Two good questions from David Brauer, and a good response from Steve Cross on the 15 year requirement.
In terms of enforcement, we're lucky because in the vast majority of these cases there will be financial agreements with the MCDA, Met Council or Minnesota Housing Finance Agency that already have contractual teeth to them. We hope and expect that the bonus will also increase the number of instances where a developer can finance the development of the affordable housing project completely independent of public assistance. In these cases the city has authority associated with the required conditional use permit to "impose such conditions . . . and require such guarantees as it deems reasonable and necessary to protect the public interest and to ensure compliance with the standards and purposes of this zoning ordinance . . . " Although some options have been explored in conversation, I can't say at this point what form this guarantee will typically take. There may be some experimentation to see what is most effective while not placing unreasonable demands on the developer. Tom Leighton City Planner Seward > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 9:33 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Mpls digest, Vol 1 #1149 - 15 msgs > > > Message: 11 > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 16:55:01 -0600 > From: Steve Cross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Minneapolis Issues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Mpls] Density bonuses...a tactical and substantive mistake > > David Brauer asked: > > > would > > the zoning change if the affordability ever goes away? In other words, if > > the city permits a 24-unit building where the "non-affordable" standard is > > 20 units, and then a few years later the affordable units become > > market-rate, would the owner be required to keep 4 units vacant? > > > > The ordinance definition of "affordable" includes this language: > > > > continuously for a period of not less than 15 years to qualify as > > affordable housing > > > > However, it's not clear to me what happens if "affordable" homes are > converted into market-rate homes within the fifteen years. It MAY mean > that once it's affordable, it can't be converted for 15 years. But, > once the units are physically built, if they are then converted to > market-rate, I doubt that the city is going to say, "well that's okay > but you now don't have the density bonus so you have to tear down > whatever portion of the units make the units not in compliance with the > standard density requirements. I suspect that a plea of "hardship" will > be made allowing it to remain with all market-rate units as a > non-conforming use. > > David also asked: > > > how is affordability monitored by the city? Do property owners send in > > rent reports? Are they audited? Or is it pretty much the honor system? > > > > The ordinance language I saw had no particular monitoring provisions. > So finding someone who violates the affordability requirements depends > on zoning enforcement requirements that are provided elsewhere in the > zoning code. That probably means that if someone reports someone for > violation, then someone from the city comes out to inspect, and then the > standard zoning violation procedure follows. > > Also, ostensibly, a lot would have to be zoned to otherwise permit > multi-unit housing of at least five units before the density bonus could > apply. So, if a lot were zoned R-1 or R-2, it would have to be > down-zoned to about R-5 or R-6 to be able to build units qualifying for > the density bonus. In theory, a rezoning is tough to get. In reality, > if a developer comes in with a proposal to do about anything, they seem > to have little trouble getting it. > > Others asked about whether there was neighborhood input into the > Planning and Zoning Committee action on the changes in the TMP and the> > zoning ordinances. Several people from Prospect Park were at the prior > Planning Commission meeting. Representatives of several other > neighborhoods were also there. The Commission members listened to us > politely for about two hours and voted (with one dissent) to pass the > proposal on to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Among the comments > that were made to us was to the effect that "there are about 85 > neighborhoods in Minneapolis and only 4 or 5 are here so it's fair to > say that most of the neighborhoods approve of these changes." A comment > from a developer who also attended impugned the motives of those > neighborhoods who did attend. > > Again, I need to state a disclaimer. Neither I nor, I think, anyone > else is opposed to affordable housing. But I'm not so sure that this > proposal will do right by those good people who need affordable > housing. At a minimum, this proposal hasn't been well studied -- at > least by those people who might have reservations. > > Steve Cross > Prospect Park > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:mpls@;mnforum.org Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
