Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-02-11 PCPPLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER VIRTUAL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2021 Virtual meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021. Public may access the Webex meeting: Online: logis.webex.com | Phone: (312) 535-8110 Meeting Number (Access Code): 177 868 5198 1. Call to Order: 6:30 PM 2. Roll Call of the Year 2020 Planning Commission 3. Approval of Agenda Motion to Approve Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for February 11, 2021 4. Approval of Minutes Motion to Approve the November 12, 2020 Regular and Work Session Meeting Minutes 5. Official Adjournment of the 2020 Planning Commission Motion to Officially Adjourn the 2020 Planning Commission 6. Roll Call of the 2021 Planning Commission 7. Election of Planning Commission Chairperson for Year 2021 - Motion/Second to Nominate a Commissioner(s) to serve as Chairperson; - Motion/Second to close all nominations; - Conduct election; and - Motion/Second to Accept the Results and Election of Chair for Year 2021 8. Appointment of 2021 Vice-Chair by Chairperson 9. Chairperson's Explanation The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One of the Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 10. Planning Items a. None. 11. Discussion Items a. None. 12. Other Business a. Resignation of Planning Commissioner John (Jack) MacMillan b. Introduction of Olivia Boerschinger (City of Brooklyn Center Associate Planner) and Harry Davis (Bolton & Menk Planning Consultant) 13. Adjournment PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER VIRTUAL MEETING FEBRUARY 11, 2021 Virtual meeting being conducted by electronic means in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, section 13D.021. Public may access the Webex meeting: Online: logis.webex.com | Phone: (312) 535-8110 Meeting Number (Access Code): 177 868 5198 Joint Planning and Housing Commission Work Session Following Adjournment of Regular Planning Commission Meeting 1. Brooklyn Center Housing Presentation and Discussion a. Speakers: Meg Beekman (City of Brooklyn Center Community Development Director), Jeff Matson (CURA), and Nelima Sitati Munene (ACER) 2. Adjournment PC Minutes 11-12-20 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 12, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Omari at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Webex. 2. ROLL CALL Chair Peter Omari, Commissioners Alexander Koenig, Alfreda Daniels, Sizi Goyah, and Stephanie Jones. Commissioner Jack MacMillan was absent and excused. Commissioner Kellie Hmong was absent and unaccounted for. City Planner and Zoning Administrator Ginny McIntosh and Community Development Director Meg Beekman were also present. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA –NOVEMBER 12, 2020 There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Daniels, to approve the agenda for the November 12, 2020 meeting as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 10, 2020 There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Jones, to approve the minutes of the September 10, 2020 meeting as presented. The motion passed unanimously. 5. CHAIR’S EXPLANATION Chair Omari explained the Planning Commission’s role as an advisory body. One of the Commission’s functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings, the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final decisions in these matters. 6. PLANNING APPLICATION ITEMS 6a) Planning Commission Application No. 2020-009 (PUBLIC HEARING) Applicant: Doran Cote (on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center) Property Address: 3515 69th Avenue North (County identified as 6705 Beard Avenue North) Summary: The Applicant is requesting review of a proposal to subdivide approximately one (1) acre of the Mound Cemetery property located at 3515 69th Avenue North, for dedication to the City of Brooklyn Center for continued use PC Minutes 11-12-20 -2- DRAFT as Freeway Park. This agreement was reached through mutual consent of the City of Brooklyn Center and Mound Cemetery Association and is subject to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). City Planner Ginny McIntosh reviewed a plat request from applicant Doran Cote, Public Works Director, on behalf of the City of Brooklyn Center. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Sun Post on October 29, 2020 and mail notifications were sent to nearby properties. Ms. McIntosh stated a 75-year lease was approved in 1970 between the City of Brooklyn Center and the Mound Cemetery Association for use as a City park on the southernmost 4 acres of the subject property. The lease was set to expire in 2044. Ms. McIntosh stated the Mound Cemetery Association approached City Staff in 2013 with a proposal to vacate the 4-acre portion and transition it back to cemetery use. Discussions continued into 2018, as the City wanted to retain some land for park purposes. The City retained the services of a consultant and landscape architecture firm to provide a master plan and conduct community engagement. City Staff and the consultant, ISG, met with the Mound Cemetery Association in April 2019 to discuss the master plan and recommended options. The Cemetery Association agreed to donate 1 acre of the original 4-acre site with conditions to allow for continued use of Freeway Park. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was drawn up which summarized previous discussions over the years and included a lease vacation and agreement for land donation. Ms. McIntosh stated Mr. Cote met with the City Council in a Work Session in January 2020 and requested direction regarding Freeway Park. The City Council subsequently approved a Resolution authorizing execution of the MOU and termination of the existing lease for Freeway Park. Ms. McIntosh presented present day photos of Freeway Park, including views of the cemetery to the north; an existing chain link fence separating the Cemetery from the park; small playground; trailway running east/west; existing baseball field and basketball court; park pavilion; and parking lot. With the proposed agreement and replat, the City would acquire a 1-acre parcel through donation from the Mound Cemetery Association. Ms. McIntosh stated City staff recommends the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2020- 009, preliminary and final plat for Mound Cemetery 2nd Addition, 3515 69th Avenue, with the approval conditions as noted in the Staff Report. OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENTS – APPLICATION NO. 2020-009 There was a motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to open the public hearing on Application No. 2020-009, at 7:25 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Jones asked whether the basketball court and baseball field would be removed. PC Minutes 11-12-20 -3- DRAFT Ms. McIntosh requested that Commissioners reserve their questions until the Public Hearing is closed. Chair Omari asked Ms. McIntosh to make a note of Commissioner’s questions to be addressed after the Public Hearing. Randy Christensen, 7001 Regent Avenue N, asked whether the new 1-acre park has been designed, and what will be included in the park. There were no other individuals in attendance who wished to make comments at this time. MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS (HEARING) There was a motion by Commissioner Daniels, seconded by Commissioner Goyah, to close the public hearing on Application No. 2020-009, at 7:29 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. Public Works Director Doran Cote stated a number of community engagement events were held regarding the new park, including a Parks & Recreation Commission meeting that was held in a park, with relatively poor attendance. He added the draft preliminary plan for the new Freeway Park, as included in the Staff Report, includes removal of the baseball field, which has not been used for programming, and removal of the basketball court. Plans include ½-acre open space to be reserved for whatever the City wants to do, as well as a tot lot and older children’s playground, trail features, and a possible orchard. Commissioner Koenig asked what conditions had changed from 2013 to present that precipitated changing the park’s usage. He added there was support for open green space at one time. He asked whether the change was due to input from the City Council or changing use of the park. Ms. McIntosh stated the Cemetery Association has indicated increased need for cemetery space based on new preferences for certain types of burial, as well as necessary site improvements. Michael Howe, President of the Mound Cemetery Association, stated the Association is a voluntary board working on behalf of the Cemetery. He added a study was conducted in 2012 as part of an overall strategic plan, as the Association acknowledged that expansion would be required due to increased demands for cemetery space and the needs of the community. Mr. Howe stated the Association entered into discussions with the City of Brooklyn Center to obtain more cemetery space, while recognizing the need for community park space, but also space for loved ones who have passed away. He added the Association wants to donate a portion of the property to the City to accomplish both uses. ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2020-009 REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2020-009 SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT DORAN COTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PC Minutes 11-12-20 -4- DRAFT There was a motion by Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Goyah, to approve Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 2020-009. Voting in favor: Chair Omari, Commissioners Koenig, Daniels, Goyah, and Jones. And the following voted against the same: None The motion passed 5-0. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS -None. Commissioner Daniels stated she understood from the staff email that there would be a review of Zoning Codes at tonight’s meeting. Ms. McIntosh stated a Work Session is scheduled following adjournment of this meeting to review the Zoning Code with a consultant from Bolton & Menk. 8. OTHER BUSINESS -None. 9. ADJOURNMENT There was a motion by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Daniels, to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:41 p.m. _______________________________ _______________________________ Ginny McIntosh, Secretary Peter Omari, Chair PC Work Session Minutes 11-12-20 -1- DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 12, 2020 The Planning Commission Work Session began at 7:42 p.m. The Work Session was conducted via Webex. 1. ZONING CODE UPDATE (Jane Kansier, Planning Consultant - Bolton & Menk) City Planner Ginny McIntosh introduced Jane Kansier, Planner with Bolton & Menk. Ms. Kansier stated her primary role with the City of Brooklyn Center is leading the Zoning Ordinance update. She added she provides support for the Becoming Brooklyn Center project, which is a progressive undertaking that has a variety of components, including a new Zoning Code and new Zoning districts. The project includes site specific development plans for City- owned properties, including the Opportunity Site and Brooklyn Boulevard corridor development. Ms. Kansier stated the Planning Commission received a Zoning Primer in their packets, which is a document used by the Zoning Task Force earlier in the process. She added the Primer includes explanations related to the zoning process, as well as resources for additional information. She reviewed the difference between the Comprehensive Plan, a high-level policy document, and the Zoning Ordinance, a regulatory tool, which are not interchangeable. Ms. Kansier stated zoning impacts all aspects of daily life – parking, landscaping, building and remodeling. There can be negative aspects of zoning that contribute to racial disparities, including “redlining” and homeowner associations; segregation; and lack of investment. Redlining has been an ongoing practice for many years, which is mostly illegal at this point but still takes place. One goal of this process is to eliminate any aspects of zoning practices that may inadvertently contribute to redlining and racial disparities. Ms. Kansier stated there are many positive impacts of zoning, including creating livable and vibrant communities, and making the City’s vision a reality. She stressed the importance of being mindful of the process and not creating unintended consequences. Ms. Kansier showed a zoning map of Brooklyn Center, with different zoning districts that have unique characteristics: residential, commercial, industrial, mixed-use, and open space. Overlay districts, such as shoreland, flood plain, and planned unit developments, provide a special layer of regulation to protect a specific resource. The City’s current Zoning Ordinance was developed in the 1960s and has not changed much over the years, although there have been some updates, and some provisions are not consistent with State statute. The Ordinance is difficult to use and understand and does not support developments that are consistent with market demand. Ms. Kansier stated the City is looking at updating the Zoning Ordinance, to ensure that regulations are aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. The new Zoning Code would transform PC Work Session Minutes 11-12-20 -2- DRAFT land uses with mixed-use patterns and take advantage of transit improvements in the area, as well as provide new directions for the City Center and Highway 100 area. Ms. Kansier stated a Zoning Task Force was created to provide advice and recommendations and help guide development of the Zoning Code. She added their work is still in progress, and decisions will ultimately be made by the City Council. The Task Force has identified values and goals; reviewed and updated the sign, shoreland and critical area ordinances; discussed aesthetics and building materials and other general Code issues; and reviewed transit-oriented development and mixed-use districts. Their next meeting will be a summarizing of what they have accomplished. Ms. Kansier stated the biggest change will be development of mixed-use districts, which are intended to allow commercial uses but have some residential uses within the area. This will be undertaken in varying degrees depending upon the area. Transit-oriented development, another development change, will take place in areas near transit locations. Residential districts will be updated and combined, as well as commercial and industrial districts. The Central Commerce Overlay District will be removed. Ms. Kansier stated the new Zoning Ordinance will address standards and design guidelines, including mixed uses, increased density, parking requirements, and accessory dwelling units in single-family homes. The Zoning Ordinance will address increased affordability, and ways to make it easier for residents to do home improvements and stay in their homes longer. Other updates include use types and descriptions; definitions and procedures; the Sign Code; design guidelines and development standards; shoreland and overlay districts; and a City Development Guidebook, which will be a useful tool when it is amended to be used City-wide. Ms. Kansier stated, in terms of next steps, the plan is to finalize the new Zoning Code. The final Zoning Code Task Force meeting will be held in early 2021, and then a public engagement effort will be undertaken, which can be difficult with this type of document, which is technical. It can be hard to get people interested. Targeted engagement is planned in coordination with the Becoming Brooklyn Center project, as well as staff and Planning Commission training, and possible amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Public engagement will be an ongoing process. Ms. Kansier stated that is the end of her presentation. She asked whether the Planning Commission has feedback, comments or questions. Chair Omari stated he grew up in India, in an area that was very congested. He added it is a great privilege to live in a City where there is room to build new things and have control over development, and people may take this privilege for granted. He noted one of his biggest concerns since moving to Brooklyn Center in 2012 has been the large number of surface parking lots, when there is potential for underground parking. Chair Omari stated he is also concerned about the loss of green space in Brooklyn Center. He added he has loved the areas where there are trees and green spaces. He added, when the new water plant was put in, close to 90% of green space in that area was removed. He noted there are PC Work Session Minutes 11-12-20 -3- DRAFT other areas in Brooklyn Center where green space is disappearing. He asked whether there are ways to plan for the future, so the City does not end up with no green space. Ms. Kansier stated the Zoning Code can address ways to eliminate surface parking and replace it with underground parking. She added there are also ways to ensure tree preservation and maintenance of open space. Commissioner Daniels thanked Ms. Kansier for her presentation, and for relating the history of the Zoning Code and the intentions behind it. She asked how the name “Becoming Brooklyn Center” was chosen. She added she already lives in Brooklyn Center. She noted the name is concerning. Community Development Director Meg Beekman stated the recently completed 2040 Comprehensive Plan represented a significant pivot for the City in terms of land use. The Comprehensive Plan provided a new vision for the City that includes mixed uses, walkable spaces, and a more livable and inclusive community. The focus was on a significant change in redevelopment, including a review of policies and practices, and City Staff started calling the project “Becoming BC”, taking the step of moving from vision into reality. She added there is nothing particularly special about the name, but it is used by City Staff to track aspects of the project internally. Commissioner Daniels stated, historically, the practice of redlining and displacement of people of color has happened when people do not pay attention to the little things they do. She added intentions may be good, but the impact can be dangerous, and one example of that is the name Becoming Brooklyn Center, which can mean different things to different people. Commissioner Daniels stated Ms. Kansier had indicated that community engagement will be important over the next few months, and that she is trying to reach out to people. She asked what people are on the priority list that will be included and involved in community engagement. Ms. Kansier stated they would like to try to reach out to everyone. She added certain groups will targeted, including residents along the Mississippi River in the Shoreland District, who will be impacted by some of the changes. She added a group of commercial businesses and business owners were targeted for discussions related to changes to the Sign Ordinance, which was not very successful. She noted community events were originally planned to reach people, but unfortunately that has not been possible due to the pandemic, and other ways of accomplishing outreach will have to be found. Commissioner Daniels stated there is something about the Becoming Brooklyn Center project that makes her very uncomfortable. She added there is a level of engagement and detail that is lacking. She noted she has reached out to the City Councilmembers individually, including the Mayor, and frankly they do not have any idea about what Becoming Brooklyn Center is all about, or the Opportunity Site. She expressed concern that if the City Council and the Mayor do not have enough information to answer residents’ questions, the community will not be able to provide input on this project. PC Work Session Minutes 11-12-20 -4- DRAFT Chair Omari requested clarification regarding Commissioner Daniel’s statement that the Mayor and City Council are not aware of the project. Commissioner Daniels stated they are not aware of the details of the Opportunity Site or Becoming Brooklyn Center. She added she asked them questions based on her research, and they could not answer the questions. She noted it is concerning to her that the Mayor and City Council cannot answer questions from residents about this project, and she is concerned about how much information the community has. Chair Omari stated, for purposes of clarification, that Commissioner Daniels believes the Mayor and City Council are not aware of the details of what the planning team is doing. Commissioner Daniels confirmed this, based on her research and conversations she has had with the Mayor and City Council. She added they do not have details on the Opportunity Site or this project. Commissioner Koenig asked what details about the Opportunity Site are most important to Commissioner Daniels, and what she feels is remiss in what information is being provided to the community. Commissioner Daniels stated she has asked the City Council questions about what an Opportunity Site is, and they do not know the answer, or what that policy is. She added there is research that shows that communities have made mistakes with Opportunity Site developments, but there can also be great benefits, of which the City Council is not aware. She noted, based on the plan, how it came about, and things the City Council has voted upon, they do not have the correct information. Commissioner Daniels stated she has a list and notes from the meetings that she would be happy to share. She added she has had conversations with other residents who feel the same way, who participated in the project. She noted she is a community organizer, and she understands the process, and in conversations with the Mayor and City Council, it is obvious that they do not have the information they need to be making decisions on this project. She expressed concern that the project should be well planned, and be a positive development, and not create problems and issues in the future. Chair Omari asked where the City is in the development process. He asked whether the Planning Commission should be providing information to the City Council to find out what they know about the process. Ms. Beekman stated the Planning Commission’s current discussion includes different development discussions that are getting confused. She added the Opportunity Site and Master Plan process is different from the Zoning Code update, which is what is being discussed tonight. She noted there are many different development projects going on in Brooklyn Center right now. Ms. Beekman stated there has been a lot of interest from developers and new projects starting in Brooklyn Center, and it becomes a balancing act, getting policies in order and re-writing Zoning Code that is functionally obsolete and violates State statute. She added the Zoning Code has not yet been reviewed by the City Council. She noted the purpose of this meeting was to get Planning Commissioners up to speed on the Zoning Code update, since many of them are new members. PC Work Session Minutes 11-12-20 -5- DRAFT Ms. Beekman stated the Opportunity Site development is multi-layered. A draft Master Plan was completed at the end of 2019 and public engagement began with groups around the community, to focus on under-represented communities and those who might be affected most by the project. She added then the pandemic started, and no community engagement has been attempted. She noted a stormwater plan and traffic impact study have been completed, and next steps for engagement are being reviewed. Ms. Beekman stated there are two tools that City Staff are proposing to be used: an equity development scorecard, or evaluation tool that would encompass the values and vision of the Master Plan through the lens of equity. She added the other tool is a Community Benefits Document (CBD). City Staff are attempting to schedule some time before the end of the year to receive updates. She noted this is concurrent with the Site Master Plan which is a separate process. Commissioner Daniels stated she brought up the Opportunity Site because it was mentioned throughout the presentation. She added she participated in the community group that was created to work with City Staff on community engagement. She noted the group was supposed to draft a Community Benefit Agreement (CBA), which would be a direct agreement between the community and the City Council, and approved by the City Council, and that has not been completed. She noted she does not understand why the CBA is included in the Master Plan because the community has not drafted that document yet. Chair Omari asked whether the discussion is related to the Opportunity Site. Ms. Daniels stated she was hoping to get clarification on the CBA. Chair Omari stated there is more to be discussed at tonight’s Work Session than the Opportunity Site. He added the role of the Planning Commission, as he understands it, is to advise the City Council. He noted this Work Session was intended to be a review of Zoning laws, as the City looks toward the future, so the Commissioners can make decisions that will benefit the future of Brooklyn Center. He noted Ms. Beekman was not prepared to give a presentation on the Opportunity Site. Commissioner Koenig stated Commissioner Daniels’ comments are very pertinent, and it would be good to have an additional discussion on those issues. Commissioner Koenig stated he agrees with Chair Omari that underground parking would be fabulous, but the costs might be prohibitive. He added, looking at future zoning, the Opportunity Site could be a development of multi-level housing and retail, and underground parking would be terrific. Commissioner Koenig requested clarification regarding the impact of Covid-19 on development in Brooklyn Center, and what the “new normal” will be in terms of planning and development. He asked how the pandemic has impacted Ms. Kansier’s role as advisor, and whether the process is in flux. PC Work Session Minutes 11-12-20 -6- DRAFT Ms. Kansier stated there is very little data to indicate where planning and development will go, and what preferences will look like. She added it is helpful to build flexibility into the Ordinance, so the City is not tied into the traditional suburban model, and to allow for mixed use areas. She added zoning can be difficult when a City wants to allow more flexibility, but also maintain standards and certainty. She noted it is too soon to know what the impact of Covid-19 will be and what the “new normal” will be, but it will be important to watch that carefully and adjust along the way. Chair Omari stated close to 85% of the Opportunity Site space is parking, which is just left open to be plowed in the winter. He added underground parking would increase the developable space. He noted this should be considered as part of the Master Plan. Ms. Beekman stated the Opportunity Site Master Plan calls for substantial structured underground and enclosed parking. She added underground or enclosed parking conserves space, increases developable land and creates a more walkable environment. She noted parking is incredibly expensive and is usually the costliest aspect of any development project. Ms. Beekman stated on-street parking can help with reducing the number of required stalls. Commissioner Koenig stated he would appreciate any additional information regarding changes and adjustments due to Covid-19. Chair Omari stated the work sessions give the Planning Commission an opportunity to learn about what is going on in the City. He added he lives near Evergreen Park, where over 90% of the green space has disappeared as developers build more houses. Ms. Beekman stated parks can be specifically zoned for parkland, which is a very specific type of zoning. She added the City has no intention of developing parkland, and parks would not be sold for development. She noted the property to which Chair Omari is referring is land that was acquired by the City before 2008 for the purpose of developing a single-family plat. Ms. Beekman stated City Staff can provide additional content for the Planning Commission’s consideration, including a discussion regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), which are being viewed by many communities as an opportunity to provide more housing options, and create affordable home ownership opportunities. Commissioner Koenig asked whether ADUs on residential property would be for lease or rental, but not ownership, on standard-sized City lots. He expressed concern about the possibility of residents adding additional housing units on their property. Ms. Beekman stated the City can decide how that would be structured, and the Planning Commission can be involved in that discussion. She added most ADU’s are attached to the primary structure, or located over a garage, and some cities put in an owner-occupied deed restriction. She noted City Staff can provide some examples of what residents are doing with ADU’s in Brooklyn Center. PC Work Session Minutes 11-12-20 -7- DRAFT Mr. Omari stated this has been an excellent discussion, as it is helpful to hear additional information to bring the new Planning Commissioners up to speed. Commissioner Goyah stated he appreciates the presentation and input from City Staff. He added he has remained quiet because he was confused about what the discussion was about, and it was all over the place. He noted Commissioner Daniels asked questions about the Opportunity Site, and the discussion got redirected. He requested that meetings include specific items for discussion, so it is easy to follow. Chair Omari stated he appreciates Commissioner Goyah’s comment. He added the purpose of the Work Session was a presentation and discussion regarding the City’s Zoning Ordinance and provide an update for the Planning Commission. He noted, however, the Opportunity Site was brought up when a Commissioner had specific concerns about that particular project which was not on the agenda, and Ms. Beekman was not prepared to address that topic. Commissioner Daniels stated she brought up the Opportunity Site because it was mentioned in the presentation, and there are specific Zoning Codes that tie in with the project. Commissioner Koenig stated he believes the Zoning Code presentation and the Opportunity Site are very much hand in glove, even though it was not included on the agenda, and it can get very confusing as there are a lot of details. Chair Omari stated it was not his intention to shut down Commissioner Daniels’ comments. He added her comments that the City Council are not aware of details related to the Opportunity Site brings up the issue of the role of the Planning Commissioners to be able to contribute to the Zoning Ordinance discussion. Commissioner Goyah stated he was confused and could not follow the different topics at tonight’s meeting. He added he felt the presentation was helpful and informative, but the aftermath was difficult to follow and confusing. Chair Omari stated he takes responsibility for not structuring the meeting better. He added he will try to provide more structure at subsequent meetings. He requested that City Staff provide information regarding community organizations that can provide additional materials on the role of the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Jones stated she learned a lot at the meeting. She thanked City Staff. Ms. Beekman asked what areas Chair Omari is interested in receiving additional information for discussion. Chair Omari stated he is thinking about affordability, and where the City stands in relation to neighboring cities. Ms. Beekman stated City Staff are working with consultants on a housing study which will include a comprehensive look at current housing needs. She added that might be very useful information to share with the Planning Commission once the work has been completed. PC Work Session Minutes 11-12-20 -8- DRAFT Chair Omari stated there is one more Planning Commission meeting before the end of the year. He added he hopes everyone stays safe and do whatever you can to make it past Covid. 2. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ________________ PC 02/11/2021 Page 1 Planning Commission and Housing Commission Joint Work Session Memo Meeting Date: February 11, 2021 TO: Planning Commission and Housing Commission FROM: Meg Beekman, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Brooklyn Center Housing Presentation and Discussion Background: In April 2018, the City Council discussed several possible policies to address affordable housing issues. Based on that discussion, Council directed staff to move forward with a Tenant Protection Ordinance, and in December 2018, it was adopted. In March 2020, The City Council discussed housing policy as it centers around two distinct topic areas: 1) Housing choice - What is the composition and condition of the current housing stock? What are the current market demands for housing? How does the city's housing stock relate to the market, and does the city have enough and the right type to meet current and future need? 2) Affordable housing policies - What can the city do to improve livability and accessibility to quality affordable housing for residents? What best practices exist to support an effective approach to addressing the need for affordable housing in the community? What policies are most effective to prevent displacement? At the work session the Council considered a work plan that would take a comprehensive review of the City’s housing policy approach related to these two distinct topic areas and provided direction to staff. The work plan included the following action items: - Adopt a Fair Housing Policy (Complete) - Conduct a comprehensive housing study (in process) - Explore a NOAH Preservation program (in process) - Explore a mixed-income/inclusionary housing policy (in process) - Review rental licensing thought the lens of tenant protections (in process) - Single family housing stabilization Introduction: Housing and the policy issues related to housing have become some of the most pressing and important matters facing communities today. For most suburban communities, housing comprises a significant majority of a cities land use and tax base. Maintaining and preserving a safe, quality, and desirable housing stock is critical to a community's long-term economic health and resiliency. Further, a diverse housing stock, which offers a wide range of housing choices and price points, ensures that a community can be resilient through economic ups and downs as well as provide housing options for a diverse population throughout their lives. In addition to maintaining a quality and diverse supply of housing, communities are more and more becoming focused on concerns regarding livability and accessibility of housing. Over the last several ________________ PC 02/11/2021 Page 2 years, the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area has been experiencing record low vacancy rates. According to Marquette Advisors’ midyear report from August 2019, the average vacancy rate across the seven- county metro area was 2.3 percent. The pandemic has driven vacancy rates higher, and by the end of September 2020, rates in the Twin Cities had risen to 3.6 percent. Still, experts agree that a balanced rental market will typically see an average vacancy rate of around 5 percent. The effect of low vacancy rates over time is increasing 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, with the average rent increasing nearly 8 percent year over year to a current unprecedented $1,254 per month. In addition, the Metropolitan Council continues to see a reduction in the number of landlords accepting Section 8 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. Brooklyn Center’s Current Rental Housing: The result of the regional trends described above are being felt in Brooklyn Center. Vacancy rates in the community remain lower than the regional average, hovering around 2 percent. This is common in communities with more affordable rental units. Thirty-seven percent of Brooklyn Center's housing stock is comprised of rental units. Of the City’s single- family housing, about 8 percent are rental. Nearly 100 percent of the multi-family housing in Brooklyn Center are one and two bedroom units built between 1961 and 1971, and nearly all of it is naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). Average rents in Brooklyn Center are naturally occurring affordable because the market rents, based on the age and condition of the units make them affordable at around 50 percent AMI in the metropolitan area. Rents in Brooklyn Center are lower than the regional average. According to the Metropolitan Council, the following table indicates what are considered affordable rents in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: Housing is considered affordable when a person making 80 percent area median income (AMI) or less spends no more than 30 percent of their income on rent or a mortgage. Currently, the AMI for a family ________________ PC 02/11/2021 Page 3 for a family of four in the Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington Metropolitan Statistical Area is: AMI 2020 Area Median Income $103,400 80% of Area Median Income $78,500* 60% of Area Median Income $62,040 50% of Area Median Income $51,700 30% of Area Median Income $31,000 *The 80% of Area Median Income limit is capped at the U.S. national median family income Approximately 90 percent of all of the housing units in Brooklyn Center are NOAH. While NOAH properties are affordable, they can be at risk of being lost as market demand increases and rents continue to go up. They can also experience disinvestment over time, causing deterioration, loss of value, and most importantly poor quality or unsafe living situations if they are not properly inspected and maintained. At present 4.1 percent of all units, and 10.9 percent of rental units, are legally binding, or subsidized affordable units. Subsidized affordable units are housing units that are required to maintain an affordable rent regardless of shifts in market demand. Due to their financing structure, they also must be maintained to a certain minimum standard. One of the goals of affordable housing advocates is to preserve existing NOAH properties by converting them to legally binding affordable units through NOAH preservation programs. With the construction of Sonder Housing, Real Estate Equities will be adding 270 units of legally binding new affordable housing units to the city. These will be the first new construction multi-family housing units built in Brooklyn Center since 1979, and will increase the percentage of legally binding affordable units to 6.6 percent of all units and 17.1 percent of rental units. The City's 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies several broad housing goals 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. In addition to these goals, the 2040 Comprehensive Plan identifies implementation strategies as well as resources and tools for achieving its housing goals. Chapter 4 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan provides more background information on the City’s housing stock, its housing goals, and how these goals will be implemented (Attached). Housing Study: ________________ PC 02/11/2021 Page 4 In November 2020, the City entered into a contract with Dr. Brittany Lewis and the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) with the University of Minnesota to complete a city-wide housing study. The scope of work is attached to this memo, and includes a dual research approach with both quantitative and qualitative methods. CURA has recently completed a demographic and housing data analysis which has been included as an attachment to this memo. The purpose of the study is to: • Develop a housing policy plan that addresses policies and practices that ensure that the current and future housing needs of the community are met. • Provide stable and affordable housing options for current and future residents while providing a balance of land uses that support a resilient community. • Help the City become more aware of the ways that future development could potentially widen the affordability gap and help to identify ways to mitigate gentrification pressures. The scope of the study includes: • Understand existing housing conditions and trends in the City of Brooklyn Center. • Provide an analysis of the likely impact of forecasted growth on property values and rents with a focus on the potential for gentrification. • Survey residents in the City of Brooklyn Center to understand their perspectives on current housing conditions, affordability, experience, preferences, and housing needs. • Complete a best practices literature review and analysis on impacts of major investment on property values and residential rents (i.e., “opportunity site master plan”). • Identify strategies and policy initiatives that mitigate displacement and gentrification as investment occurs. • Co-facilitate a conversation with the City Council about housing policy, gentrification and the affordability crisis to present data and gain mutual understanding • Final report with policy recommendations, and presentation of findings to local leadership. Dr. Lewis will facilitate an Advisory Council, which will oversee the housing study and provide input on the qualitative research methodology as well as the final recommendations. CURA has already begun the data analysis portion of the project. The project is anticipated to wrap up in the fall of 2021. Housing Discussion: The purpose of the discussion this evening is to provide an overview of a variety of housing topics as they relate to Brooklyn Center’s housing. The discussion this evening is a starting point, and will require further dialogue as the City continues to learn more about what is needed to address housing needs in the community. Jeff Matson, with CURA, and Nelima Sitati Munene, with ACER, will present along with staff at this evening’s work session. The agenda for the work session: • National/Regional Housing Trends Affecting Brooklyn Center • Responses/Strategies being Employed • Brooklyn Center Housing and Demographic Data • Brooklyn Center’s Housing Policy Work Plan • Housing Study Overview ________________ PC 02/11/2021 Page 5 • Discussion Staff intends to hold a follow-up work session with the Planning Commission and Housing Commission that covers the basics of tax increment financing and multi-family housing finance. Discussion Questions: During the presentation, think about the following questions: • Is there additional information that would be useful to understand this topic area better? • Are there additional topics related to housing that we didn’t talk about, but that you think would be helpful for you to feel better prepared to make decisions and recommendations? • Are there outside subject matter experts that might be able to provide more information or a different perspective that you feel would be beneficial for the group? Attachments: • 2040 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 4 • Housing Study Scope of Work • CURA’s Housing Report CHAPTER 4: Housing & Neighborhood Comprehensive Plan 2040 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-1 INTRODUCTION This Chapter evaluates Brooklyn Center’s existing housing stock and plans for future housing needs based on household projections, population projections, and identified needs communicated through this planning process. As required in the City’s 2015 System Statement prepared by the Metropolitan Council, understanding and planning for the City’s housing stock is a critical part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan (Plan). The City’s planned land use includes three residential categories and residential components of new mixed-use designations which together account for approximately half of the City’s land use area. Residential land use will continue to be the largest land use in the community. A diverse housing stock that offers neighborhood stability combined with access to open space, goods and services is essential to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient community. It protects the community’s tax base against market fluctuations; it builds community pride and engagement of existing residents; it helps the community’s economic competitiveness by assisting Brooklyn Center businesses with employee attraction and retention; it provides options for existing residents to remain in the community should their life circumstances (e.g., aging-in-place) change; and it offers future residents access to amenities and levels of service that support a stable and supportive housing and neighborhood environment. The first part of this Chapter focuses on the existing housing stock. It summarizes important information regarding the overall number of housing units, the type of units, their affordability, and the profile of their residents. These sections are a summary of more detailed socio-economic data which is attached to this Plan as an Appendix and serves as a supporting resource to this Chapter. Understanding the existing housing stock is key to determining what types of housing products may be demanded over the next 10-20 years and where they should be located. In conjunction to the statistical or inventory information collected, this Chapter includes a summary of community, stakeholder and policy-maker feedback related to housing and neighborhoods heard throughout this planning process. Additionally, this Chapter addresses the projected housing needs during the planning period and presents some neighborhood and housing aspirations as identified by the City’s residents and policy-makers. The final section of this Chapter links projected housing need to practical implementation tools to help the City achieve its housing goals and identified strategies. The list contained in this Chapter is not exhaustive but provides a starting place from which the City can continue to expand and consider opportunities to meet current and future resident needs. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-2 2040 Housing & Neighborhood Goals »Promote a diverse housing stock that provides safe, stable, and accessible housing options to all of Brooklyn Center’s residents. »Recognize and identify ways to match Brooklyn Center’s housing with the City’s changing demographics. »Explore opportunities to improve the City’s housing policies and ordinances to make them more responsive to current and future residents. »Maintain the existing housing stock in primarily single-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentive programs and enforcement. »Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas that promote safe, secure and economically diverse neighborhoods. * Supporting Strategies found in Chapter 2: Vision, Goals and Strategies HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-3 ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING SUPPLY Overview of Brooklyn Center’s Residential Neighborhoods The City of Brooklyn Center’s residential neighborhoods are diverse and include a variety of housing types from single-family neighborhoods to large-scale apartment complexes. Although the City originally incorporated as a village in 1911, it wasn’t until the Post-World War II era that the City began to develop on a large scale in which entire blocks and neighborhoods were constructed with tract housing, suburban streets, and neighborhood parks. Like much of the region’s first ring suburbs, Brooklyn Center took on the role of a typical bedroom community where residents could get to their jobs in the downtown, stop for groceries at the retail center, and go home and park their cars in their garages for the evening. This pattern of development can be seen throughout the region, but Brooklyn Center had one significant difference for many decades – the regional mall known as Brookdale. The prominence of the mall and its surrounding commercial district played a major role in how neighborhoods were built and developed, which influenced neighborhood patterns and housing types. Even though the mall is now gone, it continues to have lasting effects on the existing housing types and neighborhoods and will influence future housing as described in subsequent sections of this Chapter. For example, in the decades that the mall and regional retail center was operational much of Brooklyn Center’s multi-family and apartment development was concentrated near the mall and its surrounding commercial district and provided a transition to the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Therefore, even though the mall no longer exists, the apartments developed around the periphery of its retail area in the 1960s continue to be in high demand and provide a critical source of housing for many households. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-4 The following sections identify and inventory the existing housing stock in the community including single-family, attached and apartment uses. Each of these housing types serve a different role in the community, but each type is an important part of the City’s neighborhoods. A summary of the City’s existing residential types and neighborhoods are as follows: Single-Family Residential Single-family residential neighborhoods are the dominant land use within the City and single- family detached homes comprise nearly 63 percent of the City’s housing stock. The City’s single-family detached neighborhoods were developed surrounding higher density and higher intensity land uses that included the former regional retail center and the major freeway corridors of I-94 and Highway 100. Most of the single-family neighborhoods are developed on a grid system with traditional ‘urban’ size lots. Exceptions of some larger lots are interspersed within the traditional block pattern and along the Mississippi River where a pocket of residents have views and/or frontage of the river corridor. The 1950s were the peak decade for housing construction in the City; a period in which owner- occupied housing predominated. While other housing types began to emerge post 1950s, the demand for single-family detached housing continued through 1980 as the remaining land in the community developed. Given the period in which the majority of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock was built, nearly the entire single-family detached housing stock is more than 40 years old. This is a major concern because at 40 years of age exterior components of a building including siding, windows, and roofs often need to be replaced to protect its structural integrity. Because the City became mostly built-out by the late 1970s, nearly all of the City’s housing stock falls into this category, which means the City must be cognizant of potential issues and proactively monitor the situation to ensure neighborhoods are sustainable into the future. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-5 While related to housing age, the size or square footage of single-family homes also plays a significant role in the demographics of a community. Changes to family structure, technology, and other factors alter housing preferences over time, which can lead to functional obsolescence of homes and result in reduced home values because they no longer meet current buyers’ expectations. Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock is fairly homogeneous and the overwhelming majority of homes in every neighborhood are less than 1,500 square feet – and in many areas less than 1,000 square feet. This is a relatively modest single-family housing size, and, therefore, the single-family housing stock lacks diversity, which results in lack of choice for current and prospective residents. At the same time, these homes offer an option for small families, single and two-person households, and first time homebuyers. Because the majority of the City’s single-family housing stock is relatively small, older, and of a homogeneous type as compared to newer larger homes or neighborhoods with more housing variety, housing prices in Brooklyn Center tend to be affordable. Also, given the similar age, size and styles of many of the homes, housing in the community has a fairly consistent price-per- square foot. Affordability in the existing housing stock can be a positive attribute that has the potential to provide long-term stability to residents and neighborhoods. However, as shown in the Background Report residents of Brooklyn Center also tend to have lower median household incomes, which can mean residents may struggle to pay for large-scale capital investments in their homes such as replacing windows or a roof. Additionally, within the region some communities with similar single-family stock to Brooklyn Center have experienced pressure for tear-downs and major remodeling, and that market trend has yet to reach the City. While that trend may eventually impact the community, at the present time the change and growth impacting the single-family neighborhoods is mostly related to the evolving demographics within the community. This change presents different considerations and challenges because it is not necessarily physical growth or changes to homes and neighborhoods. Instead the community is challenged with how to manage larger numbers of people living within a household such as growing numbers of multi- generational households. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-6 Existing Single-family Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process Throughout this planning process policy-makers and residents alike expressed the desire to maintain the affordability of the existing single-family neighborhoods but acknowledged the current challenges of helping residents maintain their structures, blocks and neighborhoods in the face of compounding maintenance due to the age of the City’s neighborhoods. In addition to the physical condition of the structures, residents and policy-makers also acknowledged that as the City’s population and demographics become increasingly more diverse new residents are changing how existing homes are being occupied and, therefore, it would be valuable for the City to evaluate it’s ordinances and policies to ensure they align with the needs of residents. The demographic considerations are identified in subsequent sections of this Chapter, but it is worth noting that the demographic changes can have a significant impact the character of existing single-family residential neighborhoods. Most recognized this as a positive change, but also acknowledged and stated that the City must figure out how to pro-actively address some of these changes to protect the existing neighborhood fabric. For example, multi-generational households are becoming increasingly more prevalent within the City’s single-family neighborhoods which can impact how rooms within a home are used, how many cars may be present at the home, and how outdoor spaces and yards may be used. Closely related to the demographic changes in the community is the City’s aspiration to promote and maintain neighborhood stability. This objective emerged repeatedly throughout this planning process as residents and policy-makers expressed the desire to identify strategies to help promote and encourage sustainability, resiliency and accessibility within the single-family neighborhoods. In part this objective is the result of several years of turnover within the single- family neighborhoods as long-term residents begin to age and move onto other housing options, new residents and families are moving into the neighborhoods. This life-cycle of housing is common, but the City wants to find ways to ensure new residents want to stay in their homes, their neighborhoods, and the community long-term and invest in making the City a better place for generations to come. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-7 Multi-family Residential Nearly one third (29 percent) of the City’s housing units are in multi-family residential buildings located throughout the community. Nearly all of these buildings were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s, and are primarily located on major roadways or corridors, and surrounding the former regional retail areas. This means these buildings are nearly 50 years old or older. Just as noted within the single-family neighborhoods, the potential for deterioration and need for significant investment in these aging buildings can pose a threat to the quality of the City’s housing stock if the buildings are not properly maintained, managed and updated. There has been some maintenance and management of the multi-family housing stock, and a few complexes have even incorporated modest upgrades to the interiors. In fact, the City has started one large-scale rehabilitation of a building that would bring higher-market rate rental options to the community once completed. However, this is one project and despite these improvements the City’s multi-family housing stock continues to be one of the most affordable in the region with some of the lowest rental rates in the metropolitan area. Many of the multi-family areas are near major corridors and are adjacent to high intensity uses that do not necessarily support or serve the residential use with the current development and land use patterns. As a result, many of the multi-family areas do not feel like an incorporated part of the City’s neighborhoods. As discussed in subsequent sections of this Chapter, the City is planning for redevelopment in or adjacent to many of the existing multi- family areas that will hopefully reinvigorate and reconnect the existing multi-family uses into a larger neighborhood context. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-8 Multifamily Neighborhood Perspectives Described in this Planning Process Throughout this planning process the City’s residents were vocal about the existing multi-family options available in the community and the lack of diversity within the multi-family housing stock. Without a full inventory of all available multi-family units it is difficult to confirm some of the anecdotal comments heard throughout the process, but nevertheless it is important to consider since residents’ testimony provides valuable insight into the existing housing stock. Several residents indicated that there are few options available for larger multi-family units with at least three (3) bedrooms, making it difficult to find stable living options for families with more than two (2) children. Residents also communicated a desire to have housing options that were closer to supportive retail, commercial and services so that they could walk, bike or easily use transit to meet their needs. Despite these challenges, the City’s parks, trails and open spaces were viewed as an integral and important part of their quality of life. Similarly, to the single-family neighborhoods, the community’s aspiration to create a stable, accessible, and economically diverse multi-family housing stock was established as a short and long-term priority. Though not discussed at length during this planning process, it is widely known and understood that resident turnover, including evictions, is a serious problem that is most concentrated within the multi-family neighborhoods of the City. While this Chapter does not attempt to fully evaluate the causes for turnover and eviction in these neighborhoods, it does acknowledge it as a significant challenge and issue which shapes the character of these areas of the community. Turnover, including evictions, changes how residents feel about the community whether the City is directly involved or not. It has lasting affects on how safe people feel within a community, how invested in an area they want to become and how willing they are to contribute and reinvest in the City. For these reasons, it is imperative that the City tackle these issues and create a more stable, and integrated living environment so all residents feel a part of a neighborhood, and the larger community. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-9 Housing Stock Statistics The following existing housing stock characteristics support the previous neighborhood descriptions through more detail. This information, coupled with the previous description, provides a valuable baseline from which the City can evaluate and plan for the future of its housing stock. Total Housing Units According to data from the Metropolitan Council and the City of Brooklyn Center, there are 11,603 housing units in Brooklyn Center as of 2017. As a fully developed community, new residential development in Brooklyn Center has been limited since the late 1980s. According to the Metropolitan Council, around 100 new housing units have been built since 2000 and these homes were primarily small infill locations or small redevelopment opportunities. Housing Tenure (Owned and Rented Units) Nearly 40 percent of the community’s residents rent, and the majority of those renters live in apartment buildings which are integrated throughout the community. The Background Report in the Appendix includes maps illustrating the location of rental housing and demographics of renters. Given that a significant portion of the City’s population lives in apartments, the age of such structures becomes critically important to the overall health of the housing supply. The majority of the apartments were constructed prior to 1979 with the bulk of the units being constructed between 1966 and 1969. This means that the majority of the apartments is more than 50 years old, and that structural deficiencies and major capital improvements may be required in the relatively near term in order for the structures to remain marketable. 11,603 Brooklyn Center housing units as of February 2017 - Sources: Metropolitan Council 40% of community residents are renters - Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-10 Housing Type Related to housing tenure is housing type. Due to Brooklyn Center’s peak time of housing development in the 1950s, the housing type is predominantly single-family detached homes. As of 2017, there are 8,270 units (71 percent) of single-family housing (attached and detached) and 3,333 (29 percent) classified as multi-family housing. The type of housing structure can influence not only affordability but also overall livability. Having a range of housing structures can provide residents of a community options that best meet their needs as they shift from one life stage to another. For example, retirees often desire multi-family housing not only for the ease of maintenance, but also for security reasons. Multifamily residences are less susceptible to home maintenance issues or burglary concerns because of on-site management. For those with health concerns, multi-family residences often have neighbors that can also provide oversight should an acute health problem occur. The majority (63 percent) of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock consists of detached single-family homes. This is above the proportion found in Hennepin County (55 percent) or throughout the metropolitan area (59 percent). Nevertheless, the City’s housing stock is diversified, with many multi-family units in large structures, as well as a significant number of single-family attached units. More detailed data are included in the Background Report in the Appendix. Year Built The age of the housing stock is an important characteristic of the community particularly as it relates to potential structural obsolescence and other limiting factors which correlate to housing values. As described earlier, much of Brooklyn Center’s single-family housing stock was developed post-World War II between 1950 and 1963 and many of the homes in this age range were dominated by rambler architectural styles. As shown on Map 15, entire neighborhoods were all constructed in a relatively short period of time which strongly defines a neighborhood pattern. As shown, most of Brooklyn Center was developed on a fairly regular grid pattern and does not reflect a ‘suburban’ development pattern. This is positive from the perspective that transportation and transit connections should be easier to improve, where necessary, because of the relatively dense population of the neighborhoods. However, aging neighborhoods can present a challenge as major systems (i.e. roof, siding, windows, HVAC, etc.) reach the end of their useful life. This can be particularly difficult if residents are unable to reinvest and maintain their properties, which leads to deferred maintenance and the potential for more significant problems that would become widespread across entire neighborhoods. 71% of housing units are single-family - Sources: Metropolitan Council; US Census; SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-11 Approximately 86 percent of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock (over 10,000 units) is more than 40 years old. This is an overwhelming portion of the City’s housing, and it is therefore important to track the condition of these older homes as they are at-risk of deferred maintenance. This can rapidly result in critical structural problems. At the same time, well-maintained older housing can be an important source of entry-level housing because of its relative affordability when compared to newer construction. Table 4-1. Year Built 86% of housing stock is more than 40 years old - Sources: US Census; SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-12 Housing Affordability The Metropolitan Council considers housing affordable when low-income households are spending no more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs. Households are considered low-income if their income is at or below 80 percent of the metropolitan area’s median income (AMI). The housing stock in Brooklyn Center is affordable relative to other communities in the Twin Cities region. According to the Metropolitan Council, 93 percent of the housing units in 2017 in Brooklyn Center were considered affordable. Moreover, only a small portion (5 percent) of this housing is publicly subsidized. Therefore, most housing is privately-owned and pricing is set by the market. According to the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, there were 480 home sales in Brooklyn Center in 2017 with a median sales price of $186,125. This was roughly 25 percent lower than the Metro Area median sales price of $247,900. For rental housing, according to CoStar, a national provider of real estate data, the average monthly rent for a market rate apartment in Brooklyn Center in 2017 was $981 compared to the Metro Area average of $1,190. $186,125 2017 median home sale price in Brooklyn Center $247,900 2017 median home sale price in the Metro Area - Source: Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors, HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-13 Map 4-1. Estimated Market Value of Owner-Occupied Housing Brooklyn Center Broo klyn Park Columbia Heights Crystal Fridley Robbinsdale Minneapolis - Owner-Occupied Housing by Estimated Market Value 1/5/2018 .1 in = 0.55 miles Brooklyn Center County Boundaries City and Township Boundaries Streets Lakes and Rivers Owner-Occupied Housing Estimated Market Value, 2016 $243,500 or Less $243,501 to $350,000 $350,001 to $450,000 Over $450,000 Source: MetroGIS Regional Parcel Dataset, 2016 estimated market values for taxes payable in 2017. Note: Estimated Market Value includes only homesteaded units with a building on the parcel. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-14 Table 4-2. Existing Housing Assessment Total Housing Units1 11,608 Affordability2 Units affordable to households with income at or below 30% of AMI Units affordable to households with income 31% to 50% of AMI Units affordable to households with income 51% to 80% of AMI 460 4,451 6,029 Tenure3 Ownership Units Rental Units 6,911 4,697 Type1 Single-family Units Multifamily Units Manufactured Homes Other Housing Units 8,275 3,333 0 0 Publicly Subsidized Units4 All publicly subsidized units Publicly subsidized senior units Publicly subsidized units for people with disabilities Publicly subsidized units: all others 553 22 0 531 Housing Cost Burdened Households5 Income at or below 30% of AMI Income 31% to 50% of AMI Income 51% to 80% AMI 1,691 1,406 895 1 Metropolitan Council, 2016 housing sock estimate. Single-family units include single-family detached homes and townhomes. Multifamily units include units in duplex, triplex, and quadplex buildings as well as those in buildings with five or more units. 2 Metropolitan Council staff estimates for 2016 based on 2016 and 2017 MetroGIS Regional Parcel Datasets (ownership units), 2010-2014 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data from HUD (rental units and household income), and the Council’s 2016 Manufactured Housing Parks Survey (manufactured homes). Counts from these datasets were adjusted to better match the Council’s estimates of housing units and households in 2016 as well as more current tenure, affordability, and income data from eh American Community Survey, home value data from the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and rents from HousingLink’s Twin Cities Rental Revue data. 3 US Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey five-year estimates; counts adjusted to better match the Council’s 2016 housing stock estimates. 4 Source: HousingLink Streams data (covers projects whose financing closed by December 2016) 5 Housing cost burden refers to households whose housing costs are at least 30% of their income. Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2010- 2014 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, with counts adjusted to better match Metropolitan Council 2016 household estimates. The high rate of affordability is largely due to the prevalence of smaller and older homes in the single-family neighborhoods, and the age and level of improvements within the multi-family rental neighborhoods. Such small sized properties are typically less expensive because they have significantly less living space than newer homes (average construction square footage has increased each decade since the 1950s). Age and level of update and improvements within the apartment stock, coupled with the average HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-15 number of bedrooms in the rental units is impacting the relative affordability of the multi-family units. The condition in both the single-family and multi-family housing stock is what is known as Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH), because the physical characteristics of the properties are what makes them affordable rather than the affordability being established through a legally binding contract. Although there is a high rate of affordability for existing units, the Metropolitan Council identifies a need for additional affordable units in any new housing construction added to the community through 2040. This condition would most likely be achieved by a legally binding contract, or some other financing mechanism as new affordable housing product would be difficult to achieve without some assistance given construction and land costs. Of the approximately 2,258 projected new housing units, the Metropolitan Council establishes a need of 238 units to be affordable to households at or below 80 percent AMI to satisfy the regional share of affordable housing. Although nearly all of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock essentially fits within the criteria as naturally occurring affordable housing, there are some observable trends that would suggest the price of housing in Brooklyn Center could rise in the coming years. Most recently in 2018 the City’s for-sale housing median home sales price surpassed the pre-bust pricing. While the median remains below the regional median, it does indicate growing demand and increased pricing. Significant areas of redevelopment identified on the Future Land Use Plan, including the former regional mall (Brookdale) location, present opportunities for higher-market rates for new housing added. These opportunities have the potential to create a more economically diverse housing stock within the City, which is relatively homogeneous at the time this Plan is written. Given these opportunities, it is important to continue to monitor the City’s NOAH stock, and to evaluate and establish policies to incorporate legally binding and protected affordable housing as redevelopment occurs. This is a careful balancing act that requires concerted and direct monitoring, study, and evaluation in order to ensure an economically diverse, sustainable and resilient housing stock for the long-term success of the community. A few key existing housing needs can be summarized as the following: • The need to protect the City’s existing NOAH properties, both owner and renter- occupied, and to maintain NOAH properties with high-quality living standards. • More rental units with larger square-footages and increasing number of bedrooms to meet the needs of the City’s residents that tend to be younger and/or include multi- generational households. • The City needs greater diversity within the existing housing stock to accommodate a wider market including the desire to incorporate market-rate product types that will supplement the City’s existing affordable housing product types. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-16 KEY DEMOGRAPHICS Age Profile of the Population The age profile of a community has important ramifications on demand for housing, goods and services, and social cohesion. Tables and figures illustrating the City’s age distribution are presented in the Background Report in the Appendix. Unlike the broader region, in which the population continues to age rapidly, Brooklyn Center’s population grew younger between 2000 and 2010, and has stayed relatively stable since 2010. This is largely due to a significant increase in people age 25 to 34, many of which are starting families and having children. Increases in the number of young families place demands on schools, housing affordability, and the types of retail goods and services needed. The median age of residents in Brooklyn Center in 2016 was 32.8, which is consistent with the 2010 median age of 32.6. This is younger than 2000 when the median ages was 35.3. With such a young population, it is expected housing units may turn over more frequently. But, as of 2016, more than 60 percent all households have been living in their homes for more than five (5) years. More data about geographic mobility of households is found in the Background Report in the Appendix. Household & Family Type Changing family and household structures can also have a profound effect on housing and other community needs. For example, decreasing household size has a direct impact on the amount of housing a household needs. As mentioned, the presence of children not only impacts local schools and parks, but also the types of retailers that can be supported and the nature of housing demanded. Since 2010, the number of households with children in both single-parent and married couple households has been growing significantly. Meanwhile, the trend among households without children, especially married couples (i.e., empty-nesters) has been on the decline. The percentage of households with children is approaching 40 percent, which is well above the rate in the County and the metro area. 32.8 Median age of Brooklyn Center residents - Sources: US Census, SHC HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-17 Cost Burdened Households Cost burden is the proportion of household income spent toward housing and utilities. When lower income households spend more than 30 percent of their income toward housing and utilities this burden is considered excessive because it begins to limit the money available for other essentials such as food, clothing, transportation, and healthcare. According to data from the Metropolitan Council, 4,114 (35 percent) Brooklyn Center households at or below 80 percent average median income (AMI) are considered cost-burdened which means they spend more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. This percentage is well above the metro area rate of 23 percent. Half of these Brooklyn Center households are lower income households who earn at or less than 30 percent AMI. The high incidence of cost burdened households is correlated with younger wage earners, lower-wage jobs, and a high proportion of older households, many of which are in retirement and no longer working. FUTURE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES Projected Housing Need As referenced in Chapter 3: Land Use & Redevelopment and the following Table 4-4, the Metropolitan Council’s 2015 System Statement forecasts that Brooklyn Center will add approximately 4,169 new residents and 2,258 new households through 2040 and identifies the following affordable housing allocation to be accommodated between 2020 and 2030. Table 4-3. Affordable Housing Need Allocation AMI Range Units At or below 30% AMI 103 31 to 50% AMI 0 51 to 80% AMI 135 Total Units 238 Source: 2015 System Statement - Metropolitan Council Housing Challenges inform Housing Needs The Metropolitan Council’s System Statement identifies approximately 10% of the planned HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-18 housing units for some level of affordability as identified in Table 4-3. As described in other chapters of this Plan, for the first time since the post-World War II housing boom the City is expected to add a significant number of new households. These new households have the opportunity to provide a more diverse housing stock, and add to the options of available for existing and new residents in the community. Redevelopment can reinvigorate and revive areas of the community with vibrant, experience-rich areas that will benefit everyone in the community. The City is excited for redevelopment to create a dynamic central hub of activity in the community, but also acknowledges that it must be balanced with strong assessment, planning and appropriate protection of its existing housing stock to ensure neighborhood sustainability and stability in all areas of the community. New housing stock brings the possibility of adverse impacts to existing single-family and multi-family properties if proactive steps are not taken to protect existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH), single-family neighborhoods, and multi-family properties. The City’s policy makers throughout this process discussed and acknowledged that bringing new market-rate, amenity rich housing products could have deleterious affects specifically on existing naturally occurring affordable housing if a plan to protect affordability is not implemented. This is a huge concern as resident stability through access to safe and healthy housing is one of the City’s adopted strategic priorities. If proper tools are not in place there are no protections to keep rents reasonable for residents and to maintain reasonably priced for-sale housing as redevelopment takes holds. One of the positive aspects of the City’s identified redevelopment areas is that the land proposed for redevelopment does not contain existing housing. In a fully-development community this is unusual for a large redevelopment area, and is positive because no residents will be displaced as a result of the City’s redevelopment aspirations. However, even though residents will not be displaced directly, indirectly, redevelopment could increase the desirability of activities such as flipping single-family homes and converting NOAH multi-family properties for higher-rents. To address some of these concerns an extensive list of high-level tools have been outlined in Table 4-5 of this Chapter. The City recognizes that this chapter is only the start of an ongoing conversation, and it is the City’s policy-makers intent to continue to be proactive, and to collaborate with non-profits and advocate for a broader regional approach to housing affordability. In addition to the tools identified in Table 4-5, the City is also continuing conversations about: • Viability of a non-discrimination ordinance related to Section 8 acceptance. Adjacent Cities, including Minneapolis, have attempted to include ordinances in HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-19 their tool-kit addressing this issue. While the issue is currently in court, Brooklyn Center will continue to monitor the process and may consider adoption of a similar ordinance depending on its outcome. • The City has discussed developing a more formal housing action plan to better understand the needs of its residents. The plan would work to better understand cost-burdened households, eviction rates and policies, home-ownership racial disparities, and gaps in the housing stock. • Continuing to revise, enhance and modify its policies and ordinance to respond to residents needs. This includes monitoring best-practices in the region, being agile and open to changes and enhancements. As an example of this type of ordinance or policy response the City recently adopted a Tenant Protection Ordinance that is aimed and protecting the City’s residents ability to maintain stable, safe housing. The City’s projected housing needs are complex, and are likely to become more complicated as redevelopment occurs. However, the City intends to continue to prioritize discussion and action around creating safe and stable housing throughout the City. The following sections specifically address the new housing expected to be develop in this planning period. The new and redevelopment areas should be considered collectively with the City’s existing neighborhoods to ensure an incorporated, integrated approach to the City’s neighborhoods is achieved to create a dynamic community for generations to come. New Housing Opportunities in this Planning Period Recognizing that the land use plan for Brooklyn Center identifies several key areas that are HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-20 envisioned for new development or redevelopment, this will result in an opportunity to accommodate more housing and increase the City’s number of households. Based on guided residential densities in the development opportunity areas, the City can accommodate the Metropolitan Council’s forecasted households as well as meet the allocated affordable units as shown in Table 4-3 above. As indicated in Chapter 3, the market will play an important role in how much redevelopment occurs, but at this time the City is anticipating that a minimum of 1,276 new units that has the potential to address the affordable housing allocation will be brought to the market. Table 4-4. Future Land Use Densities and Projected Households Future Land Use Density (DU/A)2021-2030 Est. Acres 2021-2030 Acres Residential HH Transit Orient Development 31.01-130 DU/A 48 36 1,116 Neighborhood Mixed-Use 15.01-31 DU/A 12 6 90 Commercial Mixed Use 10.01 – 25 DU/A 14 7 70 TOTAL ----1,276 Source: Brooklyn Center, SHC There are three large districts identified in the City with guided land use that allows for significant potential of new development and redevelopment through 2040. These areas have the potential to greatly expand Brooklyn Center’s current housing numbers and choices. Moreover, each opportunity area has the potential to not only provide new forms and types of housing but to catalyze or rejuvenate investment into the City resulting in stronger linkages between neighborhoods and districts that are currently isolated from one another. The following section discusses these areas further. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-21 Future Residential Uses in Planned [Re] Development Opportunity Areas Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) is a new land use and redevelopment concept in the City that focuses on existing and planned transit as a major amenity and catalyst for redevelopment. While previous planning efforts have acknowledged the presence of transit in the community, none have embraced it as an opportunity for redevelopment. As this portion of the City redevelops, the location of future transit enhancements has the potential to attract significant new housing development. Therefore, this is where guided densities are the highest. This is purposeful because the area has exceptional visibility and access from Highway 100 and I-94, and will be served by two transit stops (one being a transit hub) for the C-Line Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and the potential future D-Line BRT. The C-Line BRT is planned to open in 2019 and will mimic the operations of LRT (light rail transit), offering frequent transit service that will connect residents to the larger region. To best support the C-Line, and future D-Line, the City has planned to reinvigorate and re-imagine this central area of the community as a more livable, walkable, and connected neighborhood within the City. In addition, the potential for desirable views of Downtown Minneapolis could result in pressure to build taller structures in this area. Any development of this area should also be seen as an opportunity to support commercial users, improve multi-modal service and access, and allow safe, pleasant, and walkable connections to transit, parks, and other community destinations. As this area evolves, the desirability of this area as an amenity-rich livable area is likely to improve. As change occurs, the housing within the area is likely to be at market rates adding to a more economically diverse housing stock than is currently available in the community. This would add more housing choices in Brooklyn Center, and it could also support a mix of both market rate and affordable units; provided proper policies are developed to ensure legally binding affordable housing is incorporated into development plans. Communities oftentimes explore policies such as inclusionary zoning as redevelopment accelerates which may become an appropriate consideration in the future, but is likely not to be the best approach given current market conditions. However, in the future if significant increases in the market occur it may warrant further discussion in the City. Regardless of the policy tool (whether regulatory or incentive based) selected, consideration will need to be given to working with any future developer in a possible partnership with the City to help deliver affordable units as part of redevelopment. As described within the Chapter 9: Implementation, the City will continue to explore proper methodology and policies to ensure an economically diverse housing stock is created as housing continues to evolve in the community. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-22 Commercial Mixed-Use Areas The Commercial Mixed-Use areas generally surround the TOD area and are contemplated for large-scale redevelopment but are equally as focused on supporting business and office users. These areas are generally within one mile of the transit station that serves as a major hub for regional and local transit services, and therefore new housing will still have opportunities to capitalize on this as an amenity. Slightly less dense than the TOD district, these areas may provide exceptional opportunities to introduce multi-family uses such as town homes, row homes, and small lot single-family uses that could cater to larger families and incorporate more units with three or more bedrooms. As indicated in previous sections of this Chapter, the City’s residents expressed a desire to have access to more rental units with more bedrooms and larger square footages. While a detailed market study would likely be needed to confirm the demand for these uses, if we can take the anecdotal information as true, this area has the potential to support those types of uses. As with the TOD district, affordability is likely to become a consideration in any redevelopment within these areas because new construction naturally costs more and as the area redevelops interest and demand is likely to escalate costs. It is therefore important, just as with the redevelopment of the TOD district, that the City evaluate and explore ways to incorporate a range of affordable and market rate opportunities in new developments. Neighborhood Mixed-Use Areas The Neighborhood Mixed-Use is a new land use designation that responds to resident and policy-makers desire to incorporate retail and services into the neighborhood fabric. One of the ways the City can accomplish that objective is to create ‘nodes’ of mixed-uses that include residential uses, but protect key corners for small retailers, shops, or restaurants that create a more vibrant streetscape. The City acknowledges that these areas are less likely to redevelop with any regularity. Therefore, the number of new housing units expected to come on-line in these areas is a little less tangible than in areas with large contiguous redevelopment acres. However, the nodes have the opportunity to provide yet another housing style and type, as these areas are not envisioned for large high-rises or extensive master plans. Instead, these areas are contemplated to have smaller footprints with living units above a small store front or restaurant for example. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-23 HOUSING RESOURCES, STRATEGIES & TOOLS Table 4-5 outlines a variety of resources, strategies, and tools to implement Brooklyn Center’s identified housing needs and stated housing goals. There is a wealth of resources available to assist communities in meeting their goals. The following table should be considered a starting point. As the City’s housing needs evolve or become clearer, this set of tools should expand with options. Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies & Tools Housing Goal Tool/ Resource/ Strategy Description Affordability Target Promote a diverse stock that provides opportunities for all income levels Housing Demand Market Study Conduct a market study and gaps analysis to track housing demand. This study and report could double as a marketing and promotional piece about housing opportunities. <30% AMI 51-80% AMI HRA/CDA/ EDA Work with the County HRA and City EDA to protect and enhance existing NOAH in the City. Use Market Studies to help identify opportunities to meet housing needs in the City and evaluate ways to partner with the County and other program providers. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Site Assembly Consider strategies for assembling sites in high-density or mixed-use districts that would increase appeal to developers. <30% AMI 51-80% AMI CDBG and Demonstration Account (LCDA) Work with Hennepin County to use CDBG funds to help low-and moderate-income homeowners with rehabilitation assistance. CDBG funds will also be explored for use to support redevelopment efforts that meet the City’s goals towards a diverse housing stock (units and market/ affordable diversity). <30% AMI 51-80% AMI Tax Abatement Consider tax abatement for large rental project proposals that provide unit and income-mix within a single project. The City is particularly interested in projects with market diversity and units of different size to cater to a larger market (singles, families, multi-generational, etc). <30% AMI 51-80% AMI HOME and Affordable Housing Incentive Fund Consider application, and utilization, of HOME and Affordable Housing Incentive fund grants to support a diverse housing stock. The City will prioritize projects that include a unit size and income mix that meets the needs of single-person and families in the City. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI Housing Bonds The City would consider issuing Housing Bonds for projects that include units for large families, particularly in projects with a mix of unit sizes and incomes. However, it should be noted that there are limitations to the city bonding authority and other programs may be more suitable <30% AMI 51-80% AMI Brownfield Clean-up In potential redevelopment areas, explore EPA and MN DEED grant programs that provide funding and assistance with planning, assessment, and site clean-up. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% 4D for NOAH Properties The City will continue use of 4D classification for the purpose of protecting its Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) uses throughout the City. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI Pooled TIF Funds Explore the use of TIF housing funds to create a revolving loan program to support the rehabilitation of existing single- family and multi-family NOAH properties. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-24 Housing Goal Tool/ Resource/ Strategy Description Affordability Target Identify ways to match housing stock with changing demographic Housing Coordinator Position The City would create a position that would serve as a liaison to existing landlords to help them respond to shifting demographics through training and access to city resources. The position could also serve as a resource for tenants to connect to support services in the event of eviction notices, discriminatory practices, and other issues related to housing access. The position would include coordinating housing programs, including home ownership programs, resident financial literacy programs, with the intent to convert Brooklyn Center renters to successful home owners. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Referrals Review and update reference procedures and training for applicable staff including a plan to maintain our ability to refer residents to any applicable housing programs outside the scope of local services. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Preserve LIHTC properties The City will monitor expiring LIHTC properties and work to find solutions to protect and preserve these affordable units to meet the needs and demands of the City’s residents. The City will approach owners with expiring properties to discuss the possibility of 4d program tax breaks <30% AMI 30-50% AMI Explore opportunities to improve City housing policies and ordinance to make more responsive Expedited Application Process Streamline the pre-application process in order to minimize unnecessary delay for projects that address our stated housing needs, prior to a formal application submittal <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Fair Housing Policy The City will work to incorporate a Fair Housing policy into its ordinances and policies. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Existing ordinances The City will continue to operate its Rental Licensing Program, and will periodically review and make enhancements to support the City’s residents. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Update the City’s Zoning to support new land uses The City’s future land use plan provides opportunities to include high density residential uses in the areas identified for redevelopment. The City will update its zoning ordinance, including prepare new zoning districts, to support the housing needs identified in this Housing chapter. <30% AMI 51-80% Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies and Tools Cont’d. HOUSING & NEIGHBORHOOD City of Brooklyn Center Comprehensive Plan 2040 4-25 Housing Goal Tool/ Resource/ Strategy Description Affordability Target Maintain existing housing stock in single-family neighborhoods through proper ordinances, incentives and enforcement Foreclosure Prevention In established neighborhoods, a rash of foreclosures, especially in close proximity to one another, can have a deleterious effect on the surrounding neighborhood. Be aware of foreclosures and be able to direct homeowners at-risk of foreclosure to resources that can help prevent foreclosures. http://www.hocmn.org/ <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Low or No Cost Home Loans Providing low-or no-cost loans to help homeowners repair heating, plumbing, or electrical systems helps preserve existing housing. For example, Minnesota Housing’s Rehabilitation Loan and Emergency Loan programs make zero percent, deferred loans that are forgivable if the borrower lives in the home for 30 years. Minnesota Housing’s Community Fix Up Program offers lower-cost home improvement loans, often with discounted interest rates, remodeling advising, or home energy services, through a trained lender network. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Home Ownership Program Work with residents to provide education and programs to make home ownership possible, particularly converting existing renters to home owners through supporting down- payment assistance programs. 30-50% AMI 51-80% Code Enforcement The City will continue to operate a robust code enforcement program that includes both complaint-based enforcement and proactive sweeps. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Vacant Building Program The City will continue to operate its Vacant Building Program that tracks and monitors vacant properties in the City to ensure adequate upkeep and maintenance. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Homes within Reach The City will cooperate with Homes Within Reach, but will not imitate a Community Land Trust independently during this Planning Period. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Explore opportunities to incorporate new affordable housing into redevelopment areas Inclusionary Housing Ordinance If the market strengthens in redevelopment areas to the extent that policies would not deter investment, the City could consider an inclusionary housing ordinance to ensure that affordable housing is a component of any new housing development. Since current market conditions in the City are well below those of adjacent communities, an inclusionary policy may deter short-term investment. The City may want to explore this policy in the future if the market rents rise to levels of at least 80% AMI. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Livable Communities (LCA and LCA LCDA-TOD) Consider supporting/sponsoring an application to LCDA programs for multi-family rental proposals in areas guided for high density residential and targeted to households of all income levels. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Tax Increment Financing (TIF) To help meet the need for low-income housing, the City will establish a TIF district in an area guided for TOD and mixed uses. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Consolidated RFP Process - Minnesota Housing The City will support developer applications for the Consolidated RFP Process when a proposed redevelopment meets the City’s goals stated within this Plan, and will focus on redevelopment opportunities in the central core including TOD and Mixed-use areas. <30% AMI 30-50% AMI 51-80% Table 4-5. Housing Resources, Strategies and Tools Cont’d. Project Proposal for the Brooklyn Center Housing Study The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) University of Minnesota & Research in Action (RIA) Principal Researcher: Dr. Brittany Lewis The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) connects the resources of the University of Minnesota with the interests and needs of urban communities and the region for the benefit of all. The City of Brooklyn Center is ultimately looking to develop a housing policy plan that addresses policies and practices that ensure that the current and future housing needs of the community are met. The City is seeking to provide stable and affordable housing options for current and future residents while providing a balance of land uses that support a resilient community. This housing study aims to help the City become more aware of the ways that future development could potentially widen the affordability gap and help to identify measures that can be tracked to mitigate gentrification pressures.1 The City Council of Brooklyn Center is currently grappling with what it should do with its surplus of underdeveloped land and do it in a manner that does not directly displace or harm its current community members while also trying to create the most resilient community possible. The City of Brooklyn Center’s housing stock is incredibly homogenous with a majority of single-family homes built in the pre-1970s that are single level ramblers. The multifamily rental properties were also built primarily in the pre-1970s with 1- & 2-bedroom units primarily. Half or more of Brooklyn Center renters are paying more than they can afford in housing. The City of Brooklyn Center staff reported that a significant number of renters are on month to month leases. Further, through engagement, renters in the community have reportedly experienced 3 or 4 rent increases a year, and fear retaliation when they file complaints over rental conditions or issues with maintenance. The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) and Research in Action (RIA) submits this proposal to the City of Brooklyn Center to support its efforts to do the following: • Understand existing housing conditions and trends in the City of Brooklyn Center. 1 At the core of the debate over gentrification are the issue of displacement and the question of who benefits and who is harmed by the neighborhood changes induced by it. Gentrification describes a specific type of neighborhood change, that is, the upgrading of previously disinvested neighborhoods. Physical displacement was one of the defining characteristics of gentrification in its original usage. In Ruth Glass’s study of London published in 1964 in which she coined the term, she wrote of gentrification as the changing social status of neighborhoods occurring “as the middle class—or the ‘gentry’—moved into working-class space, taking up residence, opening businesses, and lobbying for infrastructure improvements.” She adds, “Once this process of ‘gentrification’ starts in a district it goes on rapidly until all or most of the working-class occupiers are displaced and the whole social character of the district is changed” (Glass, Ruth. 1964. Introduction: Aspects of change. In Centre for Urban Studies (ed.) London: Aspects of change, London: MacGibbon and Kee.). • Provide an analysis of the likely impact of forecasted growth on property values and rents with focus on the potential for gentrification. • Survey residents in the City of Brooklyn Center to understand their perspectives on current housing conditions, affordability, experience, preferences, and housing needs. • Complete a best practices literature review and analysis on impacts of major investment on property values and residential rents (i.e., “opportunity cite master plan”).Co-facilitate a conversation with the City Council about gentrification and the affordability crisis to present data and gain mutual understanding (Fall of 2020) • Final report and presentation of findings to local leadership. CURA and RIA believe in the power and impact of mixed methodological research. The goal is to collect qualitative and quantitative data to provide a stronger and more comprehensive picture of the housing conditions and experiences in the City of Brooklyn Center with tangible policy and practice recommendations that aim to mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification. The strength of a mixed methods approach is that each method can provide different types of information and can minimize the limitations of the other method, which is critical in the study of an elusive and complex process such as the study of housing stability/instability, evictions, gentrification, and disinvestment. In addition, RIA believes there is power in defining research questions and in controlling the production of knowledge. When research is done in communities of color and low-wealth communities, a power imbalance often exists between researchers and community-based organizations that must be disrupted. Community-engaged action research values community knowledge and people’s lived experiences. It reflects meaningful collaboration between academics, advocates, policymakers, service providers, and impacted communities. It leads to more robust and holistic data, more effective policy solutions, and stronger community action. When we use a community-based action research model, community members are not the subjects of research—they are the co-producers of knowledge. Dr. Brittany Lewis employs an actionable research model that uses a mixed methodological research approach to: (1) build community power, (2) assist local grassroots campaigns and local power brokers in reframing the dominant narrative, and (3) produce community centered public policy solutions that are winnable. This model relies heavily on the development of reciprocal relationships across sectors that embrace an open process where the collective develops shared understandings for the purpose of creating social transformation. This actionable research model embraces a racial equity framework that asserts that we must: (1) look for solutions that address systemic inequities, (2) work collaboratively with affected communities, and (3) add solutions that are commensurate with the cause of inequity. Quantitative Analysis Research Approach/Design CURA will undertake the quantitative analysis portion of the Housing Study using a variety of data sources and methods relating to the key points of analysis outlined in the Proposed Scope of Work. This includes completing an inventory of current housing in Brooklyn Center that focuses on housing type, age and cost. Housing will be classified as either single- family or multi-family, rental or owner-occupied, and whether it is considered affordable. Affordability can be either naturally occurring (generally in older multi-family buildings) or subsidized (usually with income limits related to area median income) and will be noted as such. Current and historic rents will be examined for affordability and whether change (increases) in rent differs by housing type or geography. The cost of housing and its relationship to household income will also be analyzed with attention paid to cost-burdened households (>30% of income spent on housing) that are both owner-occupied and renter occupied, and the degree to which housing in the city is affordable to its residents. Particular attention will be paid to signs of gentrification or involuntary displacement. CURA completed a gentrification study of suburban Hennepin County in 2019 (using 200-2016 data) and found that all eight census tracts in Brooklyn Park were vulnerable to gentrification. This study will update that data and look for additional evidence of neighborhood change. Expected growth in both the housing market and the city’s population will be compared to existing housing stock and proposed developments in order to answer the question of whether gaps in housing types and affordability exist. The potential loss of affordability, especially the risk of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) units being sold, remodeled and upscaled will also be noted. A key component to this will be an examination of property tax rates and revenues for both residential and commercial/industrial properties. The disproportionate amount of revenue generated by existing residential property tax is of concern and efforts will be made to estimate the increase in development necessary to offset or reduce the burden on current homeowners and landlords, and to identify land uses which might help achieve this. In addition, this quantitative analysis will look at and assess what affordability goals and bands should be put into place around the “opportunity site” helping to identify affordability policies that the City of Brooklyn Center should adopt. This should also include the use of CoStar or HousingLink data on the average rents in the area overtime. Acknowledging that there is a huge gap in housing options in the City of Brooklyn Center and the need to identify the housing needs now and into the future. This might include a comparative analysis of the amount of rental housing in the City of Brooklyn Center compared to adjacent communities, looking at year built, its characteristics, and size. Lastly, the City of Brooklyn Center will make their rental licensing data available to the quantitative team to analyze. The CURA quantitative team will get access to a report on rental complaints, inspection reports, landlord rental types, who accepts section 8, and analysis of a recent landlord survey conducted by the City of Brooklyn Center for quantitative analysis. This portion of the analysis will also address health-related impacts of housing. Health can be affected by the age of housing stock (eg. presence of lead paint or asbestos) and the condition of rental housing (tenant complaints related to unhealthy living conditions.) Data Sources: • Hennepin County parcels - housing type / land use, tenure, year built, property tax • HousingLink Streams - subsidized housing (AMI limits, senior housing, expiration date) • HousingLink Rental Revue - rents asked on new openings (includes single-family rentals and duplexes) • CoStar - current and historic rents for 4+ unit properties • American Community Survey - housing costs, cost-burdened status, household income • Met Council - population and housing growth forecasts • City of Brooklyn Center rental license data Project Outputs: It is expected that tables, charts, graphs and/or maps will accompany the final report. These will provide a visual and easy to understand look at housing in Brooklyn Center. Qualitative Analysis Goals: (1) Better understand housing stability/instability and quality of life in the City of Brooklyn Center by engaging with up to 40 residents for in-depth analysis. (2) Conduct (online) surveys and brief (30 minute) semi-structured interviews with tenants for the purpose of helping to identify the conditions that often lead up to housing instability and eviction as well as to gain a clearer understanding of these tenants’ housing composition/stability overtime and the various income streams they rely on to help better inform the development of targeted interventions, needs, and policy prescriptions. (3) Conduct (online) surveys and brief (30 minute) semi-structured interviews with landlords to learn more about, a) there investment strategies and interests, b) what policies and procedures they have in place to determine that eviction is the best course of action for dealing with a tenant (during a regular rental context), b) how they determine the cost benefit of evicting a tenant and owning rental property more generally speaking, and c) what practices they employ once that decision is made and whether and why those practices are employed for certain rental populations to help better inform the ways that the city can work with landlords as partners in community building and help the city produce targeted incentives for landlords illustrating positive behaviors. A recent survey conducted by the City found that landlords during the pandemic were presently working with tenants on payment plans with 2/3 not planning to evict any tenants. (4) Ensure that multiple stakeholders will benefit from this research including, but not limited to academics, philanthropists, the City of Brooklyn Center, Hennepin County, the Minnesota Multi Housing Association, the courts, tenant advocacy organizations, landlords and many others. CURA will make concrete policy and program recommendations for local government, housing practitioners and investors, and tenant advocacy organizations. Research Design: In preparing for the qualitative side of the project, the first step would be to connect with relevant stakeholders (elected and neighborhood leaders) and those most affected by housing instability (residents) in the City of Brooklyn Center to understand the landscape. The second step would be to convene an Advisory Council comprising of tenants, landlords, community organizers, community-based staff members, and staff members from the city of Brooklyn Center to inform the interview questions and outreach strategy. These engagements would frame the project and inform the scope of work, survey and semi-structured interview questions and methodology. Proposed Timeline: Fall 2020 • Solidify research partnerships with City of Brooklyn Center • Finalize research design and fiscal support. • Submit Institutional Review Board (IRB) application for University of Minnesota approval (application approving human subject research) • Begin Quantitative analysis and initial policy analysis. • Complete a “mini” quantitative report/analysis highlighting the affordability landscape, development possibilities, and areas for further exploration. • Begin literature review. • Complete early engagement process with Brooklyn Center City Council and solidify community research advisory council and community-based housing partners to establish collective outreach efforts and identify community interview sites. • Work with the advisory council to define survey and semi-structured interview questions and methods for interviews in the Spring of 2021. Spring 2021 • Complete expansive quantitative analysis. • Identify and make initial contact with tenants and landlords (20) • Conduct initial intake of all interviewee(s) • Begin interviews (complete 20 of 40 interviews) • Transcribe and analyze simultaneously • Complete literature review and finalize policy analysis. Summer 2021 • Complete remaining interviews (20) • Transcribe and analyze simultaneously • Meet with advisory council • Produce a working internal draft of data findings Fall 2021 • Write and deliver a final quantitative and qualitative based report with data findings with policy recommendations by October/November 2021 • Meet with advisory council & discuss the dissemination of findings Project Principal Investigator Dr. Brittany Lewis Quantitative Team Members Jeff Matson, Research Specialist (CURA) Kyle Malone, Graduate Research Assistant (CURA) Qualitative Team Members Dr. Brittany Lewis, Senior Research Associate (CURA) Dr. Shana Riddick, Junior Research Associate (CURA) THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER HOUSING STUDY: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS PART I Brooklyn Center’s Housing Stock Brooklyn Center has an estimated 11,797 housing units. Approximately 37 percent of those, about 4,400 units, are rentals. Of the nearly 7,400 owner-occupied units, 90 percent are single-family homes. The distribution of residential buildings in the city is displayed in Figure 1, with tenure type shown in Figure 2. However, many of those buildings are aging. As Figure 3 shows, more than 90 percent of the residential units in the city were built more than 40 years ago, compared to just one percent constructed after 2000. Owner-occu- pied units skew older, with nearly two-thirds built prior to 1960. Over three-quarters of renter-occupied hous- ing was built in the 1960s and 1970s. The distribution of buildings by age is displayed in Figure 4. Figure 1. Map of Land Uses in Brooklyn Center Figure 2. Map of Housing in Brooklyn Center by Tenure Figure 3. Age of Brooklyn Center Housing Figure 4. Map of Housing in Brooklyn Center by Year Built Source: Hennepin County Source: Hennepin County Source: Hennepin County; Brooklyn Center Source: Hennepin County; Brooklyn Center The City of Brooklyn Center partnered with the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) in 2020 to collect qualitative and quantitative data to provide a comprehensive picture of current housing conditions, affordability, residential experiences, preferences, and housing needs in the city, and to provide tangible policy and practice recommendations that mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification. Below are the initial findings from the first phase of the quantitative component of the Brooklyn Center Housing Study. The primary objective was to identify gaps in affordability along with racial disparities in incomes and key housing outcomes. These results will inform subsequent research and recommendations on promoting affordability in Brooklyn Center. 1 Incomes and Housing Costs Incomes for both renters and owners have not kept pace with housing costs, though the problem is more acute for renters. Figure 5 shows how incomes and housing costs have changed relative to the year 2000, in 2018 inflation-adjusted dollars. By 2018, the median income for renter households had fallen by 24 percent, from $39,701 to $30,060. Over that same span, median rents increased by eight percent, rising from $930 to $1,008. The divergence between owner incomes and home prices, while not nearly as dramatic, was still notable. Incomes fell 12 percent while the median home value rose five percent between 2000 and 2018. Figure 5. Change in Incomes and Housing Costs Since 2000 A closer look at year-by-year changes in asking rents in Figure 6 reveals that rents were falling or stagnant until 2014, after which they began a precipitous upward climb.* In the span of five years, the median asking rent rose nearly 14 percent, from $969 to $1,103. This trend holds for one-, two-, and three-bedroom apartments, which can be seen in Figure 7. The exception is for studio apartments, where rents rose in tandem with the other units until 2017, when they fell by over $100, or 14 percent, compared to 2016. The reason for this sudden drop is not clear, but it may be tied to the completion of The Sanctuary at Brooklyn Center, a 158-unit affordable housing development. However, renters are not the only ones feeling the pinch. Home prices have increased even more rapidly since the housing crash. In Brooklyn Center, the median sale price for a home doubled between 2011 and 2019, jumping from just under $110,000 to $220,000 in real terms. Renters thus have greater difficulty becoming homeown- ers and building wealth while current owners benefit from appreciation in home values, widening the wealth gap. Figure 6. Median Asking Rent, 2000-2020 Figure 7. Median Asking Rent by Number of Bedrooms, 2011-2019 Source: 2000 US Census; 2009 & 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey Source: CoStar Source: CoStar *Due to sampling differences, CoStar and the Census Bureau do not list the same median rent. However, the trend of rising rents and stagnating incomes is the same across both data sets. 2 Lack of Affordable Options There is a substantial mismatch between available rental units and what households in Brooklyn Center can af- ford. Nearly one-quarter of households earn less than $20,000 per year. At that income, the maximum rent a household can pay and not be cost-burdened is $500 per month. By that metric, there were zero affordable apart- ment units for renter households in that income range in 2020, which can be seen in Figure 8. Another 30 percent of households earned between $20,000 and $35,000, but only 11.2 percent of units rented for less than $875, the maximum affordable rent for that income bracket. The overwhelming majority of units--61 percent--had listed rents between $875 and $1,250, the range of af- fordability for households earning between $35,000 and $50,000 per year. The data for Figure 8 includes only market-rate units in apartments with at least four units. About 21 percent of Brooklyn Center’s rental housing is income-restricted, the majority of which is set aside for households earn- ing no more than 60 percent of the area median income, or about $62,000 for a family of four. Only 4 percent of rental units are restricted to those households earning no more than 30 percent of AMI. These numbers are presented in Table 1. Given the dearth of affordable units for low-income rent- ers, it is little surprise that a significant number of Brook- lyn Center renters are cost-burdened. More than half of renter households are paying at least 30 percent of their monthly incomes toward rent, including nearly one-third paying at least half, the cutoff for severely cost-burdened. Both of these numbers exceed the averages for Hen- nepin County and for the seven-county metropolitan area. By comparison, only about 22 percent of Brooklyn Center owners are cost burdened, 8.5 percent severely. However, these numbers are also both higher than the county and metrowide averages displayed in Figure 9. Figure 8. Distribution of Renter Incomes and Affordable Rental Units Figure 9. Percentage of Renters and Owners Cost- Burdened AFFORDABILITY UNITS PERCENT Total 915 21.1% 30% AMI 182 4.2% 50% AMI -- -- 60% AMI 733 16.9% 80% AMI -- -- Table 1. Affordable Housing Units Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey; CoStar Source: HousingLink Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey 3 Racial Inequities Brooklyn Center is one of the most diverse communi- ties in the entire Twin Cities area. Only about 38 per- cent of its population identifies as non-Hispanic white, compared to 69 percent of Hennepin County residents. Conversely, 27 percent of the city’s inhabitants identify as black or African American and nearly 18 percent as Asian, both of which are more than double the county and metro averages. These numbers are presented in Table 2. Unfortunately, Brooklyn Center must contend with the same stark disparities along racial and ethnic lines faced by other cities. Households headed by non-Hispanic whites earn significantly more than African-American or Hispanic households: just under $60,000 compared to $36,000 and $46,000, respectively. However, Asian- headed households have the highest median income at slightly less than $75,000. These numbers are displayed in Figure 10. Despite out-earning non-Hispanic whites by a significant margin, an equal proportion of Asian-headed house- holds own their homes, about 79 percent. Other de- mographic groups are disproportionately renters. More than half of Hispanic-headed households and nearly three-quarters of African American households must fork over money to a landlord each month. Given the importance of homeownership as a means of building wealth, the racial wealth gap will thus continue to grow. BROOKLYN CENTER HENNEPIN COUNTY 7-COUNTY METRO AREA Non-Hispanic White 38.3%69.2%73.2% Black or African American 27.1%12.9%9.4% Asian 17.7%7.0%7.4% American Indian and Alaska Native 0.3%0.6%0.5% Some Other Race/Two or More Races 3.5%3.4%3.2% Hispanic or Latino, Any Race 13.3%6.9%6.3% Table 2. Racial Composition of Select Geographies Figure 10. Median Household Income in Brooklyn Center by Race of Householder Figure 11. Percentage of Renters and Owners by Race of Householder Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey Source: 2018 ACS 5-Year Survey Next Steps: Over the next three months, the quantitative team will conduct a literature review to understand the trade-offs associated with the preservation versus creation of new affordable housing; study the effects of new construction on rents in neighboring cities; re-run CURA’s gentrification analysis; study the development potential of underutilized land; and investigate connections between corporate landlords and code violations/evictions. 4