Grove Pkwy 9 8 20 13 26 14 15 3 3 111 93rd Ave 28 50 47 71 77 40 36 15 13 377 85th Ave 53 91 101 134 135 77 72 22 16 701 Brooklyn Blvd 72 124 100 120 103 62 45 9 3 638 63rd Ave 144 246 201 222 233 97 63 20 2 1,228 Bass Lake Rd 114 190 162 189 217 118 74 14 11 1,089 Robbinsdale 213 341 186 293 311 154 127 29 15 1,669 Golden Valley Rd 121 177 128 152 169 91 98 37 37 1,010 Plymouth Ave 152 211 112 139 143 68 72 30 26 953 Penn Ave 264 270 133 151 135 70 50 20 16 1,109 Van White 312 289 105 116 103 61 64 19 33 1,102 Corridor 1094 1,542 1,062 1,380 1,483 776 668 193 159 8,357 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 5-year ACS; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services HOUSING GAPS ANALYSIS - 6.28.2018 Bottineau Community Works 129 Household Income by Age of Householder 2015 Age: Under 25 <$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Golden Valley 546 697 585 717 1,631 1,031 1,813 797 1,088 8,905 Robbinsdale 795 530 463 935 1,066 911 1,098 262 101 6,161 Crystal 710 882 965 1,311 2,266 1,275 1,435 371 133 9,348 Brooklyn Park 2,049 2,323 2,483 4,128 4,511 4,212 4,586 1,490 976 26,758 Hennepin County 49,098 41,037 40,528 58,734 83,304 63,792 78,453 34,052 41,198 490,196 Twin Cities MSA 111,789 104,137 105,671 158,769 242,392 191,985 234,382 95,089 90,181 1,334,395 Age: 25-44 <$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Golden Valley 546 697 585 717 1,631 1,031 1,813 797 1,088 8,905 Robbinsdale 795 530 463 935 1,066 911 1,098 262 101 6,161 Crystal 710 882 965 1,311 2,266 1,275 1,435 371 133 9,348 Brooklyn Park 2,049 2,323 2,483 4,128 4,511 4,212 4,586 1,490 976 26,758 Hennepin County 49,098 41,037 40,528 58,734 83,304 63,792 78,453 34,052 41,198 490,196 Twin Cities MSA 111,789 104,137 105,671 158,769 242,392 191,985 234,382 95,089 90,181 1,334,395 Age: 45-64 <$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Golden Valley 546 697 585 717 1,631 1,031 1,813 797 1,088 8,905 Robbinsdale 795 530 463 935 1,066 911 1,098 262 101 6,161 Crystal 710 882 965 1,311 2,266 1,275 1,435 371 133 9,348 Brooklyn Park 2,049 2,323 2,483 4,128 4,511 4,212 4,586 1,490 976 26,758 Hennepin County 49,098 41,037 40,528 58,734 83,304 63,792 78,453 34,052 41,198 490,196 Twin Cities MSA 111,789 104,137 105,671 158,769 242,392 191,985 234,382 95,089 90,181 1,334,395 Age: 65+<$15,000 $15,000 - $24,999 $25,000 - $34,999 $35,000 - $49,999 $50,000 - $74,999 $75,000 - $99,999 $100,000 - $149,999 $150,000 - $199,999 $200,000+Total Golden Valley 546 697 585 717 1,631 1,031 1,813 797 1,088 8,905 Robbinsdale 795 530 463 935 1,066 911 1,098 262 101 6,161 Crystal 710 882 965 1,311 2,266 1,275 1,435 371 133 9,348 Brooklyn Park 2,049 2,323 2,483 4,128 4,511 4,212 4,586 1,490 976 26,758 Hennepin County 49,098 41,037 40,528 58,734 83,304 63,792 78,453 34,052 41,198 490,196 Twin Cities MSA 111,789 104,137 105,671 158,769 242,392 191,985 234,382 95,089 90,181 1,334,395 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2015 5-year ACS; Esri; Tangible Consulting Services DRAFT CHAPTER 4: Housing & Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan 2040 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter evaluates Brooklyn Center’s existing housing stock and plans for future housing needs based on household projections, population projections, and identified needs communicated through this planning process. As required in the City’s 2015 System Statement prepared by the Metropolitan Council, understanding and planning for the City’s housing stock is a critical part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The City’s planned land use includes three residential categories and residential components of new mixed-use designations which together account for approximately half of the City’s land use area. Residential land use will continue to be the largest land use in the community. A diverse housing stock that offers neighborhood stability combined with access to open space, goods and services is essential to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient community. It protects the community’s tax base against market fluctuations; it builds community pride and engagement of existing residents; it helps the community’s economic competitiveness by assisting Brooklyn Center businesses with employee attraction and retention; it provides options for existing residents to remain in the community should their life circumstances (e.g., aging-in-place) change; and it offers future residents access to amenities and levels of service that support a stable and supportive housing and neighborhood environment. The first part of this Chapter focuses on the existing housing stock. It summarizes important information regarding the overall number of housing units, the type of units, their affordability, and the profile of their residents. These sections are a summary of more detailed socio-economic data which is attached to this Plan as an Appendix and serves as a supporting resource to this Chapter. Understanding the existing housing stock is key to determining what types of housing products may be demanded over the next 10-20 years and where they should be located. In conjunction to the statistical or inventory information collected, this Chapter includes a summary of community, stakeholder and policy-maker feedback related to housing and neighborhoods heard throughout this planning process. Additionally, this Chapter addresses the projected housing needs during the planning period and presents some neighborhood and housing aspirations as identified by the City’s residents and policy-makers. The final section of this Chapter links projected housing need to practical implementation tools to help the City achieve its housing goals and identified strategies. The list contained in this Chapter is not exhaustive but provides a starting place from which the City can continue to expand and consider opportunities to meet current and future resident needs. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-34-2 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY Overview of Brooklyn Center’s Residential Neighborhoods The City of Brooklyn Center’s residential neighborhoods are diverse and include a variety of housing types from single-family neighborhoods to large-scale apartment complexes. Although the City originally incorporated as a village in 1911, it wasn’t until the Post-World War II era that the City began to develop on a large scale in which entire blocks and neighborhoods were constructed with tract housing, suburban streets, and neighborhood parks. Like much of the region’s first ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center took on the role of a typical bedroom community where residents could get to their jobs in the downtown, stop for groceries at the retail center, and go home and park their cars in their garages for the evening. This pattern of development can be seen throughout the region, but Brooklyn Center had one significant difference for many decades – the regional mall known as Brookdale. The prominence of the mall and its surrounding commercial district played a major role in how neighborhoods were built and developed, which influenced neighborhood patterns and housing types. Even though the mall is now gone, it continues to have lasting effects on the existing housing types and neighborhoods and will influence future housing as described in subsequent sections of this Chapter. For example, in the decades that the mall and regional retail center was operational much of Brooklyn Center’s multi-family and apartment development was concentrated near the mall and its surrounding commercial district and provided a transition to the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Therefore, even though the mall no longer exists, the apartments developed around the periphery of its retail area in the 1960s continue to be in high demand and provide a critical source of housing for many households. 2040 Housing & Neighborhood Goals »Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and accessible housing options to all of Brooklyn Center’s residents. »Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing with the City’s changing demographics. »Explore opportunities to improve the City’s housing policies and ordinances to make them more responsive to current and future residents. »Maintain the existing housing stock in primarily single-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentive programs and enforcement. »Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas that promote safe, secure and economically diverse neighborhoods. * Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals and Strategies HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-54-4 While related to housing age, the size or square footage of single-family homes also plays a significant role in the demographics of a community. Changes to family structure, technology, and other factors alter housing preferences over time, which can lead to functional obsolescence of homes and result in reduced home values because they no longer meet current buyers’ expectations. Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock is fairly homogeneous and the overwhelming majority of homes in every neighborhood are less than 1,500 square feet – and in many areas less than 1,000 square feet. This is a relatively modest single-family housing size, and, therefore, the single-family housing stock lacks diversity, which results in lack of choice for current and prospective residents. At the same time, these homes offer an option for small families, single and two-person households, and first time homebuyers. Because the majority of the City’s single-family housing stock is relatively small, older, and of a homogeneous type as compared to newer larger homes or neighborhoods with more housing variety, housing prices in Brooklyn Center tend to be affordable. Also, given the similar age, size and styles of many of the homes, housing in the community has a fairly consistent price-per- square foot. Affordability in the existing housing stock can be a positive attribute that has the potential to provide long-term stability to residents and neighborhoods. However, as shown in the Background Report residents of Brooklyn Center also tend to have lower median household incomes, which can mean residents may struggle to pay for large-scale capital investments in their homes such as replacing windows or a roof. Additionally, within the region some communities with similar single-family stock to Brooklyn Center have experienced pressure for tear-downs and major remodeling, and that market trend has yet to reach the City. While that trend may eventually impact the community, at the present time the change and growth impacting the single-family neighborhoods is mostly related to the evolving demographics within the community. This change presents different considerations and challenges because it is not necessarily physical growth or changes to homes and neighborhoods. Instead the community is challenged with how to manage larger numbers of people living within a household such as growing numbers of multi- generational households. The following sections identify and inventory the existing housing stock in the community including single-family, attached and apartment uses. Each of these housing types serve a different role in the community, but each type is an important part of the City’s neighborhoods. A summary of the City’s existing residential types and neighborhoods are as follows: Single-Family Residential Single-family residential neighborhoods are the dominant land use within the City and single- family detached homes comprise nearly 63 percent of the City’s housing stock. The City’s single-family detached neighborhoods were developed surrounding higher density and higher intensity land uses that included the former regional retail center and the major freeway corridors of I-94 and Highway 100. Most of the single-family neighborhoods are developed on a grid system with traditional ‘urban’ size lots. Exceptions of some larger lots are interspersed within the traditional block pattern and along the Mississippi River where a pocket of residents have views and/or frontage of the river corridor. The 1950s were the peak decade for housing construction in the City; a period in which owner- occupied housing predominated. While other housing types began to emerge post 1950s, the demand for single-family detached housing continued through 1980 as the remaining land in the community developed. Given the period in which the majority of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock was built, nearly the entire single-family detached housing stock is more than 40 years old. This is a major concern because at 40 years of age exterior components of a building including siding, windows, and roofs often need to be replaced to protect its structural integrity. Because the City became mostly built-out by the late 1970s, nearly all of the City’s housing stock falls into this category, which means the City must be cognizant of potential issues and proactively monitor the situation to ensure neighborhoods are sustainable into the future. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-74-6 Multi-family Residential Nearly one third (29 percent) of the City’s housing units are in multi-family residential buildings located throughout the community. Nearly all of these buildings were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, and are primarily located on major roadways or corridors, and surrounding the former regional retail areas. This means these buildings are nearly 50 years old or older. Just as noted within the single-family neighborhoods, the potential for deterioration and need for significant investment in these aging buildings can pose a threat to the quality of the City’s housing stock if the buildings are not properly maintained, managed and updated. There has been some maintenance and management of the multi-family housing stock, and a few complexes have even incorporated modest upgrades to the interiors. In fact, the City has started one large-scale rehabilitation of a building that would bring higher-market rate rental options to the community once completed. However, this is one project and despite these improvements the City’s multi-family housing stock continues to be one of the most affordable in the region with some of the lowest rental rates in the metropolitan area. Many of the multi-family areas are near major corridors and are adjacent to high intensity uses that do not necessarily support or serve the residential use with the current development and land use patterns. As a result, many of the multi-family areas do not feel like an incorporated part of the City’s neighborhoods. As discussed in subsequent sections of this Chapter, the City is planning for redevelopment in or adjacent to many of the existing multi- family areas that will hopefully reinvigorate and reconnect the existing multi-family uses into a larger neighborhood context. Existing Single-family Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process Throughout this planning process policy-makers and residents alike expressed the desire to maintain the affordability of the existing single-family neighborhoods but acknowledged the current challenges of helping residents maintain their structures, blocks and neighborhoods in the face of compounding maintenance due to the age of the City’s neighborhoods. In addition to the physical condition of the structures, residents and policy-makers also acknowledged that as the City’s population and demographics become increasingly more diverse new residents are changing how existing homes are being occupied and, therefore, it would be valuable for the City to evaluate it’s ordinances and policies to ensure they align with the needs of residents. The demographic considerations are identified in subsequent sections of this Chapter, but it is worth noting that the demographic changes can have a significant impact the character of existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Most recognized this as a positive change, but also acknowledged and stated that the City must figure out how to pro-actively address some of these changes to protect the existing neighborhood fabric. For example, multi-generational households are becoming increasingly more prevalent within the City’s single-family neighborhoods which can impact how rooms within a home are used, how many cars may be present at the home, and how outdoor spaces and yards may be used. Closely related to the demographic changes in the community is the City’s aspiration to promote and maintain neighborhood stability. This objective emerged repeatedly throughout this planning process as residents and policy-makers expressed the desire to identify strategies to help promote and encourage sustainability, resiliency and accessibility within the single-family neighborhoods. In part this objective is the result of several years of turnover within the single- family neighborhoods as long-term residents begin to age and move onto other housing options, new residents and families are moving into the neighborhoods. This life-cycle of housing is common, but the City wants to find ways to ensure new residents want to stay in their homes, their neighborhoods, and the community long-term and invest in making the City a better place for generations to come. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-94-8 Housing Stock Statistics The following existing housing stock characteristics support the previous neighborhood descriptions through more detail. This information, coupled with the previous description, provides a valuable baseline from which the City can evaluate and plan for the future of its housing stock. Total Housing Units According to data from the Metropolitan Council and the City of Brooklyn Center, there are 11,603 housing units in Brooklyn Center as of 2017. As a fully developed community, new residential development in Brooklyn Center has been limited since the late 1980s. According to the Metropolitan Council, around 100 new housing units have been built since 2000 and these homes were primarily small infill locations or small redevelopment opportunities. Housing Tenure (Owned and Rented Units) Nearly 40 percent of the community’s residents rent, and the majority of those renters live in apartment buildings which are integrated throughout the community. The Background Report in the Appendix includes maps illustrating the location of rental housing and demographics of renters. Given that a significant portion of the City’s population lives in apartments, the age of such structures becomes critically important to the overall health of the housing supply. The majority of the apartments were constructed prior to 1979 with the bulk of the units being constructed between 1966 and 1969. This means that the majority of the apartments is more than 50 years old, and that structural deficiencies and major capital improvements may be required in the relatively near term in order for the structures to remain marketable. Multifamily Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process Throughout this planning process the City’s residents were vocal about the existing multi-family options available in the community and the lack of diversity within the multi-family housing stock. Without a full inventory of all available multi-family units it is difficult to confirm some of the anecdotal comments heard throughout the process, but nevertheless it is important to consider since residents’ testimony provides valuable insight into the existing housing stock. Several residents indicated that there are few options available for larger multi-family units with at least three (3) bedrooms, making it difficult to find stable living options for families with more than two (2) children. Residents also communicated a desire to have housing options that were closer to supportive retail, commercial and services so that they could walk, bike or easily use transit to meet their needs. Despite these challenges, the City’s parks, trails and open spaces were viewed as an integral and important part of their quality of life. Similarly, to the single-family neighborhoods, the community’s aspiration to create a stable, accessible, and economically diverse multi-family housing stock was established as a short and long-term priority. Though not discussed at length during this planning process, it is widely known and understood that resident turnover, including evictions, is a serious problem that is most concentrated within the multi-family neighborhoods of the City. While this Chapter does not attempt to fully evaluate the causes for turnover and eviction in these neighborhoods, it does acknowledge it as a significant challenge and issue which shapes the character of these areas of the community. Turnover, including evictions, changes how residents feel about the community whether the City is directly involved or not. It has lasting affects on how safe people feel within a community, how invested in an area they want to become and how willing they are to contribute and reinvest in the City. For these reasons, it is imperative that the City tackle these issues and create a more stable, and integrated living environment so all residents feel a part of a neighborhood, and the larger community. 11,603 Brooklyn Center housing units as of February 2017 - Sources: Metropolitan Council 40% of community residents are renters - Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-114-10 Approximately 86 percent of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock (over 10,000 units) is more than 40 years old. This is an overwhelming portion of the City’s housing, and it is therefore important to track the condition of these older homes as they are at-risk of deferred maintenance. This can rapidly result in critical structural problems. At the same time, well-maintained older housing can be an important source of entry-level housing because of its relative affordability when compared to newer construction. Table 4-1. Year Built Housing Type Related to housing tenure is housing type. Due to Brooklyn Center’s peak time of housing development in the 1950s, the housing type is predominantly single-family detached homes. As of 2017, there are 8,270 units (71 percent) of single-family housing (attached and detached) and 3,333 (29 percent) classified as multi-family housing. The type of housing structure can influence not only affordability but also overall livability. Having a range of housing structures can provide residents of a community options that best meet their needs as they shift from one life stage to another. For example, retirees often desire multi-family housing not only for the ease of maintenance, but also for security reasons. Multifamily residences are less susceptible to home maintenance issues or burglary concerns because of on-site management. For those with health concerns, multi-family residences often have neighbors that can also provide oversight should an acute health problem occur. The majority (63 percent) of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock consists of detached single-family homes. This is above the proportion found in Hennepin County (55 percent) or throughout the metropolitan area (59 percent). Nevertheless, the City’s housing stock is diversified, with many multi-family units in large structures, as well as a significant number of single-family attached units. More detailed data are included in the Background Report in the Appendix. Year Built The age of the housing stock is an important characteristic of the community particularly as it relates to potential structural obsolescence and other limiting factors which correlate to housing values. As described earlier, much of Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock was developed post-World War II between 1950 and 1963 and many of the homes in this age range were dominated by rambler architectural styles. As shown on Map 15, entire neighborhoods were all constructed in a relatively short period of time which strongly defines a neighborhood pattern. As shown, most of Brooklyn Center was developed on a fairly regular grid pattern and does not reflect a ‘suburban’ development pattern. This is positive from the perspective that transportation and transit connections should be easier to improve, where necessary, because of the relatively dense population of the neighborhoods. However, aging neighborhoods can present a challenge as major systems (i.e. roof, siding, windows, HVAC, etc.) reach the end of their useful life. This can be particularly difficult if residents are unable to reinvest and maintain their properties, which leads to deferred maintenance and the potential for more significant problems that would become widespread across entire neighborhoods. 71% of housing units are single-family - Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC 86% of housing stock is more than 40 years old - Sources: US Census; SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-134-12 Map 4-1. Estimated Market Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Housing Affordability The Metropolitan Council considers housing affordable when low-income households are spending no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Households are considered low-income if their income is at or below 80 percent of the metropolitan area’s median income (AMI). The housing stock in Brooklyn Center is affordable relative to other communities in the Twin Cities region. According to the Metropolitan Council, 93 percent of the housing units in 2017 in Brooklyn Center were considered affordable. Moreover, only a small portion (5 percent) of this housing is publicly subsidized. Therefore, most housing is privately-owned and pricing is set by the market. According to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, there were 480 home sales in Brooklyn Center in 2017 with a median sales price of $186,125. This was roughly 25 percent lower than the Metro Area median sales price of $247,900. For rental housing, according to CoStar, a national provider of real estate data, the average monthly rent for a market rate apartment in Brooklyn Center in 2017 was $981 compared to the Metro Area average of $1,190.Brooklyn Center Broo klyn Park Columbia Heights Crystal Fridley Robbinsdale Minneapolis - Owner-Occupied Housing by Estimated Market Value 1/5/2018 .1 in = 0.55 miles Brooklyn Center County Boundaries City and Township Boundaries Streets Lakes and Rivers Owner-Occupied Housing Estimated Market Value, 2016 $243,500 or Less $243,501 to $350,000 $350,001 to $450,000 Over $450,000 Source: MetroGIS Regional Parcel Dataset, 2016 estimated market values for taxes payable in 2017. Note: Estimated Market Value includes only homesteaded units with a building on the parcel. $186,125 2017 median home sale price in Brooklyn Center $247,900 2017 median home sale price in the Metro Area - Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-154-14 The high rate of affordability is largely due to the prevalence of smaller and older homes in the single-family neighborhoods, and the age and level of improvements within the multi-family rental neighborhoods. Such small sized properties are typically less expensive because they have significantly less living space than newer homes (average construction square footage has increased each decade since the 1950s). Age and level of update and improvements within the apartment stock, coupled with the average number of bedrooms in the rental units is impacting the relative affordability of the multi-family units. The condition in both the single-family and multi-family housing stock is what is known as Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH), because the physical characteristics of the properties are what makes them affordable rather than the affordability being established through a legally binding contract. Although there is a high rate of affordability for existing units, the Metropolitan Council identifies a need for additional affordable units in any new housing construction added to the community through 2040. This condition would most likely be achieved by a legally binding contract, or some other financing mechanism as new affordable housing product would be difficult to achieve without some assistance given construction and land costs. Of the 2,258 projected new housing units, the Metropolitan Council establishes a need of 238 units to be affordable to households at or below 80 percent AMI to satisfy the regional share of affordable housing. Although nearly all of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock essentially fits within the criteria as naturally occurring affordable housing, there are some observable trends that would suggest the price of housing in Brooklyn Center could rise in the coming years. Most recently in 2018 the City’s for-sale housing median home sales price surpassed the pre-bust pricing. While the median remains below the regional median, it does indicate growing demand and increased pricing. Significant areas of redevelopment identified on the Future Land Use Plan, including the former regional mall (Brookdale) location, present opportunities for higher-market rates for new housing added. These opportunities have the potential to create a more economically diverse housing stock within the City, which is relatively homogeneous at the time this Plan is written. Given these opportunities, it is important to continue to monitor the City’s NOAH stock, and to evaluate and establish policies to incorporate legally binding and protected affordable housing as redevelopment occurs. This is a careful balancing act that requires concerted and direct monitoring, study, and evaluation in order to ensure an economically diverse, sustainable and resilient housing stock for the long-term success of the community. Table 4-2. Existing Housing Assessment Total Housing Units1 11,608 Affordability2 Units affordable to households with income at or below 30% of AMI Units affordable to households with income 31% to 50% of AMI Units affordable to households with income 51% to 80% of AMI 460 4,451 6,029 Tenure3 Ownership Units Rental Units 6,911 4,697 Type1 Single-family Units Multifamily Units Manufactured Homes Other Housing Units 8,275 3,333 0 0 Publicly Subsidized Units4 All publicly subsidized units Publicly subsidized senior units Publicly subsidized units for people with disabilities Publicly subsidized units: all others 553 22 0 531 Housing Cost Burdened Households5 Income at or below 30% of AMI Income 31% to 50% of AMI Income 51% to 80% AMI 1,691 1,406 895 1 Metropolitan Council, 2016 housing sock estimate. Single-family units include single-family detached homes and townhomes. Multifamily units include units in duplex, triplex, and quadplex buildings as well as those in buildings with five or more units. 2 Metropolitan Council staff estimates for 2016 based on 2016 and 2017 MetroGIS Regional Parcel Datasets (ownership units), 2010-2014 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data from HUD (rental units and household income), and the Council’s 2016 Manufactured Housing Parks Survey (manufactured homes). Counts from these datasets were adjusted to better match the Council’s estimates of housing units and households in 2016 as well as more current tenure, affordability, and income data from eh American Community Survey, home value data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and rents from HousingLink’s Twin Cities Rental Revue data. 3 US Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey five-year estimates; counts adjusted to better match the Council’s 2016 housing stock estimates. 4 Source: HousingLink Streams data (covers projects whose financing closed by December 2016) 5 Housing cost burden refers to households whose housing costs are at least 30% of their income. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010- 2014 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, with counts adjusted to better match Metropolitan Council 2016 household estimates. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-174-16 Cost Burdened Households Cost burden is the proportion of household income spent toward housing and utilities. When lower income households spend more than 30 percent of their income toward housing and utilities this burden is considered excessive because it begins to limit the money available for other essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and healthcare. According to data from the Metropolitan Council, 4,114 (35 percent) Brooklyn Center households at or below 80 percent average median income (AMI) are considered cost-burdened which means they spend more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. This percentage is well above the metro area rate of 23 percent. Half of these Brooklyn Center households are lower income households who earn at or less than 30 percent AMI. The high incidence of cost burdened households is correlated with younger wage earners, lower-wage jobs, and a high proportion of older households, many of which are in retirement and no longer working. FUTURE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Projected Housing Need As referenced in Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment and the following Table 4-4, the Metropolitan Council’s 2015 System Statement forecasts that Brooklyn Center will add approximately 4,169 new residents and 2,258 new households through 2040 and identifies the following affordable housing allocation to be accommodated between 2020 and 2030. Table 4-3. Affordable Housing Need Allocation At or below 30% AMI 103 31 to 50% AMI 0 51 to 80% AMI 135 Total Units 238 Source: 2015 System Statement - Metropolitan Council Housing Challenges inform Housing Needs The Metropolitan Council’s System Statement identifies approximately 10% of the planned housing units for some level of affordability as identified in Table 4-3. As described in other chapters of this Plan, for the first time since the post-World War II housing boom the City is expected to add a significant number of new households. These new households have the opportunity to provide a more diverse housing stock, and add to the options of available for existing and new residents in the community. Redevelopment can reinvigorate and revive KEY DEMOGRAPHICS Age Profile of the Population The age profile of a community has important ramifications on demand for housing, goods and services, and social cohesion. Tables and figures illustrating the City’s age distribution are presented in the Background Report in the Appendix. Unlike the broader region, in which the population continues to age rapidly, Brooklyn Center’s population grew younger between 2000 and 2010, and has stayed relatively stable since 2010. This is largely due to a significant increase in people age 25 to 34, many of which are starting families and having children. Increases in the number of young families place demands on schools, housing affordability, and the types of retail goods and services needed. The median age of residents in Brooklyn Center in 2016 was 32.8, which is consistent with the 2010 median age of 32.6. This is younger than 2000 when the median ages was 35.3. With such a young population, it is expected housing units may turn over more frequently. But, as of 2016, more than 60 percent all households have been living in their homes for more than five (5) years. More data about geographic mobility of households is found in the Background Report in the Appendix. Household & Family Type Changing family and household structures can also have a profound effect on housing and other community needs. For example, decreasing household size has a direct impact on the amount of housing a household needs. As mentioned, the presence of children not only impacts local schools and parks, but also the types of retailers that can be supported and the nature of housing demanded. Since 2010, the number of households with children in both single-parent and married couple households has been growing significantly. Meanwhile, the trend among households without children, especially married couples (i.e., empty-nesters) has been on the decline. The percentage of households with children is approaching 40 percent, which is well above the rate in the County and the metro area. 32.8 Median age of Brooklyn Center residents - Sources: US Census, SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-194-18 • The City has discussed developing a more formal housing action plan to better understand the needs of its residents. The plan would work to better understand cost-burdened households, eviction rates and policies, home-ownership racial disparities, and gaps in the housing stock. • Continuing to revise, enhance and modify its policies and ordinance to respond to residents needs. This includes monitoring best-practices in the region, being agile and open to changes and enhancements. As an example of this type of ordinance or policy response the City recently adopted a Tenant Protection Ordinance that is aimed and protecting the City’s residents ability to maintain stable, safe housing. The City’s projected housing needs are complex, and are likely to become more complicated as redevelopment occurs. However, the City intends to continue to prioritize discussion and action around creating safe and stable housing throughout the City. The following sections specifically address the new housing expected to be develop in this planning period. The new and redevelopment areas should be considered collectively with the City’s existing neighborhoods to ensure an incorporated, integrated approach to the City’s neighborhoods is achieved to create a dynamic community for generations to come. areas of the community with vibrant, experience-rich areas that will benefit everyone in the community. The City is excited for redevelopment to create a dynamic central hub of activity in the community, but also acknowledges that it must be balanced with strong assessment, planning and appropriate protection of its existing housing stock to ensure neighborhood sustainability and stability in all areas of the community. New housing stock brings the possibility of adverse impacts to existing single-family and multi-family properties if proactive steps are not taken to protect existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), single-family neighborhoods, and multi-family properties. The City’s policy makers throughout this process discussed and acknowledged that bringing new market-rate, amenity rich housing products could have deleterious affects specifically on existing naturally occurring affordable housing if a plan to protect affordability is not implemented. This is a huge concern as resident stability through access to safe and healthy housing is one of the City’s adopted strategic priorities. If proper tools are not in place there are no protections to keep rents reasonable for residents and to maintain reasonably priced for-sale housing as redevelopment takes holds. One of the positive aspects of the City’s identified redevelopment areas is that the land proposed for redevelopment does not contain existing housing. In a fully-development community this is unusual for a large redevelopment area, and is positive because no residents will be displaced as a result of the City’s redevelopment aspirations. However, even though residents will not be displaced directly, indirectly, redevelopment could increase the desirability of activities such as flipping single-family homes and converting NOAH multi-family properties for higher-rents. To address some of these concerns an extensive list of high-level tools have been outlined in Table 4-5 of this Chapter. The City recognizes that this chapter is only the start of an ongoing conversation, and it is the City’s policy-makers intent to continue to be proactive, and to collaborate with non-profits and advocate for a broader regional approach to housing affordability. In addition to the tools identified in Table 4-5, the City is also continuing conversations about: • Viability of a non-discrimination ordinance related to Section 8 acceptance. Adjacent Cities, including Minneapolis, have attempted to include ordinances in their tool-kit addressing this issue. While the issue is currently in court, Brooklyn Center will continue to monitor the process and may consider adoption of a similar ordinance depending on its outcome. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-214-20 Future Residential Uses in Planned [Re] Development Opportunity Areas Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a new land use and redevelopment concept in the City that focuses on existing and planned transit as a major amenity and catalyst for redevelopment. While previous planning efforts have acknowledged the presence of transit in the community, none have embraced it as an opportunity for redevelopment. As this portion of the City redevelops, the location of future transit enhancements has the potential to attract significant new housing development. Therefore, this is where guided densities are the highest. This is purposeful because the area has exceptional visibility and access from Highway 100 and I-94, and will be served by two transit stops (one being a transit hub) for the C-Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and the potential future D-Line BRT. The C-Line BRT is planned to open in 2019 and will mimic the operations of LRT (light rail transit), offering frequent transit service that will connect residents to the larger region. To best support the C-Line, and future D-Line, the City has planned to reinvigorate and re-imagine this central area of the community as a more livable, walkable, and connected neighborhood within the City. In addition, the potential for desirable views of Downtown Minneapolis could result in pressure to build taller structures in this area. Any development of this area should also be seen as an opportunity to support commercial users, improve multi-modal service and access, and allow safe, pleasant, and walkable connections to transit, parks, and other community destinations. As this area evolves, the desirability of this area as an amenity-rich livable area is likely to improve. As change occurs, the housing within the area is likely to be at market rates adding to a more economically diverse housing stock than is currently available in the community. This would add more housing choices in Brooklyn Center, and it could also support a mix of both market rate and affordable units; provided proper policies are developed to ensure legally binding affordable housing is incorporated into development plans. Communities oftentimes explore policies such as inclusionary zoning as redevelopment accelerates which may become an appropriate consideration in the future, but is likely not to be the best approach given current market conditions. However, in the future if significant increases in the market occur it may warrant further discussion in the City. Regardless of the policy tool (whether regulatory or incentive based) selected, consideration will need to be given to working with any future developer in a possible partnership with the City to help deliver affordable units as part of redevelopment. As described within the Chapter 9: Implementation, the City will continue to explore proper methodology and policies to ensure an economically diverse housing stock is created as housing continues to evolve in the community. New Housing Opportunities in this Planning Period Recognizing that the land use plan for Brooklyn Center identifies several key areas that are envisioned for new development or redevelopment, this will result in an opportunity to accommodate more housing and increase the City’s number of households. Based on guided residential densities in the development opportunity areas, the City can accommodate the Metropolitan Council’s forecasted households as well as meet the allocated affordable units as shown in Table 4-3 above. As indicated in the Land Use Chapter, depending on how the market responds to these redevelopment areas the City could accommodate anywhere between 2,658 and 3,836 new households by 2040 (Chapter 3: Table 3-5, repeated in the following Table 4-4). Table 4-4. Future Land Use Densities and Projected Acres, Households & Population Future Land Use Density (DU/A)2020 Acres (Res)b HH Popc 2030 Acres (Res)b HH Popc Transit Orient Development 31.01-130 DU/A 9 279 619 26 814 1,807 Neighborhood Mixed-Use 15.01-31 DU/A 13 195 433 19 285 632 Commercial Mixed Use 10.01 – 25 DU/A 8 80 178 15 150 333 High Density Residential 15.01-31 DU/A 212 3,180 7,060 212 3,180 7,060 TOTAL ----3,734 8,290 --4,429 9,832 Source: Metropolitan Council, Thrive 2040 Brooklyn Center 2015 System Statement, SHC. a Acreages assume that some recently redeveloped areas within these land use designations will not experience redevelopment until post-2040 and therefore households are not calculated. Please refer to Map 3-3 that identifies areas planned for change within this planning period. b Note, there are existing households in each of the designations today that would be re-guided for potential redevelopment in the future. This accounts for existing households and those that my potentially develop over the next two years. c Calculation multiplies households by 2.22 persons per household (According to the 2016 ACS (Census), for multi- family units (5+ units in structure) There are three large districts identified in the City with guided land use that allows for significant potential of new development and redevelopment through 2040. These areas have the potential to greatly expand Brooklyn Center’s current housing numbers and choices. Moreover, each opportunity area has the potential to not only provide new forms and types of housing but to catalyze or rejuvenate investment into the City resulting in stronger linkages between neighborhoods and districts that are currently isolated from one another. The following section discusses these areas further. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-234-22 Commercial Mixed-Use Areas The Commercial Mixed-Use areas generally surround the TOD area and are contemplated for large- scale redevelopment but are equally as focused on supporting business and office users. These areas are generally within one mile of the transit station that serves as a major hub for regional and local transit services, and therefore new housing will still have opportunities to capitalize on this as an amenity. Slightly less dense than the TOD district, these areas may provide exceptional opportunities to introduce multi-family uses such as town homes, row homes, and small lot single-family uses that could cater to larger families and incorporate more units with three or more bedrooms. As indicated in previous sections of this Chapter, the City’s residents expressed a desire to have access to more rental units with more bedrooms and larger square footages. While a detailed market study would likely be needed to confirm the demand for these uses, if we can take the anecdotal information as true, this area has the potential to support those types of uses. As with the TOD district, affordability is likely to become a consideration in any redevelopment within these areas because new construction naturally costs more and as the area redevelops interest and demand is likely to escalate costs. It is therefore important, just as with the redevelopment of the TOD district, that the City evaluate and explore ways to incorporate a range of affordable and market rate opportunities in new developments. Neighborhood Mixed-Use Areas The Neighborhood Mixed-Use is a new land use designation that responds to resident and policy-makers desire to incorporate retail and services into the neighborhood fabric. One of the ways the City can accomplish that objective is to create ‘nodes’ of mixed-uses that include residential uses, but protect key corners for small retailers, shops, or restaurants that create a more vibrant streetscape. The City acknowledges that these areas are less likely to redevelop with any regularity. Therefore, the number of new housing units expected to come on-line in these areas is a little less tangible than in areas with large contiguous redevelopment acres. However, the nodes have the opportunity to provide yet another housing style and type, as these areas are not envisioned for large high-rises or extensive master plans. Instead, these areas are contemplated to have smaller footprints with living units above a small store front or restaurant for example. HOUSING RESOURCES, STRATEGIES & TOOLS Table 4-5 outlines a variety of resources, strategies, and tools to implement Brooklyn Center’s identified housing needs and stated housing goals. There is a wealth of resources available to assist communities in meeting their goals. The following table should be considered a starting point. As the City’s housing needs evolve or become clearer, this set of tools should expand with options. Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies & Tools Housing Goal Tool/ Resource/ Strategy Description Affordability Target Promote a diverse stock that provides opportunities for all income levels Housing Demand Market Study Conduct a market study and gaps analysis to track housing demand. This study and report could double as a marketing and promotional piece about housing opportunities. <30% AMI 51-80% AMI HRA/CDA/ EDA Work with the County HRA and City EDA to protect and enhance existing NOAH in the City. Use Market Studies to help identify opportunities to meet housing needs in the City and evaluate ways to partner with the County and other program providers. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Site Assembly Consider strategies for assembling sites in high-density or mixed-use districts that would increase appeal to developers. <30% AMI 51-80% AMI CDBG Work with Hennepin County to use CDBG funds to help low-and moderate-income homeowners with rehabilitation assistance. CDBG funds will also be explored for use to support redevelopment efforts that meet the City’s goals towards a diverse housing stock (units and market/ affordable diversity). <30% AMI 51-80% AMI Tax Abatement Consider tax abatement for large rental project proposals that provide unit and income-mix within a single project. The City is particularly interested in projects with market diversity and units of different size to cater to a larger market (singles, families, multi-generational, etc). <30% AMI 51-80% AMI HOME and Affordable Housing Incentive Fund Consider application, and utilization, of HOME and Affordable Housing Incentive fund grants to support a diverse housing stock. The City will prioritize projects that include a unit size and income mix that meets the needs of single-person and families in the City. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI Housing Bonds The City would consider issuing Housing Bonds for projects that include units for large families, particularly in projects with a mix of unit sizes and incomes. However, it should be noted that there are limitations to the city bonding authority and other programs may be more suitable <30% AMI 51-80% AMI Brownfield Clean-up In potential redevelopment areas, explore EPA and MN DEED grant programs that provide funding and assistance with planning, assessment, and site clean-up. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% 4D for NOAH Properties The City will continue use of 4D classification for the purpose of protecting its Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) uses throughout the City. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI Pooled TIF Funds Explore the use of TIF housing funds to create a revolving loan program to support the rehabilitation of existing single- family and multi-family NOAH properties. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-254-24 Housing Goal Tool/ Resource/ Strategy Description Affordability Target Identify ways to match housing stock with changing demographic Housing Coordinator Position The City would create a position that would serve as a liaison to existing landlords to help them respond to shifting demographics through training and access to city resources. The position could also serve as a resource for tenants to connect to support services in the event of eviction notices, discriminatory practices, and other issues related to housing access. The position would include coordinating housing programs, including home ownership programs, resident financial literacy programs, with the intent to convert Brooklyn Center renters to successful home owners. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Referrals Review and update reference procedures and training for applicable staff including a plan to maintain our ability to refer residents to any applicable housing programs outside the scope of local services. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Preserve LIHTC properties The City will monitor expiring LIHTC properties and work to find solutions to protect and preserve these affordable units to meet the needs and demands of the City’s residents. The City will approach owners with expiring properties to discuss the possibility of 4d program tax breaks <30% AMI 30-50% AMI Explore opportunities to improve City housing policies and ordinance to make more responsive Expedited Application Process Streamline the pre-application process in order to minimize unnecessary delay for projects that address our stated housing needs, prior to a formal application submittal <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Fair Housing Policy The City will work to incorporate a Fair Housing policy into its ordinances and policies. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Existing ordinances The City will continue to operate its Rental Licensing Program, and will periodically review and make enhancements to support the City’s residents. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Update the City’s Zoning to support new land uses The City’s future land use plan provides opportunities to include high density residential uses in the areas identified for redevelopment. The City will update its zoning ordinance, including prepare new zoning districts, to support the housing needs identified in this Housing chapter. <30% AMI 51-80% Maintain existing housing stock in single-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentives and enforcement Foreclosure Prevention In established neighborhoods, a rash of foreclosures, especially in close proximity to one another, can have a deleterious effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Be aware of foreclosures and be able to direct homeowners at-risk of foreclosure to resources that can help prevent foreclosures. http://www.hocmn.org/ <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Low or No Cost Home Loans Providing low-or no-cost loans to help homeowners repair heating, plumbing, or electrical systems helps preserve existing housing. For example, Minnesota Housing’s Rehabilitation Loan and Emergency Loan programs make zero percent, deferred loans that are forgivable if the borrower lives in the home for 30 years. Minnesota Housing’s Community Fix Up Program offers lower-cost home improvement loans, often with discounted interest rates, remodeling advising, or home energy services, through a trained lender network. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Home Ownership Program Work with residents to provide education and programs to make home ownership possible, particularly converting existing renters to home owners through supporting down- payment assistance programs. 30-50% AMI 51-80% Code Enforcement The City will continue to operate a robust code enforcement program that includes both complaint-based enforcement and proactive sweeps. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Vacant Building Program The City will continue to operate its Vacant Building Program that tracks and monitors vacant properties in the City to ensure adequate upkeep and maintenance. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas Inclusionary Housing Ordinance If the market strengthens in redevelopment areas to the extent that policies would not deter investment, the City could consider an inclusionary housing ordinance to ensure that affordable housing is a component of any new housing development. Since current market conditions in the City are well below those of adjacent communities, an inclusionary policy may deter short-term investment. The City may want to explore this policy in the future if the market rents rise to levels of at least 80% AMI. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Livable Communities (LCA and LCA LCDA-TOD) Consider supporting/sponsoring an application to LCDA programs for multi-family rental proposals in areas guided for high density residential and targeted to households of all income levels. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Tax Increment Financing (TIF) To help meet the need for low-income housing, the City will establish a TIF district in an area guided for TOD and mixed uses. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD - DRAFT 03-21-2019 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-274-26 DRAFT Chapter 9: Implementation Comprehensive Plan 2040 IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2 IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter is a critical part of the Comprehensive Plan Update process providing a roadmap for the City of next steps and implementation strategies to help bring this Plan to reality. The implementation strategies contained in subsequent sections of this Plan are specific to the chapters, goals and strategies, and feedback heard throughout this planning process. Throughout this planning process consistent themes and messaging emerged that became the foundation for plan development, including the implementation strategies found in this chapter. At key milestones in this process the City solicited targeted feedback from residents, stakeholders, commission members and the City Council in an effort to establish Brooklyn Center’s top priorities for the next 10–20 years. The following top priorities, including those characteristics of the community that are important to maintain, emerged from the planning process (unordered): • Our location is exceptional but a consistent brand for the community has yet to be recognizable in the region since Brookdale closed. We have an opportunity to reimagine and redevelop this area—we have to design and implement a plan that is innovative, forward thinking and creative. • Brooklyn Center’s population is diverse and will be into the future. The City should embrace its diversity and use it as a differentiator that makes the City a desirable, exciting and vibrant place to live, work, and recreate. • Creating an economically competitive, accessible and stable business climate is important to developing a stable, vibrant and sustainable community long-term. • Brooklyn Center’s accessible regional location in conjunction with the available redevelopment areas in the center city provide an opportunity to create a dynamic and vibrant sub-regional job center that provides employment opportunities to the City’s residents and the larger region. • Our youth is our future and we need to focus on their needs today, and in the future. We should partner with schools, work-programs, public and private post- secondary institutions to ensure kids have opportunities to work and live in the City as they become adults. • The City’s housing stock is aging and lacks economic diversity. We need to find ways to integrate a range of housing types, sizes, affordability, and market rate into redevelopment to expand the choices available to new and existing residents. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 2 • We need to establish clear standards and regulations for areas designated or identified for redevelopment. It is important to consider massing, setbacks, relationship with existing homes, open spaces, trails, and natural resources. • We should capitalize on the transit improvements, particularly the C-Line, that could be an amenity to any new development in the center city if designed and planned for appropriately. • The City should establish and enhance key relationships with partner agencies such as Metropolitan Council, DEED, MnDNR, Three Rivers Park District and Hennepin County to create a more integrated region that provides improved connections within the City and to the region. • Safety of transit users was repeatedly mentioned particularly for users that would like to use the main transit station in the community. Community members identified concerns such as loitering, lighting, accessibility, and lack of consistency with routes as concerns. This transit ‘hub’ will likely become busier as the C-Line opens, and it is important for the City to partner with Metro Transit to plan for this station to ensure residents feel comfortable and safe at the station. Based on these guiding priorities and principles the following implementation strategies were derived. Most chapters’ implementation strategies can be found in the following sections with the exception of some the Housing Implementation Strategies that are partially included within the individual chapter for consistency with the Metropolitan Council’s checklist. The following implementation strategies are meant to identify a set of high-level steps and considerations that will help guide the City to achieve the goals and objectives of this Plan. The strategies are not all encompassing, but instead are meant to serve as a guide and roadmap to describe the methods, steps and types of questions the City will tackle throughout this planning period. Just as this list may not include every strategy, Brooklyn Center may not complete every strategy on this list based on market dynamics or other external factors. But generally the City will use the following strategies as a guide to work towards implementing the Vision and Goals that this Plan has established for the City as it continues to evolve and change into 2040. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN The Capital Improvement Program is a flexible plan based upon long-range physical planning and financial projections, which schedules the major public improvements that may be incurred by the City over the next five years. Flexibility of the Capital Improvement Plan is established through annual review, and revision if necessary. The annual review assures that the program will become a continuing part of the budgetary process and that it will be consistent with changing demands as well as changing patterns in cost and financial resources. Funds are appropriated only for the first year of the program, which is then included in the annual budget. The Capital Improvement Plan serves as a tool for implementing certain aspects of the City’s comprehensive plan; therefore, the program describes the overall objectives of City development, the relationship between projects with respect to timing and need, and the City’s fiscal capabilities. The full Capital Improvement Plan is available at Brooklyn Center City Hall and on the City’s website. It is also included as an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan. Specific implementation strategies for water, sewer and transportation infrastructure are also described in those chapters. CHAPTER 3: LAND USE & REDEVELOPMENT The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update. Land Use 1. The City will complete a full update of its zoning ordinance to support the modified land use designations identified on the Future Land Use Plan. a. The update at a minimum will include a full review of all residential, commercial, and industrial zoning classifications that consider the following: i. Setbacks ii. Parking iii. Height Restrictions iv. Coverage v. Performance Standards vi. Permitted/Un-permitted Uses vii. Conditional Uses viii. Accessory Structures/Uses ix. Fencing/Screening IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4 b. To support the individual zoning district update process, a full review of the City Code as it may pertain to the administration of the Zoning Code will be completed. This process may result in changes and updates or may find that the existing ordinances are adequate. At a minimum, the review will consider the following: i. Sign Standards ii. Public Nuisances iii. Special Use Permit (SUP) will be brought into Compliance with Minnesota State Statute requirements for Conditional Use Permits iv. Variance process and language will be updated and revised to reflect ‘Practical Difficulties’ if not already completed. v. Platting ordinance will be reviewed for platting process compliance and proper reference to revised zoning ordinance. vi. PUD process and procedures will be reviewed for consistency with the City’s stated goals and objectives, particularly as it relates to redevelopment areas identified within this Plan. vii. Addition of a Shoreland Ordinance to comply with MRCCA requirements. c. The process to prepare the zoning ordinance update will be led by the City’s staff, with support and assistance from a Consultant and input and direction from the City Council. i. The City may establish a community engagement plan for the Zoning Code update process. This may include a sub-committee or task force to provide feedback and input on key issues throughout the update process to ensure a broad spectrum of perspectives is represented and addressed within the process. 2. The City will continue to support and explore incorporating policies within ordinance updates that address community resiliency and long-term sustainability. a. As ordinances are updated, the City will explore opportunities to encourage through incentives or regulations energy efficiency in redevelopment and site design. b. Addressing resiliency with respect to the City infrastructure and PTOS systems can be cost-effective when incorporated into initial site design requirements. The City will explore opportunities to address and incorporate such site design standards into its ordinances, particularly within new zoning districts. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 5 Redevelopment 1. The City will create zoning districts to support the new land use designations identified on the Future Land Use Plan. a. At a minimum seven new zoning districts will be developed for consistency with the Transit Oriented Development (TOD), Neighborhood Mixed-Use (N-MU), Commercial Mixed-Use (C-MU), and Business Mixed Use (B-MU) land use designations. b. The process to prepare the new zoning districts will be led by Staff and a Consultant with direction from the City Council and City Commissions. The process should be initiated immediately upon adoption of this Comprehensive Plan and should be completed within nine (9) months of its adoption. Each zoning district will address, at a minimum: i. Massing and architectural design ii. Setbacks iii. Height restrictions iv. Site design/landscape standards v. Permitted, conditionally permitted and not permitted uses vi. Accessory structures/uses vii. Transition of uses viii. Mix of uses ix. PUD process or other incentive process x. Establishment of how mixed-use will be applied (i.e. through a master plan approach, parcel-by-parcel basis, etc.) 2. The City will develop a process and methodology for tracking the mixed-use and redevelopment projects to achieve the mix of uses as contemplated within this Comprehensive Plan. The ordinances should be developed with graphic representations of the standards to be more user friendly. The process may include exploration of ghost-platting, development of a database/tracking spreadsheet, and the development of ‘cheat-sheet’ or development reference guides for developers and land owners that describe the mix of uses contemplated and the process to ensure compliance with the ordinance and this Plan. 3. The City will establish guidelines and procedures for the sale of EDA-owned property. This may include creating marketing materials and promoting revised ordinances that highlight the ease of developing in the community. 4. The City will continue to evaluate opportunities for additional land acquisition particularly within proximity to land holdings in the center city that may offer larger redevelopment opportunities. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 6 5. The City will participate as an active partner in any redevelopment effort that includes City financial participation including as the land owner, or TIF, tax abatement, grant partner, etc. 6. What has historically been known as the “Opportunity Site” is re-guided in this Plan to allow for mixed-use development of the site. At the time of this Plan the City is working with a developer on a master plan for the redevelopment that will add a significant number of new households to the community. Understanding that this redevelopment effort is in-progress, the new zoning districts that are created to support the land use designation must be prepared for consistency with the anticipated development. In an effort to minimize duplication of the process, the City will create a minimum of one supporting zoning district that is consistent with the known redevelopment plans. The zoning district will address, at a minimum, the following: a. A minimum percentage of a project that must contain commercial, office or retail uses that support and are consistent with any developed housing. b. The ordinance development process should consider how to incorporate a range of housing types, including considering incentives and/or standards that encourage the construction of new affordable housing c. The ordinance will incorporate architectural and landscape design standards that support the goals and strategies contained within Chapter 2 of this Plan. d. The ordinance will incorporate incentives, and where applicable standards, that are focus on sustainable site improvements and resilient infrastructure improvements such as: transit, trail and sidewalk connections, pervious pavers and other innovate landscape products, localized surface water management and other low impact development techniques. e. The ordinance will require development that incorporates best practices for creating transit oriented places, including density minimums, parking maximums, pedestrian-oriented design, and accommodates a mix of uses. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 7 CHAPTER 4: HOUSING The Implementation Strategies that support the Metropolitan Council’s checklist to achieve the City’s Housing goals and objectives can be found in Chapter 4 of this Plan. The following implementation strategies support those contained within Chapter 4. 1. As part of the zoning ordinance update process the City will evaluate the rules and regulations to ensure that they allow existing and future residents to improve their homes in ways that add value and are desirable, and allow for infill housing that offers a range of housing types and products. a. Residential zoning districts should be written to allow for a mix of housing types, with various setbacks and massing standards to allow for diversity within an individual development. b. Ordinances should be written to define ‘family’ consistently with current demographics. This may require additional study to fully understand the greatest needs anticipated in the community over the next planning period. c. Setback requirements should reflect existing conditions and allow reasonable expansions and additions to homes. 2. The City will evaluate the housing stock for consistency with current and projected demographics. This includes understanding appropriate mix of bedrooms, unit types, etc., that match the changing needs of the City’s residents. The following examples may require additional study: a. Unit mix, such as studios, 1-bedrooms, 2-bedrooms, 3 and 3+ Bedrooms b. Private entry rental opportunities such as town homes, row homes, etc., versus standard multi-family apartments and condominium development. 3. The City will continue to operate its Rental Licensing Program, which has proven to be highly effective in maintaining the City’s rental housing stock. 4. The City will continue to operate a robust code enforcement program that incorporates both complaint-based enforcement and proactive sweeps. The City will continue to engage residents and business owners to ensure code compliance and to provide information in a way that is understandable and clear. 5. The City will continue to operate its Vacant Building Program, which tracts and monitors vacant properties in the City, as well as ensuring adequate upkeep and maintenance. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 8 6. The City will explore programs and policies that promote home ownership in the City. 7. The City will explore programs and policies that provide assistance with single-family housing rehabilitation and maintenance, including low and no-cost loans and grants, project consultation, and other resources. This may include partnerships with outside agencies as well as programs administered by the City. 8. The City will explore polices and ordinances, including incentives and standards, that encourage the construction of new affordable housing. 9. The City will explore partnerships that provide sources of financing and incentives to preserve existing multi-family housing, particularly ways to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing that maintains its affordability. 10. The City will explore programs and policies that encourage landlords to invest in their rental properties. 11. The City will consider creating a housing coordinator position to build relationships with existing landlords and tenants, administer programs, seek funding opportunities, and promote the City’s housing goals. 12. The City will consider adopting policies that promote further the goal of providing safe, secure, and stable housing for renters. This may include adopting ordinances and/or policies that protect the rights of renters. 13. The City will consider inclusionary housing policies that ensure that affordable housing is a component of new housing development when the market strengthens to the extent that it would not deter investment. a. For example, if market rents rise to levels that are affordable to those making 80% AMI then the City would consider adopting an inclusionary housing policy. 14. The City will consider adopting a public subsidy policy that gives greater consideration to projects that forward the City’s housing goals. This includes the option of TIF Housing Set-Aside funds or new TIF Districts that support mixed- income and affordable housing. The City will support grant applications to outside agencies to benefit projects that forward the City’s housing goals. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 9 CHAPTER 5: COMMUNITY IMAGE, BUSINESS STABILITY & ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update. 1. The City will work to create strategies and supporting resources to incorporate affordable commercial, retail and office space into new redevelopment areas. 2. The City will actively pursue a branding and marketing strategy that leverages the community’s diversity as a key asset from which new businesses can be developed. 3. To promote and support local businesses the City will explore the development of a local procurement policy. 4. The City will form a task force or steering committee to study local entrepreneurial needs, gaps and opportunities of residents. Study and research will focus on: a. Identification of barriers to growing or starting a business in the City. b. Review of existing ordinances and policies to ensure they support small, start-up and pop-up businesses. c. Understand what opportunities exist locally and regionally, and what strategies the City might employ to further support local entrepreneurs. 5. The City will explore the feasibility of a commercial land trust model that promotes perpetually affordable commercial space. 6. The City will review its existing business and industrial zoning district designations and revise and update, as necessary, language and policies to ensure regulations support and incentivize: a. Local businesses to stay and grown in the City b. New businesses to locate in the community c. A mix of land uses that reflect current market needs and desires 7. The City will explore opportunities to enhance partnerships with local secondary and post-secondary education institutions that support school-work opportunities, skills and job training, and matching local companies with young talent. 8. The City will partner with DEED and Hennepin County to offer entrepreneurial resource and support programs such as WomenVenture and Open to Business. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 10 9. The City will create a Business Retention & Expansion Program to work directly with the businesses within the community to ensure that their needs are being met. 10. The City will amend its Business Subsidy Policy to prioritize the creation of livable and high wage jobs. 11. The City will create and fund a revolving loan/grant program to assist property and business owners with expansions, interior buildouts, equipment purchasing, and exterior enhancements. 12. The City will explore other economic development programs, including with outside agencies, which would incentivize business expansion and attraction. 13. The City will explore job training and career pathways programs and policies that would benefit residents. 14. The City will explore options to connect the local workforce to employers. 15. The City will continue to support partnerships that promote workforce readiness and removing barriers for existing residents to access education and workforce training, such as the Brooklynk partnership with Brooklyn Park. 16. The City will explore partnerships and programs that promote financial literacy and wealth creation amongst residents. 17. The City will continue to explore ways to reduce racial disparities that exist as they relate the economic stability of its residents, including access to livable wage jobs, home ownership opportunities, financial literacy and wealth creation, and job pathways training. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 11 CHAPTER 6: PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE (PTOS) The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals and strategies identified in Chapter 6 of this Comprehensive Plan Update. 1. The City will continue to prioritize the completion of the PTOS system within redevelopment areas and will work with developers to identify appropriate and reasonable opportunities to enhance and improve access to the system by all residents. 2. Redevelopment projects will be required to provide trail connections that align with the surrounding local and regional trail system that are existing or planned within this Plan. 3. Redevelopment projects will be required to plan for parks and open spaces consistent with this Plan, and the City will work with developers to identify and prioritize improvements to the PTOS system. 4. The City will continue to maintain and manage the existing parks, trails and open space plan consistent with past and current practices. Current management includes: a. Annual CIP budgeting and planning to support current park, trail, and open space function. b. Continue to support the City’s Community Activities, Recreation and Services (CARS) division through appropriate capital investments. c. Periodic survey of residents and stakeholders to understand appropriate and needed parks, trails, and open space programming within the system. d. Prepare and plan for system improvements that respond to the needs of the community. This includes improvements such as park system component conversions including transitioning baseball fields to multi-purpose fields (example) 5. Brooklyn Center will continue to support opportunities for community gatherings at each of its parks, including, but not limited to the summer markets, pavilion rentals, Brooklyn Center’s movie in the parks, and Central Park events that unite the community. 6. The City will continue to complete the sidewalk and trail network consistent with previous planning efforts. This plan acknowledges that trails and sidewalks are a critical component of the Park and Recreation system but are equally as important to the transportation system. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 12 CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORTATION The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update. 1. The City’s accessibility to the region, and within the region, is an important differentiator and asset to the community. The City will continue to prioritize roadways as an important part of the transportation network. 2. The City will continue to partner with Hennepin County and MnDOT on planned road reconstruction projects to ensure safety and accessibility of the road system within the City are prioritized. 3. Any roadway reconstruction or improvement will consider the incorporation of a stormwater assessment, and any plans should incorporate and implement the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Best Management Practices to improve stormwater quality, recharge local aquifers, and reuse and conserve stormwater where possible. 4. The City will continue to budget for regular maintenance of roadways approximately every five to eight years and include such plan within the City’s Capital Improvement Program. 5. Brooklyn Center will plan for completing the Regional Bicycle Transportation Network (RBTN) that is currently planned within the City to connect to other regional and sub- regional job centers. As redevelopment and reconstruction of roadways occurs RBTN segments or gaps will be constructed to help complete the system. 6. Many of the City’s residents use Transit, and many more could if service were improved in the City. Currently the City is divided into Transit Market II and Transit Market II, which provides varying levels of services. The following summary of considerations is provided: a. The City will work with Metro Transit over this planning period to evaluate the appropriate Transit Market areas for the City per the Metropolitan Council. i. The mapping completed for this Plan demonstrates that some of the residents that may benefit most from frequent and reliable transit may be underserved. ii. The City is developed with a similar urban grid pattern for the majority of its neighborhoods without much distinction. Therefore, it seems inaccurate to identify some areas as more typical “suburban” development. b. The City’s Future Land Use Plan has identified the ‘central spine’ for possible redevelopment in this planning period. The redevelopment pattern contemplated embraces the Transit Station and uses it as an organizing feature. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 13 CHAPTER 8: INFRASTRUCTURE (UTILITIES) The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the goals and strategies identified in Chapter 2 of this Comprehensive Plan Update. 1. The City will continue to plan for water and sewer infrastructure improvements to occur concurrently with any planned roadway improvements and reconstruction projects. 2. The City prepared a full sanitary sewer plan and supportive modeling in conjunction with this Plan update. As redevelopment occurs, the sewer plan will be used to guide proper infrastructure improvements including sizing and capacity recommendations, timing and consideration for future phases of redevelopment. 3. The City prepared an update to its water plan and supportive modeling in conjunction with this Plan update. As redevelopment occurs the water plan will be used to guide proper/necessary infrastructure improvements. a. The water supply permit from the DNR will be updated once this Plan and Future Land Use Plan are adopted to reflect projected housing and employment forecasts contained in this Plan. 4. The LSWMP identifies several capital and administrative projects that are incorporated into this implementation plan by reference. The City will properly manage and schedule such improvements to be included within its CIP for on-going planning and action. 5. The City will continue to work with its regional partners, including the Metropolitan Council, on sewer and water infrastructure planning and development so that regional coordination is maintained throughout this planning period. 6. Consideration for how to incorporate sustainable and resilient infrastructure through new development will be addressed at the specific site redevelopment level. This will first be accomplished through the ordinance review, creation and update process and described within previous sections; and will then be implemented through site and redevelopment plan sets and engineering. a. The City’s Public Works Department and its staff will work collaboratively with the Community Development department to identify potential ordinance revisions that would support the development of an integrated green network that not only supports the PTOS system but the City’s infrastructure. IMPLEMENTATION - DRAFT 10-2-2018 City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 14 APPENDIX: MISSISSIPPI RIVER CRITICAL CORRIDOR AREA PLAN The following list of Implementation Strategies is provided as a guide to implement the MRCCA Plan contained within Appendix B of this Plan. 1. The City will develop ordinances to support the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR) requirements to regulate property contained within the MRCCA overlay designations. a. At a minimum the City will develop a shoreland ordinance for properties that abut the Mississippi River and will structure the ordinance to comply with MnDNR requirements. b. The City will work collaboratively with the MnDNR to establish appropriate setback and height standards based on specific parcel locations and potential redevelopment. i. The City may seek flexibility from the MnDNR’s standard requirements, particularly on sites identified for redevelopment. The City will work with the MnDNR to identify appropriate standards. c. The City will engage residents during the ordinance development to provide education about the MRCCA standard requirements and ordinance development process. i. The public engagement process will also solicit feedback regarding specific standards development include appropriate setbacks, height, coverage requirements, etc. Fair Housing Policy 1. Purpose and Vision Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act establishes federal policy for providing fair housing throughout the United States. The intent of Title VIII is to assure equal housing opportunities for all citizens. Furthermore, the City of Bloomington, as a recipient of federal community development funds under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, is obligated to certify that it will affirmatively further fair housing. The City of Bloomington strives to advance its commitment to inclusion and equity by developing this Fair Housing Policy to further the goal of creating a vibrant, safe, and healthy community where all residents will thrive. 2. Policy Statement It is the policy and commitment of the City of Bloomington to ensure that fair and equal housing opportunities are available to all persons in all housing opportunities and development activities funded by the City regardless of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, creed, familial status, national origin, or disability. This is done through external policies to provide meaningful access to all constituents as well as fair housing information and referral services; and through internal practices and procedures that promote fair housing and support the City’s equity and inclusion goals. City of Bloomington, Minnesota Fair Housing Policy 2 3. External Practices a. Intake and Referral The City of Bloomington has designated the Staff Liaison to the Human Rights Commission as the responsible authority for the intake and referral of all fair housing complaints. At a minimum the Staff Liaison will be trained in state and federal fair housing laws, the complaint process for filing discrimination complaints, and the state and federal agencies that handle complaints. The date, time, and nature of the fair housing complaint and the referrals and information given will be fully documented. The Human Rights Commission will advise the City Council on City programs and policies affecting fair housing and raise issues and concerns where appropriate. b. Meaningful Access i. Online Information. The City of Bloomington will continue to display information about fair housing prominently on its website. The website will continue to include links to various fair housing resources, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Minnesota Department of Human Rights, Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid, and others as well as links to state and federal fair housing complaint forms. In addition, the City will post the following documents on its website: 1. Reasonable Accommodation Policy; 2. Limited English Proficiency (LEP) Policy; 3. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Policy regarding access to City services; and 4. The State of Minnesota’s Olmstead Plan. ii. In-Person Information. The City of Bloomington will provide in-person fair housing information including: 1. A list of fair housing enforcement agencies; 2. Frequently asked questions regarding fair housing law; and 3. Fair housing complaint forms for enforcement agencies City of Bloomington, Minnesota Fair Housing Policy 3 c. Languages. The City of Bloomington is committed to providing information in the native language of its residents. The City of Bloomington will provide information in languages other than English as described in its LEP Policy. 4. Internal Practices The City of Bloomington commits to the following steps to promote awareness and competency regarding fair housing issues in all of its government functions. a. Staff and Officials Training. The City will continue to train its staff and officials on fair housing considerations. b. Housing Analysis. The City will review its housing periodically to examine the affordability of both rental and owner-occupied housing to inform future City actions. c. Code Analysis. The City will review its municipal code periodically, with specific focus on ordinances related to zoning, building, and occupancy standards, to identify any potential for disparate impact or treatment. d. Project Planning and Analysis. City planning functions and development review will consider housing issues, including whether potential projects may perpetuate segregation or lead to displacement of protected classes. e. Community Engagement. The City will seek input from underrepresented populations in the community. Conversations regarding fair housing, development, zoning, and land use changes may be facilitated by the City. f. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. As a recipient of federal funds, the City agrees to participate in the Regional Analysis of Impediments, as organized by the regional Fair Housing Implementation Council (FHIC), an ad hoc coalition of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement jurisdictions and City of Bloomington, Minnesota Fair Housing Policy 4 others working together to affirmatively further fair housing. The City will review the recommendations from the analysis for potential integration into City planning documents, including the Consolidated Plan, the Comprehensive Plan, and other related documents. Adopted by the City Council on August 6, 2018 MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:N/A BY:Meg Beekman, C ommunity Development Director S UBJ EC T:O pportunity S ite Update (30 minutes ) Background: In ac cordance with the proposed timeline, a draft plan has been prepared for the O pportunity S ite, inc orporating community input from the firs t phase of engagement as well as ongoing conversations and input from the Working C ommittee. T he Working C ommittee has not reviewed this draft, but will do so at their next meeting. T he purpos e of this update and disc ussion is to provide the C ity C ouncil with an opportunity to review the direction of the mas ter plan draft and to provide any feedbac k and comments ahead of the next phase of c ommunity engagement work. Attached to the memo is an exec utive s ummary of the draft master plan. A full c opy of the draft mas ter plan is being c ompiled and will be emailed out to the C ity C ouncil ahead of the meeting. At the work s es s ion s taff and the c onsultant team will go over highlights from the draft master plan and disc uss any c hanges from the pas t version. C ity C ouncil will have an opportunity to provide feedbac k on the work that has been done to date and direction on next s teps for the roll out of the draft plan for c ommunity engagement. T he draft master plan c ontains s ignificantly more content than previous vers ions of the plan. It breaks the plan into five c ategories or chapters; Vis ion; P ublic R ealm; Ac cess and C onnectivity; Buildings and Development; and Implementation. S ome elements are identified as placeholders since additional technic al analysis and community input are needed in order to unders tand greater detail. F or example, the implementation s ection identifies targets , or goals , for the development. T hese inc lude among others , affordable housing targets which are des cribed as a range of overall affordability for the entire development. T he implementation sec tion identifies a path for developing a more detailed housing implementation plan, which will require more community input, a hous ing study, as well as a financial feas ibility analys is to determine the final target perc entage and s pecific affordability bands (ie; 30% AMI, 50% AMI, and 60% AMI). T he final vers ion of the mas ter plan will contain the final target numbers , while this draft version contains plac eholders and language whic h des cribes how the final targets will be identified. Internally, s taff and the c onsultant team debated if more tec hnical and feas ibility analysis s hould be completed before a draft mas ter plan was made public. In the end it was dec ided that it was better to move forward with creating a draft plan with the information that was available in order to allow more c ommunity input into the process and to s hape the feasibility work, rather than to wait until the plan was more fully formed to gather community input. T he next steps will be to pres ent the draft mas ter plan to the Working C ommittee for feedback and review. T his input will assist with c ompleting the c ommunity engagement products , s uc h as the Meeting-in-a-Box tool, pos ters, and other handouts whic h are being prepared. T he C ity has entered into contrac ts to as s is t with this next phase of engagement with AC ER , Jude Nnadi, and the O rganization for Liberians in Minnes ota (O LM), and is negotiating a sec ond contrac t for engagement with the Brooklyn Bridge Alliance. T he focus of thes e contrac ts is to assist with reac hing historically underrepresented and difficult to reach groups in the c ommunity, s uc h as renters, youth, immigrant c ommunities, Wes t Afric an communities , and Afric an Americ an communities . S taff is also reaching out to organizations to assist with engaging Lao/Hmong c ommunities as well as Latinx communities . In addition, once the engagement tools are completed, community facilitators will be enrolled to conduc t community conversations throughout the c ommunity on the topic of the draft plan and to solic it dis cus s ions and collec t s urvey information on behalf of the city. With the draft plan, Ehlers will begin work on a high level financial analys is whic h will look at the financ ial feas ibility of the plan, along with identifying any funding gaps . S taff has as ked them to provide high level analys is that will include reviewing the impac t of including a certain percentage of mixed inc ome housing as part of the development as well to see the affec t that may have on the feas ibility. A traffic study and stormwater analysis will also begin to identify any issues or impacts associated with the plan related to these items. T he input from the community engagement, along with the technical analysis work will be used to revise and shape the plan to ensure that it minimizes impacts and maximizes benefits to the community, infrastructure, and environment. Policy Issues: Is the C ity C ouncil comfortable with the direction the draft master plan is heading? Are there areas or elements of the draft master plan whic h the C ity C ouncil has concerns about, or would like to see altered? Is the C ity C ouncil comfortable with staff proc eeding with the roll out of the draft mas ter plan for community engagement and input? S trategic Priorities and Values: Targeted R edevelopment AT TAC HME N T S: Desc ription Upload Date Type Executive S ummary 1/8/2020 Exec utive S ummary MEMOR ANDUM - C OUNCIL WOR K SESSION DAT E:1/27/2020 TO :C ity C ouncil F R O M:C urt Boganey, C ity Manager T HR O UG H:Dr. R eggie Edwards , Deputy C ity Manager BY:Barb S uciu, C ity C lerk S UBJ EC T:P ending Items Recommendation: Metro T ransit Bus H ub - (upcomi ng C C presentati on) C ensus Update - 2/10 C ommemoration of 400 years of S lavery Ac tivities - 2/10 Livable Wages - 2/10 Us e of EDA O wned P roperty - 2/24 F ood Trucks - 3/9 O ptions for Use of Adjacent S pace to Liquor S tore - 3/9 Dis cus s ion of Mayor/C ity C ounc il roles & res ponsibilities (C ommonS ense Inc.) Background: S trategic Priorities and Values: O perational Exc ellenc e