The URL can be used to link to this page

1. Past, Present & Future Document Update2 CHANHASSEN P PRESENT AND FUTURE C ity of Chanhassen, Minnesota January 1997 Chanhassen Past, Present and Future City of Chanhassen January, 1997 City Council Nancy K. Mancino, Mayor Steven Berquist Mike Mason Mark Senn Mark Engel Planning Commission Ladd Conrad Jeff Farmakes Craig Peterson Bob Skubic Kevin Joyce Allison Blackowiak Don Ashworth, City Manager Planning Department Kathryn Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director Sharmin AI -Jaff, Planner II Robert Generous, AICP, Senior Planner Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Coordinator Phillip Elkin, Water Resources Coordinator V CITY OF n 0 1 4 5 miles CHANHASSEN V 44 W - - fen v IMP �� r / d � � �;, '�ir��:.yl !ice_`' •; 'i�`� .�% %�� *go 16 11L 1ps Aw ;, ', � \ \ �` � , � � 1 . �� !i� � 1�s� ► lam •• t w � � i a New, '� "Tt '- � `r_i ''� -'' - per`" '� 'W �!t►iNw► Ir.: '�Y�.• I , ��ii � a ! J r 5 A AL T POID10j" BY: Cx A M *LSSM ENGPCERNW DEPr. *VISED "AN. Lacmum -rTV HALL offl A/ w Oqr4m" ROAD - - - -- I NK SO U040ARY AKE AW 7j __-i' ter. ""--" y � ~ �_ At YN N o -Ott Table of Contents INTRODUCTION Population Population Projections Age Distribution Sex and Race Building Activity Residential Building Permits (1980 -1996) Comparison of Building Permit Activity (1993 - 1996) Historical Residential Building Permits (1974 - 1996) Housing Data Total Housing Units, Families, and Persons Per Household Structures Per Unit Tenure, Median Value, and Median Rents Homestead Valuation Employment Household Income Educational Attainment Labor Force Employment by Occupation Employment by Industry Major Employers in Chanhassen Plannin De partment Cases Summary Residential Development Statistics 1 2 3 4 5 a -b 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Introduction In order to see where a community is headed, it is important to understand where it has been, where it is, and where it is going. City of Chanhassen staff have assembled information from the U.S. Census, from building permit records, from Metropolitan Council reports in order to permit interested individuals a look at Chanhassen Past, Present and Future. i POPULATION POPULATION PROJECTIONS 01/10/97 CHANHASSEN POPULATION CITY'S 1996 CARVER PERCENT INCREASE COUNC 1L REVI SED N MBER INCREASE 1960 CENSUS 16% 3 28,331 1970 CENSUS 30 %° 4 1,468 1980 CENSUS 47,915 6 1,480 1990 CENSUS 48% 11 5 1995 ESTIMATE 15 3 1996 ESTIMATE 30 17,021 1 1997 ESTIMATE 17,571 550 2000 HIGH 21 20 2 LOW 20 9 493 17,782 211 2005 HIGH 29 26,895 6,421 LOW 26 22 5,032 2010 HIGH 39 35 9 LOW 35 29 6 33% CITY'S PERCENT MET CARVER PERCENT INCREASE COUNC 1L COUNT OF - COUNTY 17 %° 21,358 16% 43% 28,331 17% 30 %° 37 17% 84% 47,915 24% 33% 9% i 3% ! i 17 %° 19,900 63 9 220 i 32% 1% 63 28% 31% j 28% 40 34% 26,000 74 48% 31% 74 40% SOURCES: U.S. CENSUS METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, APRIL 1993 (MET COUNCIL AND CARVER COUNTY) CITY OF CHANHASSEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 1991 (2000 - 2010 HIGH /LOW ESTIMATES) CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, JANUARY 1997 (ESTIMATE BASED ON 6 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS, 95% OCCUPANCY AND 2.92 PERSONS PER DWELLING) gAplan \census \pop.wk4 1 ! CHANHASSEN POPULATION 50 j i 40 i i p 30 0 ~ 20 HIGH ESTIMATE = LOW ESTIMATE i "- -k REVISED HIGH ESTIMATE (1996) i 10 - REVISED LOW ESTIMATE (1996) 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 1996 1997 2000 2005 2010 YEAR SOURCES: U.S. CENSUS METROPOLITAN COUNCIL, APRIL 1993 (MET COUNCIL AND CARVER COUNTY) CITY OF CHANHASSEN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 1991 (2000 - 2010 HIGH /LOW ESTIMATES) CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT, JANUARY 1997 (ESTIMATE BASED ON 6 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS, 95% OCCUPANCY AND 2.92 PERSONS PER DWELLING) gAplan \census \pop.wk4 1 AGE DISTRIBUTION POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS CENSUS DATA 1970 AGE NUMBER PERCENT <5 446 9.1 5-24 2 42.0% 25-44 1 27.7% 45-54 473 9.7% 55-59 156 3.2% 60 -64 127 2.6% 65-74 189 3.9% 75+ 91 1.9% TOTAL 4 100.0% Mmmm 74 7 CENSUS DATA AGE DISTRIBUTION 1980 NUMBER PERCENT 485 7.6% 2 36.8 % 2 34.0% 685 10.8% 253 4.0% 125 2.0% 195 3.1% 119 1.9% 6 100.0% 28.4 1990 NUMBER PERCENT 1 11.4% 3 26.4% 5 43.1 1,157 9.9% 364 3.1 263 2.2% 307 2.6% 145 1.2% 11 100.0% 30.5 01/18/95 .. 1970 1980 1990 (42.0 %) (36.8 %) (26.4 %) (7.6 %) (1.9 %) (3.1 (2.0 %) 4.0 %) (43.1 (10.8 %) t F� ® <5 (11.4 %) M5 - 24 1.2% ®25 - 44 ; 2.6 E145 - 54 i (3.1%) E55 - 59 S (9.9 %) M 60 - 64 M 65 - 74 0 75+ Source: U.S. Census (Ll . l " /o) SEX AND RACE POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS CENSUS DATA SEX 1970 1980 NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT MALE 2 50.9% 3 51.6% FEMALE 2, 394 49.1 3 48.4% 1990 NUMBER PERCENT 6 51.3 5 48.7% 01/18/95 Source: U.S. Census 8 RACE o 4 99.6% 6 yaks ;a MALE 5 AFRICAN AMERICAN 4 0.0% 4 0.1 ' 411 0.2 AMERICAN INDIAN FEMALE 0.2 % CL 0 1 0.3% ASIAN J tis `M1 0.0% 42 0.7 % .� i1 1.7 OTHER 5 0.1 % 0 0.0 % 22 0.2 % ulcPAKll _ ANIV PAr.F NA b 0.6 % 78 0.7% 0 1970 1980 1990 01/18/95 Source: U.S. Census RACE WHITE 4 99.6% 6 98.8% 11,448 97.6 % AFRICAN AMERICAN 2 0.0% 4 0.1 28 0.2 AMERICAN INDIAN 10 0.2 % 18 0.3 % 39 0.3% ASIAN 1 0.0% 42 0.7 % 195 1.7 OTHER 5 0.1 % 0 0.0 % 22 0.2 % ulcPAKll _ ANIV PAr.F NA 39 0.6 % 78 0.7% 01/18/95 Source: U.S. Census BUILDING ACTIVITY Residential Building Permits 1980 - 1996 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED YEAR SINGLE FAMILY DUPLEX TOWRAPARTMENT HOUSES COMPLEX TOTA DWELLINGS 1980 41 18 40 0 99 1981•. 22 2 0 2 4'. 1982 19 2'', 0 21, 1983 60i 8 36' ' 104' j 1984 1081_ 34 24i 1 1985 189 38 20 18 265! 19 86 2 461 8 8 19871 � 289i 2 32' _323 1988 1989 352 307' 26 0'• _ 14 ; 6 21 _ 383' 1990 197 0_ 4 �� _ � 1 1 1991 191_ 4' Oi 0' 0 0 0-- -- 191'. 1992 228' 0 , 1 22 8_ 1993'. 251 16 26 7J 1994 269'x, 0 110' 0' _ 37 9 � 1995 216i 197 65 4781 1996 _ 170 37 Oi 207' 1997 � 0 -' 19981 0 1999 0 i 20 � • it of Chanhassen Planni Source. City g January 1997 p g:\ p Ian \census \permits 4 COMPARISON OF BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY 1993-1996 BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY 1993 -1996 COMPARISON 01/10/97 1993 SINGLE SINGLE MONTH FAMILY- FAMILY- MULTI- TOTAL DETACH ATTACH A 1 Y ADDITION COMM. misc. VAL JAN. 10 0 0 13 1 1 $5,426,000 FEB 18 0 0 25 0 4 $3,243,000 MAR 18 0 0 25 0 11 $3,157,500 APR 25 0 0 55 1 16 $4,782,800 MAY 27 0 0 63 1 28 $4,822,500 JUNE 20 0 0 71 0 11 $3,285,700 JULY 35 0 0 61 0 23 $6,426,100 AUG 16 0 0 32 0 9 $3,028,400 SEPT 17 0 0 35 0 21 $3,499,700 OCT 23 0 0 40 0 19 $3,993,200 NOV 14 8 0 20 0 15 $3,301,200 DEC 28 8 0 17 0 4 $5,425,900 TOTAL 251 16 0 457 3 162 $50,392,000 1994 SINGLE SINGLE MONTH FAMILY- FAMILY- MULTI- TOTAL SF DETACFSE ATTACF-MULTI- FAMADDITION COMM. MI SC. VALUE JAN. 30 4 0 15 1 2 $6,096,000 FEB 22 8 0 24 0 6 $4,528,300 MAR 36 11 0 29 0 9 $7,930,000 APR 17 8 0 60 1 17 $4,125,700 MAY 29 8 0 70 1 22 $6,749,300 JUNE 22 0 0 62 1 25 $5,332,900 JULY 13 8 0 65 1 14 $6,116,400 AUG 30 10 0 54 2 23 $7,736,800 SEPT 19 27 0 41 1 20 $6,771,800 OCT 14 0 0 35 1 18 $3,269,000 NOV 19 3 0 31 0 8 $4,813,900 DEC 18 23 0 22 1 2 $18,319,500 TOTAL 269 110 0 508 10 166 $81,789,600 1995 SINGLE SINGLE MONTH FAMILY - FAMILY- MULTI- TOTAL SF DETACFSE ATTACI-MULTI- FAMADDITION COMM. MIS C. VALUE JAN. 15 30 0 23 0 6 $4,373,500 FEB 21 27 0 21 0 4 $6,987,900 MAR 13 0 0 27 2 9 $4,794,000 APR 12 14 0 43 1 8 $4,032,100 MAY 19 12 0 84 2 25 $6,720,100 JUNE 25 7 0 81 2 18 $9,438,300 JULY 20 12 0 45 1 9 $5,467,800 AUG 20 12 0 42 1 12 $5,216,200 SEPT 16 42 0 42 1 18 $6,291,500 OCT 19 26 65 35 0 13 $9,463,500 NOV 20 10 0 25 0 3 $10,095,500 DEC 16 5 0 25 1 0 $9,251,900 TOTAL 216 197 65 493 11 125 $82,132,300 1996 SINGLE SINGLE MONTH FAMILY- FAMILY- MULTI_ TOTAL SF DETACHED 4TTACHED FAMIL ADDITION COMM. misc. VALUE JAN. 23 0 0 15 1 1 $5,036,500 FEB 15 0 0 17 0 0 $3,714,000 MAR 18 4 0 33 0 1 $4,348,000 APR 11 4 0 62 0 2 $3,223,600 MAY 19 2 0 87 2 11 $6,075,300 JUNE 20 4 0 81 2 13 $7,037,900 JULY 16 2 0 59 5 10 $8,402,800 AUG 7 8 0 76 0 12 $3,1.00,800 SEPT 6 5 0 51 1 10 $2,441,800 OCT 14 5 0 72 3 9 $5,986,500 NOV 14 0 0 36 0 1 $3,387,800 DEC 7 3 0 24 0 0 $4,413,300 TOTAL 170 37 0 613 14 70 $57,168,300 Source: City of Chanhassen Planning Department, January 1997 g:\plan \census\bldg.wk4 5a 0 BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY 800 600 1 H W 400 d 200 1 0r g: \plan \censt.as \bldg.wk4 1993 - 1996 COMPARISON 1993-1996 BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY ■ 1993 ® 1994 ■ 1995 1996 01/10/97 HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS 974 - 1996 HISTORICAL HOUSING BUILDING PERMIT DATA 01/10/97 Source: City of Chanhassen Planning Department, January 1996 g:\plan \census \dwelling.wk4 YE AR TYPE ST 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81- 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 993 94 98 96 TOTAL SINGLE - FAMILY 1365 18 36 65 108 86 100 41 22 19 60 108 189 246 289 352 307 197 191 228 249 269 213 164 4922 DUPLEX 0 44 2 16 18 2 2 36 24 38 8 2 26 0 0 0 218 TOWNHOUSE 52 40 8 34 20 8 32 34 14 10 110 197 37 596 MULTI - FAMILY 449 18 62 0 65 0 594 MOBILE HOME 4 0 0 0 4 population TOTAL 1870 18 36 65 152 88 116 99 24 21 104 166 265 262 323 412 383 197 191 228 259 379 475 201 6334 17,571 PERCENT GROWTH NA 100% 81% 134% -42% 32% -15% -76% -13% 395 % 60% 60% -1% 23% 28% -7% -49% -3% 19% 14% 46% 25% -58% ANNUAL AVERAGE BY DWELLING TYPE TOTAL DWELLING DISTRIBUTION NUMBER PERCENT PERCENT SINGLE- FAMILY 155 64% 78% DUPLEX 15 6% 3% TOWNHOUSE 45 19% 9% MULTI - FAMILY 29 12 % 9% MOBILE HOME 0 0% 0% TOTAL 244 — - - - - — - - - - — — — - - - - Source: City of Chanhassen Planning Department, January 1996 g:\plan \census \dwelling.wk4 HOUSING DATA TOTAL HOUSING UNITS, FAMILIES AND PERSONS PER HOUSEHOLD POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS CENSUS DATA HOUSING DATA 1970 1980 1990 2000 TOTAL HOUSING UNITS 1 2 4 7 6 Note: 2000, 2005, and 2010 are high and low estimates. 1970 1980 1990 FAMILIES NA 1 3 1970 1980 1990 * ** PERSONS /HOUSEHOLD 3.6 3.04 2.92 2005 2010 10,683 14 9 11.843 ir.-r W 15 c .D � r � 10 . 0 0 � s o t = 5 0 -o- HOUSING UNITS 1 -�- FAMILIES Year 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 Sources: U.S. Census; 1970,1980,1990-Housing Units, Families, and Persons per Household City of Chan hassen Comprehensive Plan -2000, 2005, 2010 High Low Housing Estimates 01/18/95 STRUCTURES PER UNIT POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS 1970 NUMBER PERCENT 1 80.5% 280 19.3% 3 0.2% UNITS IN STRUCTURE 1 2 OR MORE MOBILE, TRAILER, OTHER CENSUS DATA HOUSING DATA 1980 NUMBER PERCENT 1752 76.7% 529 23.2% 4 0.2% 1990 NUMBER PERCENT 3 78.0% 911 21.4% 22 0.5% 01/18/95 Source: U.S. Census, Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan - 1991 TENURE, MEDIAN VALUE AND MEDIAN RENTS POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS TENURE: OWNER OCCUPIED RENTER OCCUPIED SEASONAL VACANT 1970 NUMBER PERCENT 1980 NUMBER 984 67.7% 365 25.1% 46 3.2% 59 4.1% CENSUS DATA HOUSING DATA 1980 NUMBER PERCENT 588 13.8% 1 68.8% 503 22.0% 16 0.7% 194 8.5% 1990 NUMBER PERCENT 3 80.0% 588 13.8% 28 0.7% 233 5.5% 01/18/95 1970] 1980. 1990 (67.7 %) (68 8 %) (4.1%) (3.2 %) (25.1%) (80.0 (8.5°1°) D.7 %) (22.0 %) ®OWNER M RENTER SEASONAL (5.5°1°) O VACANT (0.7°1°) MEDIAN VALUE 0WNER $38,000 $84,700 OCCUPIED UNITS MEDIAN CONTRACT RENT $134 $270 Rnijrnpr 11 S_ Census 1996 Homestead Valuation VALUE $0-$72 $72,001 - $115,000 $115,001 -.$150 $150,001 - $200,000 $200,001 - $250,000 $250,000+ $250,000+ $200,001 - $250,000 $150,001 - $200,000 NUMBER 176 1 1,587 1,166 518 596 5,130 PERCENT 3% 21% 31% 23% 10% 12% $72,001 - $t 15,000 TOTAL $0-$72 Value 1 /15/97 HOUSEHOLD INCOME POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS CENSUS DATA HOUSEHOLD INCOME 1969 1979 MEDIAN INCOME $13,452 $26,441 INCREASE FROM PRIOR $12,989 96.6% <$5 5 - 9 10,000 - 14,999 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 49 50,000 - 74,999 75,000 - 99,999 100 - 149 150,000+ MEDIAN CHANHASSEN 0 989 NUMBER PERCENT 19 0.5% 88 2.2% 92 2.3% 357 8.8% 475 11.7% 865 21.3% 1 30.9% 547 13.5 % 252 6.2% 113 2.8% TOTAL 4 $39,188 _ • . • - $52,011 1989 $52,011 $25,570 96.7% CARVER COUNTY 41 NUMBER PERCENT 371 2.2% 970 5.9% 921 5.6% 2 13.1% 2 16.7% 3 23.0 % 3 21.1% 1,175 7.1% 517 3.1% 355 2.1% 16 $39,188 _ • . • - 01/18/95 Source: U.S. Census EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT POPULATI & DEMOGRAPHICS CENSUS DATA EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT HANHASSEN (1990 < 9TH GRADE 102 1.4% 9 - 12, NO DIPLOMA 203 2.8 HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 1 21.4% SOME COLLEGE 1 24.7% ASSOCIATE DEGREE 618 8.5% BACHELOR'S DEGREE 2 32.5% GRADUATE DEGREE 641 8.8% TOTAL 7 2 8.7% 1 6.7% 10 35.3% 5 19.1 2 8.8% 4 16.7% 1,395 4.8% 29,247 (24.' (8.5 %) Chanhassen V71 d %.1 (2.8 %) (1.4 %) (8.8 %) 01/18/95 CARVER COUNTY (1990) Carver County I i (6.7 %) (19.1°, (8.8 %) (8.7 %) (4.8 %) %) ®< 9TH 0 9-12 OHS GRADUATE CD SOME COLLEGE W ASSOCIATE BACHELOR'S GRADUATE Source: U.S. Census (32.5 %) LABOR FORCE POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS LAB FOR CE PERSONS 16 + IN LABOR FORCE NOT IN LABOR FORCE EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED CENSUS DATA EMPLOYMENT (1990) 8, 386 7 84.2% 1 15.8% 6 97.0% 214 3.0% Persons 16+ a (84 %) N LABOR FORCE 0 NOT IN LABOR FORCE (16 %) Source: U.S. Census 01/18/95 1(97.0 %) ® EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED In Labor Force I'l, .-T-IMIMM ...... . ...... EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT B Y OCCUPATION POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS CENSUS DATA 01/18/95 OCCUPATION (1990) NUMBER PERCENT EXECUTIVE, ADMINISTRATIVE, MANAGERIAL 1 18.1 PROFESSIONAL 1 19.5% TECHNICIANS 294 4.3% SALES 1 16.1 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT 1 16.2 PRIVATE HOUSEHOLD OCCUPATION 17 0.2% SERVICE OCCUPATIONS 560 8.2% AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY, AND FISHERIES 44 0.6% PRECISION PRODUCTION, CRAFT, AND REPAIR 591 8.6% PROTECTIVE SERVICES 30 0.4% MACHINE OPERATORS, ASSEMBLERS, INSPECTORS 312 4.6 % TRANSPORTATION AND MATERIAL MOVING 82 1.2% HANDLERS, EQUIPMENT CLEANERS, LABORERS 132 1.9% TOTAL EMPLOYED PERSONS 16 YEARS AND OVER 6 (19.5 %) 3.l %) I� EXECUTIVE PROFESSIONAL TECHNICIANS © SALES ADMINISTRATIVE HOUSEHOLD SERVICE o AGRICULTURE CRAFT & REPAIR �s PROTECTIVE SVC MACHINE OPERATOR . MOVING ' HANDLER/LABORER Source: U.S. Census EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS AGRICULTURAL, FORESTRY, FISHERIES CONSTRUCTION MANUFACTURING, NONDURABLE GOODS MANUFACTURING, DURABLE GOODS TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS, PUBLIC UTILITIES WHOLESALE TRADE MINING RETAIL TRADE FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND REPAIR SERVICES PERSONAL SERVICES HEALTH SERVICES EDUCATIONAL SERVICES ENTERTAINMENT, RECREATIONAL OTHER PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION CENSUS DATA 01/18/95 INDUSTRY (1990) NUMBER PERCENT 72 1.1°x6 402 5.9% 516 7.5°x6 902 13.2°x6 386 5.6°x6 147 2.1% 676 9.9% 16 0.2% 1,094 16.0°x6 448 6.5°x6 458 6.7°x6 132 1.9°x6 445 6.5°x6 455 6.6°x6 100 1.5°x6 497 7.3% 98 1.4°x6 n ( (0.2°x6) (16.0°x6) (6.7 %) (1.9°x6) (6.5 %) (5.9°x6) (1.1 %) (1.4 %) (7.3°x6) �6) Source: U.S. Census IIIIIIII AGRICULTURAL M CONSTRUCTION MFG- NONDURABLE MFG- DURABLE TRANSPORTATION COMMUNICATIONS ® WHOLESALE TRADE D MINING RETAIL TRADE I® FIN, INS, REAL EST Ml BUSINESS &REPAIR O PERSONAL SVCS o HEALTH SVCS EDUCATIONAL SVCS ENTERTAINMENT OTHR PROFESSIONAL PUBLIC ADMIN (5.6°x6) (13.2°x6) /7 4 OLl MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN CHA NHA SSEN POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHICS CENSUS DATA MAJOR EMPLOYERS IN CHANHASSEN EMPLOYER PRODUCTS /SERVICES SIC ROSEMOUNT, INC. PRECISION INSTRUCMENTS 3545 MCGLYNN BAKERIES BAKERY MANUFACTURING 2051 BLOOMBER COMPANIES DINNER THEATER 5812 UNITED MAILING MAILING /PRE -SORT 7331 DATA SERVE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 3571 THE PRESS COMMERCIAL PRINTING 2732 EMPAK ELECTRONIC MANUFACTURING 3089 ABC /LYMAN LUMBER MILLWORK/DISTRIBUTION 2421 INSTANT WEB COMMERCIAL PRINTING 2732 REDMOND PRODUCTS HAIR CARE PRODUCTS 2844 VER -SA -TI L CONTRACT MACHINE SHOP 3469 M.A. GEDNEY COMPANY PICKLES AND DRESSINGS 2035 EMPLOYEES 1,200 450 250 350 355 350 340 65 275 250 180 70 01/18/95 din 250 350 70 180 D ROSEMOUNT EM MCGLYNN BAKERIES BLOOMBER D UNITED MAILING DATA SERVE SM THE PRESS EMPAK o ABC /LYMAN LUMBER q i t INSTANT WEB REDMOND = VER -SA TI L M M.A. GEDNEY Source: Chanhassen Planning Department, August 1994 350 ZED 340 65 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASES SUMMARY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CASES TYPE 1993 1994 1995 1996 SIGN PERMITS 9 7 12 10 VARIANCES 10 10 10 10 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS 1 5 3 6 INTERIM USE PERMITS 2 3 3 3 REZONINGS 6 8 4 5 SITE PLAN REVIEWS 7 8 22 14 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS 7 2 3 5 SUBDIVISIONS 26 23 25 21 VACATIONS 10 6 4 4 WETLAND ALTERATION PERMITS 4 6 5 6 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS 4 13 8 3 TOTAL 86 91 99 87 17 0 1991-1996 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS CAE PROJECT NAME SINGLE - FAMILY DETACHED GROSS ACRES ROW ADBE WETLAND ACRES PARK LAND NET ACRES TOTAL UNITS GROSS DENSITY NET DENSITY NOTES 93 -1 SUB Highlands of Lake St. Joe 36 0.4 11.54 0 24.06 33 0_ 1.37 Shoreland district 93 -4 SUB Windmill Run 17.92 3.37 0 0 14.55 35 1. 2.41 farm field 93 -8 SUB Royal O aks Estates 13 2.2 0 0 10.8 23 1.77 2.13 farm field 93 -10 SUB Lotus Lake Woods 4.47 0.32 0.3 0 3.85 7 1.57 1.82 wooded/wetland 93 -11 SUB Oaks at Minnewashta 35.83 9 3 8 15.83 45 1.26 2.84 93 -12 SUB Tower Heights 7.1 0 0 0 6.5 13 1.83 2.00 _ 93 -14 SUB Shenandoah Ridge 11.5 _ 3.5 0 0 8 20 1.74 2.50 93 -15 SUB Church Road 3.3 0 0 0 3.3 4 1.21 1.21 93 - 16 SUB TJO 1.06 0 0 0 1.06 3 2.83 2.83 93 -25 S UB Minger Addition 9.95 2.08 0 0.15 7.72 17 1.71 2.20 94 -1 SUB Minnewashta Landings 19.7 1.7 0 0 18 27 1.37 1.50 beachlot/shoreland district _ 94 -3 SUB Olivewood 25.95 4.6 14.8 0 6.55 9 0.35 1.37 shoreland district _ 9 4 -4 SUB Shadow Ridge 15.99 2.15 1.9 0 11.94 17 1.06 1.42 3.9 acre outlot yet to be platted 94 -5 PUD Mission Hills /Single - family 7.1 0 0 0 7.1 16 2.25 2.25 94 -7 SUB Shamrock Ridge 37.9 3.67 6.7 0 27.53 45 1.19 1.63 94 -8 SUB Creekside I 39.5 4.2 _ 5.7 5 24.6 44 1.11 1.79 _ 94 -10 SUB Brenden Pond 23.3 3.6 7.2 0 12.5 21 0.90 1.68 94 -13 SUB Point Lake Lucy 18.15 1.63 _ 5.62 0 10.9 19 1.05 1.74 94 -15 SUB Hobens Wild Woods Farm 1.87 0 0 0 1.87 3 1.60 1.60 95 -10 SUB Forest Meadows 20.2 2.2 0 5 13 19 0.94 1.46 92 -4 PUD Meadows at Longacres 95 10 24 0 61 112 1.18 1.84 93 -2 PUD Trotters Ridge 3 2.5 7.44 5.6 0 19.46 49 1.51 2.52 91 -3 PUD Willow Ridge 30.3 4 8.39 0 17.91 37 1.22 2 92 -1 SUB Stone Creek 81 10.04 0.96 8 62 141 1.74 2.27 92 -4 SUB Ithilien Addition 9 1.8 0.9 0 6.3 1 7 1.89 2.7 9 2 -5 SUB Bluff Creek Estates 61.45 7.9 19.7 0 33.85 78 1.27 2.30 93 -3 PUD Woods at Longacres 96.77 13.1 10.87 0 72.8 115 1.19 1.58 93-6 PUD Rogers /Dolejsi 80.8 20.2 0.5 5.3 54.8 134 1.66 2.45 95 -20 SUB Knob Hill 8.35 1.1 0.66 0 6.6 12 1.44 1.86 95 -21 SUB Dempsey Addition 5.11 0.04 0.96 0 4.11 7 1.36 1.70 _ 95 -22 SUB The Frontier 8.9 0.09 0.2 0 8.6 __ 9 1.01 1.05 Bluff area limits development 96 -2 SUB Oak Ridge of Lake Minnewashu 11.8 2.1 0 0 9.7 23 1.95 2.3 96 -4 SUB Melody Hill 4.57 0.73 0 0 3.84 10 2.10 2.60 SUBTOTAL 875.34 123.76 129.5 31.45 590.63 1164 PERCENT 14% 15% 4% 67% AVG 1.33 1.97 MULTI - FAMILY _ - -- 94-5 PUD Mission Hills/Multi- family 47.18 11.6 5.87 0 _ 29.71 208 7.0 94 -18 PUD Autumn Rid 11.5 _ 0 0 0 11.5 46 _4.41 4.00 4.00 92 -3 PUD Oak Pond /Oak Hills 24.19 2.09 1.8 0 _ 20.3 147 _ 6.08 7.24 94 -7 SP Prairie Creek Townhomes 4.6 0 0 0 4.6 24 _ 5.22 5.22 8 7 -3 PUD P owers Place 9.7 0 0 0 9.7 48 4.95 4.9 95 -7 SP Lake Susan Hills Townhom 7.29 _ 0 _0 0 _ 7.29 34 4.66 4.6 95 -8 SP Centenial Hills 2.2 0 0 0 _ 2.2 65 _ 29.55 _ 29.55 95 -1 PUD North Bay 5 2.1 2.92 8.6 26.3 14.14 7 6 1.46 5.37 _ 96 -3 PUD Townhomes a Creekside _ 29 2.1 1 - 0.21 4 .6 __ _ 25 3.13 5.40 _ City requ ired preservation of Bluff Creek corridor /large setbacks from SUBTOTAL 187.76 18.79 17.33 _ 26.59 104.04 673 _ Bl uff Creek/Coulter Blvd. PERCENT 10% 9% 14% 55% AVG 3.58 6.47 TOTAL 1063.1 142. 1 46 . 83 5 183 PERCENT 1 13% 14% 5% _6 65% AVG 1.73 2.64 1/14/97 Density Carver County Housing Study December 1996 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study is intended to provide HRA members, staff, City officials, community leaders and other interested parties with a good examination of housing issues in Carver County. In addition to this executive summary and the introduction in the next tab, the six major sections that follow provide the following information: ► Demographic data on each of the 12 cities and Carver County. Demographic information is provided on population, households, employment and income. (Tab 3) ► A thorough inventory of the existing housing stock in each City including analysis of owner occupied and rented housing. (Tab 4) ► A findings and recommendations section that reports key housing issues and findings for the County and each City. (Tab 5) ► A rental housing development section that summarizes the total number and type of rental units recommended in this study. (Tab 6) ► A summary of programs and resources available at the local, state and federal level to address housing needs. (Tab 7) P. A summary of HRA powers and duties under Minnesota Law. (Tab 8) Significant Findings Carver Countv is the smallest and most rural of the seven counties in the Minneapolis /St. Paul Metropolitan Area. While the County may have the smallest population of the seven Metro counties, Carver County has been experiencing remendous growth in recent decades. Accordin g � d g to recently released estimates from the Metropolitan Council, Carver County's population has grown by 19 percent from 1990 to 1995, third fastest of the seven counties and well above the 7 percent growth rate for the entire Metro Area. Employment growth in the area has also been significant. Data on commercial- industrial building permit activity from 1988 to 1993 show that Chanhassen and Chaska both ranked among the to 15 Metro Area cities. Metropolitan Council projections to the year 2020 indicate that, under the current trends, the southwest quadrant of the Twin Cities Area, which includes all of Carver County, will lead the Metro Area in total employment. Data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that Carver County led all Metro Counties for percentage change in employment from 1991 to 1994. All available indicators and projections point to continued growth in Carver County for the foreseeable future, resulting in continued strong demand for both owned and rented housing options in a variety of price ranges. Executive Summary 1 -1 i . Carver County Eous December 19.96. - cities have a good quality, existing housing stock Our analysis indicates that the cities in Carver County h q • Y 9 r County's location on the edge of the t is generally ty . broad terms, much of that g y affordable and well maintained. Carve • housing quality and ace. In developing Metro Area has had an impact on g q Y p • p g traditionally been lower raced than comparable he existing housing y p • t g g stock in Carver County has trad • subu ran creating affordable options for home ownership. homes in the more developed subu g, g been lower than other arts of the Metro Area, housing in Carver While housing paces have be P • • results in m the strong real estate market in the Twin Cities, which resu t County has still benefitted fro g • expected value increases from year to year. Home owners have an solid home values and expec Q the house • maintenance and improvement of their housing, knowin that incentive to invest in the ma p will continue to increase in value. • Council implemented the Metropolitan 95 the Legislature adopted and the Metropolitan C p • • In 19 g . ' • The Act is intended to provide a full range of housing opportunities Livable Communities Act. options. � art Metro Area and to reserve and rehabilitate affordable housing optio p throughout the Me p of the Act, participating le for housing in communities adopt housing goals and . establish action p ans g activities. Carver County generally fared well in the affordable benchmarks established under. the • Victoria falling Act, with only Chanhassen and Victo g below the benchmarks for affordable owned housing. All of the cities in the County were at or above the benchmark for affordable rental - options. ' 'le affordable housing tock, efforts will be � Carver County has a great asset in opt continn its existing g ue to exist in the future. Much of the recent needed to make sure that p t • s been at rices above the levels defined as affordable...... single faintly construction activity has p g Negotiated goals for rental develop ment anticipate that much of the rental housing developed in p the future will also be at levels above the affordable threshold. promoting the rehabilitation of existing housing, and The Carver County HRA has been active in pro a owner and renter housing option population, ons. With the pop the development of new affordable n job ' ected for the next- five years, the I~CRA s role as a house g household and growth that is prod resource provider rovider will need to be continued. ' stock both owned and rented, will Maintenance and improvement of the existing housing sto • lit units at the lower end of the price range. The H1ZA s continue to provide good qua rshi • in construction will assist in proving affordable ownership involvement in new owned housing � 1 to • ' ' tion in owning and developing rental housin will help options. The I�CRA s active participa g private • sensitive m address the income sensitive seg ent of the rental market that cannot easily be met by p developers. housing units will be needed This stud has concluded that between 428 and 521 new g • y anticipated household growth. These units will within the next few years to meet the demands of a p _ including general occupancy, senior occupancy and serve a number of rental sub markets i g g p subsidized housing needs. The specific unit recommendations commendations are included in Sections 5 and 6 of this report. 1 -2 Executive Summary r L. Carver County Housing Study December 1996 INTRODUCTION Goal Statement Local elected and public officials are often held responsible for conditions and circumstances over which they have limited control. This is particularly true of housing. Most of the housing units in Carver County are privately owned and were constructed with private funds. On an increasing scale, however, the public is demanding that public officials control what happens in this largely private housing market - by eliminating blight, protecting individual investments, and generating new housing growth to meet economic development needs, life -cycle housing eeds, and housing g affordability goals. Community Partners Research, Inc., was hired by the Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) to conduct a study of the housing needs and conditions for the cities in the County. The multiple goals of the study include: ► Provide an comprehensive analysis of the existing housing situation in the County ► Provide a resource document for the HRA, the cities and other policy making boards . ► Examine the market potential for new rental housing construction ► Anticipate future housing needs caused by growth in Carver County ► Examine opportunities for HRA programs and activities in each of the cities ► Provide an update to previous housing studies Methodology This report was prepared in accordance with the proposal for the Carver County Housing Stud dated November 22, 1995. Community Partners Research, Inc., collected and analyzed data from February 1996 to December 1996. Data sources included: - 1980 and 1990 Census - Updates and projections from the Metropolitan Council - Claritas Inc., a national data reporting service - Records and data maintained by the cities and/or County - Interviews with elected officials and staff from each cit - Interviews with elected officials and staff from the County - Interviews with community leaders - State and Federal housing agencies Introduction 2 -1 r ; 1 Carver coun Housing Stud December 1996 Limitations This an report represents analysis performed with the data available at the time of the study. p p Y Some ort e of the re findings and recommendations are based upon current situations and the best g available information projections. tion on future trends and 'ections. Significant changes in the area's economy, employment rowth or other related factors could change the conclusions and recommendations g contained in this report. This re • port has provided an analysis of the need for additional rental housing to be developed in report is limited to an analysis of the market need for such housing and has Carver County. This rep Y not examined other factors that could affect the ultimate success of such development, including specific site selection physical design and attractiveness, amenities, marketing and management P �p Y and other factors that are beyond the control of Community Partners Research, Inc. M -7 Introduction 2 -2 Carver County Study December 1996 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS This section reviews pertinent demographic data for Carver County and each of the cities in the County. Demographic analysis is divided into four subsections, Population, Households Employment and Income. Population Current Population Estimates The Metropolitan Council's 1995 population estimate for Carver County is 57,010 (Table 3 -1). The 1995 population is up nearly 19 percent since the 1990 Census. From 1970 to 1980, Carver County experienced a population growth rate of over 29 percent. Carver County's population growth rate from 1980 to 1990 was the fourth highest of Minnesota's 87 counties, trailing onl Dakota, Sherburne and Scott counties. Many of the cities in the County have also witnessed explosive growth in recent years. From 1980 to 1990, Chanhassen, Chaska, Victoria, Waconia and Watertown all had population d o ulation g rowth ,, rates of 3) 0 percent or more. From 1990 to 1995, Chanhassen, Chaska and Victoria have all grown at rate above 20 percent based on Metropolitan Council estimates. A separate population estimate for Carver Count y prepared y has been re ared b the U. S. Census Bureau. According to Census estimates, the County's 1995 population was 59,220, for a percentage growth rate of nearly 24 percent since 1990. Based on Census Bureau estimates, from 1990 to 1995 Carver County was the second fastest growing County in Minnesota trailin g y onl Sherburne County for percentage growth rate. A third estimate of current population has been obtained from Claritas, Inc., a national demographic reporting service. Using 1990 Census data as a base Claritas updates its demographic database annually from 1,600 public and private data sources. According to Claritas' estimates, Carver County's 1995 population was 58,099, for a g rowth rate of over 21 percent since 1990. Claritas also estimates that Carver, Chanhassen, Chaska and Victoria have all grown at a rate of 20 percent or more from 1990 to 1995. Table 3 -1 identifies population trends from 1970 to 1995. The 1995 estimates used in Table 3 -1 are from the Minnesota Metropolitan Council. Demographic Data 3 -1 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 arver ounty Source: DataNet; 1990 Census; Metropolitan Council Table 3 -2 shows the different current population estimates from the Metropolitan Council and . U.S. Census Bureau only provides 1995 estimates at the County level, not for Clantas. The U individual cities, so Census estimates are not included in Table 3 -2. ....... . ..... . ... ......... . . T ::::::: 7 ....... .. ... ......... ... . ..... . :: :: el .. ...... . A 3� 1970 Population P 1980 Population 1990 Population %° Change 1980 -1990 1995 Population % Change 1990 -1995 • C C a 669 642 744 15.9% 777 4.4% o Chanhassen 4 9 6 351 11 732 84.7% 15,231 29.8% Chaska 4 352 , 8,346 11,339 35.9% 14,000 23.5 Cologne 518 545 563 3.3 %0 666 3.6% ° Hamburg 40� " 475 492 3.6 502 2.0 Mauer 325 388 471 21.4% 516 9.6% New Germany Norwood ^ 30� 347 353 1.7% 371 5.1% 1, 05 8 1 219 1,3 51 10.8% 1,387 2.7% &ffiE=WWEMEMO Victoria 85 0 1 425 , 2,354 I 65.2% wmwwmmn 3,173 34.8% Waconia 2,445 2,638 3 ,498 32.6% 4,363 24.7% Watertown ^ 1, � 9 0 1 818 2 408 32.5% 2,565 6.5% Young America 611 1237 1354 9.5% 1, 39 13.7% C, C 28 3 ^ 1 37 046 , 47,915 29.3% 57 19.0 Demographic Data 3-2 r i Carver County Housing Study December 1996 ................... ...... ............ .............. .. .......... ... ::::: :: _: :... ::::::: .........::: ........... �:: ta. :..:. 'a ta . . ............................... ........ ..... :6 :ro i 1990 Population 1995 Estimate Metropolitan Council 1995 Estimate Claritas Difference Carver 744 777 900 123 1 C hanhassen 11,732 15,231 16 994 Chaska 11,339 14,000 131 11 I Cologne 563 666 666 0 Hamburg 492 502 520 18 Maver 471 516 480 36 New Germany "35 3 371 357 14 Norwood 1 1 1,409 22 Victoria 2,354 3,173 3,132 41 Waconia 3 4,363 J 3 418 Watertown 2 2 2 9 Young America 1 1,539 1 53 Carver County C T% 1T •��n 47 57 58 1,089 zource: LaralNet; 1 990 Census; Metropotitan Council; Clantas, Inc. Population Characteristics The best information on detailed population characteristics is from the 1990 Census. While this information is useful for identifying features of the County's population, it has limitations because of the significant growth that has occurred in the County since the Census. Based on available estimates, the County's population has increased between 15 and 24 percent since the Censu Reliable details of population characteristics will not be available until after the 2000 Census. The 1995 Census Bureau population estimates do provide some detail on the assumptions used to generate the estimate. The Census Bureau attributes over two- thirds of the County's population growth to net domestic in migration. Approximately 30 percent of the growth is attributed to births rates exceeding mortality rates. The following table provides detail on the age ranges of Carver County residents. The year 2000 projections on age distribution were generated following the 1990 Census and are based on 1990 Census data and trends witnessed between 1980 and 1990. The total o ulation projection for P P P J 2000 used in this analysis, 57,390, is well below more recent population projections which now indicate that the County's population will exceed 63,000 people. Demographic Data 3 -3 December 1996 Carver Couny Housing Stud • distribution patterns do provide insights - into the Despite the lower projection totals, the age distrib p P P p opulation is younger than the State average..... County's p op u lation. In general, Carver Coun p p Y y P p In 1990 and in projections for 2000, the County's pop ulation p ercentages , in the . under 50 age groups exc is in the young adult population, age 20 to 24. . P s exceed State averages. The only p 1 • r. While the f age County's population o The reverse is true in age groups 50 years old and olde Y o increase b the year 2000 as baby boomers age. and life - 40 years old and older is expected t y Y of people i ' a smaller ercentage n the age 50 and older spans lengthen, the County will still have p aae rou s than the State as a whole. g P Source: 1990 Census;. Community Partners Research, Inc. Population Projections • projected oth the Metropolitan Council and Clantas have project population levels for Carver County p p • • Metropolitan Council projections extend through the year 2020. and the cities in the County. The Metropo P J • • � r 2000. Both projection sources indicate continued Clantas projections are only through the year P J high rates of arowth for Carver County. g v • i The Metropolitan Council uses two different projection methodologies depending on the year o • re based on current trend development patterns. The year projected. Year 2000 projections a .010 and 2020 projections are based on the Council's recently adopted Regional Growth Management Strategy. The 2010 and 2020 projections assume that significant policy action will be taken to manage growth and limit urban sprawl. 3 -4 Demographic Data : mss: . Minnesota 1990 o Carver County 2000 Minnesota 2000 ..............::... . �Z Carver County 1990 Age Number Percent Youth Age 0 -19 15, 6 84 3 2.7 /0 Percent Number Percent Percent 29 18 570 32.4 28.5 72% . 3 5 00 6.1% 6.6 Youn Adult 20 -24 g ^ _1,003 ° 6..) /o 14 29.3% 2 6.0% 12 50 .21.5% 21.3% Adult 2 5 -3 9 Middle A e 40 -49 Age 1 2.4% 10 190 17.8% 16.0% 6,068 ° 12.7 /0 12.2% 7 13.5% 14.9 % Em Nester 50 -64 Youniz Senior 65 -79 • Old .Senior 80+ Total 5,1 ^ 5 ° 10.7 /o 9.2% 3.3% 3,640 1 6.3% 2.4% 8.8% 3.9% ^ 2,9.E 5 0 6.1% 1,078 ° 2. 3 /o 10 0% 57,390 100% 100 0 47, 915 100 /0 Source: 1990 Census;. Community Partners Research, Inc. Population Projections • projected oth the Metropolitan Council and Clantas have project population levels for Carver County p p • • Metropolitan Council projections extend through the year 2020. and the cities in the County. The Metropo P J • • � r 2000. Both projection sources indicate continued Clantas projections are only through the year P J high rates of arowth for Carver County. g v • i The Metropolitan Council uses two different projection methodologies depending on the year o • re based on current trend development patterns. The year projected. Year 2000 projections a .010 and 2020 projections are based on the Council's recently adopted Regional Growth Management Strategy. The 2010 and 2020 projections assume that significant policy action will be taken to manage growth and limit urban sprawl. 3 -4 Demographic Data Carver County Housing Study December 1996 The Metropolitan Council projections based on the Regional Growth Management Strategy are nearly identical to or slightly higher than the previous projections based on current trend development patterns. If the Council is successful in controlling development and urban sprawl, existing communities in the Seven -County Metro Area will capture some of the growth that would otherwise be occurring in rural areas or in the exurban counties outside of the Metro Area. . ........... .... 3 .......= . ................. ..... ..... . . . . ::::::: .:.:.:: .. .......... : »: ............. . .... .. ..... ... .. ................... . Jr ..... ....... .. :.i .:.. a . . . :: . Md. 1990 Census Metropolitan Council Current Trend Projection Claritas, Inc. Projection 1995 Estimate 2000 Projection % Change 1995 -2000 1995 Estimate 2000 Projection % Change 1995 -2000 Carver 744 777 990 27.4% 900 1,059 17.7% Chanhassen 11,732 15,231 17,910 17.6% 16,225 20,346 25.4% Chaska 11,339 14,000 15,423 10.2% 13,889 16,410 18.2% Cologne 563 666 770 15.6% 666 771 1508% Hamburg 492 502 546 8.8% 520 550 5.8% Maver 471 516 568 10.1% 480 498 3.8% New German 353 371 395 6.5% 357 368 3.1 Norwood 1,351 1,387 1,450 4.5% 1,409 1,472 4.5% Victoria 2,354 3,173 3,888 22.5% 3,132 3 25.2% Waconia 3,498 4,363 4,935 13.1% 3,945 4 12.7% Watertoixm 2 2,565 2 10.3% 2,556 2 7.7% Young America 1,3 54 1,539 1 14.0% 1,486 1,624 9.3% Carver Countv 47,915 57,010 63,857 12.0% 58,099 68,297 17.6% '50urce: 1 VVU Census; Metropolitan Council; Claritas, Inc.; Community Partners Research, Inc. It is important to note that the projections contained in Tables 3 -4 and 3-5 are generated using the best available information. The projections for 2000 are based on recent growth trends. The difficulty with projections, particularly for small cities, is the impact that large development or new employment opportunities can have on future population levels. For example, some of the smaller cities in the County have been considering the development of significant, new residential subdivisions. In one city's case, the development being discussed would nearly double the size of the City. The projections contained in this report cannot anticipate development activit y of that scale. These projections instead are based on the type of consistent, steady growth that has been occurring in Carver County in recent years. 1b Demographic Data 3 -5 Carve r County Housing Stud' December 1996 . :: ............. ...... ................: r/'•'7': • :' :: �:•_.ti •:�G":'■'w•ra�� 'A �fc:'•'SJ7�l�•1 AitT.�� tl��a��'•• e, ann n••• �n � Carver Chanhassen Chaska Cologne Hamburg Mayer New Germany Norwood Victoria Waconia Watertown Young America Carver Co Source: 1990 Census; Metropolitan Uouncii Carver County P Projected to the Year 2020 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 LJ Population 3 - Demographic Data 1990 Census 1995 Estimate 2000 Projection 2010 Projection 2020 Projection 744 777 990 11 1 11,732 15 17 251 34 11 339 14 000 15 19 23,300 563 666 770 1 1,250 492 502 546 640 750 471 516 568 740 890 353 371 395 500 580 1 51 1 1) 3 87 11 1 2 ,- 2 "54 3 173 , 3,888 5,450 7,800 3 4 4 5 5 2 408 2 565 2 - 3 4 1 1 539 1.755 2 2,900 r 47, 9 15 57 010 , 63,857 80,680 101,110 Source: 1990 Census; Metropolitan Uouncii Carver County P Projected to the Year 2020 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 0 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 LJ Population 3 - Demographic Data Y � Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Households Current Household Estimates In 1995, the Carver County had 20,155 households according the estimates from the Metropolitan Council. The number of households in the County has increased by more than 21 percent since the 1990 Census (Table 3 -6). The County's household growth has occurred at a faster rate than its population growth. This is due to the trend both locally and nationally to decreasing numbers of people per household. As the average number of people per household declines in the future, household growth should continue to exceed population growth. ..... ..................... ............... .................................................. ............. . =: ................... .................... ..... ... ....... . ..... .......... :::: . ............. ............. T . =. .............. . . .................................... ............ .. 9 ............. tr . ................................. .... . i . .............. g. 1980 1990 % Change 1980 -1990 1995 % Change 1990 -1995 Carver 218 262 20.2% 293 11.8% Chanhassen 2 4 93.7% 5,198 29.4% Chaska 3 4 40.1 5 24.0% Cologne g 202 216 6.9 %0 262 �° 21.x/0 Hamburg 173 184 6.4 % 197 7.1 Mayer 142 166 16.9% 186 12.0% New Germany 130 138 6.2% 149 8.0% Norwood 442 515 16.5% 543 5.4% Victoria 427 756 77.15 1,074 42.1% Waconia 988 11 41.8 % 1 29.1% Watertown 658 848 28.9% 931 9.8% Young America 414 457 10.4 545 19.3% Carver County 12,011 16,601 38.2% 1 20,155 21.4% Source: DataNet; 1990 Census; Metropolitan Council Claritas, Inc., has also generated 1995 household estimates. According to Claritas, Carver - County had 20,343 households in 1995, an increase of 22.5 percent since 1990. All of the cities in the County added households according to the estimates, ranging from a percentage increase of over .3 9 percent in Chanhassen to 2.9 percent growth in New Germany. Demographic Data 3 -7 r Carver County !!Ousing Stud y December 1996 4 Table 3 -7 compares the available estimates from the Metropolitan Council and Claritas for household growth. :: ----------------------- _ ::: :�Y j� .• :mfr f� j'� ?• �+ •:K Kl S* . .................... 7r[ . 1 � . WU a� I ate.::::: r-T ........... ..................... . ......... ......... 1990 Households 1995 Estimate Met Council 1995 Estimate Claritas Difference Between Estimates Carver 262 293 319 26 Chanhassen 41 5 5 390 Chaska 4,212 5 5 22 Cologne 216 262 255 7 Hambur g 184 197 194 3 Mayer 166 186 171 15 New German 13 8 149 142 7 Norwood 515 543 537 6 Victoria 756 1 1 34 Waconia 1 11 1 176 Watertown 848 931 907 24 Young America 457 545 500 45 Carver County 1 16,601 1 20 20,343 188 Source: DataNet; 199U Uensus M etroponEan t ouncii; Household Characteristics household size in the County has declined from 2.84 persons per household in 1990, to Avera ty 2.79 rsons per household in 1995 (Table 3 -8). Similarly, nearly all of the cities in the County p have also experienced a decline in the average number of people per household. From 1990 to p 1995 all of the cities except Chanhassen witnessed household size decreases. Chanhassen , s average household size increased 2.92 persons per household in 1990 to 2.93 persons in 1995. While the County-wide average household size has declined, Carver County's 1990 average of 2.84 rsons per household was still well above the 1990 State -wide average of 2.58 persons per p household. Data 3 -8 Demographic D a t t 0 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 ::.::. ........... ::_: :: :. ............ rso ............... : .:::.:.::::::::: a� . .::::::::.:::. ..... ..:::::::.. . ............ T e ............. i 3 .. 99Z.- ...............:..... ..... .......... 9 g. 1980 1990 1995 Carver 2.94 2.84 2.65 Chanhassen 3.04 2.92 2.93 Chaska 2.77 2.67 2.66 Cologne 2.70 2.61 2.54 ' Hamburg 2.75 2.67 2.55 Mayer 2.73 2.84 2.77 New Germany 2.67 2.56 2.49 Norwood 2.76 2.62 2.55 Victoria 3.24 2.97 2.85 Waconia 2.60 2.40 2.34 Watertown 2.68 2.74 2.67 Young America 2.99 2.96 2.82 Carver County 3.02 2.84 2.79 Source: Latalvet; 1 y Census; Metropolitan Co The County's average household size reflects in part the age composition of the County's population. As detailed previously, Carver County is above State -wide averages in the number of people under age 50, and below State -wide averages for age y rou s 50 ears old and older. g p Consistent with the ages of County residents, the most common household types in Carver County are married couples with children and married couples without children (Table.' -9 . In 1990, over-3 8 percent of the County's households were married couples with children, well above the State -wide average for that household type of over 28 percent. All of the cities except for Waconia and New Germany also exceeded the State average for married . cou p les with children. Due to the significant increase in the number of households since 1990, the following table identifies household types by percentage of all households in the City /County rather than the actual number for each household type in 1990. Demographic Data 3 - Carver County Housing Study December 1996 3 -10 Demobraphic Data qW ........................... ............... :*.....*.:..*....*..*...........- . ..... ... . ................. .. ...... . . .... .. :' : �' •• • ........ fir::;:: '�• '::•::: :.. . .. -: -- 3 ti ' '�:: • : ••:::::;� :ti:: t:';. ,:ti :: ::: :::: :: •" ::;: }; :;: ..... Married Couple Male Householder Female Householder- Eton- Family Family No Wife Present No Husband Present Household With W/0 Wlth W W�0 W W/o I Person Household Non - Family Household O wn O wn Own Own O wn Own Children Children Children Children Children, Children � Carver 41 .2% 25.2% 0 0.4 /0 0 1.9 /0 ° 0 2.3 / 2.3 EWNEWW�. 21.8% 5.0% Chanhass en 44. 0% 30. o 1.2 /0 o 1.0 /0 ° 3.4 ./0 1.6 13.1 % 5.4 Chaska 33. 7% 23.2% 0 1.9 /0 0 1.3 /0 ° 8.3 /o 2.6% 22.1 % 6.9 W.Em Cologne 3 2.9% 28.7% 0 1.4 /0 0 2.8 /0 ° 2.8 /o 1.4% 26.4 % 3.7% bur Ham burg 32.1% 32.1% ° 2.2 /0 o 1.6 /0 3. g% 1.6 23.4 3.3 % Mauer 41.0% 0 27.7 /0 0 1.2 /0 ° 1.2 /o 1.8% 2.4% 22.9% 1 .8% New • 8.3 % 2 26.1 % o 1.4 /0 ° 2.9 /o � ° ) .6 /o 4.3% 28.3 5.1 Germany Norwood 32.0% 0 29.3 0 1.2 /0 ° 1.4 /o 5.0% 1.9% 26.2% 2.9 Victoria 41.0% 3 8.2% 0 0.5 % 0 0.3 /0 ° 1.5 /o 2.5 12.2% 3.8 Wacoma 2 5.9% 29.6% 0 1.1 0 0.9 /0 ° 0 5.4 / 2.6% 31.0 %0 3.5% - Watertown 3 6.0% 25.2% o 1.7 /0 ° 1.3 /0 ° 6.6 /o 2.7% 23.5% : J-1 % Young ' 9 27.1% o 1.5 /0 ° 0.2 /0 ° 9.4 /o 1.1 18.8% 2.4% America Carver 38.4% 0 29.7 0 1.4 /0 ° 1.3 /o 4.7 2.0% 17.9% 4.7% County Source: 1990 Census; Community Partners Research, Inc. 3 -10 Demobraphic Data 2 Carver County Housing Study _ December 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . -:::: -..*- *-I-.-.---..-..-..----- ... .... * ................. ........ ..................................... .... . .............. ....... FF AA �•.•.•:� �.:•:. awn aa ::: .............. ww^^ ... ••7i/••••: 1.9 . .... ... M• Total Occupied Units 1990 Owned Units Percent Owned Units Rented Units Percent Rented Units Carver 262 225 85.9% 37 14.1% Chanhassen 4,016 3 85.4% 588 14.6% Chaska 4 2 69.0% 1 31.0% Cologne 216 171 79.2% 45 20.8% Hamburg 184 150 81.5 34 18.5% Mayer 166 143 86.1% 23 13.9°/ 0 New Germany 138 106 76.8% 32 23.2% Norwood 515 3 53 68.5% 162 31.5% Victoria 756 663 87.7% 93 12.3% Waconia 1 914 65.2 487 34.8% Watertown 848 664 78.3% 184 21.7% Young America 457 363 79.4% 94 20.6% Carver County c'- - - - - -- I nnn � 16 13,117 79.0% 3 21.0% SuLa ce. 1 77V %..en Household Projections Both the Metropolitan Council and Claritas have ro'ected- household levels for Carver p J County and the cities in the County. The Metropolitan Council projections extend through the year 2020. Claritas projections are only through the year 2000. Both projection sources indicate continued high rates of growth for Carver County. The Metropolitan Council uses two different projection methodologies depending on the year projected. Year 2000 projections are based on current trend development patterns. The year 2010 and 2020 projections are based on the Councils recently adopted Regional Growth Management Strategy. The 2010 and 2020 projections assume that sig nificant policy action will g p Y be taken to manage growth and limit urban sprawl. The Metropolitan Council projections based on the Regional Growth Management Strategy are nearly identical to or slightly higher than the previous projections based on current trend Demographic Data 3 -11 i 1 i % December 1996 Carver Coun Housin S tudy development ' 1 in controlling development and urban sprawl, p atterns. If the Council is successful g p p capture some of the wth that existing comm unities in the Seven- County Metro Area will cap g ro would otherwise be o ccurring in ru ral areas or in the exurban counties outside of the Metro Area. ... ..... . ::: .. : . .... � �: n. s .......:...:. .. :::.::.:.: ...::::........ Metropolitan Council Current Trend Claritas, Inc. Projection Projection 1990 � 1995 ..000 % Change 1995 2000 % Change 0 Census Estimate Projection 1995 -2000 Estimate Projection 1995 -200 Carver 262 29 Hamburg 184 3 350 19.5% 319 378 18.5% OMMNNWOMM� 6 300 21.2% 5,588 7 26.5% Chanhassen 4 5,198 , 5 221 5,900 13.0% 5,199 61204 19.3% wwmwwww� P Chaska 4,212 , 300 14.5% 255:. 29.7 16.5% Cologne 216 262 197 1 210 6.6 194 207 6.7% 0 Mayer 166 186 200 7.5% 171 179 4.7 /o 0 New Germany 1 ' 8 1 49 160 7.4% 142 149 4.9 /o - I % Norwood 515 543 570 5.0% 537 564 5.0% Victona 756 1,074 , 1 350 25.7% 1 1,341 28..9% 2 100 16.1% 1,633 1,898 16.2% Waconia 1 1,809 , Watertown 848 931 1 7.4% 907 986 8.7% Young America 457 545 600 10.1% 500 548 9.6% 23 070 14.5% 20,343 24,195 18.9% Carver County 16,601 20,15 , 0 Census' Metropolitan Council; Claritas, Inca; Community Partners Research, Inc. Source. 199 1� • i m p ortant to note that the projections contained in Tab les 3 -11 and 3 -12 are generated using It is p • 000 projections he best available information. The year 2 are based on recent growth trends. The p � • icularl for small cities, is the impact that large development or difficulty. with projections, particularly ' some of the ties can have on future population levels. For example, new employment opportune significant, new residential he Count smaller cities in t y have been considering the development of sig • • • � merit been discussed would nearly double the size of subdivisions. In one city's case, the develop g . . • contained in this report cannot anticipate that development activity. the City. The projections p been • based on the type of consistent, steady growth that has These projections instead are b yp occurring in Carver County in recent years. 3 -12 Demographic Data Carver County Housing Study December 1996 ......................... '' .......... b: :: .. ..... e ..... ... ... .. ::::: . ....... ............. e:: : _: : : -: : : .............. '1-* ::::::.. Op.0h ............... X ........ ::: ............... ..... .. 1990 Census 1995 Estimate 2000 Projection 2010 Projection 2020 Projection Carver 262 282 .150 500 700 Chanhassen 4 4 6,300 9 13 Chaska 41) 212 5 5 8, 000 10 Cologne 216 230 300 400 500 Hamburg 184 193 210 250 300 Mayer 166 183 200 260 320 New Germany 138 147 160 200 230 Norwood 515 534 570 700 850 Victoria 756 981 1,3 50 2 000 -) Waconia 1 1 2,100 2 2 Watertown 848 910 1,000 1 1 650 Young America 457 541 600 800 1 000 Carver County e ,..,._,.... I Ann r - - - - -- x g - 16 ,601 .-. •, 19,352 23 070 30 39,950 - - -� —�• . � � v vvaa.i,.a.a, 1�iva1V�.JV111.Li11 �V�111V11 Carver County Households Projected to the Year 2020 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 1990 El Households Demographic Data 3 -13 1995 2000 2010 2020 f ; 1 4 t Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Employment While many factors influence the need for housing, employment opportunities represent a demand Qenerator. Without jobs b and corresponding wages, the means to afford predonnlnant de � housing is severely limited. provided b a broad ran Employment opportunities may be p y e of private and public business g manufacturing, sectors. Jobs maybe available m m g, commercial services, agriculture, public other industries. The administration, and o type of employment, wage level, and working ' ' influence the kind of housing that is needed and at what level of affordability. conditions will each mfl � • Cities Area has been a strong and The western portion of the Twin Cities Metro Ar g expanding location for p According to the Growth economic development. g Options report (January 1996) prepared by the p Metropolitan Council , Eden Prairie, Chanhassen and Chaska all rank in the top 15 metro area communities for the number of commercial - industrial building permits issued between 1988 and 1993. The s ame rep that following current trends, the quadrant of the Metro Area projects that includes Carver s rver Count will si nificantl lead the Metro Area in total employment by the year 2020. Carver County has seen steady g rowth in the labor force and in the level of employment since g 1990 (Table 3 13). From 1990 through 1995, the available labor force has increased by over 21 he actual number of employed p percent, while t p eople has increased by nearly 23 percent. The County's unemployment to ment rate has also dropped since 1990, and has been below 3 percent since p Y 1994. Significant economic activity in Chaska, Chanhassen, Waconia and in other cities in the western and southwest portions of the Twin Cities area has provided ample employment opportunities for Carver County residents. . ..................... . ............ ... .. ...... ... . ............... :_. . ... .... a �. 9 .. .. Labor Force Employed Unemployed Unempiovment Unemplotiment Rate Rate - MN Year 1990 28,014 26 983 1 031 3.7 % 4.8% 1991 28, 933 27,786 1 1 .148 4.0% 5 .1% 1992 29,566 28,4 06 1 161 , 3.9% 5.1 -� 199 31,089 29,95 7 1 1 3.6% 5.0% 1994 � X - 3, 540 � 3 2,622 918 2.7% 4.0% 1995 -, -, -, ��,9_4 - 7 3.),09 83 7 2.5% 3.5% 1996 (thru Oct.) 34 -,, 486 ) .3, 815 2.4% 3.7% Source: Minnesota Department of Economic Security 3 -14 Demographic Data Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Carver County Work Force 1990 -1996 36000 34000 32000 30000 28000 26000 Table 3 -14 below identifies the make up of the employed workforce by industry. This data is only available through the second quarter of 1994. As a result, it reflects the overall employment increases between 1990 and mid -1994 but does not show the employment growth that has continued through 1996. It is also important to note that Tables 3-14 and 3-15 reflect data obtained from employers covered under the Minnesota unemployment compensation tax law. Approximately 97 percent of the total nonagricultural wage and salary employment in Minnesota is included in the data. Major groups excluded from the data are self - employed workers and farms with four or less employees in a 20 week period. From 1990 through the second quarter of 1994, Carver County experienced employment growth of more than 3 8 percent. All industry sectors, with the exception of transportation and public utilities have had job growth. The three largest employment sectors in the County are manufacturing, services and government employment. The largest subsector of services is business services, followed by health services. Demographic Data 3 -15 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 E] Labor Force ,.�� Employed Work Force Carver County Housing Stud December 1996 .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : :. ..... ...... X _n .. .... ....................... . u - ::..: 9.. ry 0 . X t "'b -h Indust ry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 (Jan -June) Total All Indust 17,049 18 20 22 2,598 Agriculture, Forestry � 210 214 243 264 291 Construction 707 73 3 790 971 918 Manufacturin g 7,242 7,644 81 9 9 Transp ortation , Public Utilities 733 778 515 535 527 Wholesale Trade 348 410 515 570 599 Retail Trade 2 150 2 2 2 3,053 Finance Insurance , Real Estate 492 484 507 545 591 Services 2 762 3 3 4,253 4 Government 2,405 2 2,780 2 31 0 Source: Research and Statistics Office, Minnesota Department of Economic Security From m 1990 to the second quarter of 1994, the number of covered employers in Carver County increased by more than 17 percent. From 1990 through 1993 (the last full year of data), total wages increased by nearly 48 percent. . ... ... . ...... . . ...... �� ..... .. .. . _ MP a .1. �fi ed�. . .......... Total Active Units Average Employment Total Wages 1990 1,125 17,049 $381 1991 1 173 18,072 $4141 1992 1 250 20 $489 199 1 22,364 $564,196 1994 (2 Quarters) 1 23,598 $2911 Source: Kesearch and statistics vrnce, ivunnesow JJCPai U ucilL V1 L�,VL1V11u.1 •; * Extrapolated into an annual amount would equal $583,245,158 Economic Security also r average weekly The Department of Econo y p g Y wage information for industry sectors. Table 3 -16 Presents average weekly wages for the second quarter of 1994, the most current reporting period available. 3 -16 Demographic Data t . c , Carver County Housing Study December 1996 The County's largest employment sector, manufacturing, pays the second highest average weekly wages of al industry sectors at $593. The second largest employment sector, services, pays average weekly wages of $39.2 below the average for all industry of $484. . ... ... .. . ..... .. ......... . ....... .. .... ................. ...... . . .... .... I ............................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... ........................... ......................... :::::: '""?`. dpi . ........ ........ ........ .::. ........ I . =. :.. . .... .... . 'e.. = :: . :...:::..... � :::..:.:..:::..::::.::.:.:..... ...... .......................................................................................... . ................................. ............. Industry Second Quarter Average Employment Average Weekly Wage Total All Industry 24,025 $484 Agriculture, Forestry 393 $282 Construction 1 $557 Manufacturing 9 $593 Transportation, Public Utilities 516 $521 Wholesale Trade 597 $595 Retail Trade 3,098 $226 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 590 $479 Services 4 $393 Government 31 $502 Source: Research and Statistics Office, N innesota Department of Economic Security Employment Projections Both the Department of Economic Security (DES) and the Metropolitan Council have developed employment projections. The DES projections are for each region of the State. The projections presented here are for the seven County Metro Area and reflect projected employment changes between 1993 and 2001 (Table 3 -17). DES projects that by 2001, the largest percentage and numeric employment gains will occur in the services sectors. The finance, insurance and real estate sector will experience the second largest percentage increase by 2001. Demographic Data 3 -17 y Carver County Housing Study December 1996 . ..... .... ... .... . 7'�hlp 3:�.'7...�r�n �o�n�' c� ::11?�eti' .� oW �1 MV .. E ........................ i� � •�d�s� �: . �Jt�Q��.by.dus��'�' :: :.... ............................... .......................; .............. .... . ... ......... :{ ti % ..... ...... ............ .. .......... .............. ------------- ---- •vim .......... :. ............................ Industry _ ect ed 1993 200.1 Pro) Percentage Change 0 ect ed 0 Proj 1 9 93 20 1 ) Numeric Change Total All Industry 13% 190 Agriculture, culture Fores * gn nY 5% 520 Minin g 0 % 0 Construction 3% 1 Manufacturin g 3% 8 Transportation, Public Utilities 10% 7 Trade 10% 33,370 Finance Insurance, Real Estate 11% 11 Services 24% 113,720 Government 8% ° 7 Self -Em loved Unpaid Family Workers - , p � p Non Agriculture culture 10% 8,390 Source. Kesearcll ana JLaustics Vrilce, ivlulaubuL 1 1JCYa1 u11G11 V1 L�.Valvaauv vvvw a Council has also produced employment h Metropolitan Cou p projections for both Carver County and p J the cities ty. in the Coun As with other recent projections, the Metropolitan Council forecasts use diffe rent methodologies as a base. The year 2000 projections were generated using current trend atterns while the y ear 2010 and 2020 projections d evelopment p atterns , reflect the Council's recently Y adopted ted Re ional Growth Management Strategy. The Regional Growth Management Strategy assumes that development develo policies and restrictions will direct future growth toward the current Metro Area and will limit urban sprawl in the rural areas and exurban counties. Demographic Data 3 -18 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 I* .. E. .. RM .. ..................... ...... ............. t ........................ c� 4 1995 Estimate 2000 Projection 2010 Projection 2020 Projection Carver 103 120 160 200 Chanhassen 6,538 9 10 150 10,600 Chaska 10 12 12500 3 0 Cologne 150 160 180 110 200 120 Hamburg 84 90 Mayer 59 80 100 80 130 90 New Germany 42 50 Norwood 375 400 480 550 1,350 5,500 Victoria 676 720 1 100 Waconia 3,23 3 -) 5 Watertown 611 850 1,300 1 Young America 1 1 1 800 1900 , Carver Coun �l111T �/�satrnr .,l:f.,., r'`,..._,._t 25,402 3 0 93 0 34,820 37,070 F %I& A%AA, i %,VL"J%,tt The Governor's Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative In response to a shortage of decent affordable housing n much of Greater Mi g nnesota and its resulting impact on economic development efforts, in 1995 the Governor announced an Economic and Housing Vitality Initiative (EVIU). The Initiative is intended to "strengthen communities' gt economic development efforts by addressing the housing eeds associated with economic cononuc development ". To accomplish its goal, the Initiative combines new State appropriations of $15 million with $3 0 in recycled bond proceeds through the Minnesota Housing g g Agency (NfHFA). To target these EVHI funds, MHFA and the Minnesota Department of Trade and p Economic Development (DTED) have developed an index to assess net job growth in each reg g g on and county in the State. The index, from data issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures the total change in employment, both public and private, from 1991 to 1994. The E ' VHI statistics for Carver County show that the County had a 3 3.3 percent increase in em to ent the largest . P p ym ar percentage gain of the seven Metro counties and the second largest rcenta a gain in the State. p g The Metro Region had an 8.2 percent change in employment between 1991 and 1994 . LCii mara 3 - Carver County Housing Study December 1996 For the most recent year of data, employment change from 1993 to 1994, Carver County had growth of 7.6 percent, second to only Scott County in the Metro Area, and well above the 3.4 percent gain for the Metro region. Carver County's high rankings in the EVHI index should help the County if it attempts to secure competitive funds through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency programs. 0 Demographic Data 3 -20 1 � � Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Income Carver County ranked 5th of Minnesota's 87 counties for per capita income in 1989. The 1989 per capita income reported in the Census was $16,116 (Table.3 -19). The federal Bureau of Economic Affairs (BEA) calculates an annual per capita income estimate for each county. The BEA estimate for 1993 ranks Carver County as 6th among Minnesota Counties. 0 rI L VvUle County income statistics in 1990 were well above the State averages, this was due in large part to strong incomes in the County's largest cities, particularly Chanhassen and Victoria. Many of the smaller cities in the County were below State averages for per capita and median income. .. .... : } -� .••••] ir:. �:::�:••.:•.:ti ... ............................................... ....... ............ 1-1-1 ................. li��::: ........ P r /� : /� . ..K.::: �/� . :K Vii.: ... .. . ....� e :• q ........ . . ......... ..... :•iia QQ {� �} ............ . ................ .............. Per Capita Income - All Persons Median Income Average Income Families Households Families Households Carver $15 $43,162 $40 3 $46,173 $4-)1 Chanhassen 65 $20,4 $55,525 $52,011 $63,383 $59,522 Chaska $14 $3 8,708 $34,23 5 $42,817 $39,802 Cologne $12,421 $3 5,096 $31,250 $3 8,549 $33 Hamburg $13,323 $38,000 $29 $41,682 $34,595 Mayer $10 $36 $3 0, 625 $3 5 8 2 $31, 040 New Germany $11 $27 $22 $32,120 $27 Norwood $13,018 $33,929 $27,813 $35,158 $33,569 Victoria $23,192 $52 $48,973 $76 $70,636 Waconia $14 $3 $29 $44 $3 6, 3 27 Watertown S11 $3 3, 000 $28 $3 7 9 7 $3 2, 522 Young America $11 $37,560 $32,917 $38,563 $35,077 Carver County $16 $43,554_ $39,188 $50 $46 Minnesota $14, $36 $3 0 N/A N/A Jource: 1990 Census Demographic Data 3 -21 4 ) F Study December 1996 Carver County ljous • is resented in Table 3 - 20. These .estimates have Amore current estimate of household Income p . Inc., a national data reporting company, by updating 1990 Census been calculated. by Claritas, P e 1995 median household income in Carver County is $44,916, a data. Claritas estimates that th • Household income includes total money received n the stated 15 percent increase from 1989. i 15 ld members ears old and over, tabulated for all households. calendar year by all househo Y • 3 -20 have also been re . The household wealth estimates provided in Table prepared by Claritas, Inc. p P re of financial well -being by net worth. Household wealth Household wealth is defined as a measure . • • s (loans, • (prop vehicles, bank accounts, etc.) minus liabilitie estimates include all assets payments, debts, etc.) for the i entire household. The basis for all wealth estimates s from continuing, compre p ' hensive tele hone surveys of more than 90,000 households per year. I* 3 -22 Demographic Data ........... ... :: ....... ..... ..... . . . ......... :. -a- Household Income ... .............. . . . . . . . . . . ... Estimated Household - Wealth 1995 Median ....... ... ................: ..:..:..... 1989 Median 1 Census $40 . 1995 Median Estimate 46 719 $ , C Percent Cha g 1989 -1995 14.4% $91,250 Carver Chanhassen 15.0% $99,278 $52,01 1 ^ $�4,2� 5 $59 , 819 ^ 79 $' 7,9 10.9% $52 Chaska Cologne Hamburg 10.8% $79,082 ^ $� 1,250 �' 4 625 $.> > 13.9% $84 $29 ^4 000 $� $30,625 $22,404 $27, 813 ^ $48,97 $29,561 $28 $2,917 ' 18 8 $391) Inc. $33 542 , $25,71 4 ^ 554 $, 2 , $56,500 $2,111 ^ $2,417 $38,095 $44, 916 9.5% 14.8% 17.0 15.4% 8.6 %. 9.6% 15 .7% 14.6% $82 $69,643 $59,848 Mayer New Germany Norwood Victoria Waconia Watertown $119 $631693 $66 $751758 $81,943 1 • Young America g Carver Count Source: 1990 Census; Claritas, I* 3 -22 Demographic Data i Carver Count The following tables provide a breakdown of the number of households in each income category in the County and each City. Income information is rovided b age of householder. P Y g der. These estimates are from Claritas and are based on their household estimates for 1995 which ma y be different than the household estimates from the Metropolitan Council. Housing Stud December 1996 4 2 '. C - s 54 0-* ... ..... : 0. 0 ........... :::... Ine: :Y.A' . ... . .5 Household Income Householder 44 or less vears old Householder 45 -64 years old Householder 65 -74 years old Householder 75+ years old Total Households 22 17 $0-$9 4 3 3 12 $ 000 - $14, 999 MMUENO� 6 6 2 3 S15 - $241999 8 7 1 3 3 1 6 31 19 50 60 97 54 319 $25 - $34 32 11 4 1 $3 5 - $49, 999 41 15 ; $50 - $74,999 58 3p ; $75,000+ 23 28 0 Total 172 ....... , 100 16 Source: Claritas, Inc.; Community Partners Research, Inc T bi 2 a .... ............... - s� use ... ....... ........... a . ............. . �n ::. u se e ex .9� ... ...... ------ - --------- a Householder Householder Householder Householder Total Household Income 44 or less 45 -64 vears 65 -74 years 75+ vears Households years old old old old $0 -$91 ) 999 66 40 14 10 130 $10 - $14 44 34 26 8 112 S15,000 - $24 190 119 57 3-' 399 9 S251000 - $-'34 313 143 49 52 557 S`5 000 - $49, 999 .546 196 41 46 15 1 829 1,741 1 $50 - $74 1 486 68 $75 1,106 661 52 Total 31 1 307 165 5 588 A %& &ULa'4.aJ Vll, 1111'. Demographic Data 3-23 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 h* IOU `. �. UI .. as :Xf :::.:.. Household Income Householder 44 or less years old Householder 45 - 64 years old Householder 65 years old Householder 75+ years old Total Households $0 _ $9 198 40 69 175 482 $1011000 _ $14 $1530000 _ $24 128 42 64 91 325 351 157 61 46 615 $25,000 - $4 640 214 35 19 908 $000 - $49 , 999 �5, $74 $50,.000 _ 1 999 $75 + 951 240 51 7 1 728 307 32 11 1 283 240 15 4 542 Total 3 , 279 1 327 353 5,199 Source: Clantas, inc.; l.O mmuninr raruiers tte=Caiuc,, uiu. :: ��h. 4 use _: ::::: .. ....... 4* : �T Of! Q .... .... Household Income Householder 44 or less vears old I Householder 45 -64 ears y old Householder 65 -74 years old Householder 75+ years old Total Households $0 _ $9 _ $10 $14 3 5 2 20 30 3 2 6 8 19 _ $15 $24)999 $25,000 - $234 19 0 15 14 48 21 4 4 3 32 , $,� 5, 000 - $49, 999 EMMEMME 45 12 5 �. 1 63 - $50,000 $74,999 23 12 3 - 0 38 $751 4 20 1 0 25 Total 118 55 36 46 255 Source: Clantas, In c.; uornmuruty r anners m escuLwi, 111u. f Demograph Data 3-24 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 ...... : .... .. ........ j�� 1¢['�}: M`bte.. :;: . . AA Y:•' . 0 Vi ................... I ......... . . . ................. .. .. ...... :::::. : 4 :.. ............. :: :.::::::::...:. .,.:... ...... .. ..... . ...... .... ..... ... .! i. . iii ' :::: : Household Income Householder 44 or less years old Householder 45 -64 vears old Householder 65 -74 vears old Householder 75+ years old Total Households SO-$91 0 2 4 14 20 $10 - $14 1 3 5 8 17 $15 - $24 14 11 0 7 32 $25 - $34 15 9 2 4 30 $3`5 - $49 23 8 3 4 38 $50 - $74 18 13 2 0 33 $75 10 14 0 0 24 Total 81 60 16 3 7 194 Source: Claritas, Inc.; Community Partners Research, Inc. Source: Claritas, Inc.; Community Partners Research, Inc. ..... . ................. ........ ..... ................ ...... . ........ :a b . . ......... d H-- ................................ -YVf1T . ........................ ........................................ ............ Household Income Householder 44 or less years old Householder 45 -64 years old Householder 65 -74 years old Householder 75+ years old Total Households $0 - $9 4 5 4 12 25 $10,000 - $14 1 1 3 3 8 $15 - $24 11 7 3 5 26 $25 - $34 15 9 3 3 30 $35 - $49 24 11 4 1 40 $50 - $74 22 10 3 0 3 5 S75 2 5 0 0 7 Total 1 79 1 48 20 1 24 17j ___J j Demographic Data 3 -25 1 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 ::: .......... ............ ... .... ... ..... : : O t' .. ...... .. .. .................. Id I ::.::::::.::::..... ........ .. . . T Household Income Householder 44 or less years old Householder 45 -64 ears y old Householder 65 -74 years old Householder 75+ years old Total Households 3 5 11 23 $0-$9 4 2 5 12 27 $10 - $14,999 8 1 0 8 17 $15,000-$24999 8 7 1 4 31 $25,000 - $ 4,999 19 5 2 0 20 $ - $49,999 13 5 3 -- 0 1 ' UMMMMMMMMMWM� $50 - $74 5 4 1 0 11 $75,000+ 6 27 17 35 142 Total 6J Source: Claritas, Inc.; Community Partners Research, Inc. :.. _ r . fir : 4�. a .. ...... �+�, -- Q. Household Income Householder 44 or less years old Householder 45 - 64 nears old Householder 65 -74 years old Householder 75+ years old Tota Households 15 44 76 SO-$91 999 $10,000 - $14,999 9 8 7 18 37 10 2 13 24 99 $15 - $24 49 1,10 1 ., $25 - $4 51 16 $3 5, 000-$49999 68 30 $50,000 - $74,999 69 44 $757000+ 1 ,, 14 Total 269 127 Source: Claritas, Inc.; Community Partners Research, Inc. 5 3 2 1 46 7 0 1 1 95 79 101 116 29 537. 3 -26 Demographic Data Carver County Housing Study December 1996 11 .. ............. ............ ......... ................... ':: :::: 0. h :.. 9 .. .. ---abi: .3 .................. .. .... ........ . ................ . f :..::.. .... . .. a. . ....... Household Income Householder 44 or less years old Householder 45 -64 years old Householder 65 -74 years old Householder 75+ years old Total Households $0 - $9, 999 11 3 12 19 45 $10 - $14 8 7 9 5 29 $15 - $24, 999 16 13 21 11 61 $25 - $34,999 37 19 15 9 80 $3 5 - $49 122 49 13 4 188 $50 - $74 190 102 17 9 318 $75,000+ 150 154 14 1 319 Total 1 534 347 101 58 11 Source: Claritas, Inc.; Community Partners Research, Inc. ................... ..................................... ......... :: . :31 .:. . � :. ..'s .............. ..... ............ . ..... . ��hal �. . a. noid ' ...::.....::::.....: :.:.::.:.:: . r. a ....... ........ ........ ....... ........ ........ ...... ....... Household Income Householder 44 or less years old Householder 45 -64 years old Householder 65 -74 years old Householder 75+ years old Total Households $0-$9 20 11 31 142 204 $10 - $14 31 27 39 59 156 $ 15, 000 - $24 99 69 65 91 3 24 $251 - $34,999 103 50 21 24 198 $35 - $49,999 181 78 10 8 277 $50,000 - $74 189 120 6 3 318 $75 70 80 6 0 156 Total 693 435 178 1 327 1 1,633 Source: Claritas, Inc.; Community Partners Research, Inc. Demographic Data 3 -27 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 ......... . .•.• ..:::.:::::............ : H. Mme•'•:.: . V �. I 1. - '* 1 S Household Income Householder 44 or less years old 1 Householder 45 -64 years old Householder 65 -74 years old Householder 75+ years old Total Households $0 _ $9 32 21 16 49 118 - $10,000 $14,999 22 9 13 30 74 $15,000 - $24 $ 55 25 19 23 122 $25 0 - $'J"4 110 43 19 8 180 � 5,000 - $49,999 E ^ 141 33 13 2 189 $50,000-$74999 , 114 32 5 5 156 $7,000 + 32 33 1 2 68 Total 506 196 86 119 907 Source: Clantas, Inc.; UO mmuru [V raruler mescurun, uiu. : #� ..: .. u M . ...... 3 .. . . .:-: :::! T . ..... . ........... .......... :. .... :: d' Household Income Householder 44 or less vears old Householder '45 - 64 ears y old Householder 65 - 74 years old Householder 75+ years old Total Households . SO-$9 999 13 0 7 21 41 $10 000 - $14,999 8 2 11 10 31 $15,000 - $24 29 14 13 13 69 $25,000 - $ ^ 4,999 ^ $23 5,000 - $49,999 50 16 8 8 82 6 9 29 5 3 106 _ $50 $741999 86 48 2 0 136 $75 22 13 0 0 35 Total 277 122 46 55 500 Source: C lantas, in c.; L ommurmv raruie n-uzic i un, ui%,. . 3 -28 Demographic Data Carver County Housing Study December 1996 i .'iii •�.'� ii i '• •' • •�:'• �� •'•� iii • �...'. i • i•• '•'• •� }Il . . . . .. ''• ...•....:'.'. '.'.'i:.:'i.:::'.•.••••••.••••. ••••.•••••.•••••••••.•••• i :••'• •• '.•.. •. •.. •...•..•....•• •i•• 'Q MOM i Pe 'A-A Householder Householder Householder Householder Total Household Income 44 or less 45 -64 years 65 -74 years 75+ years Households years old old old old $0-$9 392 183 222 602 1 $10,000 - $14 306 186 238 315 1 045 $15,000 - $24,999 987 531 344 365 2 227 $25 - $34 1 663 245 204 2 771 $."3%51 - $49 21 962 224 100 3 990 $50 - $74,999 3,198 1,677 205 71 5,151 $75 1, 978 L642 119 21 3 7 60 Total 11 5,844 1,597 1,678 20 +- - - -- �....,...�.,, auv., N-eVL1L11L""L_Y 1 alulGl►7 MCz, Cal U11, u1G. Demographic Data 3 -29 S Carver County Housing Study December 1996 This page intentionally left blank 3 -30 Demographic Data r_� Carver County Housing Study December 1996 EXISTING HOUSING INVENTORY City of Chanhassen 0 Existing Housing Stock and Characteristics At the time of the 1990 Census, the City of Chanhassen had 4,249 year - round housing units. Of these units, 4,016 (94.5 %) were occupied and 233 units (5.5 %) were vacant. The Metropolitan Council estimates that in April 1995 there were 5,198 occupied housing units in the City, a gain of 1,182 households. From 1990 to 1994, 1,259 housing units were added to the City. The difference between the new housing construction totals and the number of occupied households is caused by the timing of the household estimates. Some of the housing units constructed in 1994 may not have been occupied at the time of the 1995 estimates. An additional 476 housing units were built in 1995, which will be reflected in the Council's 1996 household estimates. At the time of the Census, 85.4 percent of the occupied housing units in Chanhassen were owned housing, with the remaining 14.6 percent rented. Chanhassen's rate of home ownership was higher than both the Carver County average ( 79 %) and the State average (71.8 %). It is assumed that a large majority of the new housing units constructed in Chanhassen since 1990 are owner - occupied, so the percentage of owned units has risen slightly since the Census. The housing stock in the City of Chanhassen contains a large percentage of newer houses. For owner - occupied units in 1990, less than 5 percent were constructed prior to 1940, and less than 28 percent were constructed before 1970 (Table 4 -10). The City's percentage of pre -1940 owned housing is very low compared to the State -wide average of approximately 25 percent, and well below the Carver County average of approximately 18 percent in 1990. Most of the City's rental units have also been constructed since 1970. :::: ........... ........................ ... ....... . . ........... ::: ::: . :::.::: :;: ::::: ...................................................... ............................... '0 ............. ................ ............. :3cc d : a r . : ... ................... :Mousm .: ............ :. ::..::::.:..:::::... .......... 1939 and Earlier 1940 -1969 1970 -1989 1990 -1995 * Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented Chanhassen 141 51 812 206 2 331 1 304 Carver Count 21 692 3,435 636 7,268 2 3 607 Source: 1990 Census; Metropolitan Council Residential Building Permit Trends * The tenure and occupancy status for units constructed since 1990 is not known. This table assumes that all single family and mobile home units are owner- occupied and that half of the townhouse units are owner - occupied. All multifamily units, duplex units and half of the townhouse units are assumed to be renter- occupied. Note: There are some minor inconsistencies in Census data. For example, Census totals for age of occupied housing do not exactly match the total number of units identified as occupied units in the Census. Variations are minor and generally do not amount to a difference of more than a few units. Existing Housing Inventory - City of Chanhassen 4 -11 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 stock b structure Table 4 -11 identifies the existing housing y type and occupancy tenure. It is possible that some housing units may have been lost since 1990 to demolition, conversion or obsolescence. Figures for lost units were not readily available at the time of this study and are not reflected in Table 4 -1 L ...::::::::............................................ ............................... ': ...... .... .::::::::::::...... .............................. ............................... :.::::::::::::::::: ............................... ............................... ,::::�.. ............................................. ............................... ... T �.... ............... :. VB ''.. Total Units - 1990 Owner Occupied p 1990 Renter Occupied p 1990 New Units 1990 -1995 Total (1990 Total +1990-95) 1 Unit Detached 3, 316 3 102 105 1 4,665 1 Unit Attached 345 292 31 163 508 2 Units 29 g 21 0 29 3 _ 4 Units s 48 15 30 0* 48 5 + Units 489 1 390 223 712 Mobile Home 2 2 p 0 2 Total 4 3 577 1 5 Source: 1990 Census; Metropolitan t ounce r3uuuui6 rullim LLvLLuo * Multifamily units since 1990 have been included in 5+ unit totals. variety of existi The section that follows will analyze a va y g characteristics. The section has been addressing single family divided into two parts, add g g Y, rimarily owner occupied housing, separately p from rental housing. Single Family and Owned Housing Construction Activity I* Chanhassen has lead all cities in Carver County in new housing construction in recent years. From 1990 to g Y 1995 1 349 new single family homes were constructed. In the 1980s, 1,634 new houses were built. ) Y Pro for the City indicate that high levels of household growth will continue for at least the next 25 years. attac and multifamily In 1995 Chanhassen had more y construction activity than single family construction. According to rdin Cit fficials most of this construction was owner - occupied town y houses. 4 -12 Existing Housing Inventory -City of Chanhassen Carver County Housing Study December 1996 According to the Metropolitan Council, there have been no mobile homes added to the City since 1990. Table 4 -12 shows new construction activity for single family units in the City since 1985. Over the last 11 years the City has averaged 249 new single family houses per year. .................... :.............. .. .. ..... . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -D w . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . ::: X idiv. �::. +: on :::: ................ .� :: :. � .. ............................. ........... .......... F 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 ngle Fa 189 246 292 352 311 196 191 228 249 269 216 ouuax. lvitar opouLan %.,ouncii tsunamg rernut i renas Single Family Construction 1985 -1995 360 320 280 240 200 160 1985 Single Family Building Permits Owner Occupied Housing Values While home values in Chanhassen are higher than in many other cities in Carver County, values are generally affordable based on Metro Area standards. County and City officials interviewed as part of this study believed that home values were steadily increasing in value. Y g The Carver County Assessor's estimated market values for homesteaded houses were used to generate an median owner occupied house value. Using the Assessor's data, the median homesteaded house in Chanhassen is valued at $138,900 Table 4-13). Claritas, a national data reporting service, also provides housing value estimates usin g the 1990 Census data as a base. Claritas estimates that the 1995 median value for owner occupied houses in Chanhassen is $140,597 in 1995. Existing Housing Inventory -City of Chanhassen 4 -13 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 I991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 County estimated market value data has also been used to analyze the number of owned houses in the City that fall into defined value ranges. The Metropolitan Council defines home ownership options below $115,000 as affordable in the Metro Area. Using this as a value threshold, over 25 percent of Chanhassen's owner - occupied housing is affordable. The percentage of affordable ownershi p options tions in Chanhassen may be slightly higher than indicated. The $115,000 threshold used by the Metropolitan Council was established using 1994 home values and has not been revised to reflect increases in median income since 1994. The analysis in Table 4 -14 applies the 1994 values threshold to 1996 home values. One contributing percentage factor to the low ercenta a of affordable houses in Chanhassen is the high cost of land in the City. Using County estimated market values, the median lot price for an homesteaded p arcel in Chanhassen is $33,100, the highest of any City in the County. The median value lot in Chanhassen is over 47 percent higher than the median value lot in Chaska. .... .... ::::..:: . . ....... ... ...... ... :;: 3 i. Number of Homesteaded Houses Percent of Homesteaded Houses $0 - $71,999 124 2.6% $72 - $114 1 22.8% $115 3,497 74.5% Total 4 9 692 100% Source: Carver County Assessor Recent Sales Activity Residential sales for the last 15 months have been analyzed as both an indicator of the strength of in market and as a method to determine housing affordability. From May 1, 1995 the local housing g a to Jul y 1 1996 > there were 264 improved residential sales in the City (Table 4 -15). The median sale price was $159,900. obtained from the Carver Count Assessor. It is important Sales data was obta y to note that the sales p Existing Housing Inventory - City of Chanhassen 4 -14 g g rY t3' Source: 1990 Census; Claritas, Inc.; Community partners Kesearcn, inc.; uarver county Assessor Carver County Housing Study December 1996 data reported here are for "qualified sales" for fair market value. Sales for less than fair market value are not used by the County Assessor because they do not reflect actual market activity and true, "arms length" transactions. It is also possible that some recent sales in late Jane 1996 had not yet been recorded at the Courthouse and are not included in this analysis. The highest value sale in the City was for $680,000, and the lowest value sale was $65,000. Via::: .............. a. ............... : fiy 1 1995 : :: ::�:::: �: ::: :: tit ..:. : : : .:........ .:::::::. .. ....... J-4 Source: Carver County Assessor; Community Partners Research, Inc. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Recent Residential Sales by Value Housing Condition According to City officials, Chanhassen does not have any concentrations of substandard houses. This is due in part to the new housing stock, with nearly three - fourths of the houses constructed since 1970. The high home values in Chanhassen also play a large role in the condition of the housing stock as home owners have a strong financial incentive to maintain and improve their properties due to their increasing value. The only neighborhood that City officials identified as having some substandard housing was the Carver Beach area near Lotus Lake. This area had originally been platted for small lots to accommodate seasonal cabins Existing Housing Inventory - City of Chanhassen 4 -15 Less than $72,000 $72,000- $114,999 $115,000+ Number of Sales Percent of Total Sales Less than $72,000 3 1.1% $72 - $114 44 16.7% $115 217 82.2% Total 264 100% Source: Carver County Assessor; Community Partners Research, Inc. 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Recent Residential Sales by Value Housing Condition According to City officials, Chanhassen does not have any concentrations of substandard houses. This is due in part to the new housing stock, with nearly three - fourths of the houses constructed since 1970. The high home values in Chanhassen also play a large role in the condition of the housing stock as home owners have a strong financial incentive to maintain and improve their properties due to their increasing value. The only neighborhood that City officials identified as having some substandard housing was the Carver Beach area near Lotus Lake. This area had originally been platted for small lots to accommodate seasonal cabins Existing Housing Inventory - City of Chanhassen 4 -15 Less than $72,000 $72,000- $114,999 $115,000+ Carver County Housing Study _ December 1996 In June 1996, Community Partners Research, Inc. representatives conducted a visual observation of single family/duplex houses in this neighborhood. We were unable to find any significant g g concentrations of houses in need of repair. While some of the older, seasonal cabins still remain and some other houses in this area do need repair, there is also a mix of newer, higher value houses in this neighborhood. As buildable parcels of land become available, redevelopment has g been occurring. This area has many natural amenities that make it an attractive residential neighborhood. While this is an appropriate neighborhood to target for available rehabilitation p ro activity will generally be "spot" rehabilitation and will not involve any concentration of programs, Y g rehab activity. Structure Values as an Indicator of Condition and Quality Community Partners Research, Inc., also analyzed single family /duplex/triplex structures using estimated market values supplied b the Carver County Assessor's Office. For this analysis only pp Y the building value of the primary residential homestead parcels was used. Land value or secondary parcels were excluded. While the building value may still include the value of secondary structures such as sheds or detached garages, in most cases, the value of the house will J represent the majority of the estimated building value for the parcel. p Y The Assessor's estimated market values generally range from 90% to 105% of true market value. The estimated market value is determined by examining a number of factors including quality, condition age, s footage, location and comparable sales prices. This data provides an 49 square g objective, consistent source of information on the homesteaded housing stock in the City. An analysis of the non - homesteaded housing stock is presented in the rental housing inventory section of this report. This analysis included all homesteaded residential structures in Chanhassen. Estimated market values for 41,692 homesteaded structures were examined. Structures in the report represent one, two or three unit houses, although to qualify for homestead status, the owner or an immediate family member must live in one of the units in two or three unit structures. Building values were divided into one of four value ranges as shown in Table 4 -16. While value is not always an exact predictor of the structure's physical condition, it does provide an indication of the housing unit's condition and /or quality. For example, a small, one bedroom house may have a low estimated market value yet be in excellent physical condition. While value as an indicator of condition may g be misleading in this instance, the low value does indicate that the unit may be functionally substandard in terms of current market expectations for square footage, etc. Housing Inventory - Cit of Chanhassen 4 -16 Existing g ry ty Carver County Housing Study December 1996 ...................... :: . . . . . . :.:::::::::::::::::::::.::::..::::::. .......... . . . . . . % ................ %% eu U ::'` � . ........ .::::: '€ .: = =` A l . .::::.: ... ......... ... ................ ..... Value Range Number of Homesteaded Structures Percent of Homesteaded Structures $0 - $29 58 1.2% $30,000 - $59,999 267 5.7% $60 - $89 1 26.0% $90,000+ 3,146 67.1% Total 4, 692 100% Source: Carver County Assessor; Community Partners Research, Inc. Homesteaded House Building Values - 1996 Estimated Market Value Excluding Land I* I* Mobile Homes Chanhassen has no mobile home developments. According to the 1990 Census, only 2 mobile homes are in Chanhassen. No mobile homes have been added to the City since 1990. Existing Housing Inventory - City of Chanhassen 4 -17 $0 - $29,999 $30,000 -$59 60 - $89,999 $90,000+ I* Mobile Homes Chanhassen has no mobile home developments. According to the 1990 Census, only 2 mobile homes are in Chanhassen. No mobile homes have been added to the City since 1990. Existing Housing Inventory - City of Chanhassen 4 -17 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Rental and Multifamily Housing In 1990 percentage Chanhassen's ercenta a of rental housing was lower than both the State -wide and County averages. According to the Census, 14.6 percent of the occupied housing stock was rented. However since 1990 a substantial number of new owned units have been built in Chanhassen, so the percentage of rental housing has decreased through 1995. Accordin g Y to the Census, nearly 73 percent of Chanhassen's rental housing stock is in multifamily buildings with 3 or more units per building, with the remaining units are in single family houses, townhouses or other 1 and 2 unit structures. There are no subsidized building in Chanhassen, project although one tax credit rental 'ect exists with 28 of the 60 units assisted with tax credits. p The Census identified 105 single family houses as renter- occupied and an additional 21 rental g Y units in 2 -unit structures, which may include duplexes. The estimated market value data from Carver County lists 98 houses (1 to 3 units) as non - homestead.. While non - homestead status could include houses other than rental units, such as vacant houses, it is believed that a majority of the non - homestead structures represent rental stock. Based on the high values of some of the non - homestead houses it would appear that some houses that were vacant and for sale may have been included in the non - homestead listing. Excluding all houses over $200,000 in value, there were 81 non - homestead houses that may represent rental houses. Compared to the Census totals, it would appear that some of the rental houses in Chanhassen in 1990 are no longer being rented. The median value for the 81 non - homestead houses examined is $80,900, well below the median value of $138,900 for homesteaded houses. Based on the lower values, it appears that rental houses are generally older and /or in poor physical condition compared to the owner - occupied housing stock. Multifamily Rental Inventory The survey of multifamily rental buildings in Chanhassen found a very tight rental market in the City, Y with the only vacant units in the newly opened Centennial Hill senior apartment which had just o ened and already was 66 percent leased. None of the other buildings contacted had any p Y vacant units and most buildin g managers indicated that vacancies were rare. Some buildings did report that the would have units turning-over in the next few months, but most were confident p y g that the units would be leased by the time they became available. The low to non - existent vacancy rate in Chanhassen in 1996 is consistent with the findings of a previous rental survey in 1992 conducted by the Maxfield Research Group which found only 1 vacant unit in Chanhassen in seven ro erties contacted. Most of the building managers we p p talked to indicated that very few vacancies have existed in recent years. There are no subsidized apartment units in Chanhassen. There is one building that was developed usin g federal housing tax credits. In this building, 28 of the 60 units were tax credit assisted and have maximum rent levels and household income levels. The building manager indicated that Existing Housing Inventory -City of Chanhassen 4 -18 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 while all of the tax credit assisted units were occupied, there was limited demand for these units because people below the allowable income limits often had difficulty affording the unit rents. 0 I* Rental rates for unit types rang4 Studio/Efficiency units 1 Bedroom units 1 Bedroom + Den units 2 Bedroom units 3 Bedroom units .d as follows: $345 -$400 $445 -$695 $710 -$765 $540 -$835 $895 Only one building surveyed, West Village Townhomes had any 3 bedroom units, and this project only had eight 3 bedroom units. ................ ....... :: ....... ...... ............................... .............. ae ............................ .. ............................... :::: . ...:..:::::: ............................... .. ...... ................. ::. ... .......... ........ ................ .... :: :::: ............ . .* : Se :, , M. 0 U s ................. :.:::::.. ...................:........... Name Number of Units Rent Vacancy/ Comments Bedroom Mix Wait List 1 - 1 Bedroom $525 Townhouses built in 1987 -88; good physical West Village 55 - 2 Bedroom $650 -705 No condition. Electric heat and other electric paid Townhomes 8 - 3 Bedroom $895 vacancies by tenant. Amenities include A/C, coin laundry, + heat cable TV, dishwasher and garages for extra monthly rental. Lake View 6 - Studio $400 No Apartments built in 1969; good physical Hills 160 - 1 Bedroom $479 vacancies, condition. Amenities include A/C, coin laundry, Apartments 10 - 2 Bedroom $579 Waiting list cable TV. No garages available. Demand is inc. heat strong with 10 name waiting list. Apartments built in 1989; 28 units are tax credit. Heritage Park 15 - 1 Bedroom $579 -695 No Rents shown are tax credit/market rent. Gas Apartments 6 - I+ Bedroom $740 -765 vacancies heat and electric paid by tenant. Amenities 36 - 2 Bedroom $690 -835 include A/C, laundry in apt., cable TV, + heat dishwasher, security entrance and garage stall. Less demand for tax credit units. Chanhassen 69 -1 Bedroom $505 -550 No Apartments built 1971 -73; good physical Village 51 - 2 Bedroom $605 -650 vacancies, condition. Amenities include A/C, coin laundry, Apartments inc. heat Waiting list dishwasher in 2 bedroom, security, outdoor pool and garages for extra rental. Santa Vera 8 - 1 Bedroom $475 No Apartments built in 1979. Rent includes heat 10 - 2 Bedroom $545 vacancies but tenant pays electricity. Amenities include inc. heat A/C, coin laundry and garages. Chan View 2 - Studio $345 Apartments built 1966 -68; good physical Estates 11 - 1 Bedroom $405 -415 No condition. Rent includes heat but tenant pays 11 - 2 Bedroom $475 -485 vacancies electricity. Amenities include A/C, cable TV, inc. heat I coin laundry. Existing Housing Inventory -City of Chanhassen 4 -19 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 . . ............ _.. - - - .% .... .. . :::. � - ----------- .... . .... -- - --- . . .. .......... . ........... . . X.-N ...... . ........... *............." ......... X. Name Number of Units Rent Vacancy/ Comments Bedroom Mix Wait List Apartments built in 1965; improvements made 1 - Efficiency $375 as needed. Rent includes heat but tenant pays 11 - 1 Bedroom $445 No electric. No vacancy problems in past, but Carver Court 12 - 2 Bedroom $560, vacancies recent turn-over of 2 bedroom units may result in inc. heat short-term vacancies. Amenities include A/C, cable TV, coin laundry. 39 - 1 Bedroom $545 -610 Initial Senior apartments built in 1996. Amenities Centennial 23- l+ Bedroom $710 -760 lease -up include A/C, laundry in apt, dishwasher, security Hill 3 - 2 Bedroom $800 66% entrance, community space, heated underground - I -- _ inc. heat r " leased - - - - -L T__ parking for extra rental i al condition analysis included in the table above has been provided by the . The phys building c y Man manager. owner or Y of the buildings reported that maintenance and repair projects were undertaken as needed. Rental Housing Affordability • m the Metropolitan Council, 44 According to analysis and standards from percent of Chanhassen's p p renta units are considered affordable. This percentage is well above the benchmark of 35-37 y percent established b the Council based on communities of similar location and stage of developme n t. g percentage Chanhassen's high ercenta a of affordable units is due in part to the large number of units i t City he Cit that were built in the 1960s and early 1970s that have rent levels well below the rents charged by the City's newer buildings. I* 4 20 Existing Housing Inventory -City of Chanhassen Carver County Housing Study December 1996 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS City of Chanhassen 0 Key Statistics 1995 Population = 15,231 1995 Households = 5,198 Projected household growth by the year 2000 = 1,102 to 1,481 new households 1990 tenure rates = 85.4% owner, 14.6% renter 1996 Median owner - occupied house value = $138,900 Median Value of Recent Sales = $159,900 1995 Median Household Income = $59,819 1995 Average number of persons per household = 2.93 Monthly rent payment ability (median income household) = $ 1 9 495 Monthly affordable rent payment ability (50% of median income household) = $ 748 Mortgage ability (median income household) = $ 152 9 000 Growth Projections Findings: Chanhassen has experienced tremendous household growth in recent decades. In the 1980s, the City grew by nearly 94 percent. From 1990 to 1995, the household growth rate was over 29 percent. Projections indicate that the household growth rate between 1995 and 2000 will be between 21 and 27 percent, adding an estimated 1,102 to 1,481 new households b y the year 2000. The City has generated its own population projections that indicate a faster rate of growth than the Metropolitan Council projections. Converting the City's population projections into households indicates that Chanhassen expects to add over 2,000 households by the year 2000. Housing Affordability - Ownership Findings: The City's estimated median owner- occupied home value in 1996 is $138,900. Recent residential sales data indicates that the median priced home sale over the past 15 months was $159,900. Analysis of housing affordability by the Metropolitan Council indicates that the existing housing stock is not affordable. Using Metro Area income levels, the Metropolitan Council has estimated that 37 percent of Chanhassen's owner- occupied housing is affordable, well below the benchmark Findings and Recommendations - City of Chanhassen 5 -12 • Carver County Housing Study December 1996 for imil s ar communities of 60 -69 percent affordable. Chanhassen has the second highest median house value of the cities in Carver County, and is one of only two cities in the County that do exceed the affordable ownership benchmarks. The Metropolitan Council analysis is based on the Twin Cities Area median household income. Chanhassen's 1995 estimated household income is $59,819. With a fixed rate, 30 year mortgage at 8.5 percent, a median income household in Chanhassen could afford a mortgage of approximately $152,000, more than the estimated median house value in the City. Recommendations: Most of the City's current housing stock is not affordable by Metropolitan Area standards, and it is anticipated that much of the future housing construction will be above the threshold defined as affordable. It will be important for the City to maintain the quality and supply of the older, existing houses in the City. These units represent the largest inventory of affordable houses in Chanhassen. The City's Livable Communities Act goal is to increase the percentage of affordable ownership housing in the City to 50 percent. Based on the number of owned units in the City and the number anticipated in the next few years, increasing the supply of affordable units to 50 percent will require significant new affordable priced housing construction. According to estimated market value data from Carver County, Chanhassen!$ residential lot values are the highest in the County, with the median lot value over $33,000 Hi h land costs will make it even more difficult to produce affordable priced ownership optio To address this issue the City has been working on development ideas that lower land costs. According to City staff, more attached housing units were constructed in the past y ear than detached units. A zero lot line subdivision is being planned that would provide 30 affordable houses, and other attached and higher density development options are being discussed. These ideas and similar efforts to reduce the land cost for new development should be continued. Another option the City may wish to consider is a publicly developed residential subdivision. The Carver County HRA has successfully developed a subdivision in Cologne and has another planned p in Chaska. By providing lower priced lots, the BRA has been able to generate affordable new home construction. Additionally, continued use of programs that enhance home ownership opportunities is also encouraged. First time home buyer mortgages, down payment assistance and similar programs will help moderate income households afford to purchase their housing. g Housing Rehabilitation Findings: A large majority of the City's single family houses have been constructed since 1970, and the City's percentage of pre -1940 built houses is well below the State -wide average. The combination of newer housing and high home values for older housing as resulted in a housing . . g g stock that is in excellent physical condition. Findings and Recommendations - City of Chanhassen 5 -13 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 City staff had indicated that one small neighborhood in the City may contain some substandard houses. A visual survey of exterior housing condition was conducted in this older neighborhood. The survey found that while there were some houses in need of repair in this area, there were no concentrations of substandard houses. This neighborhood had many natural amenities and it appeared that activity to repair or replace the older housing had been occurring. Recommendations: while the identified neighborhood is an appropriate area to target ' ' activity will largely be "spot" rehabilitation. V`Thle there were houses in rehabilitation assistance, activity g y p need of repair, there were nospecific blocks or clusters of substandard housing. It appears that market forces are correcting some of the problem, and continued access to grant and loan resources from local , state and federal sources should continue to be utilized to improve the quality of the existing stock. Single Family Housing Development housing construction activity Findings. Single family ho g y has been substantial in recent years, and p r 'ections indicate that Chanhassen will experience the second fastest household growth rate in of the County between 1995 and 2000. Chanhassen is below Livable Communities Act benchmarks for both the percentage of attached/multifamily g p housin options, and in the percentage of rental units in the community. The City ' s goal s t o i increase the supply of both attached housing and rental housing options in the pp y future. Recommendations: The private market has been addressing the need for housing construction e and lot development in Chanhassen, including the development of town houses. ' involvement in future housing development The City's invo ve g has been and should continue to be the p promotion and facilitation of affordable ownership options. High land values complicate efforts to build affordable units. The City is working on policies that help reduce land costs through sizes, town house development and other hi smaller lots her density development ideas. p g Housing Affordability- Rental Findings: The Metropolitan Council analysis indicates that 44 percent of the City's rental units p are affordable b y Metro standards, above the benchmark of 3 5 -3 7 percent for comparable cities. The Metropolitan Council analysis used 1990 Census data as a base. Applying the same op y methodology to 1996 the threshold for an affordable rental unit would be $683 for gross monthly rent. The rental housin g inventory conducted for this study indicates that a majority of the multifamily ental units in the City would be considered affordable by 1996 standards. This is due y y . in large art to the number of rental units in the City constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Most of g p the rental units constructed in the past 10 years have rent levels above the Metropolitan definition of affordable. There are no subsidized developments in the City. Findings and Recommendations - City of Chanhassen 5 -14 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 The City's Livable Communities Act goals indicate a lowering of the percentage of affordable rental units into the benchmark range for similar communities. This, implies that future rental development will largely be at levels above the threshold defined as affordable by the Metropolitan Council. Recommendations: As with owner - occupied housing, the key to maintaining an affordable supply of rental units will be dependent on preserving the condition and quality of the existing rental stock. Given the high construction costs associated with new rental construction and the absence of rental production subsidy programs, it will be difficult to build new rental housing that will be affordable to lower income households. Promotion of rental rehabilitation loan programs will help encourage the maintenance and improvement of the existing rental stock which will help serve the City's affordable rental housing needs in the years ahead. Rental Housing Develop= Findings: Chanhassen's rental demand through the year 2000 is estimated to be 250 units. Demand is based both on anticipated household growth in the City and on pent up demand. Additional demand may be generated by a number of other factors, including faster than anticipated household growth in the City. Chanhassen's internal projections for the year 2000 indicate a significantly higher rate of household growth than projected by the Metropolitan Council. For this study, the more conservative projections have been used. Demand for rental units will also be impacted by the, action or lack of action to address rental housing needs in neighboring communities. Other cities around Chanhassen will also be rowin at a significant be g rowing g rate. If these communities do not create new rental opportunities, there will be additional demand for new units built in Chanhassen. Chanhassen has recently developed 65 senior market rate rental units. Within the first month of occupancy, approximately 86 percent of the units had been rented. The remainin g units available in the senior building are the only vacant units found in a rental survey of Chanhassen's multifamily rental buildings. A previous rental survey in 1992 found only one vacant unit in the City at that time, indicating that an extremely tight rental market has existed for man ears. many mix of owner to renter housing 85 percent owner /15 percent renter, well below the benchmark established for the Livable Communities Act. Chanhassen's g oal is to increase the percentage of rental housing in the community 20 percent. Chanhassen is planning the development of a 70 unit general occupancy development with Victoria, Chaska and Eden Prairie which will be located in near a transit hub in Eden Prairie. While this project may alleviate some of the immediate demand for rental units, anticipated .growth in the area will continue to create demand for rental housing. Chanhassen has no subsidized rental buildings for senior or general occupancy. A tax credit project was built in the City, with 28 units assisted by tax credits. However, two bedroom unit rents in this building start at $690, which would not be affordable for lower income households. Findings and Recommendations - City of Chanhassen 5 -15 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Chanhassen has the highest annual median household income in Carver County at $59,819 in 1995. Recommendations: Based on the analysis of the findings, we are recommending a total of 80 -96 rental units which includes 12 -16 general occupancy luxury market rate units, 36-40 general occupancy market rate units, 20 -24 general occupancy subsidized units and 12 -16 senior p Y subsidized units. Based on demand estimates, additional rental units will be needed before the year 2000. We would recommend initial construction of the units recommended above, with additional units constructed after initial units demonstrate the product's market acceptance. Recommendations for Chanhassen General Occupancy Luxury Market Rate Units August, 1996 Unit Type No. Of Units Size/ Sq. Ft. R= Two Bedroom 8 -10 1 -1 -$900-1 Three Bedroom 4- 1 -1 $1 -1 Total 12 -16 General Occupancy Market Rate Units Unit Tvpe No. Of Units Size /Sq. Ft. R= One Bedroom 8 -9 700 -800 $550 -600 One Bedroom/Den 6 -7 800 -900 $610 -650 Two Bedroom 16 -17 1, 000 -1,100 $660 -700 Three Bedroom 6-7 1113 -1314 $710 -750 Total 36-40 General Occupancy Subsidized Units Unit Type No. Of Units S ize_/S R One Bedroom 4 -5 650 -750 * 30% of Annual Two Bedroom 10 -12 900 -1,000 Household Income Three Bedroom 6-7 1,000- 1,150 Total 20 -24 Senior Subsidized Units Unit Type No. Of Units Size /Sq.. Ft. Rent One Bedroom 8 -10 650 -750 *30% of Annual Two Bedroom 4_-6 850 -900 Household Income Total 12 -16 Note: Rents are quoted in 1996 dollars and include heat but exclude garages. Source: Community Partners Research, Inc. Findings and Recommendations - City of Chanhassen 5 -16 Carver County Housing Study--,- December 1996 Public Facilities Capacity Findings: The City is served by the WSA sewer system. There were no capacity problems identified with the City's water system. Recommendations: The City is taking the necessary actions to address its municipal facilities issues. At this time no further action has been identified. 0 - E-A Findings and Recommendations - City of Chanhassen 5 -17 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 • RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT Introduction Rental demand and construction recommendations in Carver Count have been d ternuned through the analysis of the following: P. Population and Household Growth Projections ► Employment Projections P. Household Incomes P. Households by Tenure ► Metropolitan Council's Rental Unit Bench Mark vs. Rental Unit Index for each Municipality ► Existing Rental Inventory including Number of Units, Sizes Rents Vacanc y Rates, Waiting Lists, etc. ► Interviews, and Surveys conducted in each municipalities Through this analysis, we have determined that between 428 and 521 rental units are needed in Carver County by the year 2000. The number of units recommended is below our ' calculations of potential unit demand. We have taken a conservative approach to our recommendations ons for a number of reasons. Most of the future demand for rental units will be caused b p rojected y p � cted i household growth n the County. If this growth occurs as anticipated or at an even . p faster rate, there may be additional rental units needed in some of the cities. We have also recognized that some of the units that are needed cannot be produced in a rice range that would be affordable P g to the intended occupant. Without federal housing production subsidies it will be ve ry difficult to produce new rental housing affordable to low income households. We have recommen some subsidized units that seem compatible with the communities and the subsidy resourc s available. The following table identifies the unit recommendations in the following g categories. General Occupancy ► Luxury Market Rate ► Market Rate ► Subsidized Senior- Specific ► Market Rate ► Subsidized Rental Housing Development - Carver County 6 -1 • Carver Coun Housin S Victoria 10 -12 p p December 1996 - Waconia 6 -8 36-40 12 -16 0 16 -20 Watertown 0 14-16 --- -=- Total 40-52 170 -198 72 -90 0 Rental Housing Recommendations Grand Total 428 -521 Source: Community Partners Research, Inc. Carver County Carver 24 -30 Chanhassen General Occupa_ncv_ Chaska 164 -201 Cologne L uxury Market Market Rate_ Subsidized 0 Market Rate Rate Subsidized Norwood Young America 36-44 Carver p 16 -20 0 8 -10 0 Chanhassen 12 -16 36 -40 20 -24 0 12 -16 Chaska 12 _ 16 42 -50 20 -24 60 -75 30 -36 Cologne. 0 12 -16 0 . � � Hamburg 0 p p p 0 Mayer 0 0 0 p 0 New Germany 0 0 0 0 0 0 Norwood Y.A. 0 14 -16 12 -16 10 -12 Victoria 10 -12 p p 10 -12 0 - Waconia 6 -8 36-40 12 -16 0 16 -20 Watertown 0 14-16 --- -=- Total 40-52 170 -198 72 -90 0 88 -109 58 -72 Grand Total 428 -521 Source: Community Partners Research, Inc. Total by Municipality Carver 24 -30 Chanhassen 80 -96 Chaska 164 -201 Cologne 12 -16 Hamburg 0 Mayer 0 New Germany 0 Norwood Young America 36-44 Victoria 20 -24 Waconia 70 -84 Watertown 22 -26 Total 428 -521 Rental Housing Development - Carver County 6 -2 I* 0 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 General Occupancy Rental Housing Demand Introduction We have estimated that approximately 66 percent of the rental demand in Carver County will be . ,, tY for general occupancy units which totals 282 -340 units. General occupancy rental recommendations have been divided into three separate categories defining luxury market rate, market rate and subsidized unit construction. Luxury market rate housing has no income restrictions and targets higher income renters including professionals, empty nesters and retirees who are seeking luxury housing with a hi level of amenities. This type of housing will appeal to approximately eight percent of the renters g in Carver County. Market rate housing targets middle income renters including young families, young couples singles, seniors who are not interested in senior housing, etc. The rents for market rate housing range from $540 to $750 and include a variety of amenities. Subsidized rental housing targ typically young ets low and moderate income households, icall families, , single parent families and low income singles. Luxury Market Rate Units Recommendation: Carver County's median household income of $44,916 is over 20 percent higher than Minnesota's overall median household income. Several Carver Count municipalities, Y P , such as Victoria and Chanhassen, have very high annual incomes. Additionally, Carver County has become increasingly popular as a place to live and work. To accommodate the higher income households that are moving into Carver County and have chosen not to purchase a home it is recommended that a total of 40 -52 luxury rental units are constructed in Chaska Chanhasse Victoria and Waconia. The specific recommendations for unit sizes, type and rents are included in the individual city Findings and Recommendations section of this report. Development Concept: The luxury market rate units should be built at a prime location such as on a golf course or on a lake and should include a high level of amenities. Townhouse one level units are recommended with private entrances, attached garages, and decks or patios. Amenities g g � P s include nclude high quality construction, oak cabintry, spacious rooms, a master bath, walk in closets, a utility room with a washer and dryer, central air conditioning, microwave, dishwasher etc. Financin It is estimated that the projected rents for the luxury market rate units are sufficient to allow the private sector to construct the units with no public sector assistance. Rental Housing Development - Carver County 6 -3 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Market Rate Units Recommendations: There is a need for 170 to 198 market rate units in Carver County. very few vacancies e p rojects e xist in market rate 'ects in Carver County, and many report a strong demand for units. Also, the majority of the general occupancy renter households moving into Carver Cou nt y g will be seeki market rate units. It is recommended that market rate units be constructed in Carver, Chanhassen, Chaska, Cologne, Norwood Young America, Waconia and Watertown. The specific recommendations for unit sizes, type and rents are included in the individual city Findings and Recommendations section of this report. Development Concepts: The development concepts will vary in each municipality based primarily on the number of units constructed. It is recommended that larger projects (over 30 units) include two or three level buildings with an elevator and underground parking. The small projects can include various designs such as single level buildings with common hallways or single level buildings with units that have separate exterior entrances. All of the concepts development is should include protected parking at a ratio of one space per unit, P P Quest surface parking, ample closet space, storage area, dishwasher, micro wave, washer and �. P g dryer in each unit and a patio or deck. The larger projects should include a community room. Financing: Public sector assistance will be needed to construct the market rate units with the . rents that are recommended. Public sector assistance can include Essential Function Bonds, Tax Increment Financing, tax credits, land donations, utility extensions, etc. Subsidized Units Recommendation: All of the general occupancy subsidized projects in Carver County were inventoried and the onl y vacancies that existed were in a FmHA project in Hamburg. Most of the P J g projects had long waiting lists. The recommendations for subsidized units are modest, however, takin g into consideration the lack of funding that is currently available to assist with developing subsidized housing. Additionally, the negotiated goals for the Livable Communities Act for Carver County ities include the objective that at least 21 percent of the rental uruts constructed ty y through the y ear 2010 are affordable units. The recommended general occupancy subsidized units total approximately 17 percent of the total proposed units for Carver County. If Subsidized rental Y P units are constructed as multifamily buildings, we would recommend placement of units in Chaska, C hanhassen Norwood Young America, Waconia and Watertown. The specific recommendations for unit sizes, type and rents are included in the individual city Findings and Recommendations section of this report. If subsidized units are provided through scattered site acquisition or new construction, it would be appropriate to locate units in any of the cities with the ossible exception of Hamburg, which has vacant subsidized units. If the scattered site p p g approach majority is used the ma'ori of units should still be located in the largest cities in the County, providing lower income tenants with access to jobs and services. Rental Housing Development - Carver County I* b -4 • Carver County Housing S tudy December 9 1 96 Design Concept: For new construction, townhouse and cottage style units are the preferred design concepts for family rental units. Units should include separate exterior entrances, children's play area, large kitchen area, storage rooms, washers and dryers in each unit and adequate green space. Financing: Federal and State funding cut backs have created a severe shortage in funding for subsidized housing. All potential funding sources such as the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Metropolitan Council must be researched and monitored for potential funding. Subsidized housing projects in Carver County will include funding from many funding ources and i g must include creative development methods. Rental Housing Development - Carver County 6 -5 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 SENIOR HOUSING RENTAL DEMAND Introduction We have estimated that approximately 34 percent of the rental demand in Carver County will be from p g m inde endent living senior units which totals 146 -181 units. There may be additional demand for senior housin g with services, such as assisted living. Senior rental recommendations have been divided into two categories, market rate and subsidized. Market rate senior housing targets moderate to middle income seniors that require few services. It is estimated that approximately 60 percent of the senior housing demand will be for market rate rental housing. Rent for market rate senior housing will range from $540 to $710. Subsidized senior housing targets senior households with annual incomes under $15,000. Approximately 40 percent of the recommended senior housing units are proposed to be Y P subsidized. The rents are typically based on 30 percent of household income. Market Rate Senior Housing Recommendation: There is a need for 88 -109 senior market rate rental units in Carver County. The existing in senior market rate units have no vacancies and several projects have long waiting lists. Additionally, the senior population (65 and over) is projected to increase by 1,007 persons Y P from 1990 to 2000. We are recommending the development of market rate senior units in Carver, Norwood Young America and Victoria. The specific recommendations for unit sizes, Chaska, No g P t and rents are included in the individual city Findings and Recommendations section of this report. Although market rate senior housing demand may exist in other cities in the County, this P �. demand can be met through the development of general occupancy market rate units. Development Concept: The larger project in Chaska should consist of a multi -level elevator ,p g building ith underground parking. The smaller unlit projects in Carver, Norwood Young g 4.7 P America, and Victoria should be townhouse /cottage style projects with separate exterior entrances for each unit. All of the projects community P should include communi s pace with a serving kitchen that could be utilized for meal service later as residents age and desire some type of meal program. nd protected parking at a ratio of one per unit. In addition, ample surface ace We also recomme p p g P P parking rkin should also be available for guests and seniors who desire to maintain their cars but do not want to pay for a garage. U P P U nit features should include ample closet space as prospective tenants will have numerous - Carver Count 6 -6 Rental Housing Development ty u 0 0 Carver County Housing Stud December 1996 belongings they will be moving from their single family • a y homes. At nurumum, a walk -in closet should be included with each unit. If ossible e p a separate storage room should b., incorporated hould include into each unit. Other standard design features for senior buildings g raised outlets, lever door handles and lowered kitchen cabinets. Expansive ' p e window area is also an asset for senior units as many seniors spend a significant portion of their time in their unit light and views t sand enjoy ample �da Y o the outdoors. Balconies and patios are also recommend ' ed. Additionally, each unit should have its own laundry room equipped with a washer and dryer. Financing: Public sector assistance will be needed to construct senior market rate units with the rents that are recommended. As with general occupancy units th P Y e public sector assistance can include Essential Function Bonds, Tax Increment Financing, - g tax credits, land donations, utility ext enslons, etc. Subsidized enior Unit Recommendation: All of the senior subsidized projects • p � sin Carver County were inventoried and no vacancies exist with the exception of some vacancies in a FmHA r . p o� ect in Mayer. The majority of the senior projects have extensive waiting ists. ' ' - units the Livable Communities Act Goals for Carver g Additionally, as with the general occupancy rental uni • ve County include an objective that over 21 percent of the rental units constructed through the year 20 10 are affordable. The recommended subsidized senior units represent approximately 14 pp y percent of the total units that are recommended. Subsidized senior units are recommended in Chanhassen, Chaska and Waconia. The specific recommendations for unit sizes • ,type and rents are included in the individual city Findings and Recommendations section of • thus report. These three municipalities provide the services that low income senior households n ' need on a dally basis. . Design Concept: The design concept for Chaska should • p d be a two level elevator budding and the smaller projects in Chanhassen and Waconia should be one 1 ' level buildings with common hallways and interior entrances into each unit. To the extent that is • financially a the subsidized senior units should include the amenities described formarket rate units with the exception of protected parking and washers and dryers in each unit. Financing: - State and Federal financing or subs g s dazed senior units is virtually non - existent thus local public and non -profit funds must be utilized to subsidize bsidize senior housing. �_..__,�. ••i v.•. J�lir LL;vujivFmt:nL - t_,a County 6 -7 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 This page intentionally left blank. Rental Housing Development - Carver County 6 -S Carver County Housing Study December 1996 AGENCIES AND RESOURCES The following local, state and federal agencies administer programs or provide funds for housing programs and projects: Carver County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 500 Pine Street Suite 300 Chaska, MN 5318 (612) 448 -7715 Fax (612.) 448 -606 The Carver County HRA is a comprehensive County housing provider. The HRA works with cities, renters, home owners, potential home owners, property managers, businesses, developers, social service agencies and any other entity or individual with questions or concerns in the area of housing. Home Improvement Programs ► MHFA Fix -Up Fund ► META Accessibility Improvement Loans ► MHFA Home Energy Loans ► MHFA Mobile Home Loans ► MHFA 3% Revolving Rehabilitation Loans ► NfHFA Deferred Loans ► NfHFA Deferred Accessibility Loans ► MHFA Community Fix -Up Fund ► NfHFA HOME Rental Rehab Grants and Rental Rehab Loans Rental Assistance ► Section 8 Existing Rent Assistance Program ► Rent Assistance for Family Stabilization (RAFS) Carver County Transitional Housing ► Carver County Rental Inventory Home OwnershiQ ► Carver County First Time Home Buyer Program ► NfHFA Home Stretch Agencies and Resources 7 -1 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Housing Counseling Referrals, information and technical assistance in the areas of: ► Rental options, assistance, programs, rights and responsibilities ► Home ownership and pre - purchase inspection ► Home improvements and property rehabilitation ► Rental property improvements ► Mortgage foreclosure counseling ► NfHFA Foreclosure Prevention. and Rental Assistance Program ' Housing Development ► Acquisition and rehabilitation of existing rental property ► Rental housing development ► Single family subdivision development ► Carver Housing Development Corporation Community and Economic Development ► Small Cities Development Program grants for public facilities, commercial and residential improvements ► USDA Rural Development Loan Programs ► FEMA and Army Corps of Engineers Programs ► Bond financing for public construction projects Agencies and Resources 7 -2 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Local Housing Financing Options There are a number of funding mechanisms available to Housing and ' • � Redevelopment Authorities in Minnesota. The following is a synopsis of financing options, some of which ' g P � hich was prepared with the assistance of Miller & Schroeder Financial Inc. All options have ' P stipulations, regulations and limitations. It is suggested you consult with a financial advisor for specific information. The abandonment of housing development rograms b the federal g P b Y g ernment coupled with the elimination of tax incentives for private developers has laced a huge P p g burden on Housing and Redevelopment Authorities to take on the role of roviding affordable h ' .. P � housing in their communities. There currently is no advantage for anyone else to assume the role of hous us ng developer. In fact, at the present time the only readily available i Y Y government ent program for private developers, low income housing tax credits, s at risk of being terminated. rxninated. Due to the lack of interest by private developers and the increasing • P g demand being voiced by city councils, economic development authorities and employers, HRAs have . e been forced into the role of housing developers for which they have been searching for alternative g ative fundin options. The most widely used option has been essential function bonds. Essential Function Bonds (Essential Purpose Bonds The changes made by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 sip • . � Act reduced the incentives of the private sector to develop multi- family rental housin . The Tax At cou 1 prohibitive - . g , coupled with the prohibitive multi family real estate tax costs in the State of Minnesota i make t fin ' financially infeasible for the private sector to develop affordable housing, despite a need for housing to maintain and � expand economic development. In response to this dilemma, many communities have taken a ro- active a ' p approach to providing the housing which the private sector, in more economical) favorable time traditionally . g , y s, traditionally developed. Housin Authorities throughout Minnesota have utilized Essential Function Bonds to finance the development and construction of affordable housing ithin their communities. g Essential Function Bonds are available to certain public agencies such as an Economic Development ' e elopment Authority or Housing and Redevelopment Authority as tax-exempt financing to acquire . P g q e or develop affordable housing. Essential Function Bonds are revenue bonds and not general obligations . g igations of the City. The primary advantages are: 1. Because the bonds will be tax - exempt for federal and state income tax u p rposes, lower interest rates will be obtained on the financing. g 2. Because the bonds are Essential Function B ' Bonds, the interest paid is not a tax preference item included in the calculation of the bond holders' alternative ' permitting rrunlmum tax, again gft p tting a lower interest rate on the financing. Agencies and Resources 7-3 Carver County Housing Study _ _ December 1996 to private activity 3. Essential purpose bonds are not subject p bond volume limitations. 4. Because the Authority is the owner of the development, it will make payment in lieu of real estate taxes (PELOT), which will be less than the taxes on a privately -owned development. This factor results in lower operating expenses which helps to keep the rents at a level that the market can bear. y 5. It may be p ossible to structure the terms of the issue to meet the needs of your organization. 6. You may b y e able to structure our own tenant composition, free from federal tax law income requirements. _ owned b a p ublic entity, 7. Because the development is o y p Y, profit motivation of a private P developer is removed from the transaction, which also contributes to keeping the rents at an affordable level. 8. The Y he Housing Authority has complete control over decisions regarding all development aspects. No federal or state approvals required. Timeline with p 1. Discuss study recommendations cities; select and appoint Development Team - Months 1 -2 2. Development Team completes planning phase - Month 3 Development Consultants , ltants selected recommend sites, design financing options, ,. development schedule and market conditions - Month 4 4. Finalize plans, prepare for bid - Months 5 -6 P 5. Advertise and award bid - Months 7 -8 6. Construction - Months 9 -18 ct completion, rand . Prod e p � opening and move -ins - Month 19 g P Credit Enhancements • term for our bonds it is suggested that In an effort to obtain the best possible interest rate and y enhancements. Those typically you structure your issue with credit yP Y used include letters of credit, Agencies and Resources Carver County Housing Study December 1996 FHA and FNMA insured mortgage loans and Section 8 contracts. However, to provide additional security through local enhancements you may elect to include one or more of the following: 1. Unencumbered Asset Pledge - If you own other housing projects, you may take assets not otherwise encumbered, to make debt service payments on the bonds, should project revenues be insufficient. Z. Operating Deficit Guaranty - A arantee b the in ' � y o ved county, cities or local corporations to guaranty to cover any operating shortfalls usual on an annual basis. �. Excess Tax Increment Funds - If the ro'ect is located • P J ed in a tax increment district or if a tax increment district in the city or coup where the ' county project ct is located is generating surplus funds, the surplus can be designated to cover er any shortfalls for this project. The designation can be made for the life of the tax increment district stnct or the life of the bonds. 4. Annually Approved Tax Levy - HRAs have the ability under state statute to levy a special benefit tax with the approval of their governing board g g (ci or county). This tax can be a maximum of 0.0131% of the taxable market value of the city r co ' Y county in which the HRA is located. This is an annual process with annual approval required from ' Pp q om the governing board. This levy can be used to back the housing projects. J S. General Obligation - Tax Pledge - In Minnesota cities • . . g t es and counties can use full faith and credit taxing ability to secure projects developed b an HRA • • p y .The general obligation pledge would be used as additional security or revenue • Y bonds payable from income or revenues of the project. The maximum general obligation pledge i p g s the greater of .5 of market value of the property in the jurisdiction or $3 000 000 addition', • � In addition, no individual family may have an income higher than 80 of the media • HUD. n family income as estimated by ether Local Funding ' Mechanisms Corporate Involvement In communities where employee housing s a articular issue w' • g p with local employers, corporations have stepped to the forefront to participate in the financing of . P � community housing. They may act as a credit enhancer by posting an operating deficit guarantee or b p roviding y such inducements as land, fixed assets or equity. In some instances, local corporations • . ip s may also purchase low- income tax credits to provide an equity source. Pooled Housing Revenue Fund I* ale any project can be financed on a project basis it i ' s possible to create a Pooled "AAU xxuavui ucs 7 -5 Carver County Housing Stud December 1996 _Y Housin g purpose Revenue Fund for the u ose of developing multiple projects. The "Fund" can issue bonds which will be payable from the gross revenue generated by all of the projects funded under the indenture. Through this process stronger projects can help support weaker projects without jeopardizing credit ratings. In addition many communities have other revenues available to pledge to a community housing program. These may include tax levy funds, excess tax increment funds, community development block ants � cor donations or excess gaming revenues. �' This p rocess ma y stro allow market rate p rojects to help subsidize housing for low income g families. 0 7 -6 Agencies and Resources Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Metropolitan Area Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 east Fifth Street St. Paul, MN 55101 -1634 (612) 291 -6359 Contact: Tom McElveen ► Livable Communities Demonstration Account Description: A Council fund with approximately $4 million available annually to fund developments that meet specific legislative criteria. The criteria will support proposed PP P P projects that are compact, efficient developments that are close to transit and offer a variety of housing options and employment opportunities. ► Credit Enhancement Program Description: Allows HRAs to back u their bonds with the Metropolitan Council' P p s AAA credit rating. ► Local Housing Incentives Account As part of the Livable Communities Act, the Council will have $1 million available in 1996 for the creation of affordable and life cycle housing. The funds will require a local match and priority is given by statute to cities that greatly contribute to fiscal disparities. Twin Cities Family Housing Fund 801 Nicollet Mall Suite 1515 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 375-9644 Contact: Tom Fulton A private, non -profit foundation that romotes and funds affordable housing . P s rig in the Twin Cities. Funds are allocated by the Family Housing Fund Board according to their mission, priorities and fund availability. Agencies and Resources 7_7 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 State A Minnesota Housina Finance Aaencv 400 Sibley Street Suite 3 00 St. Paul, MN 5 5101 Katherine Hadley, Commissioner 1- 800 -65 7 -3 802 Finance Agenc (NfHF was created by the Minnesota Legislature to The Minnesota Housing a y provide housing opportunities and financial resources to assist low /moderate income Minnesotans in obtainin g decent safe, energy efficient and affordable housing. MHFA also provides funds to c g P hies for neighborhood redevelopment projects. Programs that N1HFA offers that may assist Carver County in addressing its housing needs follow: ► Community Rehabilitation Fund Description: ommun tion: The i �' Rehabilitation Fund provides a maximum of $250,000 for 9 the acquisition and clearance of blighted properties. ► Minnesota Urban and Rural Homesteading Program (MURL) This program provides grants to purchase substandard homes, rehabilitate Description. T p g p � p . the homes and then sell the rehabilitated homes to first time home buyers. The Program is ` prevent the spread of blight and reserve the existing housing stock. desg l�ned top p �, P ► Purchase Plus Program Description: g escri tion: The Purchase Plus Program is a purchase /rehabilitation mortgage program that P rovides funds to purchase and rehabilitate substandard existing homes. ► Minnesota Mortgage Program Descript i The Minnesota Mortgage Pro ram provides below - market interest rate g mortgage loans for low and moderate income first -time home buyers. The program is provided in cooperation with private mortgage lenders throughout the State. ► Minnesota Communities Program Description: The Minnesota Communities Program delivers MHFA mortgage revenue bond financing o specific communities throughout the State. Under this program, eligible g P property cities may request single 'spot' loan set asides for specialized home ownership � projects cts which are undertaken to address locally identified housing objectives. ► Home Ownership Assistance Fund Description: P ri tion: The Homeownership Assistance Fund provides monthly payment assistance and down payment assistance to moderate income borrowers purchasing their first homes e revenue bond program. A MHFA loan is provided in the through an MF1FA mortgage p g form of a second mor e loan without interest. The mortgage loan must be repaid on a o � graduated basis. ► Minnesota City Participation Program ' Minnesota City Partic Pro Description. The y ram provides a set -aside of mortgage p g revenue bond funds for a P eriod of six to nine months to assist communities in meeting identified local home ownership goals. 7 -8 Agencies and Resources Carver County Housing Study December 1996 ► Community Activity Set -Aside Program Description: The Community Activity Set -Aside Program is an off -shoot of the Minnesota Mortgage Program that allows city's to obtain a set -aside of mortgage funds for a special purpose. ► Community Reinvestment Act Incentive Program Description: This program is designed to assist local lenders in meeting the home ownership needs of their communities and to meet their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) objectives. The Program provides below market interest rate financing nd down g payment assistance for first time home buyers. ► Foreclosure Prevention and Rental Assistance Program Description: This program has been designed to assist individuals facing foreclosure or eviction due to a temporary financial crisis by providing case management services and if applicable, mortgage payment, rental, or other financial assistance on an emergency basis. g Y ► Home Stretch Home Buyer Training Program Description: This program provides materials and technical support to communities es which want to provide home buyer training and counseling to potential home buyers. > Housing Trust Fund Description: The Housing Trust Fund provides deferred loans without interest for the development, construction, acquisition, preservation and rehabilitation of low income rental housing, limited equity cooperative housing and homes for ownership. ► Governor's Affordable Rental Investment Fund (ARIF) Description: The Governor has established a fund to provide gap financing for the development of low /moderate income housing. ► New Construction Tax Credit Mortgage/Bridge Loans Description: Financing under this program provides for the construction of substantial rehabilitation of units to be rented to families or individuals with income of up to 60 percent of the area median income. ► Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program Description: This program reduces the federal income tax liability of qualifyin g rental property owners for up to ten years. Units must be available -for low and moderate income tenants for at least 15 years. HOME Rental Rehabilitation Program Description: This program will provide grants to rehabilitate P rivatel owned rental Y property to support affordable, decent, safe and energy efficient housing for lower income families. ► Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program Description: Property improvement loans are available to residential rental ro e P P rtY owners. > Low and Moderate Income Rental Program Description: This program makes mortoracre funds available for the acquisition and rehabilitation or new construction/conversion of rental apartment buildings housing low and moderate income people. Agencies and Resources 7 -9 Carver County I!Ousing Stud December 1996 ► Rent Assistance for Family Stabilization Description: This program provides rental assistance payments to families on public assistance who are enrolled in self - sufficiency programs to become self - supporting and y who reside in a count in which the Section 8 Fair Market Rents (HUD) are in the highest one -third of the average rents in the state. ► Accessibility Loan Program Ym Description: Deferred payment loans may be available to low income homeowners for P P • improvements directly related to the basic housing needs of a physically disabled person. ► Deferred Loan Program Description: payment ri tion: Deferred a ment loans assist low income homeowners in financing home improvements directly g safety, irectl affecti the safe habitability, energy efficiency and accessibility of their homes. ► Home Energy Loan Program Description. T program ram enables homeowners to increase the efficiency of the existing g housing stock. ► Revolving Loan Program program Description: This provides rehabilitation financing to low and moderate income p P � homeowners who are unable to qualify for other types of assistance. ► The Great Minnesota Fix -Up Fund Description. Prop e rty imp rovement rovement loans available State - wide to assist homeowners in p increasing the livability and energy efficiency of existing housing. Loans are made to homeowners by locally participating banks, credit unions and housing agencies. Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Develonment 121 Seventh Place East 5th Floor Metro Square St. Paul, N[N 55101 Louis Jambois, Community Assistance Director 1- 800 - 657 -3858 Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) is a State agency that The Minnesota Depa P Po programs provides and funding for housing, community, and economic development. Each year rograms g g DTED receives approximately $20 million from the federal government through the Community Development Block Grant Program. DIED uses this money for the Small Cities Development Pro an annual competition among small cities, townships and counties for housing, public facilities, ilities and economic development projects. Approximately 90 jurisdictions submit applications each ear and normally 3 0 a pplications lications are selected for funding. y y Agenc and Resources 7 -10 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Federal Agencies Department of Housing and Urban Develoament 220 Second Street South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Torn Feeney, Coordinator (6 12) 3 70 -3 000 The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is in transition as the federal government attempts to balance the federal budget. The most recent discussions for HUD have centered around an approach that provides housing and community development funds as block grants to states and cities. HUD has proposed a plan that consolidates over 60 current programs into three programs: • Housing certificates for Families and Individuals • Community Opportunity Fund. • Affordable Housing Fund. The progress of this consolidation should be monitored to assure that Carver County has the opportunity to participate in these programs when the y are established. USDA Rural Develor ment 410 Farm Credit Building 375 Jackson Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Janice Daley, State Director (612) 290-3912 USDA Rural Development, formerly the Farmers Home Administration . rural areas to finance housing related needs. Rural areas (FMHA) provides loans and grants m i ' s nclude populations with cities under 20,000. Programs which may assist Carver Count include: ude. ► 502 and 504 Housing ehabilitation Programs r gams Description: Loans and grants are rovided for rehabilitation P of substandard housing occupied by low /moderate income households. ► Rural Housing Preservation Grants Description: Housing rehabilitation grants are provided for communities P to address specific housing needs in the community. ► Rural Housing Site Loan Description: This ro ram is to assist public - P g p or private nonprofit organizations interested in providing sites for housing, to acquire and develop and in rural areas. as. Agencies and Resources 7 -11 Carver County Housing Stud December 1996 Federal National Mort a e Association Fannie Mae 3 86 North Wabasha Capital Centre Suite 1026 St. Paul, MN 55102 Gloria Bostrom, Partnership Office Director (612) 298 -9356 Fannie Mae is a Congressionally ionall Chartered , private shareholder owned company that works to makes g Y sure that mortgage money is available to people in communities all across America. In May Fannie Mae announced plans for House Minnesota, which will provide $6 billion in 1995, F P affordable home financing for more than 80,000 low, moderate and middle income Minnesota Families. ► Fannie97 Description: This mortgage allows home buyers to make a down payment of as little as 3 percent. ► Community Home Buyer's Program Description: A variety of different mortgage programs are available to meet different P Y needs g including down payment assistance, lower closing costs, and less income and higher debt options. Federal Home Loan Bank of Des Moines 907 Walnut Street Des Moines, IA 50309 Nancy Grandquist, Vice President Community Investment (515) 281 -1181 P. Affordable Housing Program Description. This p roaram is to subsidize the interest rate on advances or provide direct a subsidies to member institutions engaged in lending for long -term, very low, low and moderate income owner-occupied and affordable rental housing at subsidized interest rates. ► Community nvestment Advance Program ty Description: This program is designed to encourage member financial institutions to financing for home ownership provide favorable fin g P and rental housing occupied by families with incomes below 115 ercent of area median, and commercial and economic P development activities that benefit and/or are located in low and moderate income neighborhoods. Agencies and Resources 7 -12 POWERS AND DUTIES Cif MINNESOTA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES Prepared by: Robert J. Deike Bradley & Deike, P. A. 5100 Eden Ave. Edina, N4N 55437 (612) 927-433 Rjd /mvdoc /forms/hra i Statutory Authorization The stat utory authority to create and operate HRAs is found at Minnesota Statutes, sections � Y 469.001-.047. M anv existing HRAs were created prior to 1987 when the legislature compiled all development statutes in Chapter 469 and, therefore, were created under the predecessor law, Minnesota Statutes • , sections 462.411 -.711. Several metro area county HRAs exist by virtue of special law. 2. who Mav Create (a) Municipal al HRA. The governing body of any statutory or home rule charter city reate a municipal HRA. However, if a county or multicounty HRA has been may c P created in the count in which a city is located and the county or multicounty HRA. is active, the ci ty must obtain the consent of the county or multicounty HRA and . the commissioner of trade and economic development before establishing a municipal HRA in that city. bo of an cou (b) County HRA. The governing y y other than Ramsey County and anv count in which a county HRA has been created by special law, may create a V Y county HRA. r (c) Multicounty HRA. The governin bodies of anv two or more counties or cities, or combinations of counties and cities, may create a multicounty HRA. 3. C reation Process P (a) Municipal HRA. A municipal HRA is created through the adoption by the city's g overning g body of a resolution containing the findings as to the existence of g bli areas and the shortage of available housing for low income persons and ., families contained at section 469.003 subd. 1, and that there is a need for a municipal HRA to function in the city. The resolution may only be adopted following a public hearing held after publication of notice in a newspaper of Ge neral circulation culation in the city at least once not less than ten or more than thirty days _ before the hearing. g created through the adoption by the county's (b) County HRA. A county HRA is � P governing body of a resolution containing the findings required for the creation of a g ' municipa HRA at section 469.003, subd. 1, and that there is a need for a county HRA to function in the county. multicounty HRA is created through the adoption b (c) Multicounty HRA. A m y y the governing bodies of two or more counties or cities or combinations of counties or ' ' g re is a need for one HRA to exercise its powers in those cities declarin that the political subdivisions and after making certain findings, required by section 469.004, subd. 3, as to blight, shortage of available Q - • housin for low income persons and as to the desirability of consolidating HRA p owers ' ,. p in one entity. 4. Board of Commissioners. (a) Board Composition. (i) Municipal HRA. A municipal HRA is cr ,� overned by afive- person board of commissioners. The members must be residents of the cit and are appointed by the mayor with the approval of the cit • • . PP ty council. Initial appointments are for terms of one, two, three, four and five years, respectively. Thereafter, all appointments are for terms of five years. The members of the city council may serve as the HRA's commissioners. ssioners. County HRA. A county HRA is overned five- person by a five person board of commissioners appointed by the county board of commissioners. The membership of the commission is to reflect an area wide e distribution on a representative basis throughout the area of operation P of the HRA. Appointments are for five years except for the initial a • are staQQered i appointments, which �,� n the same manner as municipal HRAs. I* Multicounty HRA. A multicount Q y HRA i s g overned by a board of commissioners, the members of which are appointed • Pp by the respective participating political subdivisions which adopted re • p solutions authorizing the creation of the HRA. (b) Compensation. HRA commissioners are entitled to receive necessary e xpenses, including traveling • g of their d expenses, incurred in the performance dutie In additio ' n, Commissioners may be paid up to $5.00 for attending each regular and ' special .meeting of the R.A. HRA Commissioners who are elected officials or full time employees of the State or a political subdivision of the State, may not • � receive the daily payment, but may be reimbursed for expenses. ( c) Meetin (i) Place of Meetings. Regular me Q i g etings of an HRA, must be held n a fixed place, except that the meetings of a multicounty HRA may be held any where within the boundaries of the area of o etion of th .ra P e HRA or any additional area where the HRA is authorized to undertake a ' prod ect. (ii) Open Meetings. Meetings of an HRA are subject t to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes Section 471.705 which, h with certain exceptions, requires that all meetings be open to the public. At an meeting g required to be op en to the public, at least one copy of all materials relating to the a o ms of the meeting available to the commissioners must also ; enda items • inspection by the public, except for items classified as of be available for inspec p nonpublic under the data privacy laws. If during an open meeting, it is necessary to discuss data which is not classified as public data under the • Privacy Laws, the commissioners must Minnesota P make reasonable . protect from disclosure that data. Such efforts may efforts to pro include acting which does by means of reference to a letter, number or other designation not reveal the identity of the subject of the data. s. In order to hold a special meeting it is necessary to post Special Meeting . written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board of the HRA and mailed or delivered to each person written request for notice of special meetings. The notice who has filed a q must be posted and mailed or delivered at least three days before the date of • ilinQ or delivering notice is to publish the the meeting. An alternative to ma notice in the official newspaper a er of the HRA at least three days before the meeting. (d) (e) Removal from Office. • neglect of duty or misconduct in :office be A Commissioner may, for inefficiency, negl . body of the commissioners b the governing removed from the board of co Y • • prior to a hearing at which the commissioner has an municipality. At least ten days p . person or by counsel, the opportunity to be heard in commissioner must be given a p • commissioner may, ending final action on the charges, copy of any char The comm Y p e tem orarily suspended by the governing body. b p Conflict of Interest. (i) Disclosure of Conflict. Commissioners (and employees) are prohibited by Section 469.009 from taking action or making decisions which could substantially affect their financial interest or those . of an organization with which they are associated. If the existence of a potential conflict of interest becomes known to a commissioner (or employee) there must be submitted to the board of commissioners a written statement describing the matter requiring action or decision and the nature of the potential conflict of ter interest. This statement must be submitted comes commissioner (or employee) be aware of the potential confl ct of interest. For a period of one year after termination of the position of commissioner (or employee), no former commissioner (or former employee) of an HRA may appear personally before any court or governmental department or agency as agent or attorney for anyone other than the HRA in connection with any matter in which the HRA is substantially interested in and with respect to which the commissioner (or employee) took any action or made any decision as commissioner (or employee) at any time within a period of one year prior to termination of the position. (iii) Commissioners (and employees may participate in HRA programs to provide financial assistance or financing for real property, but such participation, other than in rental assistance programs, may not occur more than once. 5. Area of Operation (a) Municipal HRA. The area of operation of a municipal HRA is the city within which it is located and which created it. (b) County HRA. The area of operation of a county HRA is the county which created it. However, a county HRA may not undertake any project within the boundaries of a city which has not empowered the county HRA to operate in the city unless the city adopts a resolution declaring that there is a need for the county HRA to exercise its powers in the city. Special rules apply to the undertaking by a county or multicounty HRA of a housing project or housing development project involving the acquisition of multifamily housing rental properties. that were financed under federal section 8 or section 236 programs or are designed to be affordable to low and modern income families. (c) Multicounty HRA. The area of operation of a multicounty HRA includes all of the political subdivisions for which it was created. However, a multicounty HRA may not undertake any project within the boundaries of a city which has not empowered the county HRA to operate in the city unless the city adopts a resolution declaring that there is a need for the county HRA to exercise its powers in the city. 6. Joint Powers Agreements HRAs may participate in joint powers agreements under Minnesota Statutes Section 471.59, which allows two or more governmental units to jointly .or cooperatively exercise any power, common to those parties or any similar powers, including those powers which are the same except for the territorial limits within which they may be exercised. In essence, joint powers agreements allow an HRA to contract with another governmental subdivision to jointly undertake projects outside of its area of operation. In addition, an HRA may enter into agreements with any other governmental unit to perform on behalf of that unit any service or function which the HRA is authorized to provide for itself. 7. Powers to Undertake Proiects HRAs have the powers to undertake the following defined "projects": L (a) Housin P rojects. Housing projects, defined at Section 469.002, subd. 1-3'., are any � J ects. .. P ro work or ndertaking to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for low income ., persons and their families. ( b ) Housing Development Projects. Housing development projects, defined at Section 4 6 9.002, subd. 15. are anv work or undertaking to provide housing for persons of moderate income and their families. Projects. Redevelopment projects, defined at Section 469.002, (c) Redevelopment J P projects, are briefly any work or undertaking to acquire blighted and other real subd. 14, property and the taking of actions such as demolition, clearance and site preparation to eliminate and remove the blight and the causes of blight. Interest Reduction Projects. Interest reduction projects, defined at Section 469.012, (d) I J subd. 7, include programs to pay interest on loans made to finance the construction, rehabilitation, and purchase of housing intended primarily for occupancy by reh P individuals of low or moderate income and for related and subordinate facilities and to pay interest on loans under a commercial rehabilitation loan program undertaken pursuant to Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.184. If an interest reduction project is u ndertaken b an HRA, and the housing assisted is not a rental housing development located in a target area as defined in the Minnesota Housing Finance Ac laws there must be c with specified income limitations of renters in g ating in an interest reduction ` A P the assisted housin unit. An y developer P P artici P must enter into an agreement with the HRA providing for payment to the pro, ram m agreement HRA of a portion of the proceeds from the sale of such assisted development. 8. Miscellaneous Powers. above powers to undertake projects, HRAs have certain other powers. In addition to the abo p P J The following are some of those additional powers: v (a) Scattered Site Acquisition. Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.012, subd. 1(7), provides that an HRA may undertake, without adoption of an urban renewal plan, pro Y the acquisition of real property and the demolition, removal, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of buildings and improvements on such property or the construction � of new improvements on the property. Real property with buildings or P P improvements may a only when the buildings or improvements are y be ac q nt domain may be used to substandard, and the power of eminent y a land only if q tains buildings and imp rovements which are vacated and substandard. the land con b P contains a definition of what constitutes " Section 469.012, subd. subd. 1 ( 7 ) buildings or improvements. • Section 469.012, subd. 1(' 0), allows an HRA to (b) Acquisition of Assisted Housing prop acquire and sell real that is benefited by federal housing assistance 1* payments, other rental subsidies, or interest reduction payments or contracts for the purpose of preserving the affordability of low and moderate income multifamily of housing within the HRA's area of operation. (c) Rehabilitation Loan and Grant Program. Section 469.012, subd. 6, allows an HRA to undertake a program to provide housing rehabilitation loans and grants for property within the HR.A's area of operation which is owned by persons of low and moderate income. An HRA is authorized under Section 469.012, subd. 1(8), to establish the level of income constituting low or moderate family income. (d) Parking Facilities. Section 469.012, subd. 12, allows an HRA to operate and maintain public parking facilities in connection with any of its projects. (e) Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program. Cities have the authority to establish and undertake programs for municipal commercial rehabilitation loans for small and medium size buildings. Such programs are intended to provide lower than market rate interest to finance rehabilitation of commercial buildings. If a city establishes such a program, it may also by ordinance, designate its HRA to exercise any and all powers available to the City on behalf of the City. (f) Loans for Economic Development Purposes. Section 469.192 empowers an HRA to make loans to businesses, for - profit or non - profit organizations, or individuals for any purpose that the HRA is otherwise authorized to carry out under law. 9. Acquisition and Sale of Property HR.As are authorized to acquire real or personal property which the HRA determines is necessary to carry out a project or to eliminate one of the conditions found to exist in the resolution adopted creating the HRA. The power of eminent domain may be used to acquire the property, except in the case of an acquisition under 8(a)(i) above in which case the property acquired must contain buildings and improvements which are vacated and substandard. Property P rty acquired may be sold only after consideration of the sale at a public hearing, notice of which has been published at least once not less than ten or more than thirty days before the hearing. If the property is located in a redevelopment project, the HRA must restrict the ability of the purchaser to transfer the property until improvements required to be constructed in accordance with the redevelopment plan have been completed. 10. Financing (a) Nfinnesota Statutes Section 469.0 4, allows HR.As to issue bonds for any of their corporate purposes. The bonds may be general obligation bonds of the HRA or revenue bonds payable solely from specific revenues pledged to the payment of the bonds. ent. HRAs have the legal authority (b) Tax Increm � under the tax increment financing law Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 -.179, to create tax increment financing L i ti districts to pro .. vide a source of funding for its projects. Tax increment from such tax increment districts. or the proceeds of tai increment bonds may be used only to " is reue��elo merit costs' of a project undertaken by the HRA. "Public pa` the public, P e�lelo ment costs" is defined as ;the entire cost of a housing project, housing red p development P roject. redevelopment project, or interest reduction project. P (c) If the cit council for the city within which an HRA was created consents, the HRA • ax on all taxable ro erty in its area of operation in an amount up to mad levy a t P P .01 � percent ercent of taxable market value to be used to finance its operations. An levy of u to .001-) percent of taxable market value may be levied to pav additional p the cost of informational services and relocation assistance. (d) Industrial Revenue Bonds. HRAs have the legal authority to issue industrial . revenue bonds to finance projects ects under the municipal industrial development laws. Minnesota Statutes Section 469.152-1.65 1. Bonds. County HRAs or an (e) Housin Revenue Bond Y municipal HRA which has been authorized by ordinance of its Citv to exercise the powers of a city under the Minnesota Housing Finance AQencv Laws, may issue housing revenue bonds to finance ho using developments under the laws and regulations relating to the � Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. venue Bonds. An HRA may ledge the general obligation of ( General Obligation Re ., P the case of a Municipal HRA, or its , its city m county in the case of a county HRA P payable as additional security ay for bonds able from income or revenue of a project or of the HRA. The HRA must find that pledged revenues will equal or exceed 110% o of the principal and interest due on the bonds for each vear. The bonds must be used to finance a qualified g P 1' fied housin development project or projects. The principal amount of the bonds must be approved by the governing body whose general ed. The maximum amount of bonds that may be issued is the obligation is pledg Q reater of 1 /2 of 1% of the taxable market value of the governmental unit whose g general obligation is pledged or $3,000,000.00. 9 is n MEMORANDUM CITY OF SSE N 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Pl.aiming Director DATE: January 29, 1997 SLTBJ: Comprehensive Plan Update When the Legislature passed a law stating that the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance must be in compliance by 1998, it has signifcaD:t implications for the City of Chanhassen. As a part of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Man, the land use component has been updated. "I areas of the city that were not guided for a future land use were given one or in some cases a number of alternatives. The next step is to update the rest of the comprehensive plan. This is an immense task that will take at least one year. In examining the city's 1991 Comprehensive Plan, it is interesting to note that many of the goals and policies have been met. For example, the completion of the city's Storm Water Management Plan, encouraging the cooperative effort between the school district and the city (Bluff Creek Elementary and the Recreation Center), completion of the Hwy. 5 Corridor Study which revisited land uses and provided the located for the access boulevard, and most recently, the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Plan. Staff has selected Mark Koegler to assist staff in the process. As a part of the updating process, staff wanted to ensure that the public has an opportunity to comment on the elements of the plan. This is the city's growth document and the vision for our future citizens and input is vital to the adoption and implementation. Attached is Mark Koegler's comment on the process. One of the strategic components of the comprehensive plan is the staging of the MUSA line. The new growth options approved by the Metropolitan Council gives cities the ability to determine the areas to be brought into the Urban Service Area by the year 2020. Planning Commission January 27, 1997 Page 2 The excitin g g thin about updating the plan at this time is the city's ability to provide better data bases on the eo a hic information system. The city has significantly more data. and will be g �' p able to provide more' reliable data. In addition, we will be able to provide better maps. This should make the new comprehensive plan more user friendly. Attached are Mark Koe g ler's thoughts on the process and the elements that must be in the comprehensive plan as directed by the Metropolitan Council. \ \cfs l \volt \plan \ka \comp plan process.doc - 612- 835 -3160 MEMORANDUM TO: Date Aanenson DATE: Mark Koegler 499 P02 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc, SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Update and Overlay ordinance FROM: Mark Koegler Preliminary thor4ghts on the Comprehensive Plan Update: JAN 28 ' 97 12: 53 H K 3 1 * The current Comprehensive Plan update is different than those that have been done in the past, Over the y ast few ears, the THIS Corridor Study and the Bluff Creep watershed Managerncnt Plan have p effectively_ planned land use for the remaining vacant areas in the City. As a result, the large scale debates on general land use issues have talon place and the emphasis of the plan will need to be to supply needed detail that supplements the general planning direction that has been set. Since the plan update will be different than those completed in the past, a different scope of work will be required for the overall effort. In general, the scope can be broken down into the following components: Task I w Identify What-Exists -Forecast Growth This task will establish the current basis for planning in Chanhassen. It should include an update of demographic information to 1996 including current households and population based on City building permit records. The updated household and population count should be compared to the current and long range projections of the Metropolitan Council to verify or possibly modify the projections. As a component of Task 1, the City will need to update base mapping. Current maps should be prepared in a GIS format that depicts existing land use, transportation, and parks. If possible, it would be helpful to establish a data base link between mapping and property information such as appraised value. Such a base could be helpful in addressing the financial impacts of the future mix of land uses that are identified in the plan. At a minimum, housing information could be included in the land use data base providing a constant tool for comparing the quantities of single family housing versus other attached forms of housing (possibl even affordable vs higher cost housing). Task 2 Involve Stakeholders In order for the Comprehensive Plan to effectively serve the City of Chanhassen, it is important that it have support from residents and business persons in the community. Public participation in the planning process needs to recognize that a great deal of public input has gone into shaping the plan into its present form. Both the Highway 5 Flan and the Bluff Creek Flan involved the general public HOISINGTON KOEGLER 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835 -9960 Fax (612) 835 -3160 612 - 835 -3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER 499 P03 JAN 28 1 97 12:53 Memorandum January 28, 1997 Page 2 including directly impacted property owners. As a result, the public input process needs to have two a components. First, it needs to provide summary of what has taken place and the basis for the P P Y decisions that have - been made. This component is important because the City is not looking to ``reinvent the wheel" when it comes to land use decisions that have been adopted by the City Council as art of previous studies. Secondly, it needs to solicit ideas from the public on policies and actions that will be necessary to implement the plan. In other words, present the general concepts as the direction that has been adopted by the City but seek ideas and assistance into how those concepts are to be implemented over the long run. AnaPP P g appropriate format for seeking public involvement in the Plan update might be to schedule a series of P ublic informational meetings in different geographic areas of the community. The appropriate number of such meetings may be only two with breakdowns north and south, of TH5 or they may involve 4 or 5 total sessions with different geographic delineations. Presumably, the Plannin g Y Commission will be the body charged with overseeing the plan update and therefore, they g would host the public information sessions. In addition to the organized public involvement Sessions, other measures should be used to keep g residents informed during the planning process. Articles in the local paper as well as articles in the community P 8 newsletter or even special mailings could be used to keep the public informed of progress as well as key meeting dates for various Planning Commission discussion items. Task 3 w Deveto the plan and Strate ies - Seek A rovws Based on input received in Task 2, this task will involve the detailing of plan concepts and policies and the documentation, in draft form, of the Comprehensive Flan. The following will be included as part of the plan: 1. Introduction and purpose 2. Policies 3. Summary of previous planning efforts 4. Land Use Section 5. Housing Section* 6. water resources Management* 7. Historic Preservation* 8. Solar Access* 9. 'Transportation* 10. Aviation* 11. wastewater* 12. Park and Recreation* 13. water Supply* 14. Community Facilities 15. Ordinance Framework* 16. Capital Improvement Program* 17. Action Plan for Implementation * Items identified in your outline dated July, 1996. 612 - 835 -3160 HOISINGTON KOEGLER Memorandum January 28, 1997 Page 3 499 PO4 JAN 28 '97 12:54 This task will involve a series of meeting with the Planning ommission o r v` ' g t re v# various graphics and text related to each of the plan components identified above. This task will also involve the fonnaI public hearing. If the public has been kept informed during the planning process and has had the opportunity to provide meaningful input, the public hearing should become almost a formality Building public ownership of the plan during the planning process will not only lead to a less contentious public hearing but it will also provide greater support for implementation of the p lan, Task 4 - Document the Results After the draft Comprehensive Plan has been approved by the Metropolitan Council and adopted b the City Counci this task will involve putting the document into f nal forth. Tasks will include desktop publishing of the text, completion of final maps and graphics and printing of the r e q uired . , g � number of copies. In addition to the full plan, the City may grant to consider a larger printing of a g P g plan summary that could be available for wider distribution. Such summaries usuiall Y include the future land use map on one side and summary text on the other side. Schedule B • sed on the components of the comprehensive plan that are identified above, it seems reasonable to establish a one year time frame for overall completion. Establishing a schedule with public P g P hearings in February of 1998 should be realistic. Over the course of the next month or so, the Metropolitan Council is going to be setting meetings with munici alines to review g P g p comprehensive planning requirements. information from those meetings may be helpful in determining a final schedule. Summary of Materials Needed in a Comprehensive Plan Policies and Background Section > A short description of your community, as well as goals and policy statements guiding its development. • Land Use Section Showing Existing Land Use > Acreage numbers for existing land uses. > A map showing the land use categories and densities of residential uses. > A list of development restrictions and other factors reducing development densities. > Ordinances prohibiting development on lands other than wetlands. Land Use Section Showing Future Development > A calculation of future land needs. A ma p showing stages of future residential and commercial /industrial development and other land uses for the years 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2020. Housing > Number of housing units and households. Description of your community's housing needs. > Housing goals and program for life -cycle housing community. > Housing p olicies that indicate your community's approach to its housing needs. > Housing implementation program to achieve your community's housing goals. Water Resources Management > The water resources management plan your community prepared for your watershed management organization. > The Council's Interim Strategy to Reduce Nonpoint Source Pollution to All Metropolitan Area Water Bodies. Historic Preservation > An inventory g , of historic buildings, properties and natural resources your community intends p p to preserve. > A Y description of our community's goals and policies for historic preservation. p > A map or list identifying historic buildings, properties and natural resources intended for preservation. A79 July 1996 Solar Access Protection > A description of goals and policies intended to protect solar access. > A description of your community's plans for implementing these goals and policies. Transportation Existing Traffic Conditions > Map of specific types of uses and densities that could affect metropolitan highways. > A street map showing the number of lanes per roadway. Existing average daily traffic (ADT) for major roads (at a minimum, principal and "A" minor arterials). > Analysis of existing problems. Future Traffic Demand > Changes in land use or, population and employment that may impact future traffic. > A map of projected future traffic volumes for the year 2020, with documentation. > Map of principal arterials. > Map showing functional classification of roadways within your community, include the various types of minor arterials. > Plan, including map, for managing goods movement in your community. Non - Freeway Highways Under City or County Jurisdiction > Plan, including map, for protecting non - freeway highways from unplanned access or crossing. Support for Transit and Alternatives to Single - Occupant Vehicles > Description of facilities and programs supporting transit and other alternatives to the single - occupant auto. > Map of transit routes. > Description of your community's travel- demand strategies and programs. > Corridors already designated as high- frequency transit corridors. > If your community wants new transit service, (1) information on density, travel demand and transit- dependent populations in areas proposed for new or extended transit service, and (2) a map of areas prposed for concentrated, mixed -use development to be coordinated with transit. > Plan, including map, for managing bicycle and pedestrian facilities in your community. A80 July 1996 Aviation > Map of all structures 500 ' feet above ground level. > Lo cation of an special aviation facilities and functions in off - airport areas, including easement areas and appropriate local protection measures. > Ma p permanent ermanent p rivate and emergency -use airports and heliports allowed by your community's zoning and/or permit. > Ma p g g showing designated lakes for seaplane bases (if applicable). Wastewater Future Service Needs and Efficient Use of Existing Facilities Completed work j sheet "Pro' ectin g Your Community's Future Wastewater Flows into the Metropolitan Wastewater System," page A53. showing the interceptor service areas and staging of Maps g development within service areas p . for 2000 (or current year), 2005, 2010 and 2020, plus prod ected land uses for 2000 (or current year), 2005 and 2010. > Comp worksheet "Preventing and Reducing Infiltration and Inflow into the Metropolitan Wastewater System," page A59. > A ma p showing ur treatment plant's service area and staging of development (if your gy community has a municipal treatment plant). Completed w orksheet "Projecting Future Wastewater Flows into Your City's Municipal > o � g Wastewater System" ( if our community has a municipal treatment plant), page A61. y y > Completed leted worksheet "Preventing and Reducing Infiltration and Inflow into Your Municipal Treatment Plant" (if your community has a municipal treatment plant), page A63. Management of On -Site Systems and Community Treatment Plants d greater than 64 units > A map showing areas zone per 640 acres, areas not suitable for on -site g p public and private treatments stems (institutional, commercial or systems, and locations of p p y y residential). > A description of your community's requirements governing private treatment systems. > Capacity and existing wastewater flows to public and private community treatment systems. p ty g Recreation Open Space Existing and Future Facilities > Ma p g g showing existing and proposed open space facilities in your community. > Description of your community's recreation needs to the year 2010. goals, objectives, policies, standards and > Your community's go � , p � programs to meet existing and p anticipated demand for local recreation facilities to the year 2010. > Your communi ty y p 's five-year capital improvement program identifying proposed local parks projects and funding sources. A81 July 1996 Relationship to Regional Open Space > Description of any local parks or trails that connect with or otherwise affect regional, quasi - public or neighboring parks or trails, including a description of the location and proposed development schedule of the link. > Description of any use of regional parks or trails as part of the local park or trail system and the function they will serve in the local system. Protection of Open Space Lands > Policies to protect regional recreation open space lands from adverse impacts from inappropriate development or activity on adjacent lands. > Land use policies that will minimize conflicts between existing or proposed land uses and existing regional parks, park reserves or trails. Description of existing or proposed programs and ordinances to protect existing regional park and trail property located in the community or adjacent to it. > Land use regulations to protect potential regional park and trail areas from incompatible development prior to park and trail acquisition. > Description of existing or proposed programs that community is undertaking or will undertake with regional implementing agencies to acquire and/or develop regional parks or trails. Water Supply > The water supply plan prepared using the Metropolitan Area Community Water Supply Plan Content Guidelines prepared by the Council. Ordinances > Copies of ordinances that implement your community's comprehensive plan (for Council's information only). Capital Improvement Program > An itemized program for a five- year prospective period, and any applicable amendments. > The schedule, timing and details of specific contemplated capital improvements, by year. > The estimated cost of each improvement. > Financial sources proposed to be used to pay for the improvement. > An analysis of the financial impact that the improvements will have on your governmental unit. Intergovernmental Coordination (optional section) > A statement that acknowledges the need for cooperation among local units of government. > A description of the process your community will use to determine which units of government will be affected by land use and urban service decisions made your community. > A commitment to communicate with other affected units of government during your A82 July 1996 decision - making process and to use the opportunities presented by land use and urban service decisions to explore ways to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of public services. Economic Development and Redevelopment (optional section) > A description of business activity your community expects to retain and attract, and resulting tax -base growth. > If your community is pursuing economic development, a description of plans for mixed -use developments. > If your community is pursuing redevelopment, an inventory of candidate sites redevelopment priorities and criteria. A83 July 1996 CITY OF 1 ' CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 0 FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Bob Generous, Senior Planner DATE: January 3 0, 19 9 SUBJ: PUD Ordinance BACKGROUND In July 1995, the city amended the PUD ord-11 ance as part of the "Cffltch" ordinance revising the calculation of density from gross to net density, consistent with the requirta.ments of the comprehensive plan.. In November 1992, the city amended the PUD ordinance. At than tinge, the min.irnum lot size for single - family detached housing was established. at 11 ,000 square feet with. an average lot size of 15,000 square feet. Staff and the Plartninct Commission had recommended 9,000 square ft�ot minimum lots, however, the City Council reprised the number. In the summer of 1991, the city amended the PUD ordinance, creating an expanded intent section for the ordinance and establishing procedural requirements. It should be noted that the reference to gross density was specifically addressed and it was the intent of the ordinance to use gross density calculations to determine the number of units that would be permitted as part of a development. However, the comprehensive plan specified net density. In November 1986, the city adopted a PUD ordinance. In November 1995, the City of Chanhassen agreed to participate in the Livable Communities Act and in December 1 995 adopted housing goals. In June 1996, the City adopted an action plan for the implementation of the housing goals. The three areas the city has to address in meeting requirements of the Livable Communities Act are Life - cycle, Density and Affordable. Planning Commission PUD Ordinance Page 2 • Life -cycle housing is made up of two components. The number of non-traditional housing or percentage of housing that is not single family detached. The other component is the ratio of owner occupied units to renter units. • Densi ty compares the number of units to the acres of development. This ratio is applied to p low density and multifamily. • Affordable is that percentage of new housing nits that will be affordable. For 1997, the Met g Council considers those owner occupied units under $120,000 affordable. Rental affordability it Y percentage i s the ercenta e of rental units with rents under $ 6 8 3 . Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan The e com rehensi plan provides guidance in revisions to the PUD ordinance that may be P appropriate. ro riate. The following goal and policies are directly related to what we would like to accomplish as part of any revisions to the PUD ordinance. Goal: To provide housing opportunities for all residents consistent with the identified community development goal. Policies: The C y P City of Chanhassen will attempt to provide adequate land for projected housing growth and to provide opportunities for persons of a range of incomes. be given equal site and planning Subsidized housing should g q P g considerations to non - subsidized p housing units and should not be laced in inferior locations or in areas that are not provided with necessary urban services. of alternative types of housing The development yp g such as patio homes, townhouses, and uad lexes should be permitted to supplement conventional single - family homes and apartments q p p providing Y are rovidin that the compatible with appropriate land use practices and are representative of com p high quality development. New residential development should be discouraged from encroaching upon vital natural resources or P h Y sical features that perform essential protection functions in their natural state. Housin g developments ments such as PUDs, cluster development and innovative site plans and building types encouraged es should be to help conserve energy and resources used for housing. g Planning Commission PUD Ordinance Page 3 Bluff Creek Study In December 1996, Chanhassen approved the Bluff Creek Study which provided direction in land use and development design along bluff creek. While some of the elements for the implementation will be incorporated in an overlay district, portions can and will be implemented as part of the PUD ordinance. In addition, some elements such as density transfer, cluster development, enhanced standards for the preservation of natural resources may be desirable throughout the community. City Ordinances The following actions are possible actions the city should undertake to pursue life -cycle and affordable housing: • Promote Life cycle compatible with existing housing. • Review city ordinance regulations especially the PUD ordinance and lot size /zero lot and design standard including street widths. • Pursue the upper limits of zoning on new proposals where there is a density range. • Require a percentage of medium and high density to have a number of affordable units. • Provide for mixed use projects with a transit component. EXISTING ORDINANCE Section 20 -501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through. the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Planning Commission PUD Ordinance Page 4 3. High quality design � compatible h uali of desi and design with surrounding land uses, including both p existin g an p d lanned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. p 4. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. 5. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 6. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such ens p p ark and o ace shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and p overall trail plan. 7. Provision of housin g affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. g 8. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic 9. Use of tra g g q conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. ANALYSIS /ISSUES options for development on low density The current zoning op p y residential lands are the RSF district which requires a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, the R4 district which. requires minimum lot sizes for famil - sin le detached houses of 15,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet. for each single-family duplex unit, and the PUD district which permits a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet but requires an average lot size within the development of 15,000 square feet. While the purpose ose h u of the PUD is to provide enhanced flexibility, due to the requirements contained in the ordinance there are severe constraints placed on the flexibility. Section 20 -505 Required general standards. Density g - i transfer within s developments is limited to lot size variation. Density y p transfer from multi-family is not permitted to low density areas. This may interfere with city efforts at reservin natural areas, such as Bluff Creek, which have a higher land use p g classification. The cit y under current ordinance would lose this density. Planning Commission PUD Ordinance Page 5 Density may not exceed the net density ranges identified in the comprehensive plan. However, as stated above, the city may lose some density due to this. In addition, in order to provide affordable housing, the city may wish to look at providing density incentives that may exceed the net density for a particular land use. Although, within the current ordinance, the city may permit up to 25 percent of the building area to be used other than those specified in the comprehensive plan. Section 20 -506 Standards and guidelines for single - family detached residential planned unit developments. Minimum lot size requirements preclude the provision of zero lot line and cluster housing or attached single - family which may be appropriate designs to preserve significant natural features or to create additional open space. Section 20 -508, Standards and guidelines for single- family attached or cluster -home PUDs. Non - traditional single - family housing is only permitted in these areas. There is a glitch in the ordinance that first requires a minimum lot size then states that there is no minimum lot size. Examples There are several development examples in which the city could have had more sensitive development had we had more flexibility within the PUD ordinance and better resource protection criteria. Stone Creek Addition. Part of the site was agricultural field and part of the site was heavily wooded. By reducing the lot sizes and concentrating the development in the open field, the city may have been. able to preserve a large area of central hardwoods. Creekside Addition. This site is adjacent to Bluff Creek and also contains an example of a central hardwood forest. Had the city been able to transfer density within the project, the hardwood forest may have been preserved and additional view corridors to Bluff Creek and the wetland complex may have been provided. Shamrock Ridge Addition. An area of steep slopes which did not meet the Bluff Ordinance criteria, located in the western third of the project, may have been preserved had the city had a more flexible PUD ordinance. Again, the density of this area could have been transferred to less sensitive areas. Planning Commission PUD Ordinance Page 6 RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the PUD ordinance and provide direction in amendin g the ordinance to implement city goals and policies. Specifically, staff is requesting discussion of the following ideas: 1. Since p reservation of natural areas are a primary goal of the PUD, revise the process to require that 1) resource areas are identified, 2) housing and building sites are located to maximize views and access to open spaces, and 3) design road systems that incorporate 1 and 2. 2. Require that pedestrian and vehicular linkages are provided from. the PUD to adjacent q development. 3. Develo p criteria for the transitioning of densities between existing and proposed developments. One alternative is to require lot sizes at least 80 percent as large as those required in RSF districts immediately adjacent to existing subdivisions (i.e. 12,000 square feet). to minimum lot sizes for low density development 4. Eliminate y and base the number of -units on p density. Permit zero lot line, clustered, and single- family attached housing in low density areas when appropriate. In addition, develop criteria for locating non - tradition residential developments, e.g., must be accessed via collector or arterial roadways, must be adjacent to p higher density land uses or non - residential land uses, preserves significant natural features, etc. Require the provision of public or common o S. Requ en spaces as a percent of the entire site. p p p 6. Provide rovide density bonuses for the provision of affordable housing including rental housing. A bonus of 25 p ercent in the allowed density based on the land use designation for meeting city housing goals may be appropriate. 1. PUD Ordinance § 20 -487 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Secs. 20- 487 - 20.500. Reserved, ARTICLE VIII. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT* DIVISION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 20.501. Intent. Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relax- ation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfers of density, construction phasing and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the city has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the use of other, more standard zoning districts. It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the city's expectation is to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria. Planned unit developments are to en- courage the following: (1) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensi- tive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. (2) More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. (3) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned. Site planning, landscaping and building architecture should reflect higher quality design than is found elsewhere in the community. (4) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city. (5) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (6) Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the comprehensive park plan and overall trail plan. (7) Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate within the PUD. (8) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. *Editor's note — Section 1 of Ord. No. 149, adopted June 24, 1991, amended Art. VIII, Div. 1, to read as herein set out. Prior to amendment, Art. VIII, Div. 1, contained §§ 20- 501 -20 -505, pertaining to similar subject matter and deriving from Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5- 18-1 -5- 18-5), adopted Dec. 15, 1986, and Ord. No. 136, § 1, adopted Jan. 28, 1991. Supp. No. 7 1200 ZONING § 20 -502 (9) Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appro- priate. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6- 24 -91) Sec. 20 -502. Allowed uses. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a develop- ment plan. (1) Each PUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the city may permit up to twenty -five (25) percent of the gross floor area of all buildings in a PUD to be used for land uses for which the site is not designated in the comprehensive plan if the city council finds that such use is in the best interests of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this section. Specific uses and performance standards for each PUD shall be delineated in a PUD development plan. Supp. No. 7 1200.1 ZONING _ § 20 -505 (2) Where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the comprehensive plan, city may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the city council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this article and the comprehensive plan. ( Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6- 24 -91) Sec. 20 -503. District size and location. (a) Each PUD shall have a minimum area of five (5) acres, unless the applicant can demonstrate the existence of one of the following: (1) Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a PUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. (2) The property is directly adjacent to or across a right -of -way from property which has been developed previously as a PUD or planned unit residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. (3) The property is located in a transitional area between different land use categories or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 149, § 1 6- 24 -91) Sec. 20 -504. Coordination with other zoning regulations (a) Subdivision review under chapter 18 shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of a PUD. The plans required under this chapter shall be submitted in addition to or in a form which will satisfy the requirements of chapter 18 for the preliminary and final plat. (b) Site plan review under article II, division 6 of this Code shall be carried out for each non - single - family or duplex principal structure, that is proposed. (c) PUD plans shall be coordinated with and in compliance with provisions of article V, Flood Plain Overlay District; article VI, Wetland Protection, and article VII, Shoreland Overlay District. (Ord.-No. 149, § 1 6- 24 -91) Sec. 20 -505. Required general standards (a) The city shall consider the proposed PUD from the point of view of all standards and purposes of the comprehensive land use plan to coordinate between the proposed development and the surrounding use. The city shall consider the location of buildings, compatibility, parking areas and other features with response to the topography of the area and existing natural features, the . efficiency, adequacy and safety of the proposed layout of streets; the adequacy and location of green areas; the adequacy, location and screening of noncom p atible land uses and parking areas. Supp. No. s 1200.3 § 20 -505 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (b) The applicant shall demonstrate that the PUD plan offers the city higher quality architectural and site design, landscaping, protection of wetlands, creeks and mature trees and buffering for adjoining properties that represent improvements over normal ordinance standards. (c) Density. An increase /transfer for density may be allowed at the sole discretion of the city utilizing the following factors: (1) Density within a PUD shall be calculated on gross acreage located within the property lines of the site in accordance with the land use plan. (2) The area where the density is transferred must be within the project area and owned by the proponent. (3) Density transfer in single - family detached area will be evaluated using the items listed in section 20 -506. Density transfer eligible for multiple - family areas are not permitted to be applied to single- family areas. (4) In no case shall the overall density of the development exceed the net density ranges identified in the comprehensive plan. (d) The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density and other standards for developments providing low and moderate cost housing. Incentives may be approved by the city only after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to ensure that the low and moderate income for a specific period of time. (e) Hard surface coverage shall be limited as follows: Comprehensive Hard Surface Plan Designation Coverage ( %) Low or medium density residential 30 High density residential 50 Office 70 Commercial (neighborhood or community) 70 Commercial (regional) 70 Industrial 70 Individual lots within PUD may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. (f) The setback for all buildings within a PUD from any abutting street line shall be thirty (30) feet for local streets and fifty (50) feet from railroad lines for collector or arterial streets, as designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building -up to a maximum of one hundred (100) feet. The setback for all buildings from exterior PUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be thirty (30) feet Supp. No. 8 1200.4 ZONING § 20 -505 except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building up to a maximum of one hundred (100) feet. Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be setback at least twenty (20) feet from all exterior lot lines of a PUD. The setback for parking structures including decks and ramps shall be thirty -five (35) feet from local streets and fifty (50) feet from all other street classifications except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking structure setbacks from external lot lines shall be fifty (50) feet or the height of the structure, whichever is greater where adjacent to residential property; thirty -five (35) feet when adjacent to nonresidential properties. Parking structures setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific PUD. Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single- family lots outside the PUD, greater exterior building and parking setbacks may be required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features such as roadways and wetlands which provide separation of uses. PUD's must be developed in compliance with buffer yard requirements established by the comprehensive plan. (g) More than one (1) building may be placed on one (1) platted or recorded lot in a PUD. (h) At the time PUD approval is sought from the city, all property to be included within a PUD shall be under unified ownership or control or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. After approval, parcels may be sold to other parties without restriction, however, all parcels will remain subject to the PUD development contract that will be recorded in each chain -of- title. (i) Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants, established in the PUD Development Contract. (j) The requirements contained in article XXIII, General Supplemental Regulations, article XXIV, Off - street Parking and Loading, and article Y V, Landscaping and Tree Removal, may be applied by the city as it deems appropriate. (k) The uniqueness of each PUD required that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this [article] or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the PUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. Supp. No. 8 1200.5 § 20 -505 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE (1) No buildin g or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved PUD nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved PUD. (m) Buffer yards. The city comprehensive plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses. In these areas, a fifty -foot buffer yard is to be provided where the interface occurs along a public street, a one - hundred -foot buffer yard is required where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. The buffer yard is an additional setback requirement. It is to be cumulatively calculated with the required setbacks outlined above. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. The buffer yard is intended to provide additional physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. Buffer yards shall be covered by a permanently recorded conservation easement running in favor of the city. In instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city, or where quality site planning is achieved, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to fifty (50) percent. The applicant shall have the full burden of demonstrating compliance with the standards herein. (Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6- 24 -91; Ord. No. 179, § 3 1 11- 23 -92; Ord. No. 240, § 14, 7- 24 -95) Sec. 20 -506. Standards and guidelines for single - family detached residential planned unit developments. (a) Intent. The use of planned unit developments for residential purposes should: result in a reasonable and verifiable exchange between the city and the developer. The developer gains the potential for offering reduced lot sizes and flexibility in development standards which results in a combination of reduced development costs and improved marketing flexibility. At the same time, the city should be offered enhanced environmental sensitivity beyond normal ordinance requirements. Lot sizes should reflect the site's environmental limitations and opportunities and offer a range of housing pricing options. In addition, quality of development, as evidenced by landscaping, construction quality, provision of public /private open and recreational space, should also be enhanced. (b) Minimum lot size. The single - family residential PUD allows lot sizes down to a minimum of eleven thousand (11,000) square feet (excluding identified wetland areas from lot calculations). Average lot sizes for the entire PUD shall maintain a minimum area of fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. The applicant must demonstrate that there are a mix of lot sizes Supp. No. s 1200.6 ZONING § 20 -506 consistent with local terrain conditions, preservation of natural features and open space and that lot sizes are consistent with average building footprints that will be concurrently ap- proved with the PUD. The applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate a sixty -foot by forty -foot building pad and a twelve -foot by twelve -foot deck without intruding into any required setback area or protective easement. Each home must also have a minimum rear yard, thirty (30) feet deep. This area may not be encumbered by the required home /deck pads or by wetland/drainage easements. It may include areas with steep terrain or tree cover. (c) Minimum lot width at building setback: Ninety (90) feet. (d) Minimum lot depth: One hundred (100) feet. (e) Minimum setbacks. (1) PUD exterior: Thirty (30) feet *. (2) Front yard: Thirty (30) feet. (3) Rear yard: Thirty (30) feet. (4) Side yard: Ten (10) feet. * The thirty -foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained. Accessory buildings and structures— located adjacent to or behind principal structure a minimum of ten (10) feet from property line. (0 Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. (g) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: (1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over - story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. A minimum of over -story trees must be provided in each front yard. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. (2) Exterior landscaping and double - fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double- fronted lots. Where necessary to ac- commodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. (3) Rear yard. The rear yard shall contain at least two over -story trees. Preservation of existing trees having a diameter of at least six (6) inches at four (4) feet in height can Supp. No. 5 1200.7 § 20 -506 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE be used to satisfy this requirement of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. (h) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following: (1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. (2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two car garage without variances to obtain a permit. (3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage build- ings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. (Ord. No. 179, § 1, 11- 23 -92) Sec. 20 -507. Controls during construction and following completion. (a) The use of the land, the construction, modification or alteration of any buildings or structures in a PUD shall be governed by the final development plan. (b) After the certificate of occupancy has been issued, no changes shall be made in the approved final development plan for a PUD except: (1) Any minor extensions, alterations or modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the city planner if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan. No change authorized by this section may increase the bulk of any building structure by more that ten (10) percent. (2) Any building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be recon- structed only in compliance with the final development plan unless an amendment to the final development plan is approved. (3) Changes in uses, any rearrangements of lots, blocks and building tracts, changes in the provisions of common open spaces, and all other changes to the approved final development plan may be made only after a public hearing conducted by the planning commission and upon final approval by the city council. Any changes shall be re- corded as amendments to the final development plan. i (c) Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be approved by the city council after review by the planning commission. The notification and public hearing Supp. No. 5 1200.8 ZONING § 20 -508 procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original 'PUD. A major amendment is any amendment which: (1) Substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads; (�) Increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling units by more than five (5) percent; (3) Increases the gross floor area of nonresidential buildings by more than five (5) percent or increases the gross floor area of any individual building by more than ten (10) percent; (4) Deceases the amount of open space by more than five (5) percent or alters it in such a way as to change its original design or intended use; or (5) Creates noncompliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the master development plan. ( Ord. No. 149, § 1, 6- 24 -91) Sec. 20 -508. Standards and guidelines for single - family attached or cluster -home PUDs. (a) Generally. Single- family attached, cluster, zero lot line, and similar dwelling types shall only be allowed on sites designed for medium or high density residential uses by the City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan. (b) Minimum lot sizes. .Minimum lot sizes down to five thousand (5,000) square feet may be allowed. There shall be no minimum lot size; however, in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the city comprehensive plan. (c) Setback standards /structures and parking: (1) PUD exterior: Fifty (50) feet. (2) Interior public right -of -way: Thirty (30) feet *. (3) Other setbacks: Established by PUD agreement. * The thirty -foot front yard setback may be waived by the city council when ' it is demonstrated that environmental protection will be enhanced. In these instances, a minimum front yard setback of twenty (20) feet shall be maintained. (d) Protection and preservation of natural features. The applicant must demonstrate that the flexibility provided by the PUD is used to protect and preserve natural features such as tree stands, wetlands, ponds, and scenic views. These areas are to be permanently protected as public or private tracts or protected by permanently recorded easements. (e) Landscaping plan. An overall landscaping plan is required. The plan shall contain the following: (1) Boulevard plantings. Located in front yard areas these shall require a mix of over -story trees and other plantings consistent with the site. Landscaped berms shall be provided to screen the site from major roadways, railroads and more intensive land Supp. No. 8 1200.9 § 20 -508 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE y uses. Well designed entrance monument is required. In place of mass grading for building pads and roads, stone or decorative block retaining walls shall be employed as required to preserve mature trees and the site's natural topography. (2) Exterior landscaping and double fronted lots. Landscaped berms shall be provided to buffer the site and lots from major roadways, railroads, and more intensive uses. Similar measures shall be provided for double- fronted lots. where necessary to accommodate this landscaping, additional lot depth may be required. (3) Foundation and yard plantings. A minimum budget for foundation plants shall be established and approved by the city. As each parcel is developed in the PUD, the builder shall be required to install plant materials meeting or exceeding the required budget prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or provide financial guarantees acceptable to the city. (4) wee preservation. Tree preservation is a primary goal of the PUD. A detailed tree survey should be prepared during the design of the PUD and the plans should be developed to maximize tree preservation. (f) Architectural standards. The applicant should demonstrate that the PUD will provide for a high level of architectural design and building materials. While this requirement is not intended to minimize design flexibility, a set of architectural standards should be prepared for - city approval. The primary purpose of this section is to assure the city that high quality design will be employed and that home construction can take place without variances or impact to adjoining lots. The PUD agreement should include the following: (1) Standards for exterior architectural treatments. (2) Prohibition against free standing garages may be required by the city when it is felt that unattached garages will be difficult to accommodate due to small lot sizes. If an attached garage is to be converted to living space at some time in the future, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is sufficient room to accommodate a two -car garage without variances to obtain a permit. (3) Guidelines regulating the placement of air conditioners, dog kennels, storage build - ings, and other accessory uses that could potentially impact adjoining parcels due to small lot sizes. (Ord. No. 179, § 2, 11- 23 -92; Ord. No. 240, § 15, 7- 24 -95) Secs 20- 509-20 -515. Reserved. DIVISION 2. PROCEDURES Sec. 20 -516. Preapplication conference. Prior to filing an application for PUD, the applicant shall attend a conference with the city. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an oppor- Supp. No. 8 1200.10 ZONING § 20 -517 tunity to gather information and obtain guidance on the general merits of the proposal and its conformity to the provisions of this article before incurring substantial expense. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5- 18- 6(1)), 12- 15 -86) Sec. 20 -517. General concept plan. (a) The general concept plan for a PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant to submit a plan to the city showing the basic intent and the general nature of the entire development without incurring substantial cost. The plan shall include the following: (1) Overall gross and net density. (2) Identification of each lot size and lot width. (3) General location of major streets and pedestrian ways. (4) General location and extent of public and common open space. (5) General location and type of land uses and intensities of development. (6) Staging and time schedule for development. (b) The tentative written consent of all property owners within the proposed PUD shall be filed with the city before the staff commences review. Approval of the concept statement shall not obligate the city to approve the final plan or any part thereof or to rezone the property to a planned unit development district. (c) The final acceptance of land uses is subject to the following procedures: (1) The developer meets with the city staff to discuss the proposed developments. (2) The applicant shall file the concept stage application and concept plan, together with all supporting data. (3) The planning commission shall conduct a hearing and report its findings and make recommendations to the city, council. Notice of the hearing shall consist of a legal property description, description of request, and be published in the official news- paper at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing, written notification of the hearing shall be mailed at least ten (10) days prior thereto to owners of land within five hundred (500) feet of the boundary of the property and an on -site notification sign erected. (4) Following the receipt of the report and recommendations from the planning commis- sion the city council shall consider the proposal. If the planning commission fails to make a report within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application, then the city council may proceed without the report. The council may approve the concept plan and attach such conditions as it deems reasonable. Approval shall require a four - fifths vote of the entire council. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5- 18- 6(2)), 12- 15 -86) Supp. No. 6 1201 § 20 -518 CHANHASSEN CITY CODE Sec. 20 -518. Development stage. (a) Following general concept approval of a PUD, the applicant shall submit the devel- o ment stage application, preliminary plat and fee. If appropriate because of the limited scale p g of the ro osal, the concept stage and preliminary plan stages may proceed simultaneously. P P The applicant shall file the development plans and preliminary plat, together with all sup - porting data. (b) w With the appropriate notifications, the planning commission shall conduct the hearing on the P reliminary plat and the rezoning and report its findings and make recommendations to the city council for action. (c) The development stage shall include but not be limited to: (1) A preliminary plat and information required by chapter 18. (2) An approved development plan drawn to a scale of not less than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet containing at least the following information: a. Proposed name of the development. b. Property boundary lines and dimensions of the property and any significant topographical or physical features of the property. c. The location, size, use and arrangement including height in stories and feet and total square feet of ground area coverage and floor area of proposed buildings, and n n existing buildings which will remain, if any. d. .Location, dimensions of all driveways, entrances, curb cuts, parking stalls, loading spaces and access aisles and all other circulation elements including bike and pedestrian; and the total site coverage of all circulation elements. e. The location, designation and total area proposed to be conveyed or dedicated for p p open private and public o space, including parks, playgrounds, school sites and P recreational facilities. f. The location, use and size of structures and other land uses located within two hundred (200) feet of the property boundary. y g. A natural resource analysis identifying existing vegetation areas consisting of forest and wood lots as well as wetlands and wetlands vegetation; the geology, slope, soil and groundwater characteristics of the site; existing lakes, streams, ponds, drainage swales, runoff settling areas, and flood plains must be identified; analysis of the relationship of the proposed use of the existing natural conditions listed above. h. A ro osed landscaping plan, including location of existing plants, identification P P P of species, caliper size and acreage. i. The location, type and size of all graphics and signage. j. Any An other information that may have been required by the planning commission or council in conjunction with the approval of the general concept plan. (3) An accurate legal description of the entire area within the PUD for which final development plan approval is sought. Supp. No. s 1202 ZONING § 20 -552 (4) A tabulation indicating the number of residential dwelling units and expected pop- ulation. (5) A tabulation indicating the gross square footage, if any, of commercial and industrial floor space by type of activity. (6) Preliminary architectural "typical" plans indicating use, floor plan, elevations and exterior wall finishes of proposed building, including manufactured homes. (7) Preliminary grading and site alteration plan illustrating changes to existing topog- raphy and natural site vegetation. The plan should clearly reflect the site treatment and its conformance with the approved concept plan. (8) A soil erosion control plan acceptable to watershed districts, state department of natural resources, soil conservation service, or any other agency with review au- thori tY Y clearl illustrating erosion control measures to be used during construction and as permanent measures. (9) Protective covenants and homeowners' association bylaws. (d) The city may request additional information from the applicant concerning opera- tional factors or retain expert testimony at the expense of the applicant concerning operational factors. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5- 18- 6(3)), 12- 15 -86) Sec. 20 -519. Final stage. Followin g preliminary relimin plat approval, the applicant for PUD shall prepare and submit the final plat and execute the development contract prepared by the city. If appropriate because of the limited scale of the proposal, the preliminary and final plats may proceed simultaneously. The city council shall then consider the submission for final approval and rezoning to PUD. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 18(5- 18- 6(4)), 12- 15 -86) Secs. 20- 520 -20 -550. Reserved. ARTICLE Ix. "A -1" AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION DISTRICT Sec. 20 -551. Intent. The intent of the "A -1" District is preservation of agricultural lands and allowing single - family residential development with forty -acre minimum lot sizes to preserve rural character in large areas of the community. (Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 2(5 -2 -1), 12- 15 -86) Sec. 20 -552. Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in an "A -1" District: 1) Agriculture. Supp. No. 6 1203