Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHousing Task Force - 06/10/2020EDEN PRAIRIE HOUSING TASK FORCE MINUTES Wednesday June 10, 2020 HTF Members  Chair Joan Howe-Pullis Vice Chair Lyndon Moquist Carol Bomben Terry Farley Marlene Fischer Joan Palmquist Anne Peacock Ken Robinson Emily Seiple  Staff  Jonathan Stanley, Housing and Community Services Manager Amanda Pellowski, Community Development Administrative Assistant   WELCOME AND RECAP FROM COUNCIL WORKSHOP Howe-Pullis called the meeting to order at 5:34 pm. Members absent were Fischer, Moquist and Robinson. Howe-Pullis asked for impressions from the presentation at the Council Workshop on May 19. Bomben thought the presentation was well done and well received by Council. Seiple found it interesting that a couple Council Members asked about community land trusts, which would link well with the recommendations for the housing trust fund. Stanley was glad to hear of Mayor Case’s interest in detached accessory dwellings and stated the Task Force should include information on that topic in their final report. Farley agreed the presentation at the workshop went well and the Council seemed open to all their suggestions. Palmquist added there was a lot of information conveyed during the presentation and it was well orchestrated. Stanley stated they received positive feedback from City leaders and the group should be proud of their work. Howe-Pullis would like to get suggestions from City leaders on the best way to frame their ideas before their final presentation. POLICY DISCUSSION DRAFT REPORT Howe-Pullis recognized the support Palmquist, Farley and Stanley have provided in keeping things organized and getting the draft of the final report written. She asked the group which topics they felt best equipped to build out and about their availability to work on outstanding items. Stanley had sent a list of short, digestible, realistic ideas to Farley, Palmquist and Howe-Pullis to consider for the “out of the box” section. He’d be interested in working to refine that section. Howe-Pullis liked the list of ideas, offered to help and wanted to check if Robinson would also be interested in working on that section. Farley felt the out of the box section has the most potential but is the lightest in the draft and suggested a couple groups explore different strategies. She offered to work on Housing Trust Funds. Seiple asked what was included on the list of ideas. Stanley responded one example on the list was the Minnesota Housing Impact Fund which helps develop single family, owner-occupied housing. That’s not feasible in Eden Prairie due to cost of land, but his idea is for the City to put money in a fund on a per unit basis in conjunction with a builder. Another example was requiring fair housing marketing plans for any development with affordable units. Basically a two page marketing strategy of how the property owners will attempt to reach those least likely to apply for affordable units. Peacock asked if that’s already a standard process. Stanley clarified its standard in affordable developments but not market rate. Overall there were eight to ten ideas on the list he sent. He’ll send it to the entire group so they can determine which ideas to include in the report. Howe-Pullis asked Seiple what she’s interested in and has time to work on. Seiple is interested in many of the recommendations but has limited time. She might be able to work on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and zoning recommendations. Seiple wondered if Eden Prairie already does anything around encouraging landlords to accept section 8. Stanley stated that’s one of the ideas on his list and encouraged the group to consider including it in the report. Palmquist asked if the court case in Minneapolis would require them to pause on that. Stanley was aware of the case but not the specifics or current status. In his opinion, if the City is contributing to a project they’d be in a position to request acceptance of vouchers but he’ll check with the City attorney. Howe-Pullis pointed out Seiple’s idea of focusing on education for landlords about acceptance of housing vouchers. This should be in the Tenant Protection Ordinance section with the information that’s provided to every landlord so they’re aware of the requirement to inform tenants of their rights. Howe-Pullis would also like to prepare a message to the community about overall values and housing. Part of the message would clarify what the Task Force considers affordable housing. The message should have language that feels community based, positive and doesn’t white wash their goals, but says what they mean. Part of the purpose is to help the Council with language when speaking to the community. The Task Force should go through the report and make language clearer wherever possible. Bomben referred to a new development on the east side of Eden Prairie and felt the language some neighbors were using was getting out of control, especially around the term “affordable housing”. Having language that educates the public will help them understand that affordable housing doesn’t refer to bad people. Bomben asked if creating partnerships, for example with Habitat for Humanity, Onward Eden Prairie or Esther Homes, was included in the out of the box section, along with possibilities for having programs that could bring in revenue. Howe-Pullis stated they were thinking of sharing data, graphs and personal stories in the appendix. That might be a good place to share stories from Onward Eden Prairie or other partnerships. They could also discuss developing opportunities with non-profits in the out of the box section. Palmquist agreed partnerships are crucial and it will be important to humanize by sharing stories about the residents who need affordable housing. She has a few stories from PROP but thinks it would be good to find more. Palmquist spoke with a couple employees from Habitat for Humanity and learned they could write down the cost of a house by almost 50%, which might make it feasible for them to build in Eden Prairie. They’re also doing open market purchases. Bomben suggested even though the City doesn’t want to own property, maybe there’s an opportunity to use a trust fund. Stanley shared the City did try to do something with Habitat and was comfortable with purchasing and selling in a simultaneous transaction, but the City doesn’t want the responsibility or liability of owning property long term. Howe-Pullis would like to work on the NOAH section of the report a bit more. Peacock and Bomben volunteered to help. Howe-Pullis thought the section on senior housing needed more information and would like feedback on what’s missing. Stanley felt it doesn’t address the building of new senior housing. He thought the report should discuss a combination of strategies for aging in place and construction of new senior housing. The third pillar could be Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as an intergenerational home model. Seiple recently heard about senior facilities that were intergenerational due to only one member of the household having to meet the age requirement. That might be worth researching as it could be a positive experience for families. Palmquist suggested determining how many senior units have been added in Eden Prairie because of the three developments built in the last couple years. Howe-Pullis asked Palmquist and Farley to share some of the powerful data, charts and graphs they’ve been working on that will be added to the report. Palmquist shared a graph illustrating the number of affordable units in Eden Prairie is expected to decline between 2019 and 2045 and how the number of units compares to the goal set by the Met Council. The graph shows why perpetuity is an important component of the Inclusionary Housing Policy. She’s checking numbers to make sure the graph is as accurate as possible. Howe-Pullis questioned how to handle recommendations in the report that aren’t supported by everyone on the Task Force. Perhaps they should make the recommendation and include a strong alternate everyone will be comfortable with. Palmquist felt the recommendations don’t have to be perfect. The Task Force should make a strong case that their recommendations are the starting point and can be amended along the way. If they find perpetuity does hinder development, the Council can change the policy. Seiple recommended strengthening the section of the report about the successful negotiations the City has already done for perpetuity. Stanley agreed it would be good to give examples and data for that. Palmquist asked if the perpetuity negotiated for the units at Cascade/Lincoln Parc happened recently. Stanley explained it was relatively new. New ownership took over and wanted to convert some retail space to residential, so the City was able to negotiate some units in perpetuity. Howe-Pullis encouraged each of the Task Force members to write in their own voices the strong points that resonate with them, and perhaps that could be a creative way to include everyone’s thoughts in the document. In thinking about perpetuity, while some believe it may deter developers from working with the City, she prefers to think of it as attracting developers that share the same values and goals as the City. Farley asked Task Force members to review the recommendations to make sure they agree with them and check that there’s nothing missing. Howe-Pullis transitioned to reviewing the draft of the final report. Seiple suggested presenting the “other options” differently, as they seemed jarring. Perhaps move them to the appendix so only the recommendations they feel strongly about are in the main report. Farley stated the other options were presented that way to give City Council the menu of options they requested, but agreed the other options would work well in the appendix. Howe-Pullis stated Mayor Case has requested a menu of options. Perhaps they could ask City leaders for advice. Stanley shared that he continues to get requests for a menu of options, so it might be best to keep them in the main body. One thing he likes about having the options in the main body is they provide the argument of “why not”. He’s also concerned the appendix is growing and if it gets too long it’s less likely to be read. Howe-Pullis wondered if there’s another creative way to present the options, for example in a box. Farley suggested including them as a footnote. Stanley offered to check with the City’s Communications team to see if they could help with the formatting. Farley suggested making sure the document had all the substance it needs before having Communications work on it. At Howe-Pullis’ request, Farley went through the document section by section. She asked the group to email suggestions about wording and other small changes to her. The report starts with an executive summary that was kept as short as possible. The next section on the Inclusionary Housing Policy is the most robust. There’s a chart with recommendations for Eden Prairie in the main section, with comparisons to neighboring cities in the appendix. The recommendation that 100% affordable multi-family developments be allowed was added in the main report in the Inclusionary Housing Policy section. More time was spent on the rationale for perpetuity and development size since those are different from neighboring cities. Howe-Pullis suggested including more details about organizations that do 100% affordable properties in the appendix. Seiple suggested strengthening the 100% affordable recommendation by adding that it will require active involvement from City staff who will need to communicate with developers about options for available land. Stanley suggested including each rationale directly after the recommendation it goes with. Farley moved on to the second section and stated there hasn’t been much discussion about the unique opportunities the Southwest Light Rail will provide. Howe-Pullis suggested including more details about partnerships that could be sought with developers like Common Bond. She also thought it would be good to include information about multi-use developments in Eden Prairie that are already completed or under way, or include data for similar developments from neighboring cities. Farley asked if there was data available for any developments already built along the Light Rail. Stanley stated there is a database a coalition of agencies put together, but he’s not sure if the information would be helpful. He’ll check into it. Seiple suggested contacting the Model Cities development that was built along the Light Rail in St Paul for information. She offered to send language about how often transportation is highlighted as a need in Eden Prairie. Howe-Pullis asked if there’s information available about occupancy at Elevate, or successes and challenges they’ve encountered. Stanley responded the retail space is slow going, but the affordable rental units should be full by now. Howe-Pullis will talk to Timberland to ask how affordability is working for them. Farley continued on to section three about housing trust funds. The recommendation was written to give the City maximum flexibility in how to use the trust fund. The second recommendation is about building partnerships in order to access their infrastructure and expertise. Howe-Pullis talked with Mark Weber from the Eden Prairie Community Foundation. He thinks it’s likely the trust fund could be administered through the Foundation, which would mean donations to the fund would be tax deductible. The fund would need to have its own board and would require clarification of who the decision makers are and what the fund can be used for. Mark Weber had some questions that Howe-Pullis is going to check with St Louis Park about, but overall he sounded positive. Bomben suggested checking with Edina, too, since they also have a housing trust fund. Seiple suggested having renters on the trust fund board, if a board is required. Stanley pointed out the second recommendation in the trust fund section is something the City already does with PROP, so they’ll need to clarify if the recommendation is to expand what the City does. Farley will add wording to make it clear there is already funding provided, but there’s opportunity to expand partnerships. Howe-Pullis asked about the wording in the document referring to the City owning property and whether it should be removed. Palmquist stated one of the benefits of having a housing trust fund would be that it wouldn’t require the City to own anything. Farley moved on to section four about NOAH properties and noted it’s especially important in this section to keep the terminology clear. Howe-Pullis, Peacock and Bomben will do some more work on this section. Farley continued to section five about Tenant Protection Ordinances (TPOs). This section includes two recommendations: first the TPO, and second the requirement that landlords provide tenants a written list of their rights. She suggested adding a requirement that landlords be required to accept housing vouchers when they request licensing. She also suggested adding wording about affirmatively further fair housing marketing. Howe-Pullis asked what else the City can do to ensure tenants who are at risk of being taken advantage of know their rights and understand their right to form a tenants’ group. Beyond NOAH, she would like to include broader information about which City departments handle inspections, the kinds of inspections conducted, and how often they happen. Perhaps they could check with Megan Yerks to see if she has suggestions. Columbine Townhomes had inspections once a year to comply with their funding requirements but management would do quick fixes right before the inspections. Addressing this goes back to the gap HOME Line warned about. Stanley stated it’s important not to wander into HUD housing quality standards territory, but it might be possible to have inspectors make some small changes. Howe-Pullis suggested building it into the document as part of the information landlords are required to provide tenants when a lease is signed so tenants know how to access those resources. Farley wondered if a recommendation should also be made about surprise inspections or the ability of the City to inspect if they receive complaints. Howe-Pullis will talk to Megan Yerks to get her opinion. Farley pointed out this links to NOAH when considering how to maintain a property while keeping it affordable. Farley moved on to the recommendation for senior living. This topic didn’t get much discussion at previous Task Force meetings. The recommendation includes aging in place, new developments, and ADUs. City Council asked during the last workshop if there were options for seniors other than large residential units, and whether priority could be given to long term Eden Prairie residents when a new development opens. She was concerned about legal issues with giving priority. Howe-Pullis felt Fischer’s feedback on this section is needed and will contact her to discuss it. Bomben pointed out the Task Force has never talked about accessibility of housing. Stanley suggested incorporating the concept of universal design into the report. It’s a set of design standards that dictate accessible standards. Stanley also suggested mentioning smaller lots, less expensive houses, and a new housing typology of single level living. Seiple asked if the other Task Force members have heard about senior housing becoming intergenerational based on the way their requirements are structured. She would be interested in researching that concept. Farley felt intergenerational housing fit with the ADU concept, and with the question about options for seniors other than big residential units. Farley moved on to section seven – out of the box strategies. ADUs are the first strategy. There was good feedback from the Council for them. The Task Force needs to determine which ideas to keep or take out. The ideas being kept will need to be built out. Stanley shared his personal opinion that the out of the box strategies would be more of a “here are some things to think about” section. Farley confirmed that Stanley, Howe-Pullis, Seiple, and herself will have some conversations to work on the section some more. Bomben offered to help, too. ADJOURN Palmquist will add more about land trusts. She heard Minnetonka was starting one, so she’ll check to see if she can get information. Howe-Pullis is waiting to hear back from St Louis Park, as she heard they were considering perpetuity. She’ll also check with a few other cities to get their thoughts on it, and she’ll check with Edina about their in-lieu funds. Palmquist asked about tracking down success stories from 100% affordable properties to put a human face on it. Peacock said she could potentially get stories if people are willing to share. Palmquist suggested changing names and identifying characteristics. Bomben suggested including stories from Onward Eden Prairie. The point of including these stories is to provide Council members, who sometimes get bombarded by residents who are against affordable housing, with messaging that shows the residents in affordable housing are normal people. Seiple stated she was part of a focus group conducted by the Eden Prairie Community Foundation for a needs assessment. The school foundation surfaced an idea during the focus group around the need for positive messaging for LRT. It might be good to partner with those groups or others. Bomben asked if the SRO (Single Resident Occupancy) terminology mentioned by a guest at a previous meeting should be included in the report. Palmquist asked if Onward Eden Prairie would be considered an SRO. Bomben said it would. Farley asked if SRO refers to developments that use common facilities. Bomben stated it does; SROs have common kitchens and gathering areas, similar to a dormitory. Farley stated SROs are listed in the report but they’re not defined and there’s no detail. Bomben offered to research the concept. Howe-Pullis asked when the Task Force will present again to City Council. Stanley replied it would probably be in August. Palmquist asked how Robinson, Moquist and Fischer should be looped in. Howe-Pullis stated she would connect with them. Howe-Pullis adjourned the meeting at 7:35 pm.