The URL can be used to link to this page

2. Housing Plan 2 Housing Plan EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS E Minimum Requirements: Complete an existing housing assessment, including: • A table of existing local conditions including the following information: o Total number of housing units. o Number of housing units affordable to households with incomes at or below 30%Area Median Income(AMI),between 31 and 50%AMI, and between 51 and 80%AMI. Number of housing units that are owner occupied. o Number of housing units that are rental. o Number of single family homes. o Number of multi-family homes. o Number of publicly subsidized housing units by the following types: senior housing,housing for people with disabilities, and all other publicly subsidized units. Include expiration dates of affordability requirements when applicable. o Number of existing households that are experiencing housing cost burden with incomes at or below 30%Area Median Income(AMI),between 31 -50% AMI, and 51 -80%AMI. • A map of owner-occupied housing units identifying their assessed values. At a minimum, differentiate the values above and below $238,500. A narrative analysis of existing housing needs. At a minimum address the components of the existing housing assessment within the local context of your community. Plans consistent with Council policy will clearly identify existing housing needs and priorities for the community. PROJECTED HOUSING NEED Forecasted household growth and future housing needs go hand in hand. Land use plans are the primary guidance communities have to accommodate household growth. Accommodating new affordable housing can be particularly challenging. A significant share of the household growth expected between 2021 and 2030 will be at income levels in need of affordable housing. For communities that have forecasted growth in sewer-serviced areas,projected affordable housing needs are allocated by the Council and must be addressed through density minimums. Some communities are not anticipating sewer-serviced growth and therefore do not have an allocation of affordable housing need, nor must they guide land at minimum densities to support the development of affordable housing. GMinimum Requirements: • Discuss how the land use plan addresses the future housing need for your forecasted growth. Page 2 of Section 2 Eel For Those Communities with an Affordable Housing Need Allocation: • Acknowledge your community's allocation of the region's need for affordable housing at three levels of affordability: <30%AMI, 31-50%AMI, and 51-80%AMI. Guide residential land at densities sufficient to create opportunities for affordable housing using one of the following options: 1. Option 1: Guide sufficient land at minimum residential densities of 8 units/acre to support your community's total allocation of affordable housing need for 2021 — 2030. This option may be best for communities that find it difficult to support densities of 12 units/acre(per Option 2), or prefer simplicity over flexibility in their density minimums. 2. Option 2: Guide sufficient land at minimum residential densities of: • 12 units/acre to address your community's allocation of affordable housing need at<50%AMI. This combines your community's allocation at<30%AMI and 31-50%AMI. • 6 units/acre to address your community's allocation of affordable housing need at 51-80%AMI. Affordable Housing Need Allocation 31%to 50%AMI 197 51%to 80%AMI 145 At or below 30%AMI 464 Total Units 806 AM!=Area Median Income Option 2 may be best for communities that feel they can achieve affordable housing needs at 51-80%AMI with less than 8 units/acre. It also allows the affordable housing need to be addressed with less actual land, as is the case if communities choose to use even higher densities than are required. Furthermore, communities using Option 2 may guide land to meet their allocation of affordable housing need at 51-80%AMI using a minimum density range of 3-6 units/acre if they have demonstrated in the last 10 years the application of programs, ordinances, and/or local fiscal devices that led to the development of housing affordable at 51-80%AMI in their community. Examples include: density bonuses for affordable housing unit inclusion, local funding programs such as TIF, etc. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN Identifying current and future housing needs gives us the information we need to plan effective implementation strategies. Existing and future needs identified in the housing element must be addressed in the implementation plan. Page 3 of Section 2 G✓ Minimum Requirements: • A description of public programs, fiscal devices, and other specific actions that could be used to meet the existing and projected housing needs identified in the housing element. Include in what circumstances and in what sequence they would be used. • Plans consistent with Council policy will clearly and directly link identified needs to available tools. Needs are identified within the three levels of affordability, and tools should therefore be addressed within the levels of affordability as well. Plans consistent with Council policy will consider all widely accepted tools to address their housing needs. E STING HOUSING ASSESSMENT HA NOLD B O O PLANNING CITY OF CHANHASSEN An Existing Housing Assessment is the first step in identifying current housing needs for your community. This information meets the minimum data requirements for your Existing Housing Assessment. You are free to copy and paste this table directly into your Housing Element, recreate it using the same data, or incorporate it into a table with additional or alternative data using reliable sources. This table is not a comprehensive picture of your community's housing stock, but a solid starting point to identify and address your existing housing needs. Please contact Council staff if you have any questions. Total housing units 1= 9456 Table 1 Affordability 2 Units affordable to households with Units affordable to households Units affordable to households income at or below 30%of AMI with income 31% to 50% of AMI with income 51% to 80% of AMI 151 936 1950 Table 2 Tenure 3 Ownership units Rental units 8186 1270 Table 3 Type' Single-family units Multi-family units Manufactured homes Other housing units 8180 1276 0 0 Table 4 Publicly Subsidized Units 4 All publicly Publicly subsidized Publicly subsidized units Publicly subsidized subsidized units senior units for people with disabilities units:All others 134 0 0 134 Table 5 Housing Cost Burdened Households 5 Income at or below 30% of AMI Income 31% to 50% of AMI Income 51% to 80% of AMI 357 375 585 1 Source: Metropolitan Council,2015 housing stock estimates 2 Source: Metropolitan Council staff estimates for 2015 based on 2015 and 2016 MetroGIS Regional Parcel Datasets(ownership units), 2009-2013 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data from HUD(rental units and household income),and the Council's 2015 Manufactured Housing Parks Survey(manufactured homes). 3 Source: U.S.Census Bureau,2011-2015 American Community Survey five-year estimates; counts adjusted to better match the Council's 2015 housing stock estimates 4 Source: HousingLink Streams data(covers projects whose financing closed by December 2014), htto://www.housinglink.org/streams 5 Housing cost burden refers to households whose housing costs are at least 30%of their income. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2009-2013 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy(CHAS)data,with counts adjusted to better match Metropolitan Council 2015 household estimates. February 2017 Metropolitan Council Main:651.602.1000 LOCAL PLANNING 390 Robert Street North TTY:651.291.0904 Saint Paul.MN 55101 Public Information:651.602.1500 HANDBOOK public.info@metc.state.mn.us metrocouncil.org METROPOLITANOtC AMI AND HOUSING AFFORDABILITY HLOCA NLDLB 0"O G • = fir' ..XARVER \' • "-:-c- ' ` � ;` �'�,' ,t, a\ {__..! �' p The Area Median Income (AMI) is the midpoint of a region's income distribution -half of households in a region earn more than the median and half earn less than the median. For housing policy, income thresholds set relative to the area median income—such as 50% of the area median income—identify households eligible to live in income-restricted housing units and the affordability of housing units to low-income households. Low-income households and levels of affordability Your housing element and implementation program must address affordable housing needs within three levels of affordability: . • At or below 30% AMI • Between 31 and 50% AMI • Between 51 and 80% AMI The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines and calculates different levels of AMI for geographic areas across the country by household size. For the Twin Cities region in 2016, HUD has defined the three levels of affordability as:1 Household Size: Extremely Low Income Very Low Income Low Income (30% of AMI) (50% of AMI) (80% of AMI) One-person $18,050 $30,050 $46,000 Two-person $20,600 $34,350 $52,600 Three-person $23,200 $38,650 $59,150 Four-person $25,750 $42,900 $65,700 Five-person $28,440 $46,350 $71,000 Six-person $32,580 $49,800 $76,250 Seven-person $36,730 $53,200 $81,500 Eight-person $40,890 $56,650 $86,750 Thinking about specific jobs helps make this more concrete. For a four-person household with only one wage-earner, positions as home health aides or funeral attendants would provide an income at 30% of AMI; positions as interior designers or bus drivers would provide an income at 50% of AMI; and positions as accountants or police officers would provide an income at 80% of AMI. For a more in depth look at how full-time jobs do not always mean there are affordable housing choices, visit the Family Housing Fund's website. Having an income below these thresholds makes households eligible for certain housing programs (other social programs use thresholds relative to the federal poverty guidelines). For example, to be eligible for a Housing Choice Voucher, household income must be at or below 50% of AMI; a three-person household with an income up to $38,650 would be eligible for a voucher as would a five-person household with an income up to$46,350. Translating incomes into affordable housing costs These income levels are also a way to assess housing affordability. We say that a housing unit is "affordable at 80% of AMI" if a household whose income is at or below 80% of AMI can live there without spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. What this means in practice differs for rental and ownership units. Affordable rents for housing units vary by the number of bedrooms in the housing unit. This is because the income limits vary by household size, and the number of bedrooms affects how many people a unit can comfortably house.' Here are affordable monthly rents at the different income levels for 2016: Continue to next page -+ Number of Affordable rent (including Affordable rent (including Affordable rent (including bedrooms: utilities) at 30% of AMI utilities) at 50% of AMI utilities) at 80% of AMI Studio $450 $751 $1,201 1-BR $483 $805 $1,288 2-BR $579 $966 $1,545 3-BR $669 $1,115 $1,784 4-BR $747 $1,245 $1,992 Calculations of affordability for ownership units are more complicated because there are more variables in monthly housing costs-such as generalized assumptions3 about down-payments and mortgage interest rates-and each homeowner will have a different experience. Each year, the Council develops affordability limits based on forecasting what those annual assumptions will be; these are used to inform development funded through the Livable Communities Act programs. While we can't predict what future home prices will be, we can look backward at the estimated market values for 2014; these are the basis of the Council-provided maps showing ownership units that are affordable to households at 80% of AMI. Affordable purchase prices are provided for both 2014 and 2015 below. If your community chooses to develop a map with a different data source to satisfy this requirement, please contact Council staff to find out which affordability limit you should use. 30% of AMI 50% of AM 80% of AMI Affordable purchase price $82,500 $148,000 $235,000 (2016) Affordable purchase price (2015) $84,500 $151,500 $238,500 Affordable purchase price $73,500 $132,000 $211,500 (2014) 1. For a full explanation of how these amounts were calculated,see HUD's website. 2. These rents assume that a household should pay no more than 30%of its monthly income on rent(including utilities),and(in keeping with IRS regulations)that a housing unit can comfortably hold 1.5 times as many people as the number of bedrooms it has. 3. For all years,in addition to the 29%housing debt to household income ratio,we assumed a 30-year fixed-interest mortgage,a 3.5%down-payment,a property tax rate of 1.25%of property sales price,and$100/month for hazard insurance.For 2016,we assumed a 4.00%interest rate and mortgage insurance premiums at 0.85%of unpaid principal. For 2015,we assumed a 3.84%interest rate(the average rate in the Midwest in 2015)and mortgage insurance premiums at 0.85%of unpaid principal. For 2014,we assumed a 4.17%interest rate(the average rate in the Midwest in 2014)and mortgage insurance premiums at 1.35%of unpaid principal. September 2015 Metropolitan Council Main:651.602.1000 LOCAL PLANNING 390 Robert Street North TTY:651.291.0904 Saint Paul,MN 55101 Public Information:651.602.1500 HANDBOOK public.info@metc.state.mn.us METROPOLITAN metrocouncil.org COUNCIL Multi-Family Housing Potential As part of the Metropolitan Council guidelines, the city may show that it has designated a sufficient amount of land to potentially meet the affordable housing allocation(806 units). Based on the end of 2015 data for Residential High Density Land Year Vacant Acres Number Units Change in Units 2016 149 527 0 2020 118 760 233 2030 56 1,244 484 2040 0 1,672 428 Total 1,145 Owner-Occupied Housing by Estimated Market Value Chanhassen METROPOLITAN COUNCIL + ), ' Tonka! + 11-1I•7 r Gree`n_w�oo 's !`-It-. t " 4; ; Minnetrista •ti gay • , i-�Excelstor' ��'� �s M,' ' • I 1•�,.:.. . ' ,:� j� - f�♦f ----1 1 ♦*it Minne onka ' ,• i .• Shorewood 'I:4%07'21 '?• '1 r • 1 K II," 114: 'r 11) 14144. • ) .. dvw : Nitilig via- r i 1 4 11111 ilik ,tie '416 • 11,6, St • I w orip . 4i,.. •^ke.LL i le •.. s!ill ! r.J a .11 , • 1j , � �.�Victoria i = • i•��,..- i • �: • • ••Yill t • Chanhassen IAdirw iii010101111114 46 • '�— . • . , ti i • i •'" ,' • jiffs ! Eden •••, I " • I., 04 !rt Prairie. lei.. •11P • • tom 4. ,:. lc ii J/41. li; I .. i _ 1 .. . .. j L aketown • 1 tee l +►0M • =•Twp. • . 547 •�! , �'• ‘ ',� ,; +! • s ! !• •• ii '� • • I . • ' bib Chaska i • ••; • 4 .,a-� u,.,;,,, .-- : •-". 4 s•' -•- , _ d .""""• \ ',M �' "; j /'' ,,. I .�ti \II J �� ""� , �-•. • . '-'4 .` ' .." ', a. .. 4-,” .741 �'�!i"1., -- - ,`J. __ t 4f t Y +e warty _„:, LOCAL PLANNING HOUSING TOOLSHANDBOOK • f';.. CARVER ' • 1 ^ ' ..s" . i .m *IN..... !"V` P RECOGNIZED TOOLS AND RESOURCES TO ADDRESS HOUSING NEEDS Under the Metropolitan Land Planning Act, local comprehensive plans must include a housing element that contains standards, plans, programs, public programs, fiscal devices, official controls and specific actions that will be used to address existing and projected housing needs. What do standards, plans, programs, public programs, fiscal devices, official controls and specific actions have in common? They're all tools. But each community is different, and some tools are not available or realistic for all municipalities. Some tools that are commonly known and used by one community may not even be known by another community. Below is a comprehensive, but not exhaustive, list of widely used tools in the region to address a wide variety of housing needs. Plans consistent with Council policy will identify and consider all widely accepted tools to address their housing needs. We understand that communities have many competing needs and priorities. Complete housing implementation programs do not have to commit every available tool to meet housing needs, and deciding which tools to use - and why - is a local responsibility. However, by acknowledging and discussing, at a minimum, the resources listed below, your implementation program will be a clear, transparent policy document guiding planners, local leaders, developers and citizens toward the housing opportunities that are and will be available in your community. WIDELY ACCEPTED TOOLS TO ADDRESS HOUSING NEEDS Local sources of funding: • Creation/use of a local Housing and Redevelopment Authority (I IRA), Community Development Agency (CDA), or Economic Development Authority (EDA) • Housing Bonds • Tax Abatement • Tax Increment Financing Federal and regional sources of funding: • All communities: Consolidated Request for Proposals • All communities participating in the Livable Communities Act: Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) • All communities participating in the Livable Communities Act: Livable Communities Demonstration Account- Transit Oriented Development (TOD) • Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Dakota and Anoka communities: Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG) • Hennepin, Ramsey, Washington, Dakota and Anoka communities: HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) • Hennepin communities: Affordable Housing Incentive Fund (AHIF) • Dakota communities: Housing Opportunities Enhancement Program (HOPE) • Washington communities: Gap Financing for Redevelopment and Rental Owner Occupied Housing (GROW) • Scott and Carver communities: Small Cities Development Program (CDBG and HOME administered through state agencies) Continue to next page —4 I ocal policies and strategies: • Effective referrals • Fair Housing Policy • First time homebuyer, down payment assistance, and foreclosure prevention programs • Participation in housing-related organizations, partnerships, and initiatives • Site Assembly • Zoning and subdivision ordinances • Rental license and inspections programs Preservation strategies: • Project Based Rental Assistance • Low Income Housing Tax Credit Properties • 4d tax program • Private unsubsidized affordable housing • Community Land trusts • Low-interest rehab programs • Housing Improvement Areas (HIAs) • Manufactured Home Parks • Public Housing ,-.,- "') s fr- SO ' 4 ' -A I, -7',,s "I'? . . _________- . _ \,, \ • ..":1,:j.), ,1V--" i A y�r _ a __. ,:. , , .,,,- . 4 Y,a4r4t. .r., _A., .,...; _..,.. „,,,, ,„6,,,.: __, ii ,..,...., :. „,,, _. , ,, ,,,-,.. -..._ , ,..-- ,„,„. ,.. ,,,,,_______--___ ...\„At. _ .1 , . 10: J F. G p IGS \ .,,,,,ip— ., . itio, , ,2,74 _. ') ' ' il-- L 11 IN 11170 i i i. —- r \ �• ..rip' s `. �i�? .ed'`y( ~ , I i ■ ,j - i_ .`' 'Y"),,,SI ii t , 'i }, » ,t.�F C "f gyp! ., -� .:J1 ,, •• r +1 1 . _ z. . vc. 1 .. \ 1_' _1J,Y TF. '.i 111Y.. `� ..,•s ..Y4':.�+.._ �A October 2016 Metropolitan Council Main:651.602.1000 2._� LOCAL PLANNING Street No SaOnRPauobertMN 55 01rth 1.291.0904 Publi65lnforrmation:651.602.1500 HANDBOOK public.info@metc.state.mn.us METROPOLITAN metrocouncil.org OC CARVER COUNTY HOUSING STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chanhassen - Summary of Demographic and Housing Findings Key demographic and housing market findings for Chanhassen are highlighted below. For a comparison, figures for Carver County are shown as well. Chanhassen is Carver County's largest community, but because Chanhassen is gradually becoming more fully-developed, growth will begin to slow. The population in Chaska surpassed that of Chanhassen in 2010. The current housing supply is predominantly owner-occupied (a homeownership rate of 87% in 2010). With its close proximity to jobs and shopping, there is strong demand for all housing products, how- ever. Demographic Summary Chanhassen Carver County Population(2014/2020/2030/2040) 25,580 / 31,715 /36,055 39,560 99,426 /122,425 / 145,626/ 168829 Households(2014/2020/2030/2040) 8,960 / 11,575 /13,855/15,520 35,448 / 45,195 / 58,875/ 70,525 Household Growth(2014 to 2040) 6,560 35,077 Median Household Income(2014) $108,157 $80,049 Median Age of Population(2010) 39.3 36.3 Homeownership Rate(2010) 86.8% 81.5% Current Housing Characteristics Summary For-Sale Housing Chanhassen Carver County Average resale price of existing single-family homes(2013) $860,000 $270,000 Average resale price of existing multi-family homes(2013) 6168,700 $128,500 Average sale price of new construction Single-fRmily homes $885,179 $310,804 Average number of single-family homes built annually since 2006 87 355 Average sale price of new construction multifamily homes $322,076 $225,000 Average number of multifamily homes built annually since 2006 54 158 Rental Housing Chanhassen Carver County Number of surveyed units and average monthly rent for market rate units One-bedroom units 223 / $754 611 / $763 Two-bedroom units 337 / $1,086 1,220 / $973 Three-bedroom units 29 / $1,473 220 / $1,473 Markei.ratevacancies/vacancy rate 18 / 2.9% 42 / 1.9% Number of affordable/subsidized units 61 680 Affordable/subs'dized vacancies/vacancy rate 0.0% 12 / 1.8% Senior Housing Chanhassen Carver County Units Vacant* %Vac. Units Vacant* %Vac. Market rate senior housing Adult ownership 0 — 40 0 0.0% Adult rental 0 — 0 -- -- Congregate 90 0.0% 195 0 0.0% Assisted living 53 0.0% 328 29 8.8% Memory Care 18 0.0% 112 16 14.3% Subsidized/Affordable rental housing 65 0.0% 639 14 2.2% *Vacant units at projects In their initial lease-up are not included in this figure. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 126 CARVER COUNTY HOUSING STUDY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Chanhassen Recommendations Chanhassen is projected to add 6,560 households between 2014 and 2040; most of this house- hold growth is expected to occur over the next ten years as Chanhassen continues to build out. Currently, single-family homes remain the favored housing product. Most of the housing added between 2015 and 2030 to meet demand will be multifamily on in-fill/redevelopment parcels since Chanhassen will have exhausted most of its vacant land by then. Because Chanhassen is located near job centers in Carver and Hennepin Counties, demand for housing from higher- income households is strong. Thus, most of the new housing added through 2040 will be mar- ket rate,although demand also exists from low- and moderate-income households. Existing af- fordable housing in Chanhassen is fully occupied. Chanhassen Projected Housing Demand, 2014 to 2040 Housing Demand 6,560 1 t Ownership Senior Rental 4,479 1 206 875 Single-Family Multifamily Adult Owned Adult Rental Service-Enriched Afford./Sub. Market Rate 1,971 2,508 310 580 316 285 590 Note: Because households are mobile and are willing to seek out various housing products in adjacent communities,these demand figures may experience fluctuations. Detailed demand calculations can be found in Tables 30 through 35. Demand was calculated for 875 general-occupancy rental units between 2014 and 2040. From 2014 to 2020,there is demand for 230 units of general occupancy rental housing with the re- mainder of demand occurring between 2020 and 2040. Strong job growth in the area and de- creasing vacancies in existing buildings support the short-term demand. Of the total rental demand,about one-third is need from low-and moderate-income house- holds seeking affordable housing. While Chanhassen has some older rental buildings with moderate rents,there are no affordable or subsidized buildings. There is currently unmet need in Chanhassen for affordable workforce housing units. Summerwood of Chanhassen has been well-received in the market and all of its units are occu- pied. Although demand for service-enhanced units is currently experiencing some softness in the market in Carver County,we anticipate that this segment will strengthen toward 2020 and beyond because of the aging of the population. Demand is projected for 316 market rate sen- ior housing units with services between 2014 and 2040,with most of this demand occurring af- ter 2020. MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. 127 b U P.P. vl 0 •00 ON 0—„?., N 00 MO 0., C EA 6e} N .- d' cri ...- O N 1 N o N W N O m N `n � N ,--( to ct 0 ,..0O N U O N c N 0 1 cA U O (...A 0 OD O c c " v� vc O v) N d ~ N U 0 U N 7 o Cly , bO cd O V • O F .N �n .v� O 0 4-+ N p U O Gi - r Z' 3 o • ., O .Fa 5 ,8S:, dr ae - UU ,SUO te-+ ✓ bA � 0NsbA N U O O .~ Ct O V �.4 0 d 0 cd co W O P. o . i - O- - aUo a ,4x � U al N d •N bT3A N N 01 00 CO M Ln en N tO 00 ri 1.0N 00 O 01 01 00 tit of Lm. O M 00 r1 in h h in O in M 4-I et h O O ri O Ln ri h M LA a/ .0 tD h N h tO 00 tD Ln u1 tD 00 O v1 LD h O h h tO in to is. > N N N m N N N N N N N N m N tV N m N N N N N N 3 0 t c 000 N o d• h N t0 M 01 in et O d• N Ln Ln N N Ch h 01 0 f0 +� h m Cr) 01 O 01 O 01 rt ri M LO N 00 m h U1 N O N tO In 4-' t. N 01 m r1 tO to m d' M O N 01 d• h 00 h h N N N tD r. F°, Q. et N N ri ri ri' N' rl' m 00 iii ri d' r.1 Cl 0 n. to C L- a! C t0 0 r CO 00 0 0 0 0 0 O1 00 Ln ri o N m o tO o o et O t6 ri N CO ri ri N 00 en to t:a tr0 a '-i et t-1 O rl 0 t1 ti 3 O O 0. ,-• OD al c >- c s cc c 'a < 0 C 00 N LD t0 01 N tO M 01 Ln to N 01 r1 Ln M Cr) N 00 h 01 V m .-1 M ri 01 O 01 e-1 e-1 r1 ntt v-1 O M 01 ri N M N LO v. CZ +' 1' h 01 en 4-i et to en d• en o 00 01 et h 00 to LD N r-i N to n �"' L to 3 N N ri ri ri ri e-i M 00 i r♦ et r-i Cl d 3 W 0 O j CC IZ s 3 a 'n _ I ai � L '0. I"i 'p In Ln ri en N 01 N h Ln in et co en m 01 0 en en 0 tD ct 1� to c N O 01 M et r1 01 00 01 01 N 00 cr en t0 ct 0 00 0 d' CO N in 01 '0 N en M r1 et in et ri ri en tD t0 ri et m oo en et Ln et N et C O L d ri 01 01 ri N ri N t0 r1 u .2 In m y o 3 +O+ 0 ec Q r, to ZZ a O' ra 0•0 N o 00 ti) Ln ri 01 e-1 01 Cr t0 m et h t0 O Ln m 00 01 in C d O us c in \1 Ln 0 Ln 01 r-1 v-1 ."1 en 01 h tO h e-1 N tD In in r1 01 t.1) 0 ...I4+ U) •y en en et et h 1.0 Ln N r1 en LO tD r1 u1 m 01 U1 d' h d' N 0 W 2 O O 3 `1 ri N ,.-Zm 4 to = a to to 0 a) a to 76 E c •411 c AAN c Qto 4/1 4, C 0 t IA t0 h a) N ,(0 C 0 4, is 2 o o c (0 +m+ '0 +tea al OA 0 4, c ++ N C ++ 0 t0 O) 0 al to O 4" C_ Oo IA t6 C CC C io C CLA CO 0 YO C C C al f0CO C 15 p C C u t0 ++CI C 4J _ C cz C CC oCCL °PC • c cv a) L a U c L.aa' > y > d L. ttoo U C m a`) U co o. CD N O O O D U L f6 U U O f0 CO .- U U N a) a H F— v U U rho L y a a' U Q +i U U E c L- a`i U t 3 OO 0. ° `m U .. Z s m ° U) t a`) 4- Q 3 � too .2 U E ° c v v v 3 c o 3 v o v " c o u 3 3 c 0 0 0 4. 0 ° to } •tun ' o c C 0) O ° ° �= h U C OD Y O C U 'O C m t_C 0 0 0 t C ty y. N C d 3 Ov ° co L O fE6 @ C C t t t o 14.1 o -0 a) Y to 00 5, ++ N 2C LL O O a0- >> v fry (a .0 .0 O (Ca tro (C0 O m@ d O m O cm0 tm0 ro t0 O V m U U U U U o x x x 2 z z to 5 3 'S > RESIDENTIAL I I , DEVELOPMENT O` STATISTICS 4.,s' Final Plat GROSS ROW WETLAND/ MISC. PARK NET TOTAL GROSS NET CASE PROJECT NAME Approved ACRES ACRES PRIMARY/ACRES LAND ACRES UNITS DENSITY DENSITY POND ACRES SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED 93-1 SUB Highlands of Lake St.Joe 36 0.4 11.54 0 24.06: 33 0.92 1.37 93-4 SUB Windmill Run 17.92 3.37 0, 0 14.55 35 1.95 2.41 93-8 SUB Royal Oaks Estates 13 _ 2.2 0 0 10.8 23 1.77 2.13_ 93-10 SUB Lotus Lake Woods 4.47 0.32: 0.3. 0 3.85 7 1.57 1.82 .------ ._... .._...---.-4-- 93-11 SUB Oaks at Minnewashta 35.83 9, 3'; ..,. 8 I5.83 45 1.26 2.84 93-12 SUB Tower Heights 7.1_ 0.6; 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,, 00 3.3 4 1.21 1.21 93-16 SUB TJO 1.06 fi 00 1.06 3 2.83 2.83 93-25 SUB //finger Addition 9.95 2.08 0 0.15 7.72 17 1.71 2.20 95- 4-1 SUB Minnewashta Landings 19.7 1.7 0 0 18 27 1.37 1.50 94-3 SUB Olivewood 25.95 4.6 14.8 0 6.55 8 0.31 1.22 94-4 SUB Shadow Ridge , 15.99 2.15 1.9 0 11.94 17 1.06 1.42- 94-5 PUD Mission Hills/Single-family 1 7,1 0, 0 0 7.1 16 2.25- 2.25 94-7 SUB Woodridge Heights 37.9 3.67. 6.7 0 27.53 46 1.21 1.67 94-8 SUB Creekside 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 Pointe 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 05 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 32.5 7.44 5.6 0 19.461 49 1.51 2.52 4.91-3 PUD Willow Ridge 30.3 4 8.39 0 17.91; 37 1.22 2.07 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 17 1.89 2.70 92-5 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 93-6PUD Springfield 80.8 20.2, 0.5. 5.3 54.8 134 1.66 2.45 95-3 SUB Lake Lucy Estates 16.36 2.08, 4.86: 0 9.42 17, 1.04 1.80 95-20 SUB Knob Hill 8.35 1.1 0.66 0 6.59 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 0.090.2 0 8.61 9 1.01 1.05 96-2 .---- . ..- _.. ..----- SUB Oak Ridge of Lake Minnewashta 11.8 2.1 --- 0 0 9.7 23 1.95 137 96-3 SUB Slather Addition - 1.22 0 0 0 0 1.22 2 1.64 1.64 0, 0.73 0 3.84 10 96-4 SUB Melody Hill 4.5710 2.60 96-7 SUB Arundel 1.32 0 0 0 1.32 2 1.52 1.52 96-8 SUB Rice Lake Manor Estates 7.06 0 1.24 0 5.82 2 0.28 0.34 96-9 SUB Rook Place 1.08 0� 0 0 1.08 2 1.85 1.85 96-15 SUB Black Walnut Acres 3.28 0, 0 0 3.28 1 0.30 0.30 96-18 SUB Song Addition 8.3 0 1.75 0 6.55 I 0.12 0.15 97-1 SUB HighoverAddition 48.99 13.831 2.83. 0 32.33 54 1.10 1.67 97-11 SUB Monson,Sunridge Addition 5 0. 0, 0 5 2, 0.40 0.40 98-1 PUD Lynmore Addition 7/12/1999: 6.39 0.83 2.12' 0.64 2.8 8. 1.25 2.86 98-10 SUB Eric Peterson 6.32 0 339 0 2.73 2; 0.32 0.73 99-3 SUB Nickolay 3.7 0 0.91 0 2.79 2. 0.54 0.72 99-4 SUB Brozorick 1.44 0, 0• 0 1.44 2, 1.39 1.39 99-5 SUB Smith Hill Addition 5/10/1999 1.33 0 0 0 1.33 2 1.50 1.50 99-10 SUB Arrowhead Development 10/23/2000, 0.91 00 0 0.91 2 2.20 2.20 99-11 SUB Sandy Point 12/13/1999. 1.47 0. 0; 0 1.47 2 1.36 1.36 00-1 SUB Marsh Glen 7/24/2000, 13.41 1.45 1.91 0 10.05 19 1.42 1.89 00-2 SUB Lucas Igel Addition 7/23/2001, 1.09 0 0 0 1.09 2 1.83 1.83 00-3 PUD Summerfield 2nd Addition 10/23/2000, 5 0.95 0, 0 4.05 10, 2.00 2.47 00-8 SUB Arvidson's Addition 1127/2000: 2.47 0 0 _ 0 2.47 4 1.62 1.62 00-9 SUB White Oak Addition _ 10/9/2000 3.4 0.6 0 0 2.8 5 1.47 1.79 2000-15 Ashling Meadows 4/9/2001, 40.03 6.39 4.78 0 0 _28.86 51 1.27 1.77 2001-3 Big Woods 8/27/2001 6.3 1.1 0 0 0 5.2 9, 1.43 1.73 2001-6 Tristan Heights 6/11/2001 1.15 0• 0 0 0 1.15 2 1.74 1.74 2001-10 Lake Lucy Ridge 5/28/2002 18.57 2.4' 7.16 _ 9.01 17 0.92 _ 1.89 2002-2 Knob Hill 2nd 7/22/2002. 7..59 1.22. 0.57 0 0 5.8 9, 1.19 1.55 2002-4 Hidden Creek Estates 7/22/2002 2218 3� 8.5 0 _ 0 10.78 200.90 1.86 Ridge7/22/2002: 68.76 8.69 27.92 1.94 0 30.21 84 1.22 2.78- 2002-2 PUD Wasserman 2002-6 Boyer Lake Minnewashta Add. 826/2002; 13.59 1.26 2.34 3.25 6.74 10 0.74 1.48 2002-7 Willow Ridge 3rd Addition 5/28/2002, 2.09 0� 0 0 0 2.09 2� 0.96 0.96 2003-7 Countryside 6/14/2004 5.93 1.02 0.58 4.33 10 1.69 2.31 2003-12 Burlewood _ 12/8/2003 5.17 1.75. _ _ 3.42 9 1.74 2.63 04-10 Walnut Grove 2nd 6/142004 3.09 0.5, 1.1, 1.49 4 1.29 2.68 04-05 Settlers West 7/122004 44.56 4.17 0 16.13 24.26 48 1.08 1.98 04-03 Kenyon Bluff 4/12/2004 2.16 0.24 0.37 1.55 3 1.39 1.94 1/10/2005 2.83 04-23 Lotus View Addition2.83 2. 0.71 0.71 . .... _._. F 04-26 Frontier 2nd Addition 823/2004 2.61 0' 0` 2.61 5 1.92 1.92 04-31 Hidden Creek Meadows 6/13/2005 19.24 2.02: 5.96 11.26 21 1.09E 1.87 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT O` STATISTICS ,.,z' Final Plat GROSS ROW WETLAND/ MISC. PARK NET TOTAL GROSS NET CASE PROJECT NAME Approved ACRES ACRES PRIMARY/ACRES LAND ACRES UNITS DENSITY DENSITY 04-36 Pinehurst 3/142005 27.62 4.28. 0.14, 23.2] 41. 1.481 1.77 04-43 Yoberry Farm(Highcrest) 4/11/2005 35.79 5.54' 4.53: 0.39 25.331 57 1.59 1 2.25 05-02 Crestview 5/92005' 3.36 0.6 2.76._ 5 1.49: 1.81 - -- -- - 05-05 John Henry 4/11/2005, 1.19 1.191 3 2.52! 2.52 ..> � -..- 1 05-08 Fox Den 425/2005 2.77 0.64' 2.13 6 2.17 2.82 05-14 Lake Harrison 7/12/2005 62 6.17 20.9- 1.53 4.42 28.98 38 0.611 1.31 05-21 Frontier 3rd Addition 7/25/2005 0.77 0.77] Y; 2.60] 2.60 05-25 Minnewahsta Creek Bills 822/2005 1.41.4 3: 2.14 j 2.14 05-26 Harvieux Addition 9/29/2005. 1.99 0, 0 0 0 1.99 3i 1.51 I 1.51 05-36 Bluff Creek Twinhomes VOID 05-37 Stonefield 4/102006 17.63 2.23 _ 15.4' 30' 1.70 i 1.95 05-44 Christianson Sub#05-44 4/10/2006 1.05 1.05 2 1.90] 1.90 06-02 Eidness Metes&Bounds 1/23/2006 2.18 2.18] 2 0.92 1 0.92 06-10 Boulder Cove 925/2006: 13.69 1.95 1.23 10.51: 39 2.85] 3.71 07-02 The Arbors 4/92007. 19.83 3.05 0.9 15.881 22 1.11 I 1.39 07-03 Fox Hill 7/9/2007 1.69 0.3 1.39! 3 1.78! 2.16 07-07 Gauer 423/2007 1.09 1.0912 1.83: 1.83 07-09 Lotus Woods 7.6 0.9 0.29 0.5 5.91 II 1.45] 1.86 09-01 Apple Tree Estates 6/82009 7.43 1.04 0.65, 5.74! 7 0.94j 1.22 09-02 Senn Metes&Bounds 23-Mar-09 3.66 3.66; 2 0.55 0.55 10-09 Pioneer Pass 9/13/2010, 63.4 10.52 17.58 0 8.71 26.59: 94 1.484 3.54 10-12 Lakeview(Reflections at Lake Riley) 2/28/2011 50,48 6.86 _19.85 4.83 18.94: 66 1.314 3.48 12-16 Wynsong 1/282013,--_. 9.37 - 2.3 7.07; 4 0.43: 0.57 2013-04 Fretham 15th Addition 8/26/2011 2.29 _ 0.1 2.19', 4 1.751 1.83 2013-09 Bluff Creek Woods 826/2013: 3.57 0.78 2.79] 3: 0.84 1.08 2013-12 Preserve at Rice Lake 8/12/2013 13.22 1.66. 7.56. 4 16. 1.21 4.00 2013-13 Camden Ridge 9/9/2013 22.93 4.62 1.27. 3.5 13.54 58 2.53 4.28 2013-18 Lake St.Joe's Cove 9/9/2013 4.04 0.97, 0.15, 2.92 8 1.98 2.74 2014-02 Hummingbird Heights 1/27/2014 1.667 0.93 0.737 2 1.20 2.71 2014-06 Arbor Cove 6/9/2014' 3.26 3.26 4' 1.23 1.23 2014-08 Fretham 19th Addition 1.51 1.51 4 2.65 2.65 2014-09 Boulder Cove 6/9/2014; 1.3.38 2.42 2.86, 8.1 31 2.32 3.83 2014-12 Black Walnut Acres 2nd _ 5272014; 2.4 0.37 2.03 I 0.42 0.49 2014-18 Vistas at Bentz.Farm 10/27/2014, 19645 2.04 7.88 9.725 15 0.76 1.54 2014-30 2061 W.65th Street Metes&Bounds 11/24,2014 0.69 0 0- 0 0.69 2, 2.90 2.90 2014-36 2631 Forest Avenue Metes&Bounds 12/8.2014 2.57 2.57 2. 0.78 0.78 2015-08 Redstone Ridge 5/26/2015 2.74 2.74 4, 1.46 1.46 2015-16 Arbor Glen 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2015-18 Glaccum 9/14/2015 3.12 0.86 0.44, 1.821 4, 1.28 2.20 2015-09 Anthem on the Park - 1 8/22/2016 8.96 1.81 1.84 5.31 12. 1.34 2.26 2016-13 Foxwood 725/2016 43.55 4.68 20.86 18.015 46' , _ 1.06 2.55 0 #DIV/01 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! SUBTOTAL 1,766 36 240.10 320.77 7.65 70.57 1,127.28 2,271.00 PERCENT 13.6% 18.2% OA% 4.0% 63.8% AVG 1.29 2.01 MULTI-FAMILY 94-5 PUD Mission Hills/Multi-family 47.18 11.6 5.87 0 29.7! 208 4.41 7.00 94-18 PUD Autumn Ridge 28.13 4.29 0 0 23.841 140 4.98 5.87 92-3 PUD Oak Pond/Oak Hills 24.19 2.09: 1.8, 0 20.3 141: 5.83 6.95 94-7 SP Prairie Creek Townhomes 4.6 0' 0: 0 4.6 24, 5.22 5.22 87-3 PUD Powers Place 9.7 0. 0, 0 9.7 48 4.95 -- 4.95 95-7 SP Lake Susan Hills Townhomes i 7.29 0. 0, - 0 7.29 34 4.66 4.66 95-8 SP Centennial Hilts 2.2 0' 01 0 2.2 65, 29.55 29.55 95-1 PUD North Bay - 52.1 2.92. 8.66 26.38 14.14 76 1.46 5.37 96-3 PUD Townhomes at Creekside 7.03 2.18' 1 0.21 3.64 25 3.56 6.87 96-4 PUD Walnut Grove(sf,sm lot+twnhouses 05/27/97, 49.8 6.81 0.2 0 42.79 247, 4.96 5.77 99-9 SPR Lake Susan Apartment Homes 628/1999 9.9 0 0 0 9.9 16 16.36 16.36 99-19 SPR Powers Ridge Apartments 12/11/2000 21,34 0 I 0 20.34 344 16.12 16.91 99-2 PUD Arboretum Village 5/14/2001 120.93 21.59! 26.29 2.9 16.9 53.25 342, 2.83 6.42 2001-13 SP Presbyterian Homes 10/14/2002 5.11 0. 0.3' 0 0 4.81 161: 31.51 33.47 04-01 Highlands of Bluff Creek 6'15/2004 6.52 0.86, 1.8. 3.86 16 2.45 4.15 • 05-11 Liberty on Buff Creek 3/27/2006, 91.02 11.45, 40.06. 39.51+ 407, 4.47) 10.30 06-14 The Preserve 626/2006. 79.86 10.85 34.31. 0.35 34.35! 153, 1.92E 4.45 06-05 Gateway Place 2/27/2006, 6.2 0.25 0.38. 0! 5.57] 48, 7.74? 8.62 06-18 SonthWest Village 9/9/2013 2.773 1.547 0; 0 0 1.226 36] 12.98 1 29.36 06-26 Lakeside 10/23/2006 26.29 1.74 4.06 T 1.44 19.05+ 101, 3.84! 5.30 2015-01 Mission Hills Senior Housing 8.64 ---- ! 8.641 152. 17.59, 17.59 uro..Paa.e,..2 uturatIonsey 2 RESIDENTIAL '' DEVELOPMENT mO STATISTICS ""` Final Plat GROSS ROW WETLAND/ MISC. PARK NET TOTAL GROSS NET CASE PROJECT NAME Approved ACRES ACRES PRIMARY/ACRES LAND ACRES UNITS DENSITY DENSITY SUBTOTAL 610.803 78.177 125.73 3.25 44.93 358.716 2,930 PERCENT 12.8% 20.6% 0.5% 7.4% 58.7% AVG 4.80 8.17 TOTALS 2,377.17 318.28 446.50 10.90 115.50 1,485.99 5,201 PERCENT 13.4% 18.8% 0.5% 4.9% 62.5% AVG 2.19 3.50 I i VOW,.Ns.FUw✓riany 9