Loading...
08-27-07 Joint PC-EC-OSRC Agenda AGENDA Golden Valley Planning Commission Joint Meeting with Environmental Commission and Open Space and Recreation Commission Comprehensive Plan Update Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road Council Conference Room Monday, August 27, 2007 6 pm - 7:30 pm 1. Presentation/Discussion of the Comprehensive Plan Update - Housing Element 2. Adjournment This document is available in alternate formats upon a 72-hour request. Please call 763-593-8006 (TIY: 763-593-3968) to make a request. Examples of alternate formats may' . nic, Braille, audi . . . Hey Planning 763-593-8095/763-593-8109 (fax) Date: 08/20/07 To: Planning Commission Members Open Space and Recreation Members Environmental Commission Members Joe Hogeboom, Planning Inter~ ~ Comprehensive Plan Update: Housing Element From: Subject: Commissioners: Enclosed you will find a draft copy of the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element. The element will be presented to you in detail by planning intern Teresa Murphy and independent consultant Perry Thorvig at the August 27th Joint Commission Meeting. This document was drafted based on the previous edition of the Comprehensive Plan, community visioning processes, and demographical data as provided by the Metropolitan Council and other resources. We ask for your detailed review of this docllment. All comments and suggestions for revisions are due to the planning department no later than Tuesday, September 4th. We must adhere to strict a timeline to enable the timely production of the Comprehensive Plan. If you have questions or concerns please contact me at 7Q3-593-8099 or through email at jhogeboom@ci.golden-valley.mn.us. As always, we greatly appreciate your input in this process. Attachment: · Comprehensive Plan: Housing Element Draft cc: Mark Grimes I,;.isa Wittman, Rick Jacobson Lisa Nesbit Jeannine Clancy Eric Eckman AI Lundstrom Cheryl yveiler Teresa Murphy Sheila Van Sloun Perry Thorvig . Chapter X: Golden Valley Housing Plan Introduction . The housing chapter of the City of Golden Valley Comprehensive Plan describes the City's housing stock, household make-up, housing costs, and states the City's goals, policies, and objectives for maintaining the existing housing stock and adding a variety of new housing units. . The majority of Golden Valley's housing stock is detached single-family homes and largely owner-occupied. There have been a few new housing developments since the last Comprehensive Plan update in 1998 which have added several new homes to Golden Valley. Several new lots were added through subdivisions that created one or more new lots. In addition, a few single-family lots were re-zoned to two-family lots to allow the development of a duplex or town home unit. There was a net gain of nearly 650 housing. units in Golden Valley from 1998 through 2006; of which the majority were multi-family units. However, as a fully developed community, land available for housing development in Golden Valley is still rather limited and only 25 additional (net gain) total housing units were produced during 2005 and 2006. (Insert chart of significant new housing developments) Currently, residential development accounts for 3,195 acres of land (48% of total acres) in Golden Valley. Estimates from the Metropolitan Council indicate that there were 8,908 households in 2006. This would give an estimated density of 2.8 households per residential acre. Golden Valley has used a variety of tools in the past to allow for higher density housing developments. The use of Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) has been implemented for both single- and multi-family developments. The City also decreased its minimum lot size from 12,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. Changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map include increasing the amount of land available for multi-family housing by changing the land map designation near the intersection of TH 55 and Winnetka Avenue to medium and high-density housing as well as converting a large corridor of land along 1-394 to a Mixed-Use d~signation that would allow for a substantial amount of multi-family housing to be built. At full build out, the 1-394 corridor is expected to contain up to 940 multi-family units. Housing Stock Number of Units and Tenure The City's housing stock includes 8,606 units with 8,450 of those units being occupied units according to the 2000 Census. Owner-occupied units make up 81 A% (6,878 units) of the occupied housing stock with the remaining 18.6% (1,572 units) being renter-occupied units. Of the owner-occupied units, the vast majority, 71.1%, are . TENURE BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE Percent Total units 8,450 100% of Tenure Owner occupied 6,878 81.4% 100% 1, detached 6,012 71.1% 87.4% 1, attached 418 5.7% 6.1% 2 units 59 0.7% 0.9% 3 to 19 units 108 1.3% 1.6% 20 to 49 units 38 0.4% 0.6% 50 or more units 230 2.7% 3.3% Mobile home, boat, RV, van, etc. 13 0.2% 0.2% Renter occl.lpied 1,572 18.6% 100% 1, detached 115 1.4% 7.3% 1, attached 84 1.0% 5.3% 2 units 56 0.7% 3.6% 3 to 9 units 98 1.2% 6.2% 10 to 19 units 353 4.2% 22.5% 20 to 49 units 286 3.4% 18.2% 50 or more 567 6.7% 36.1% Mobile home, boat, RV, van, etc. 13 0.2% 0.8% Source: U.S. Census 2000 detached single- family homes. Other types of housing units included in Golden Valley's housing stock are townhomes, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, group residential facilities, assisted living facilities, and nursing homes. . The new Mixed-Use district adopted along the 1.394 corridor will facilitate the development of additiol'lallife-cycle housing options such .as condominiums, residential flats, and apartments. The City is also considering adopting an inclusionary housing provision aimed at increasing the number of housing units affordable to low- and moderate-income households. Building Permits . The building permits table shown illustrates the number of permits issued for new housing units from years 2000 to 2006. There were three years of increased housing development where. 88 or more units were constructed each year. These are mostly due to the development or addition of a new multi.family housing. The average annual number of single family homes built each year between 1998 and 2006 is only 19 homes. There have been a few large single-family and town house developments that occurred, beginning in 1998 including Hidden Lakes, Wesley Commons., and Valley Square Commons. The Hidden Lakes PUD consists approximately 150 units of single- family attached and detached homes inbetween Sweeny Lake and Theodore Wirth Park. The Wesley Commons development just east of City Hall consists of 84 town homes and 48 residential flats. Valley Square Commons housing development was built to the north of Wesley Commons. This development includes 25 affordable rental townhomes. The City was instrumental in the development as it utilized funds from the Inclusionary Housing Fund through Liveable Communities Act (LCA) to write down the cost of land and waived the park dedication fee. These units are owned and managed by Commonbond Communities and are available to families with low. incomes. . tear BUilding Permits Issued Single familY Duplex Twn house Multifamily Total Demos Avg. new single family valuation 1998 13 3 13 0 29 5 $330,131 1999 35 0 26 . 20 81 19 $276,275 2000 26 0 29 88 143 9 $32C},274 2001 17 0 12 135 164 1 $362,450 .. 2002 8 0 6 25 39 8 $357,200 2003 20 0 2 0 22 4 $405,602 2004 15 0 6 172 193 5 $3~a,379 2005 33 0 0 0 33 8 $370,075 2006 4 0 0 0 4 4 $656,786 Total 171 3 94 440 708 63 Net total 645 Source: GoldenValley Dodge Reports The amount of land available in the city as currently planned for or zoned for housing development is extremely limited and often has existing challenges such as steep slopes or poor soil conditions. This, combined with the recent slow down in the housing market would predict limited housing growth in Golden Valley. However, in the updated Land Use Plan Map, three new sections of the city have been designated for higher density housing development. Two areas previously zoned and planned for Single Family, low~density housing will now be planned for mid~and high~density housing. The third area, located in the 1~394 corridor, will be converted from mainly Industrial and Commercial zoning districts to a Mixed~Use district that will include a variety of options for mid-and high~density housing development. As the market allows, these changes are likely to help increase the number of new units built in Golden Valley. As they are changing from low density to higher density development ;areas, it can be assumed that if developed, more housing units will be produced than in previous years. These additional development options could bring to Golden Valley a variety of life~cycle housing options. If inclusionary housing provisions are included for new housing development, affordable housing options will also increase. . Household F~recast Golden Valley expects modest growth in the next 20 years but, continuous growth nonetheless. The location of and amenities in Golden Valley make it a desirable place to live. The City's low vacancy rate, 1.8% in 2000, illustrates a place to live that is in high demand. . The population of Golden Valley is aging. The number of homeowners and renters age 75 and older nearly doubled from 1990to 2000. As of the year 2000, nearly 20% of Golden Valley residents were age 65 or older. This percentage is expected to grow as the large population of Household Forecast Year Households 2000 8,449 ; 2001 8,528 2006 8,908 2010 9,000 2020 9,200 2030 9,600 Source: MetropoUtan Council baby boomers climb into the 65+ age group. Studies have shown that many seniors . prefer to age in place as long as possible. Because of this trend, it is expected that manyaging residents will choose to stay in Golden Valley. The City will investigate ways to assist seniors stay living in their homes but also hopes to increase the amount of senior housing available for those who choose to move from their single-family homes to an apartment or condo-style home but want to stay in Golden Valley. Housing Condition Age of Housing Stock(lnsert "Age of Housing Stock" map) The housing stock in Golden Valley is aging. As of the 2000 Census, nearly 67% of the units were built before 1970. The housing stock in Golden Valley is slightly older than that of its neighbors in Robbinsdale and New Hope, however, somewhat newer than the housing stock in St. Louis Park and Crystal. All of these neighboring communities are considered fully developed! This could indicate that mOre infill and redevelopment is taking place in Robbinsdale and. New Hope than in Golden Valley. Some amount of infill is taking place in Golden Valley in the form of new single-family . homes. However, it is assumed that most new housing development will be in the form of redevelopment for multi-family homes. - The aging housing stock also indicates increased need for maintenance and repairs of the existing stock. Both residents and the City are taking a role in ensuring that the hOUSing in Golden Valley is. of high quality. In 2006, a housing condition survey was conducted using a sample of 3,032 single- and multi-family homes to get a better understanding of the condition of housing in Golden VaLLey. Figure I~,:~ shows a summary of the findings of the survey. Homes were evaluated on their condition and property maintenance. The housing condition inventory collected on the condition of the structure, driveway(s), yard, and overall appearance. It also gathered other data, such as driveway material, the type of . Housing Condition Invento.ry R~sults Minor Major Sound Defects Defects Critical N/A Foundation 32.98% 2.11% 0.23% 0.00% 64.68% Exterior Walls 86.21% 12.24% 1.52% 0.03% 0.00% Roof 82.45% 15.73% 1.68% 0.13% 0.00% Gutters 75.03% 12.60% 1.68% 0.86% 9.83% Chimney 43.80% 21.57% 0.46% 0.00% 34.17% Doors 88.36% 11.41% 1.98% 0.03% 0.00% Windows 90.34% 9.37% 0.23% 0.07% 0.00% Porches 25.13% 1.32% 0.10% 0.00% 73.45% Stairs and Railings 81.89% 8.87% 0.82% 0.03% 8.71% Fences 33.21% 2.44% 0.26% 0.00% 64.08% Garage Doors 72.43% 16.56% 0.53% 0.03% 10.46% Source: Housing Condition Inventory, 2006, City olGolden Valley . . . . housing exterior, if there was.outdoor storage and the placement of recreation vehicles, garbage and recycling containers, shed, and the presence of junk or garbage. Thirty-six percent of homes were found to have no defects and only 17% had more than two defects. Of homes that did have defects, 75% had only one or two. The housing stock in Golden Valley appears to be in relatively good condition, however, 64.% was found to be in need of repair in some way. With much of the housing stock over 30 years old, continued maintenance is needed to maintain its good condition. Reinvestment Figure I~'I, shows the amount of reinvestment in residential units in Golden Valley. The table shows reinvestment areas such as basement finishes, additions, re-roofing and residing. What is not shown are improvements that do not require a permit such as painting. or minor repairs. It also does not account for work that is done without the required permit. Reinvestment increased moderately from $9,289, 100 in 2000 to $12,230,782 in 2003then decreased slightly in 2004 and 2005. In 2006, reinvestment showed a comeback and rose to $13,292,817. The largest amount of money spent on reinvestment in hOUSing seems to be in main structure additions, remodels, and repairs. This does not include porch or deck additions. However, the most frequent improvement is fe-roofing. ' $14,000,000 $12,000,000 ~ $10,000,000 19 B .S $8,000,000 Q) .3 III > $6,000,000 ...... 'E .... & $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 . Other Residential Reinvestment . Reside [II Re-roof . Main Structure Remodel/Repairl Replace Ii Main Structure Addition . Basement Finish o Deck o Porch 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year . Pool .,.' Reinvestment in Golden Valley's housing stock is expected in increase with the recent implementation of the Residential Property Maintenance Code (RPMC). Effective in 2006, all single- and multi-family housing will undergo an exterior inspection to determine if repairs are needed to the housing unit or property. Multi-family ownership developments also require an inspection of common areas. Multi-family rental buildings require an inspection of common areas as well as at least 10% of the rental units. If it is determined by the inspections staff that repairs are needed, a notice is given to the property owner stating what needs to be repaired and within what timeframe. Along with the notice, a packet including information about the RPMC, Administrative Citation process, and Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) is left for the homeowner or occupant. Administrative citations are then given to the homeowner if the required repairs are not done in the time frame given. Approximately 3% (36 properties) of the 1,284 properties that were inspected in the first inspections area of the City have been given written violations. This percent is somewhat misleading, however, because inspections staff do not always give a written violation notice. If the homeowner is present at the time of the inspection and violations are found, inspections staff often will just talk with the homeowner and give a verbal notification of violations. Upon re-inspection, staff has often found that the violation has been corrected. Inspections staff estimates that properties where written and or verbal notifications were given make up closer to 7% of properties inspected. In addition, the properties that were inspected first are in an area of the city that is considered to be relatively well maintained. This area includes properties from Mendelssohn Avenue to Winnetka Avenue and Medicine Lake Road to the Union Pacific Railroad track. The second area of the city to undergo inspections is the area from Winnetkcr Avenue to Douglas Drive and From Medicine Lake Road to Golden Valley Road. Staff expects to have a better estimate of what percent of properties in Golden Valley are inviolation of the RPMC after inspections in the second area of the city are completed. To assist homeowners with needed maintenance an(jrepairs, the City has contracted with Center for Energy and Environment. This program allows any homeowner in Golden Valley a free consultation and evaluation of needed maintenance or repairs to his or her home. CEE glso provides assistgnce in finding a contractor for the needed work as well as low-interest loan options for those homeowners wh()se income qualifies them. . . In addition to the RPMC, the Safer Tenants and Renters (STAR) program was implemented in 2006 as part of the multi-family rental licensing program. This program includes incentives for landlords to use screening criteria for rental applicants, participate in trainings and regular meetings with inspections staff. The City is currently working on drafting an ordinance to extend the rental licensing program to include single- and two-family rental homes. It is not known exactly how many single-family rental homes currently exist in Golden Valley, however, the City feels it is important to encourage saf~ and well-maintained rental properties . throughout the city. A result of the recent sub-prime lending and subsequent foreclosure activity has. been and increase in the number of vacant and abandoned homes. This is the case in Golden Valley as well; therefore, the City will review the RPMC and make needed amendments to handle problems associated with these homes. . Housi naCosts Housing costs in Golden Valley are somewhat higher than the median housing costs in similar adjacent cities. The 2000 Census showed that the average median housing home value in Golden VaHey and similar adjacent cities was $131,520; Golden Valley's median home value in 2000 was nearly $30,000 above that average at $160,300. Home values are rapidly increasing in the City. Figure "Value of Owner-Occupied Units, 2000/2002", shows the number of homes valued at under $150,000 decreasing while the number of homes valued over $175,000 increasing substantially. The median home value as of May 2007 was $262,000. The map, "Housing Values in Golden Valley" shows the value of properties in May 2007. Of the fully developed communities adjacent to Golden Valley, none had a higher median sales price than Golden Valley from 2003 to 2006. The median gross rent in Golden Valley in 2000 was $669. Golden Valley was just below the average of $672.80 for Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale., New Hope, and Crystal rents. Of the similar surrounding communities, only St. Louis Park had a higher median gross rent at $716. A survey of a sample of multi-family rental properties done in 200Tshows that rents in Golden Valley range from $345 to $650 for a studio unit, from $550 to $1,445 for a one bedroom, from $675 to $2,295 for a two bedroom, and from $850 to $2,395 for a three bedroom. . Value of Owner-occupied Units Number of Nurnber of Value Units in 2000 Units in 2002 Under $50,00() 341 215 $50,000 - $74,999 210 312 $75,000 - $99,999 366 179 $100,000 - $124,999 1385 296 $125,OaO - $149,999 1680 980 $150,000 - $174,999 1333 1362 $175,000 - 199,999 763 1315 $200,000 - $249,999 760 1559 $250,000 - $299,999 277 625 $300,000 - $399,999 206 531 $400,000 - $499,999 78 196 $ 500,000 or more 40 174 Total owner units 7439 7744 . Source: County Assessors' database Housing Affordability In 2006, the Metropolitan Council considered a home in the metro area to. be affordable to households with 80% of the area median income when priced at $206,800 or below. Using this standard and estimated market value from Hennepin County assessor's data from May 2007, there are approximately 1,530 affOrdable owner units in Golden Valley. This represents roughly 17% percent of the owner-~55upied housing stock. Figure Iii "Afford ability of Residential Owner Units" map shows the .' location of affordable ownership housing in Golden Valley. Because the location of all . single- and two-family home rental units is not known, single- and two-family units are considered owner-occupi~d units on the map. Also, they could become owner- occupied units at any time. Many of the affordable ownership units are located in the northwest corner of the city. Several affordable single family units are also located along Winnetka Avenue and Douglas Drive. A pocket of aging affordable condo units exists in the southwest corner of the city near the General Mills Nature Preserve. Affordable rental units are lqcated throughout the city. A survey of multi-family rental properties, done .in 2007 by City Staff, indicates that 17.2% of the market rate multi-family rental units are considered affordable to households at 50% of the area median income. One third of the multi-familyrerital properties who responded to the survey also noted that Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers were accepted at those properties. In addition, there are three primary subsidized affordable rental housing properties located in Golden Valley for households with low incomes. Renters at these properties typically pay 30% of their adjusted gross income for rent. DoverHills consists of 234 Section 42, Section 236, .and Project Based Section 8 units in a variety of affordable rental options for singles, families, and seniors. Calvary Center has 80 one bedroom units supported by Section 202 and Section 8 funding that provides income based rent for seniors. Medley Park Townhomes provides an affordable rental option for families. This development includes 30 two, three, and four bedroom . town homes with income based rents under the project based Section 8 program. Medley Park is located in the northwest corner of the city. The combination of affordable market rate. and subsidized affordable units in. Golden Valley is estimated to be 6% of the total occupied housing stock in the city. The map, "Affordability of Rental Units," shows the location of known rental properties in Golden Valley and those that include affordable units. It is assumed that additional affordable rentals exist in the city . However, not all data is available because some multi-family rental properties surveyed did not respond and very little is known about how many single-family rental units exist or the rents charged for these units. Cost Burden Even with the amount of affordable housing options, which comprise roughly 23% of the City's occupied housing stock, there is still a need for additional affordable housing. The typical definition of cost burden is when a renter or homeowner pays 30% or more of their gross income on gross rent or housing costs respectively. The percent of homeowners in 1999 who paid 30% or more for housing costs was 15.1%. The average percent of homeowners in similar adjacent communities was slightly higher at 16.2%. The percent of renters paying 30% or more for gross rent was 28.3%. The average percent of renters in the same adjacent cities was significantly . higher at 36%. The median gross rent as a percentage of household income in Golden . . . Valley in 1999 was 23.7%. The following m~ps, figure I~I "Cost Burden of Homeowners in Golden Valley" and figure I'~ "Cost Burden of Renters in Golden Valley" use Census 2000 data to show which areas of Golden Valley suffer the greatest cost burden. With recent housing market conditions and the number of f~milies feeling the pressure of increased housing costs, many more families are likely to be experiencing a cpst burden than before. (insert cost burden maps) Even though the cost burden felt by Golden Valley residents is below the average of neighboring communities, this does not mean that the City should cease efforts to increase the amount of affordable housing. The Metropolitan Council indicates that Golden Valley should plan for an additional 104 units of affordable housing.over the next ten years. Programs The City utilizes m~ny programs and official controls to address the housing needs of its current and future residents. . The City has applied for and will continue to apply for Cpmmunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and LCA grants to assist residents, developers, and property owners obtain or develop new housing. . The City worked with West Hennepin Affordable Land Trust - Homes within Reach program. The City used CDBG money funds to write dOY"n land costs. . City staff works to encourage subsidized housing providers such as Medley Park, Dover Hills, and Calvary Center to maintain the housing as . affordable. . The City's partnership with CEE assists homeowners in maintaining their homes. . The City adopted a resolution in support of first time homebuyer loan programs at local participating banks. . The City has used and will consider future use of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) to underwrite project costs for developments that include affordable housing. . The City will maintain the reduced minimum lot size from 12,500 square feet to 10,000 square feet in order to increase density, create additional infill opportunities and affordable lots. . The City has waived or reduced fees for development projects that include affordable housing and will consider doing so in the future as appropriate. . The City has and will continue to utilize the PUD process to allow increased densities, decreases in parking requirements, and other considerations in order to create innovative developments that meet the needs of a variety of residents. Housina ChaUenaes . Challenges to developing new and maintaining the existing housing stock in Golden Valley do exist. Even with the reduction of maximum lot size aimed. at 5reating more affordable lots, it is still relatively expensive to purchase land in Golden Valley. And small lots do not necessarily mean smaller, less expensive homes. Large homes are beingpuilt on small lots that are not affordable to many prospective home buyers. Aging multi-family properties are becoming a concern in the City. There is concern that property owners with aging properties, which often provide more affordable options for renters, will sell the property instead of investing the money needed to upgrade and make major repairs. This "flipping" of property to make a quick return on investment has resulted in new owners who are less interested in or able to do the needed repair work. As a result, the buildings continue to deteriorate. Another possible outcome of aging rentaL properties or "flipping" is that a property which was once relatively affordable becomes unaffordabLe to a portion of renters due to an increase in rent n.eeded to finance the repairs. The City will continue to look at available options for multi-family property owners to reinvest in the property but still maintain some LeveL of affordabiLity. The City wants increase the amount of affordable housing options, not lose affordable housing. There is also some concern for aging housing along high traffic minor arterial roads and coLLector streets. There are aLso sections of town with Large amounts of housing over 40 years old. Blighting conditions can be found in some of these areas. Maintenance and.upgrades to these homes are needed to keep them attractive to future homebuyers and prevent the spread of blight. The RPMC will be key in helping to ensure that the aging housing stock is weLL maintained. . . . . . HOUSING GOALS1 OBJECTIVES1 AND POLICIES Goal 1 Housing Quality - A high-quality living environment, the preservation of stable residential neighborhoods, and where necessary, the upgrading of the eXisting housing stock in the City. (supports Livable Communities principles 4 and 5) Objectives · Less than 5% of the. housing units will be substandard. · Identification and removal of substandard housing units that are economically unfeasible to rehabilitate. · Elimination or appropriate buffering of bli.ghting influences such as unkempt yards, glaring lights, unscreened storage, and inappropriate vehicle storage_on residential properties. Policies 1. The City will use the Residential Property Maintenance Code (RPMC) quality standards to determine whether a house is in need of repair, except where a particular funding program or regulation specifies an alternate definition. 2. The City will routinely evaluate the RPMC and amend as necessary in order to maintain or improve the quality of the City's housing stock. A study will be conducted to investigate including in the RPMC processes for handling problems associated with vacant or abandoned residential properties or those residential properties for which the owner can not be contacted or does not make necessary improvements to the property. 3. The City will, if necessary, use its legal authority to remove substandard housing for which rehabilitation has been determined to be .economically unfeasible. 4. The City will help protect the quality of its housing stock by promoting to real estate agents and prospective home buyers or sellers the practice of contracting for private home inspections prior to purchase of any Golden Valley home. Promotional efforts may include but shall not be li.mited to periodic educational items in City publi.cations and information made available to the public by City staff. 5. The City will establish a li.st of quali.fying criteria to serve as a selection standard on occasions when targeting Community Development Block Grant. The City will. give high priority to rehabilitating its aging housing stock when determining the appropriate use of Community Development Block Grant funds. ":,. 6. The City will continue enforcement of the Lighting Ordinance to promote resident safety and appropriate lighting in residential neighborhoods. . 7. The City will continue to enforce the Residential Property Maintenance Code and outside storage ordinance. 8. The City will seek out or develop financial assistance programs to help low- and moderate- income property owners address deteriorating housing problems. 9. The City will continue its relationship with Center for Energy and Environment or similar agency to assist residents in locating resources and financial assistance for home rehabilitation. 10. The City will investigate and promote resources for aging and disabled residents to safely remain in their home as desired. 11. The City will continue to work with owners and managers of multi-family housing using the rental licensing and Safer Tenants and Rentals (STAR) programs. The City will consider developing a similar program to cover single- and two-family rental housing to ensure that housing quality standards are met for all rental units. . 12. The City will encourage energy efficient development and development that saves or increases green spaces, parks, and trails. Goal 2 Housing Variety - A variety of housing types and designs to allow all people a hou~ing choice. (supports Livable Communities principles 1 and 3) Obje<:tives · At least 10% of the city's housing supply designed or designated exclusively for seniors. ., At least 40% of the city's housing supply should be multiple family and attached single-family homes. Policies 1. The City will continue to offer the flexibility of the Planned Unit Development option to housing developers who demonstrate an ability to successfully apply contemporary design philosophies. The City will guide for ihfill areas and redevelopment sites along major streets and adjacent to commercial or other high activity areas single- family attached and multiple family residential uses that help meet the City's senior and multiple family housing objectives. . . 3. The City will accommodate energy conserving technologies and constrQction techniques, including active and passive solar energy features, by advocating their use in application for new residential development and by amending City Code or City policies as appropriate to allow residents to take advantage of new approaches. 4. The City will assist in attempts to obtain any applicable funds for city approved development proposals designed to maximize the.opportunity of providing a variety of housing types, costs, and densities that meet City objectives. Sources may include, but are not limited to, federal programs such as the Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) or Section 202 financing .for senior housing, state aid such as the Low Income Tax Credit Program or the Low/Moderate Income Rental Program, Metro Council funds such as the Local Housing Investment Account, or nonprofit assistance such as the Family Housing Fund or Habitqt For Humanity. 5. The City will reconsider the low-density residential land use plan map designations currently applied to the_area west of DOl,Jglas Drive along Medicine Lake Road to determine whether either might be suitable for designation for higher density residential use. . 6. The City will amend the land use plan map to include mixed-use development sites, including along the 1-394 Corridor, which may include housing in the form of town homes, residential flats, condominiums, apartment homes, and other multiple-family homes.. 7. The city will identify underused nonresidential sites where the vacant area may be suitable for higher density residential use. 8. The City will work with state legislators to establish more specific rules regarding placement of legally protected residential facilities to ensure the appropriate integration of these facilities in to neighborhoods. 9. The City will research techniques used in alternative dispute resolution processes, such as mediation, for assistance in formulating citizen involvement guidelines that channel discussion of housing development proposals along a productive course. . . , Goal 3 Affordability - Housing opportunities at a cost low and moderate income individuals and families can afford without compromising essential needs. (supports Livable Communities principles 1 and 6) . Objectives · 20% of the City's housing supply in quality units that are affordable to low and moderate income people. Policies 1. The City will annually reapply for reservation of funds through the Minnesota City Participation Program, providing low-interest mortgages to qualifying first time home buyers. 2. The City will consider any potential housing affordability impact prior to adopting or amending any development-related or construction- related regulation. Negative impacts will be balanced against concerns for the general public health, safety, or welfare. Where possible, strategies for mitigating negative affordability impacts will be identified. 3. The City will meet with owners of subsidized properties eligible to . leave the subsidy program, to learn about their plans and to discuss any obstacles that may keep them from renewing their program contract. 4. The City will meet with owners of market rate rental properties to discuss participation in the federal Section 8 voucher program and to ask what might make vouchers more acceptable. 5. The City will use the Livable Communities definition of affordable housing, except wher~ a particular program specifies an alternate, as the standard for defining modest-cost housing: owner occupied housing should cost no more than 30% of the income of a household earning 80% of the median income level as estimated annually by HUD, and rental housing should cost no more than 30% of the income of a household earning 50% of the median income in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. . . . . . ' 6. The City will require that at least 20% of each new housing development of more than 30 units contain affordable units until the percentage designated in the objective above is reached~ Thereafter, each new development of more than 30 units must contain a perc:entage of affordable housing equal to the objective above. The City may consider payments in lieu of actuatunits so that the City can use such payments to make units affordable in other housing developments. 7. The City will consider and attempt to reasonably mitigate the loss of or impact on housing affordability and quality of the existing supply of modest-cost single family homes of any new development or redevelopment proposal that requires removal of modest..cost homes or would significantly increase traffic, noise, or other negative characteristics near those homes. However, such considerations will not necessarily override other legitimate development concerns. 8. The City will annually reapply for reservation of funds through the Minnesota City Participation Program, providing low-interest mortgages to qualifying first time home buyers. 9. The City will consider any potential housing affordabilityimpact prior to adopting or amending any development-related or construction;; rel<ited regul<ition. Negative impacts will be balanced against concerns for the general public health, safety, or welfare. Where possible, strategies for mitigating negative affordability impacts will be identified. 10. The City will meet with owners of subsidized properties eligible to leave the subsidy program, to learn about their plans and to discuss any obstacles that may keep them from renewing their program contract. 11. The City will meet with owners of market rate rental properties to discuss participation in the federal Section 8 voucher program and to ask what might make vouchers more acceptable. Goal 4 Nondiscrimination - Equal opportunity in home ownership and renting. (supports Livable Communities principles 1, 2, and 3) Objectives · No discrimination against persons seeking housing based on age, religion, race, ethnic origin, sexual preference, sex, or disability. Policies 6 l 4... . 1. The City's Human Rights Commission will continue its role as a forum for discussion of discrimination issues, and will remain available to participate in the grievance process of the Minnesota Department of Human Services as requested, so that any allegations of housing discrimination can be promptly addressed at the local level. 2. The City's Human Rights Commission will conduct ongoing education efforts as necessary to promote equal availability of housing opportunities and fair treatment of all renters and buyers regardless of age, sex, income level, ethnic background, or religion. 3. The City will work with state legislators to reform regulations regarding the location of residential facilities. 4. The City will establish a process for early citizen involvement in the siting of new subsidized housing developments. \ 5. For as long as the City remains in the Livable Communities program, a Livable Communities impact evaluation shall be included as part of the consideration of any housing-related development application. Potential impacts on all Livable Communities benchmark areas shall be .- considered, but those areas need not all be weighed equally, nor will this evaluation necessarily take precedence over other concerns that may be voiced in connection with the application. .