Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
03-5-97 Agenda and Packet
FILE AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY,MARCH 5, 1997 AT 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL,690 COULTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS OLD BUSINESS 1. U. S. West NewVector Group, Inc. for a conditional use permit approval to allow a telecommunication tower at 78 West 78th Street and site plan approval for a 76 foot monopole tower, 12' x 24' equipment building, and a six foot chain link fence on property zoned Highway and Business (BH) District. NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 2. Comprehensive Plan - Population and Land Use ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m.as outlined in official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If,however,this does not appear to be possible,the Chair person will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. C I TY 0 FTE: 211997 PC DA U A 'TUA SEN 3'597 ` 1 CC DATE: 3110%97 CASE#: 97-1 CLP By: Generous:v STAFF REPORT • PROPOSAL: Conditional use permit request to permit a 76 foot cellular communication tower and 288 square foot equipment building F Z LOCATION: 78 West 78th Street Q V_ APPLICANT: U.S. West NewVector Group, Inc. 0.6 cio Jaymes D. Littlejohn Hessian, McKasy& Soderberg, P.A. Q 4700 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 330-3003 4 PRESENT ZONING: BH, Highway and Business Services District ACREAGE: approximately 4 acres DENSITY: not applicable ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N- BH,vacant, railroad line; R-12, apartments north of railroad; City of Eden Prairie Q S-BH, Highway 5 }-- E -1OP, Redmond Q. W-BH, Chanhassen Office Complex w WATER AND SEWER: Available to site • PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site is currently occupied by Lotus Lawn Garden Center, Inc. (f) A wetland exists on the northern portion of the property. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial +1MIF -.1,_:..,._,..litiMail- 1 ..:"..4:i.,. .' - ,/_ ' a y� -IL"�'�y g� MN _,,_ Y. (___,r,,,r4i, �..1A 1111 �i�I�►� --700 SU�l�'.� � .P I.I � ■ 7200 O`.j,-_\ LANE \, • • AkLi iii �•�a111111a* I•' �� ,. w•,. .iii d am 62 ,,._)i�.Yi� ���� \s\ � 700 •— i $ 1 ? T500 :':at era/ / TO _ .. •Far._t:"Mit 71E Ers,a li s. � I 7600 .,, . ■ nen ..f- ♦�‘ /IZA ow: •- �t� Owl fir MR MI Pr MB— v er•w1t�I?11 I.1.1 -2.1.11112:111i �_ iammmum -� - � /� i•�,.. J•�• !►� ��• 7700 2 F : Illllrllllli� Q 7 ffeai` -:Illdlik�� � � , w. n+ sr v ilikis1.-"Iri": "."...-' _ P/c� r 7800- imp' r------- •� • . •.. .j111t'1 ; ., , 7900 1011"1"10°,,,,-o :, ,.. •0, ..: 3 oP �� eLa go= w.."�ori ■ .aV':i a.. r iW A!,I •�..: �� �: Aill0f , w CD ��i ''' 8000 .14:170.7. 4..�tP.*:?: ■ •Eratr 1 - 10CD° i.c r&o:lbcsrit wi fi —98100 trots11int ‘ tC ). 41C-•.g " I.7n. 1.1 t.i-'..i.....,.sr‘sii ) ...�. g� 4IiFRSF : — 8200 ;. i • S ("N3 NEN 8300 L 8•ic' ♦ NIP R/CE M -SH LAKE ):, _ i - f_ 7- MP i .(10.) — : • 4 - 8600 US West NewVector Group, Inc. February 12, 1997 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY UPDATE This item was tabled at the February 19th Planning Commission meeting to allow City Council to review the proposed cellular tower to the west of this location. On February 24, 1997, City Council tabled the APT conditional use permit review to permit them to review both tower locations at the same time. Staff believes that of the two locations,the one behind the office building is the better location. Should the City Council approve this site for the tower, a co-location requirement should be added, the city should approve increasing the height of the tower to accommodate additional antennas, and landscaping be required to screen the area. The applicant is proposing a 76 foot tall cellular communication tower with twelve(12) directional antennas(4 per sector). The monopole is to have a galvanized finish,which tends to blend in better with the sky than other colors. Within this area,a 12 foot by 24 foot equipment building and a 20 foot by 15 foot fenced enclosure is being proposed. The prefabricated equipment building has an aggregate, neutral fmish. According to ordinance,accessory buildings shall be constructed on wood, brick or stucco(Section 20-1514). The applicant indicated that they are flexible in the material selection. In order to comply with fire code,a service road must be installed for assessing the equipment building. The tower is proposed to be surrounded by a six foot fence with three strands of barbed wire at the top. The chain link fence is permitted in this district, however, City Code requires a separate conditional use permit for the use of barbed wire(Section 20-1018). The site for the proposed telecommunications tower is a garden center. The tower and equipment building are to be located along the eastern boundary of the property. The proposed tower and accompanying equipment building would compete with the dominate feature/use of this property. According to ordinance, a wireless telecommunication tower proposal shall not be approved until it is demonstrated that accommodations cannot be made on an existing tower within a one-half (1/2) mile search radius for towers between 120 feet and 80 feet in height(Section 20-1510). Although this proposal is 76 feet in height, that should not exempt the applicant from the responsibility of co-location. In terms of landscaping, screening is required by ordinance for the base equipment,but the applicant has not provided for any landscaping to be installed as part of the project. Plantings should be done along the sides to reduce the visual impact of the equipment. Landscaping would enhance the location and offer a softer alternative to the chain link fence, barbed wire, and windowless equipment building. US West NewVector Group, Inc. February 12, 1997 Page 3 Staff is recommending denial of the conditional use permit/site plan for the wireless telecommunication tower and equipment building. A more appropriate location for the telecommunication tower is co-location with the proposal located at 80 78th Street West. BACKGROUND In November 1996, the City of Chanhassen adopted Ordinance 259 pertaining to towers and antennas. This ordinance provided criteria for the design and location of wireless telecommunication facilities in the city. The city has been advised by wireless telecommunication companies that this area of the city is a dead zone for current service users. Part of the impetus for revision of the tower and antenna ordinance was this dead zone for wireless telecommunication. FINDINGS When approving a conditional use permit, the city must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: 1. Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Finding: The proposed tower should not endanger the public health, safety or welfare of the city. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The proposed use is not consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, ordinance requirements for Highway 5 Corridor District or the tower ordinance. 3. Will be designed,constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Finding: The proposed tower does not comply with city ordinance requirements. The proposed tower and equipment building will alter the character of the general vicinity as it will become the dominate feature of the property. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. US West NewVector Group, Inc. February 12, 1997 Page 4 Finding: The proposed tower will not be hazardous to existing or planned neighboring uses. 5. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Finding: The proposed development is provided with adequate public services. 6. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Finding: The proposed development will not require excessive public services. 7. Will not involve uses, activities,processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents,or trash. Finding: The proposed tower should not create conditions that are detrimental to persons property or the general welfare of the community. 8. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Finding: The proposed development will not interfere with traffic circulation. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Finding: The proposed development will not destroy or damage natural, scenic, or historic features. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The proposed tower will not be aesthetically compatible with the area and would become the dominate feature on the site. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The proposed development should not depreciate surrounding property values. US West NewVector Group, Inc. February 12, 1997 Page 5 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The proposed development will meet standards established for communication towers. The following revision must be made to the plans: • The equipment building shall be screened from view by suitable vegetation and a service road shall be constructed for accessibility purposes. • The applicant shall document that the tower is designed, structurally, electrically, and in all respects,to accommodate both the applicant's antennas and comparable antennas for at least one additional user. Towers must be designed to allow for future rearrangement of antennas upon the tower and to accept antennas mounted at varying heights. • A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the city. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of conditional use permit 97-1 for a personal communication service(PCS) wireless telecommunication facility, including site plan,prepared by Design 1, dated 12/12/96,denial for a 76 foot monopole tower and associated equipment, at 78 West 78th Street for U.S. West NewVector based on the findings for conditional uses contained in this report." ATTACHMENTS 1. Development Review Application 2. Letter from Jaymes D. Littlejohn to the Planning Commission dated 1/3/97 3. Statement of Compliance with 12 General Standards for Conditional Use Permits 4. Letter from Jaymes D. Littlejohn to Richard Buckley, SBA, Inc. dated 1/28/97 5. Letter from Scott Peters to Robert Generous dated 1/28/97 6. Memorandum from Mark Littfin, Fire Marshall to Robert Generous dated 1/30/97 7. Planning Commission Minutes of 2/19/97 8. Reduced Site Plan 9. Reduced Landscaping Plan JAN 0 7 7991 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CITY Or CHANHASSEN, MN 85317 (812)937•1GG00 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT:U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc. OWNER: Lotus Lake harden Center, Inc. Corp. c/o Jaymes . ejo n Hessian, McKasy & Soderberg, P.A. ADDRESS:_4700 IDS Center, Mpplls-_. MN 55402 ADDRESS: 78-78th Street West Chanhassen, MN 55317 TELEPHONE(Day time) _330-3003 TELEPHONE: 949-0726 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. X Cohdltlonal Use Permit — 12, Uarlanoe 13,: drdlr /Ecavation Permit 13. Iletland Alteration Permit 4. Interim Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development 16, zoning Ordinance Amendment _ _ I O. Reioning 7. ate, Ferrnits 8. Slan Ptah Review X NotIfIcation Signs / C 1 9.- -/ She Plan Review •� Esorow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ..2 • $1 BO-CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Rounds 10. SUtxilvislon TOTAL FEE $ 500.00 A flat Dl all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must included with'the application. Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8142" X 11" Reduced oopy of transparency for each plan sheet. ` NOTE • When muttiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract ` tMOJECT NAME MINDOVETAIL Cell Site '•r ' "'^" 78-78th Streit West LEI, AL DESORIPTION See Attached Exhibit A PRESENT ZONING _21. 1_,9-1;- hway and Bus nes.s. Services District REOUESTEDZONING BH (No change) PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Garden Center ! RgQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION Garden Center and Comniercial Communication Tower (Pole) REASON FOR THIS REQUEST To permit installation and operation of 76 feet monopole and. 12 feet by 24 foot equipment building for cellular !service. See attached letter. s application must be completed in fu I and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be a000mpanied by all information and plans retred by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should oonfer with the Planning Dep rtment to determine the epecflo ordinance and procedural,requirements appllcabl6 to your application. This Is to Darty that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying Witt all City re uirements with regard to this request, This application should be processed In my name and I am the party ss *m the Olt Should oontact regardin0 any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (eh er copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I wkil keep myself Informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of thls application. I further understand rstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization tO. proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the bast of my knowledge I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded acp&nst the tiff$ to the property for which the approval/permit Is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Fleoorder's Office and the original,document returned to City Hall Records. dir ...j .--..,,„ 171/1 7 S' atur: •f • •.II:ant I ate 1 Jaymes D,Zrttl- ohn, Esq. ! 6.• ur ofFpabtvvnar Jay L. Kronic , President p e i atlon Received on; pee pardSi;�r' Receipt No, l_, The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report whloh will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If nbt contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. I AS TO: (Legal Description) Carver County That part of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 59, files of Registrar of Titles, which lies South of a line drawn East perpendicular to the West line of said Tract C from a point thereon distant 103.00 feet South, as measured along said West line from the Northwest corner of said Tract C; And that part of Tract D lying Easterly of the Southerly extension of the West line of said Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 59, files of Registrar of Titles, all in Carver County, Minnesota. Hennepin County That part of the West 149 feet of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 116 North, Range 22 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying North of State Highway No. 5 and which lies South of a line drawn East perpendicular to the West line of Tract C, Registered Land Survey No. 59, files of the Registrar of Titles, Carver County, from a point thereon distant 103.00 feet South, as measured along said West line, from the Northwest corner of said Tract C, Hennepin County, Minnesota. EXHIBIT "A" LAW OFFICES HESSIAN, MCKASY & SODERBERG PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Minneapolis • Saint Paul • Washington,D.C. 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402-2228 (612)330-3000 Facsimile 371-0653 Jaymes D. Littlejohn (612) 330-3003 January 3, 1997 VIA MESSENGER Planning Commission and City Council City of Chanhassen c/o Ms. Kate Aanenson Planning Department 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Re: Proposed Cellular Telephone Antenna Site 78 West 78th Street To the Commission and City Council Members: Accompanying this letter is a Development Review Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a cellular telephone antenna site proposed to be located at the above-referenced address. The application is in the name of the fee owners, Lotus Lake Garden Center, and of our client, U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc., who provides AirTouch Cellular service. AirTouch Cellular is one of two companies licensed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide cellular telephone service to the City of Chanhassen and to the rest of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Cellular telephone usage is on the increase in Chanhassen, and particularly in areas of high traffic concentration and business activity, such as in this section of Highway 5. The cellular telephone usage in this area has reached the point where the system is at its capacity, resulting in an interruption of service and a loss of calls in this area. Since you have recently completed an exhaustive study of the factors considered by companies providing wireless telephone service to Chanhassen, this letter will be limited to the facts specific to this site and to AirTouch's need for this installation to provide better cellular service to your community. Cellular Telephone Antenna Site 78 West 78th Street January 3, 1997 Page 2 The application is made to permit the addition of a new cellular telephone site on a portion of the property located at 78 West 78th Street, creating additional capacity to serve the increased demands of the area. AirTouch Cellular has entered into a lease with the owner of the site. The Proposed Use. We propose to install a cellular telephone antenna site approximately 150 feet from the front lot line of this site, near the eastern boundary of the subject property. Consistent with your newly adopted Tower and Antenna Ordinance, the proposal includes utilizing a monopole to support the antennas, the total height which will be 76 feet. We also propose building a small equipment building near the base of the monopole. The site plan and elevation drawings enclosed with this letter depict this proposed use, the property lines, existing structures, the required setbacks, and the setbacks for the proposed installation. Location and Zoning. This site is in the BH (Highway and Business Services) Zoning District. Under the new amendments to the regulations for the BH District, "Commercial Towers" are a conditional use under section 20-714(10) of the Zoning Code. As you can see, the setbacks for this installation comply with your new ordinance. Both the building and the monopole are setback from the wetland located on the northern portion of this property more than the 75 foot requirement. The same is true for the side and front setbacks. At 288 square feet, the building is within the size limitation set forth in section 20-1513 of the ordinance. Pursuant to section 20-1510(1), no co-location study is necessary for this site since AirTouch simply did not need a monopole that was 80 feet or taller. Indeed, the proposed monopole will be of a similar design and height as the high tension electrical transmission standards along Highway 5 at the southern boundary of the subject property. Access to the site will be from West 78th Street, through the parking lot for the Lotus Lawn and Garden Center. Many factors went into choosing this location. These include market factors, technical considerations, cellular grid size, zoning and land use compatibility, land forms or topography of the surrounding area, accessibility of the site, and land owner willingness to sell or lease. Indeed, this last factor has caused the need for this site to be changed from our original proposal made in August of 1996, before your zoning amendments were adopted. The Equipment Building. The equipment building will house radio, computer, and climate control equipment for this site. The site will be connected to our central switching office via traditional telephone lines. Each cellular antenna site requires extensive supporting electronic equipment in close proximity to the monopole. This equipment requires periodic maintenance. AirTouch engineers will visit the equipment structure about twice a month to insure that the equipment is working properly. As such, the operation of the cell site will not be an occupied use, and public facilities for refuse disposal or water and sewer systems will not be required. There will be no measurable impact on traffic or other conditions. Cellular Telephone Antenna Site 78 West 78th Street January 3, 1997 Page 3 The cell site is electrically powered and produces no noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odor. The cellular telephone equipment which is located at our cell sites is powered with 200 amp, typical household power. The cell site is operated and monitored remotely. Our personnel in Minneapolis and in Bellevue monitor the site around the clock and are alerted by silent smoke, fire and forced entry alarms. The proposed use will not materially change the need for public services at this site. Cellular is a low-power system. The amount of energy generated from a cellular phone channel is typically about the same as a 100 watt light bulb. This is less energy than is generated by the typical cordless telephone which is in use in many homes today. The Monopole. The area in which cellular coverage is needed largely defines the required antenna height. Naturally, topography also plays a role in arriving at the appropriate height. The monopole and antenna is proposed to be coated with a galvanized finish like that used on most high tension transmission standards. However, the pole can be painted in any manner that the city chooses to best minimize its visual impact. AirTouch Cellular Service. The cellular mobile phone system operates on a specific set of channels set aside by the FCC. The filtering of spurious signals is very tightly controlled. Cellular telephones operate within a strictly regulated set of allotted frequencies between 835 and 897 megahertz, which were once used to provide UHF television signals in some areas of the country, although not in the Twin Cities. AirTouch Cellular is currently operating over 1,000 cellular antennas around the country with no case of unresolved television or radio interference reported. Naturally, the proposed site would be built in accordance with our FCC license to provide cellular service in this area. Users of cellular telephone service include members of the business community as well as the public sector. Doctors, builders, salespersons, business owners, and realtors all benefit by using cellular phones. Also, cellular telephone users can contact "911" to report accidents, fires, or other emergencies without first having to search for a telephone. Additionally, cellular telephones are extensively used by fire and police departments. The system allows police and other emergency response agencies to conduct private communication in the field. This can be important from the scene of a crime. Immediate, direct communication can also be made with other specialized agencies when a relay through a dispatcher would be cumbersome, and cause dangerous delays. Cellular telephones continue to function in areas where telephone wires are down because of tornados or ice storms, also aiding in emergencies. We have enclosed several articles that discuss the public safety aspects of cellular service. Increasing demand for cellular service has required AirTouch Cellular to search for a location for an additional antenna site in this area of Chanhassen. The need for this site is based upon the use of cellular phones in your city. At the present time, owners of cellular phones are experiencing lost connections, or "dropped calls," and they often may have trouble placing calls Cellular Telephone Antenna Site 78 West 78th Street January 3, 1997 Page 4 in the first place. Our communications engineers have performed field studies, and determined that in order to function properly, the new cell site must be located in the area of the subject property. The site will service an area about a mile and a half in radius from the site. Conclusion. If any reader of this letter has questions concerning the application, the drawings, or any other related matter, please feel free to contact me at the above address. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, HESSIAN, McKASY&SODERBERG, P.A. Jaymes D Littlejohn Enclosures cc: Mr. Kent Sticha (w/o enclosures) 121207-1 0530200-008400 LAW OFFICES HESSIAN, MCKASY & SODERBERG - PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Minneapolis • St. Paul • Washington, D.C. ; '.I 1:37/ 4700 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 (612)330-3000 Facsimile 371-0653 Federal Identification #41-1751152 Jaymes D. Littlejohn (612) 330-3003 January 28, 1997 Mr. Richard Buckley SBA, Inc. c/o Aerial Communications 1701 East 79th Street Bloomington, MN 55425 Re: Antenna Site Sub-Lease Agreement 80 West 78th Street, Chanhassen Dear Mr. Buckley: Thank you for calling me last week regarding the collocation request of my client, U S WEST NewVector Group, Inc., who provides AirTouch Cellular service. As you indicated, Mr. Wallace was mistaken as to the interest of Aerial APT in allowing my client to collocate at the above site. As we discussed, you are currently attempting to gain the landlord's consent to moving the lease area as set forth in the conditions proposed by the planning commission. Concurrent with that work, you agreed that you would obtain permission from the landlord to increase the size of your leased parcel to accommodate the 12 by 24 foot, AirTouch equipment shelter. I appreciate your stated intent to have these items taken care of so that the entire installation can be presented to the city council for consideration at its meeting on February 10, 1997. As I indicated, AirTouch's architect, Robert Davis of Design One, can provide you with elevations of the required equipment shelter, drawings for typical antennae (Antel LPD-7905/8- EIA of which 12 are required) and all other information related to site design so that this information can be incorporated into your site plans. Design One's telephone number and address are: Mr. Richard Buckley January 28, 1997 • Page 2 DESIGN ONE 9973 Valley View Road Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Telephone 903-9299; Fax 903-9292 In a letter that I received today from Mr. Wallace, he stated that "if AirTouch is not interested, APT would of course pursue co-location." Just so that there is no misunderstanding, AirTouch is committed to collocation at this site, as long as the landlord agrees to allowing our installation, the agreement contains standard terms, the antennas are mounted at a tip height of 78 feet, and AirTouch has 24 hour access to the shelter and monopole for maintenance and repairs. If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me at your convenience. . Sincerely, HESSIAN, McKASY & SODERBERG, P.A. Jaymes D. Littlejohn JDL/ cc: Mr. Robert Generous, City of Chanhassen Mr. John Wallace Mr. Mike O'Rourke Mr. Kent Sticha 125348-1 0530200-008400 ttip�"" , Minnesota Department of Transportation Metropolitan Division foFTwo Waters Edge 1500 West County Road B2 - • , - Roseville, MN 55113 . January 28, 1997 Robert Generous City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Robert Generous: Subject: U.S. West New Vector Group: Conditional Use Permit Public Hearing Notice Review PH97-004 North Side of West 78th Street, 1/4 Mile East of TH 101 Chanhassen, Hennepin County CS 1002 The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has reviewed your request for comment regarding a Conditional Use Permit for a telecommunications tower at 78 West 78th Street. We have no major concerns regarding the application. However, we would like to take this opportunity to remind the applicant of certain stipulations regarding development of property adjacent to Mn/DOT right of way. • A Mn/DOT access permit is required for access to or across state highways or rights of way, including Mn/DOT owned frontage roads. A change in the intensity or type of use of an existing entrance also requires a permit. • A Mn/DOT stormwater drainage permit is required for any change in rate of runoff to trunk highway right of way, or any alteration of trunk highway stormwater drainage systems. • Any other use of or work within Mn/DOT right of way, including but not limited to grading, utility work, and landscaping, also requires a permit. The permit necessary depends on the nature of the proposed work. • If property adjacent to Mn/DOT right of way is to be platted, the preliminary plat must be submitted to us for review, along with a site plan and grading and drainage plans if prepared. An equal opportunity employer Robert Generous January 28, 1997 page two Copies of proposed plats and site plans may be sent to Sherry Narusiewicz, Local Government Liaison Supervisor, at the above address. Questions regarding permit applications may be directed to Bill Warden of our Permits Unit at 582-1443. Please contact me at 582-1654 with any questions about this public notice review. Sincerely, Scott Peters Senior Transportation Planner/Local Government Liaison CITY OF '1$11 0 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: January 30, 1997 SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit approval to allow a telecommunications tower at 78 West 78th Street. Site plan approval for a 60 foot monopole tower, 12 foot by 24 foot equipment building and a 6 foot chain link fence on property zoned highway and business(BH)district, US West New Vector Group, Inc. Planning Case: 97-1 CUP. I have reviewed the site plan for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or City Ordinance/Policy requirements. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Supply plans to the Fire Marshal that a service road is to be installed for accessing the equipment building. ML/be g:lsafetylmllplrevteletower iii.:^' 1 �..irsts� . 11/411S Nat MR Si mama '4 S�1UW' "'0 •i..�.'r ..�. syr s r r--1 e.t.a a�..9,.cam, �°i..' n::e: .ONI `dflO.Y 7 �3AUN 'IIv.L3AOUNIN ru_av,o.oua r 1- ' ri T N3IS3Q 153M:111 _ �,.>� j; mar send Ai z •1 Z —; 1 g§ I^ 1 CL CL % I` .4br HCOUNTY alb .0-,Lim 1f ..b :. 1 AlNf10o � v�\ i''''''• 1 .. ill 71 . 4c i ip .... i . @ -T y . •\ Y I 11 1 I Q 1 1 \�'�� .l 1 . Ill . NI jili . : e • - ' - - la Jam \ MN 1 it g I - , :� • :.,• 111 ••:K�i „`,: •n . J C/Z - . `.• 44. CL lil i it 1 ti3 g L'i !. 1 f •''. Z � _`' E], \ INI; • If f 1 1 Dr 41E10.1 z-. i. l i >n :. 4 t a rsc+ • twx 41 I II '"umr ah o I 11 a z ! 0ZX :� evl3ae,+zxzl W 5J 1 __ _1 F ...' — s L ! A ,, 11, II 1 r4 k % z 1 11 W } z 1a -- o F o > vl w i aw 1 (s...L.'eD el'.o-s. e. - . . , , : HESSIAN MAST SOGEREERG 62/ 19/91 12 : s` P . 662I 6..' , , inQ„ir,AC reic;.ng to N's prcject should oe cdoressod to: • HESSIAN MCKASY & SODERBERG JAYMESA D�.y IITLEJOHN •• io : r-.w t6 vc-mr.3 ,S.0.. ..:,1=5".2.: -a :-:.zee r.._—P'- 4 •00/1"/. A• • I •• 1 •• o. _ 1 4.' I f x ----\\N_______„......_ ,,i, �15-20' ' 0SPRUCE TREES I •` �� j ��3EA ASH 0 1 TREE INVENTORY, USUALLY CONSLSTINC �y to $ 6'-e* DIA. OF MIXTURE OF 6.-7* EVERGREENS & tot, I - 1 12'-15' DECIOUOUS TREES. _ CM �i gt G,8 6, 1 (MAX. COUNT - 10DEA TREES) \?8 ffi ffi ffi ffi / _ 4, ffi $ ffi 4, ffiffi ' / ROUP OF SEA $V ffi e -5'-20' SPRUCE 1 ', GREENSPIRE LINDEN, 6.-7b- j ' 6' HIGH WOOS N Z tk 4.ffi ffi ffi ffi I RDPO ED � ; ffi gy `$,ffi 20'x40 �! LEASE AREA. /�� I . fi • el 0 ggi •EXISTING STRUCTURES 6 ! d 6 ASH TREES, APPROX. KENTUCKY COFFEE TREE, 151:1i • et, 0 S 0 ® : 6'-10' DIA O 0 8 15'-19' D.C. 1 I ® e € ar ® 6 . Q l I 1 I I / 6 g GROUP OF SEA TREE MEMORY. USUALLY CQNSISTING/ ° ® ® 0 ' O ® 64. I SPRUCE, 18'-20' OF MIXTURE OF 6'+T EVERGREENS 6 12'-15' DECIDUOUS TREES. ® t!9 0 549 (MAX. ® 6 (MAx. COUNT t-i_ TRI S) 4 ' , I ..I 1 Of I I ,I �qr ......� �- 2EA. SPRUCE (1-971:11') -----_--_:z.--- LOCUST TREE. 3-5'h. v t I �� FLOWERING CRAB. 2.5'D. ff'f =13'-�' NIGH EARTH BERM �_r GREEN ASH (1-6%1-6'-) _---0 --I-- 7:4:1” - I-- 1;:-- Z / 1 h,, STR''-' PIN OAX. 6'D. _---0T r' l 1 n ( I MINDOVETAIL ' 78 WEST 78TH. STREET A CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE: NOT TO SCALE CITYOF CEANBASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: February 27, 1997 SUBJ: Comprehensive Plan Update As a part of the update of the comprehensive, staff will be providing updated information/data on the elements of the comprehensive plan. The first elements to be examined are population housing, and land use. The purpose of this information is to provide you with the framework to start drawing some implications from the data. These implications will be translated into goals and policies of the Comprehensive plan. TRENDS: Land Use Analysis Potentially - dwelling type distribution can meet targets - will need to increase multi-family densities Building Permits - Based on average annual increase (1980-1996) - Need to reduce number of single family homes and increase life cycle housing - insufficient land to accommodate single family housing - Changing demographics - Average increase approximately 300 units per year Housing Unit by Type - Cumulative housing units Planning Commission February 27, 1997 Page 2 - Added household estimates(5%vacancy) - Added population estimate (This is lower than Past, Present, Future due to use of 2.7 persons per household- comp plan) Chanhassen Population "Past, Present& Future" - Projections from previous sheet between original low estimate and 1996 revised except for 2010 - Note buildout appears to move back to around 2020 Comp Plan - Just wanted to show previous household estimate start to fall behind in 2010 Carver County has just completed a housing study as a part of their implementation strategies of the Livable Communities Act. Please review this document as well as the other information provided. Staff is preparing to present this data in an open discussion format. \\cfs I\vol2\plan\ka\compplan.pc.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE POPULATION ESTIMA- SINGLE TOWNAPARTME TOTAL HOUSE- CENSUS YEAR FAMILY DUPLEX HOUSESCOMPLEX _ HOLDS 1980 1,819 80 92 449 2,440 2.318 6,259 6359 1981 1,841 82 92 449 2,464 2,341 6,320 1982 1,860 84 92 449 2,485 2,361 6,374 1983 1,920 92 128 449 2,589 2,460 6,641 1 1984 2,028 126 152 449 2,755 2,617 7,067 1985 2,217 164 172 467 3,020 2,869 7,746 1986 2,463 172 180 467 3,282 3,118 8,418 1987 2,752 174 212 467 3,605 3,425 9,247 1988 3,104 200 246 467 4,017 3,816 10,304 1989 3,411 _ 200 260 529 4,400 4,180 11,286 1990 3,608 200 260 529 4,597 _ 4,367 11,791 11732 1991 3,799 200 260 529 4,788 4,549 12,281 1992 4,027 200 260 529 5,016 4,765 12,866 1993 4.278 200 276 529 5,283 5,019 13,551 1994 4,547 __ 200 _ 386 - 529 5,662 5,379 14,523 1995 4,763 200 583 594 6,140 5,833 15,749 1996 4,933 200 620 594 6,347 6,030 16,280 1997 5,119 208 653 618 6,598 6.268 16,925 _ 1998 5,313 216 686 646 6,861 6,518 17.599 1999 5,517 224 721 675 7,136 _ 6,780 18,305 2000 5,732 232 758 _ 703 7,425 7,054 19,045 2001 5,956 240 796 731 7,723 7,337 19,809 _ 2002 6,187 247 833 759 8,026 7,625 20,588 2003 6,421 252 872 788 8,333 7,916 21,374 2004 6,654 256 913 818 8,640 8,208 22,163 2005 6,883 261 954 _ 847 8,945 8,498 22,944 2006 , 7,105 265 996 876 9,242 8,780 23,706 2007 7,323 268 1,039 903 9,533 9,056 24,452 2008 7,541 272 1,085 929 9,828 9,337 25,209 2009 7,761 _ 277 1,134 _ 956 10,128 9,621 25,978 2010 7,981 281 1,185 983 10,430 9,909 26,753, 2011 8,199 286 1,238 1,009 10,733 10,196 27,530 2012 8,414 291 1,289 1,038 11.031 10,480 28,295 2013 8,629 296 1,330 1,064 11,319 10,753 29,033 2014 8,846 302 1,372 1,091 11,611 11,031 29,783 2015 9,065 308 1,414 1,119 11,906 11,311 30,539 2016 9,286 313 1,457 1,147 12,203 11,593 31,300 2017 9,508 318 1,500 1,175 12,501 11,876 32,065 2018 9,730 323 1,544 1,203 12,800 12,160 32,831 2019 9,952 328 1,588 1,230 13,098 12,443 33,597 2020 10,173 333 1,632 1,258 13,396 12,727 34,362 g:\plan\censuslpermitpr JD 37 11 �. ¢) 73 cD DO 70 cD x JO cD jj 0 Cr Cn Q � 0 a � CD v+ aN 0 a (0 QCD p_ cn Q � Qcn -a 01) Q cn = (D (D Q CD CD Q CD CD Q = = Z F = CD !y CD D f = CD 3 °- w i a) . w a� H. sem H. Dl cn 1) , E , a , L cn CD CD I CD r ' I CD r ' I CD r ' D cn• Qor d-21• Q0r (0 p 3 03 p 3 p(Q p 3 0c CD (D CD (D p CD CD p cD (D p cD (D CD nCD =cr) r H • 2.' H z cn.� D > > r �. U) CI) '1 = CO co r- > w D * co D C 6) • (D 0 v A N CD (n N cn N CD TI _N U1 W In cn 0 �l co CO o cn u) CO N OoCo N CO n cn J O co 01 CO CD A ND E OHO ---J CNT1 C CD N 03 N CSO .J XI rn CCD m CCD -< CCm D cn I cn cn C CT) NI o — 0) co - o-) N..) O p 1- CO �1 CO CO - G N A CO O - N CO CO A - .< D N �lO •j m N0000 Cpis) CD (11 Z 0 0 0 0 , ' e 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 'D p D 0 0 D 0 C cI) * Z CD * 2)% * m Do D p o D Cb Q) CoCb N (p co coCb C3) CoCb NaN a co coCp a) Co N (p (.CD > r- 0 00< C0 //-<� G <C _y C V) CD -L N 6) CD CD u CT) 0) -4 CO CO CD (i) NN = Cb CO CDCPOG.) 5- ----.I A - CO v CO C71 -A CCD CO A 01 -4 -1 co 0.1 CT) 01 CO CA CO N CO CL) -LA A CO O -4COcDN cn CO (.1 - O ." CO * (D * CSD * CD N CO CD0 -L. v CD 0 -4 N CO CD n N CO W/N) /-� CD CD 01 -+ �0)'/�• CD C) 01 • N • CD J COV O 1(i..[ .' , Co C) (0 a V j 6J 6)co �M O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 -o V V m0 mO mO N - C N - C co N � C 01 0) cn 0) KD 01 N CO CO K D U1 coJ OOH � D -1 0 ornD 0) -4, cDoC0D -I iv �l -CO �1cDD -i CO N) --.1 C) c�.) � CD COAm0 CO COwlvrnm0 Z Z Z 0 N N) V CO v (C) W N D C7 Cl) `G `2 c O 0- (D CD - 0 5' A) Q II -0 C/3CD CD CO CDcD 3CD O CD x —„ II O- 3 = CD 5 cr^p^ tY! W 1 O O 3 C) -0 - CD o * CD C) -• o (D G V C C l NcD • o Z _ - p �D Cz Cl) cn CD m N p -p -o • 6 r- (--r; o in cn CD ., - O- O CD o 5 -n (Q . Co TI O N (0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED/PROJECTED Source: City of Chanhassen Planning Department. February 1997 SINGLE TOWNAPARTMENT TOTAL YEAR FAMILY DUPLEX HOUSES COMPLEX DWELLINGS ' 1980 41 ' 18 40 0 99 1981 22 2 ; 0 24 1982 19 : 2 0 21 1983 60 836 104 1984 108 34 24 _ 166 1985 189 38 201 18 265 1986 ; 246 8 ! 81 1 262 : 1987 289 21 321 323 1988 352 26 34 • 412 1989 307 0 14 _ 62 383 1990 197 0 0 197 1991 191 0 , 0 191 1992----- 228 --- 0 0 _ ----- 228 1993 251 0 16 267 _ 1994 269 0 110 0 379 1995 216 0 197 : _ 65 _478 _ _1996 _ 170 0 37 ' 0 _ 207 1997 186 8 33 24 251 _ 1998 194 8 33 28 263 _ 1999 204 8 35 28 275 2000 215 8 37 28 289 2001 224 -- 8 37 28 __---_—_ 298 rt 2002231 7 38 28 304 2003 234 5 39 29 307 _ 2004 ' 233 , _ 5 . 41 29 307 2005 . 230 5 : 41 29 : 305 2006 222 4 42 ; 29 ; 297 2007 217 4 43 27 : 291 2008 : 219 ; 4 46 ; 27i 295_ 2009 ; 220 , 4I 49i 27 I 300 . 20101 220 ; 5 ! 511 271 302 ; 2011 1 218 I 5 j 53 1 271 303 20121 215 1 5 1 50 i 28 i 298 2013 1 215 ! 5 42 ; 26 288 20141 217 ; 6 421 28 292 2015 1 219 6 421 28 295 2016 ! 221 ' 5 43 28 297 I 2017 ' 222 5 43 281 298 ' 2018 222 5 44 ; 281 299 . 20191 222 5 ; 44 � 281 299 ; 2020 , 221 5 441 28 1 298 g:\plan\census`,.perm itpr CITY OF CHANHASSEN HOUSING UNITS BY TYPE POPULATION ESTIMA' SINGLE TOWNAPARTME TOTAL HOUSE- CENSUS YEAR FAMILY DUPLEX HOUSESCOMPLEX HOLDS 1980 1,819 80 92 449 2,440 2,318 6,259 6359 1981 1,841 82 92 449 2,464 2,341 6,320 1982 1,860 84 92 449 2,485 2,361 6,374 1983 1,920 92 128 449 2,589 2,460 6,641 1984 2,028 126 152 449 2,755 2,617 7,067 1985 2,217 164 172 467 3,020 2,869 7,746 1986 2,463 172 180 467 3,282 3,118 8,418 1987 2,752 174 212 467 3,605 3.425 9,247 _ 1988 3,104 200 246 467 4,017 3,816 10,304 1989 3.411 200 260 529 4,400 4,180 11,286 1990 3,608 200 260 529 4,597 4,367 11,791 11732 1991 3,799 200 260 529 4,788 4,549 12,281 1992 4,027 200 260 529 5,016 4,765 12,866 1993 4,278 200 276 529 5,283 5.019 13,551 _ 1994 4.547 200 386 529 5,662 5.379 14.523 1995 4,763 200 583 594 6,140 5,833 15.749 1996 4,933 200 620 594 6,347 6,030 16,280 1997 5,119 208 653 618 6,598 6.268 16,925 1998 5.313 216 686 646 6,861 6.518 17,599 1999 5.517 224 721 675 7,136 6,780 18.305 _ 2000 5,732 232 758 703 7,425 7,054 19,045 _ 2001 5.956 240 796 731 7,723 7,337 19.809 2002 6.187 247 833 759 8,026 7.625 20.588 _ 2003 6.421 252 872 788 8,333 7,916 21.374 2004 6,654 256 913 818 8,640 8,208 22,163 _ 2005 6.883 261 954 847 8.945 8,498 22,944 _ 2006 7,105 265 996 876 9,242 8.780 23,706 2007 7,323 268 1,039 903 9.533 9.056 24,452 2008 7,541 272 1,085 929 9,828 9,337 25,209 _ 2009 7.761 277 1,134 956 10,128 9,621 25,978 _ 2010 7,981 281 1,185 983 10.430 9.909 26,753 2011 8,199 286 1,238 1,009 10,733 10,196 27,530 2012 8,414 291 1,289 1,038 11,031 10,480 28,295 2013 8,629 296 1,330 1,064 11,319 10,753 29,033 2014 8,846 302 1,372 1,091 11,611 11,031 29,783 2015 9,065 308 1,414 1,119 11,906 11,311 30,539 2016 9,286 313 1,457 1,147 12,203 11,593 31,300 2017 9,508 318 1,500 1,175 12,501 11,876 32,065 2018 9,730 323 1,544 1 ,203 12,800 12,160 32.831 2019 9,952 328 1,588 1,230 13,098 12,443 33,597 2020 10,173 333 1,632 1,258 13,396 12,727 34,362 g:\plan\census\permitpr 01/10/97 CHANHASSEN POPULATION CITY'S 1996 PERCENT MET CARVER PERCENT REVISED NUMBER INCREASE INCREASE COUNCIL COUNTY OF COUNTY 1960 CENSUS 3,411 21,358 16% 1970 CENSUS 4,879 1,468 43% 28,331 17% 1980 CENSUS 6,359 1,480 30% 37,046 17% 1990 CENSUS 11,732 5,373 84% 47,915 24% 1995 ESTIMATE 15,588 3,856 33% 1996 ESTIMATE 17,021 1,433 9% 1997 ESTIMATE 17,571 550 3% 2000 HIGH 21,897 20,474 2,903 17% 19,900 63,220 32% LOW 20,493 17,782 211 1% 63,220 28% 2005 HIGH 29,303 26,895 6,421 31% LOW 26,783 22,814 5,032 28% 2010 HIGH 39,214 35,992 9,097 34% 26,000 74,550 48% LOW 35,005 29,813 6,999 31% 74,550 40% CHANHASSEN POPULATION I 50 40 - . • 0 H 30 -- A Q N • J a • a 20 . _ o • HIGH ESTIMATE A o LOW ESTIMATE ♦ REVISED HIGH ESTIMATE(1996) 10 A REVISED LOW ESTIMATE(1996) A 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 6,334 TOTAL DWELLING UNITS, 95%OCCUPANCY AND 2.92 PERSONS PER DWELLING) g:\plan\census\pop.wk4 1 Covtl I (2/91) HOUSEHOLD PROJECTION COMPOSITE Basis 1990 2000 2005 2010 1 TH 212 3,800 5, 600* 6, 500 7,400* 4. 75-5. 5% 4, 113 6, 586 8, 609 11 ,250 6% 4, 235 7,583 10, 149 13, 582 * Interpolated from 1990 & 2005 Projections L POPULATION When Chanhassen assembled it ' s 1980 Comprehensive Plan, the City prepared population projections that were higher than those of the Metropolitan Council . In retrospect, the 1990 estimates prepared F by the Metropolitan Council were low and the 1990 estimates prepared by Chanhassen were high . These projections were valuable, however, in establishing a range. This range enhanced the flexibility of Chanhassen ' s 1980 plan. A range will again be used in this plan to portray population and Ii household growth . The three sources of household growth projections will be used to establish the range of projected population growth . In all cases , population is calculated by applying the number of households to the expected occupancy characteristics . The use of households accounts for residential vacancies . Application of a household occupancy rate of 2. 7 persons per unit to the Metropolitan Council ' s TH 212 household projections yields the following anticipated population levels : LI POPULATION PROJECTIONS - METROPOLITAN COUNCIL - TH212 EIS Agency 1980 1990 2000 2005 2010 a Met Council 6,359 11 ,000 15,350* 17, 500 19,250* Oi * Interpolated from 1990 & 2005 Projections Utilizing 2. 7 persons per unit (2. 65 after 2000) , Chanhassen ' s household estimates based on growth ranging from 4. 75% to 5 . 5% yield the following population estimates : 6 Sheetl Land Use Comparison 1991 2020 Commercial 273 218.2921 Office/Industrial 1,110 1468.3499 Office/Industrial 13 182.5225 Parks/Open Space 2,302 2862.7354 Public/Semi/Public 1,057 1234.7285 Res-Large Lot 1,524 2257.1809 Res-Low Density 4345 5889.015 Res-Medium Density 508 821.7817 Res-High Density 210 261.6912 Mixed Use 83 132.7342 Vacant 1581 Undevelopable 2363 MUSA Proposed T.H. 212 76.6981 -o 127) -0 CD � DJ ! I I o = o c, > 7:4- ! i 0 CT (D 00 OD Q 0 CD -D 0 CO Q O Q- (D i JZ N.' ! Q C a) I� 15:1 i O' C IT) i � .0_ � ,. • sv -.I= n C7 O > Q i (CD c 5 7 ' i s• (nQO (D 3 z CD N CD U Q ' (D -0 -+: 5 3 0 CD ... o 2m I ' ,3 (3 o :o_icDI c = N -O : C 0- oo i t (DC ,-1 `= E * !0) 117,0) ° C7 W 4 o3m� a1AI 1 • � m M a) m !1- 5iCD ; m iCn o H .=4: N A� O n fro C - Co CD CDN ." N j mmC) U1 00 W N CO Cb N N 00 -• -A N 0 -nO -J COO N W0) NCOC1 CO 0) (00) - () 3 . O N CCD O O W N N CCD -.1 U1 co co co co I,' 73-O m m m = DD (73 n om = m -'. _ _ _ < zc oo � Ooo -• CP00 CO -• CD - D 1 4 OOCCD �J � � �J � �JN6) - 0 � Z o- o o- o- o- o- o- o- o- o- o- o- o- o- o- Jy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O C Cl) m D Z D D CD - co cn — ANON m � �" cri n CJ1 ----J W �J C3) -• W CO W O C3) _N N o O 3 4, CO ." CO N v 01 CO J A U1 CO COO W CO JJ m .aC m � C M 3 IJ D - c„ — co —' — C) = 00 -J - 4o - N - Cr �J -.J0 � j Jm �I WN � O -A -• Av -LN -' O CO CO Z < � � � � � � � � � � � � � 8° � --I CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 to7 > f C7 (° 1 -L CO U1 N — 4,. _. - N -. D C) -+ U1 -J C....) -(..0 -(71 N U1 W U1 O W --L N � O -' coCD 0) 0) CO CC -• C A NU1O -• - -i m 3 - O - CoC.J - W OCbU1A v NW OG.) -a m - DJ CD - Cri - N - 0 O 00 �J CnOo -• WCOCOrncn0 -J - m N O �l W N A W U1 A W GJ C0 CD 0 -• N co Z < N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _,2 .J.,-,, 0 0 0 0 H CD N 73 0) E Co = �J Do 1 G X r y O co 7 C7 11' y N v C3 m c = .52. iv 11111111 IV ==:_r r•3 cn O ^ CD rte_ m o CU -13 CD of s CL si) r - t,. 'tea aco n c. CD s 72, s w_ x. -4- a' 7.p n -.:-.4;itt-•J ---....74.... .,V...,... . = _!. - -r �- - _ = a a, c' 3 O m _ N `t I i Aces n7A 0, O) O O Q C s O O O ccc...��� 0 1 Commercial . Office/Industrial Office/Industrial I I I Parks/Open Space I i 1 t I I ' Public/Semi/Public i I Res-Large Lot j j 1— co ® r - Q- (n co m C m- --n - m a Res-Low Density u) m D NC c co N + I O C) m 0 I 3 Ai Res Medium Density I 1 , co ric Res-High Density I Mixed Use 6 I I I 1 I Vacant ............-..........-.......---- I I Undevelopable I I MUSA I 1 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) ► A summary of HRA powers and duties under Minnesota Law. (Tab 8) Significant Findings Carver County 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 tremendous growth in recent decades. According 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 top 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 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Our analysis indicates that the cities in Carver County have a good quality existing housing stock that is generally affordable and well maintained. Carver County's location on the edge of the developing Metro Area has had an impact on housing quality and price. In broad terms, much of the existing housing stock in Carver County has traditionally been lower priced than comparable homes in the more developed suburban ring, creating affordable options for home ownership. While housing prices have been lower than other parts of the Metro Area, housing in Carver County has still benefitted from the strong real estate market in the Twin Cities, which results in solid home values and expected value increases from year to year. Home owners have an incentive to invest in the maintenance and improvement of their housing, knowing that the house will continue to increase in value. In 1995, the Legislature adopted and the Metropolitan Council implemented the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act. The Act is intended to provide a full range of housing opportunities throughout the Metro Area and to preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing options. As part of the Act, participating communities adopt housing goals and establish action plans for housing activities. Carver County generally fared well in the affordable benchmarks established under the Act, with only Chanhassen and Victoria falling below the benchmarks for affordable owned housing. All of the cities in the County were at or above the benchmark for affordable rental options. While Carver County has a great asset in its existing affordable housing stock, efforts will be needed to make sure that affordable options continue to exist in the future. Much of the recent single family construction activity has been at prices above the levels defined as affordable. Negotiated goals for rental development anticipate that much of the rental housing developed in the future will also be at levels above the affordable threshold. The Carver County HRA has been active in promoting the rehabilitation of existing housing, and the development of new affordable owner and renter housing options. With the population, household and job growth that is projected for the next five years, the HRA's role as a housing resource provider will need to be continued. Maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock, both owned and rented, will continue to provide good quality units at the lower end of the price range. The HRA's involvement in new owned housing construction will assist in proving affordable ownership options. The I-RA's active participation in owning and developing rental housing will help to address the income sensitive segment of the rental market that cannot easily be met by private developers. This study has concluded that between 428 and 521 new rental housing units will be needed within the next few years to meet the demands of anticipated household growth. These units will serve a number of rental sub-markets including general occupancy, senior occupancy and subsidized housing needs. The specific unit recommendations are included in Sections 5 and 6 of this report. Executive Summary 1-2 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 needs, and housing 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 Study 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 city - Interviews with elected officials and staff from the County - Interviews with community leaders - State and Federal housing agencies Introduction 2-1 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Limitations This report represents an analysis performed with the data available at the time of the study. Some of the report findings and recommendations are based upon current situations and the best available information on future trends and projections. Significant changes in the area's economy, employment growth or other related factors could change the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. This report has provided an analysis of the need for additional rental housing to be developed in Carver County. This report is limited to an analysis of the market need for such housing and has 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 and other factors that are beyond the control of Community Partners Research, Inc. • Introduction 2-2 Carver County Housing 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 only 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 growth rates of 30 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 County has been prepared by 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 trailing only 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 growth 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 Table-3-1-Population Trends 11.970-1995 1970 1980 1990 %Change 1995 %Change Population Population Population 1980-1990 Population 1990-1995 Carver 669 642 744 15.9% 777 4.4% Chanhassen 4,839 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% 666 3.6% Hamburg 405 475 492 3.6% 502 2.0% Mayer 325 388 471 21.4% 516 9.6% New Germany 303 347 353 1.7% 371 5.1% Norwood 1,058 1,219 1,351 10.8% 1,387 2.7% Victoria 850 1,425 2,354 65.2% 3,173 34.8% Waconia 2,445 2,638 3,498 32.6% 4,363 24.7% Watertown 1,390 1,818 2,408 32.5% 2,565 6.5% Young America 611 1,237 1,354 9.5% 1,539 13.7% Carver County 28.331 37.046 47.915 29.3% 57,010 19.0% Source:DataNet; 1990 Census; Metropolitan Council Table 3-2 shows the different current population estimates from the Metropolitan Council and Claritas. The U.S. Census Bureau only provides 1995 estimates at the County level, not for individual cities, so Census estimates are not included in Table 3-2. Demographic Data 3-2 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-2 Current Population Estimates MetropolitanCouncil and Claritas 1990 1995 Estimate 1995 Estimate Difference Population Metropolitan Council Claritas Carver 744 777 900 123 Chanhassen 11,732 15,231 16,225 994 Chaska 11.339 14,000 13,889 111 Cologne 563 666 666 0 Hamburg 492 502 520 18 Mayer 471 516 480 36 New Germany 353 371 357 14 Norwood 1,351 1,387 1.409 22 Victoria 2.354 3,173 3.132 41 Waconia 3,498 4,363 3,945 418 Watertown 2,408 2,565 2,556 9 Young America 1,354 1,539 1,486 53 Carver County 47,915 57,010 58,099 1,089 Source:DataNet; 1990 Census; Metropolitan Council;Claritas,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 Census. 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 population projection for 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 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Despite the lower projection totals, the age distribution patterns do provide insights into the County's population. In general, Carver County's population is younger than the State average. In 1990 and in projections for 2000, the County's population percentages in the under 50 age groups exceed State averages. The only exception is in the young adult population, age 20 to 24. The reverse is true in age groups 50 years old and older. While the County's population of age 40 years old and older is expected to increase by the year 2000 as baby boomers age and life- spans lengthen, the County will still have a smaller percentage of people in the age 50 and older age groups than the State as a whole. Table 3-3 Number of Persons by Age-1990-2000 Carver County Minnesota Carver County Minnesota 1990 1990 2000 2000 Age Number Percent Percent Number Percent Percent Youth Age 0-19 15,684 32.7% 29.6% 18,570 32.4% 28.5% Young Adult 20-24 3,003 6.3% 7.2% 3,500 6.1% 6.6% Adult 25-39 14,012 29.3% 26.0% 12,350 21.5% 21.3% Middle Age 40-49 6,068 12.7% 12.4% 10,190 17.8% 16.0% Empty Nester 50-64 5,135 10.7% 12.2% 7,760 13.5% 14.9% Young Senior 65-79 2,935 6.1% 9.2% 3,640 6.3% 8.8% Old Senior 80+ 1,078 2.3% 3.3% 1,380 2.4% 3.9% Total 47,915 100% 100% 57,390 100% 100% Source: 1990 Census;Community Partners Research,Inc. Population Projections Both the Metropolitan Council and Claritas have projected population levels for Carver 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 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. Demographic Data 3-4 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. Table 3-4 City;and County:Population Projections Through 2000 Metropolitan Council Current Trend Claritas,Inc.Projection Projection 1990 Census 1995 2000 %Change 1995 2000 %Change Estimate Projection 1995-2000 Estimate Projection 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% Coloane 563 666 770 15.6% 666 771 15.8% Hamburg 492 502 546 8.8% 520 550 5.8% Mayer 471 516 568 10.1% 480 498 3.8% New Germany 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 3,921 25.2% Waconia 3,498 4,363 4,935 13.1% 3,945 4,446 12.7% Watertown 2,408 2,565 2,828 10.3% 2,556 2,753 7.7% Young America 1,354 1,539 1,755 14.0% 1,486 1,624 9.3% Carver County 47,915 57,010 63,857 12.0% 58,099 68.297 17.6% Source: 1990 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 activity 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. Demographic Data 3-5 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 'Fable 3-5 Population Projections Through 2020 = et ropolitain Council. 1990 Census 1995 2000 2010 2020 Estimate Projection Projection Projection Carver 744 777 990 1,400 1,950 Chanhassen 11,732 15,231 17,910 25,000 34,500 Chaska 11,339 14,000 15,423 19,800 23,300 Cologne 563 666 770 1,000 1,250 Hamburg 492 502 546 640 750 Mayer 471 516 568 740 890 New Germany 353 371 395 500 580 Norwood 1,351 1,387 1,450 1,700 2,100 Victoria 2,354 3,173 3,888 5,450 7,800 Waconia 3,498 4,363 4,935 5,350 5,750 Watertown 2,408 2,565 2,828 3,600 4,500 Young America 1,354 1,539 1,755 2,350 2,900 Carver County 47,915 57,010 63,857 80,680 101,110 Source: 1990 Census;Metropolitan Council Carver County Population Projected to the Year 2020 110,000 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 -:______ ---- 60,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 ; i i 1 1 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 J Population Demographic Data 3-6 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. Table 3•b Household Trends Through 1995 . 1980 1990 % Change 1995 % Change 1980-1990 1990-1995 Carver 218 262 20.2% 293 11.8% Chanhassen 2,073 4,016 93.7% 5,198 29.4% Chaska 3,006 4,212 40.1% 5,221 24.0% Cologne 202 216 6.9% 262 21.3% 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 1,401 41.8% 1,809 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% 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 39 percent in Chanhassen to 2.9 percent growth in New Germany. Demographic Data 3-7 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-7 compares the available estimates from the Metropolitan Council and Claritas for household growth. Table 3-7 Current Household Estimates Metropolitan Council and Claritas : : 1990 1995 Estimate 1995 Estimate Difference Households Met Council Claritas Between Estimates Carver 262 293 319 26 Chanhassen 4,016 5,198 5,588 390 Chaska 4,212 5,221 5,199 22 Cologne 216 262 255 7 Hamburg 184 197 194 3 Mayer 166 186 171 15 New Germany 138 149 142 7 Norwood 515 543 537 6 Victoria 756 1,074 1,040 34 Waconia 1,401 1,809 1,633 176 Watertown 848 931 907 24 Young America 457 545 500 45 Carver County 16,601 20,155 20,343 188 Source: DataNet; 1990 Census;Metropolitan Council;Claritas,Inc. Household Characteristics Average household size in the County has declined from 2.84 persons per household in 1990, to 2.79 persons per household in 1995 (Table 3-8). Similarly, nearly all of the cities in the County have also experienced a decline in the average number of people per household. From 1990 to 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 persons per household was still well above the 1990 State-wide average of 2.58 persons per household. Demographic Data 3-8 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-8 Average Number of Persons Per Household 1980-1995 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:DataNet; 1990 Census;Metropolitan Council 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 groups 50 years old and older. 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 3-9). In 1990, over 38 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 couples 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 3-9 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3 g Ha sebalds by.Type-19`0 Married Couple Male Householder Female Householder Non-Family Family No Wife Present No Husband Present Household With W/O With W/O With W/O 1 Person Non-Family Own Own Own Own Own Own Household Household Children Children Children Children Children Children Carver 41.2% 25.2% 0.4% 1.9% 2.3% 2.3% 21.8% 5.0% Chanhassen 44.0% 30.3% 1.2% 1.0% 3.4% 1.6% 13.1% 5.4% Chaska 33.7% 23.2% 1.9% 1.3% 8.3% 2.6% 22.1% 6.9% Cologne 32.9% 28.7% 1.4% 2.8% 2.8% 1.4% 26.4% 3.7% Hamburg 32.1% 32.1% 2.2% 1.6% 3.8% 1.6% 23.4% 3.3% Mayer 41.0% 27.7% 1.2% 1.2% 1.8% 2.4% 22.9% 1.8% New 28.3% 26.1% 1.4% 2.9% 3.6% 4.3% 28.3% 5.1% Germany Norwood 32.0% 29.3% 1.2% 1.4% 5.0% 1.9% 26.2% 2.9% Victoria 41.0% 38.2% 0.5% 0.3% 1.5% 2.5% 12.2% 3.8% . Waconia 25.9% 29.6% 1.1% 0.9% 5.4% 2.6% 31.0% 3.5% Watertown 36.0% 25.2% 1.7% 1.3% 6.6% 2.7% 23.5% 3.1% Young 39.4% 27.1% 1.5% 0.2% 9.4% 1.1% 18.8% 2.4% America Carver 38.4% 29.7% 1.4% 1.3% 4.7% 2.0% 17.9% 4.7% County Source: 1990 Census; Community Partners Research,Inc. 3-10 Demographic Data Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-10 Households by,Tenure ..1990 Total Owned Percent Rented Percent Occupied Units Owned Units Units Rented Units Units 1990 Carver 262 225 85.9% 37 14.1% Chanhassen 4,016 3,428 85.4% 588 14.6% Chaska 4,212 2,908 69.0% 1,304 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% New Germany 138 106 76.8% 32 23.2% Norwood 515 353 68.5% 162 31.5% Victoria 756 663 87.7% 93 12.3% Waconia 1,401 914 65.2% 487 34.8% Watertown 848 664 78.3% 184 21.7% Young America 457 363 79.4% 94 20.6% Carver County 16,601 13,117 79.0% 3,484 21.0% Source: 1990 Census Household Projections Both the Metropolitan Council and Claritas have projected household levels for Carver 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 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. 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 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 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. ;Table 3-11 City and County Household Projections Through 2104 Metropolitan Council Current Trend Claritas,Inc. Projection Projection 1990 Census 1995 2000 %Change 1995 2000 %Change Estimate Projection 1995-2000 Estimate Projection 1995-2000 Carver 262 293 350 19.5% 319 378 18.5% Chanhassen 4,016 5,198 6,300 21.2% 5,588 7,069 26.5% Chaska 4,212 5,221 5,900 13.0% 5,199 6,204 19.3% Cologne 216 262 300 14.5% 255 297 16.5% Hamburg 184 197 210 6.6% 194 207 6.7% Mayer 166 186 200 7.5% 171 179 4.7% New Germany 138 149 160 7.4% 142 149 4.9% Norwood 515 543 570 5.0% 537 564 5.0% Victoria 756 1,074 1,350 25.7% 1,040 1,341 28.9% Waconia 1,401 1,809 2,100 16.1% 1,633 1,898 16.2% Watertown 848 931 1,000 7.4% 907 986 8.7% Young America 457 545 600 10.1% 500 548 9.6% Carver County 16.601 20,155 23,070 14.5% 20,343 24,195 18.9% Source: 1990 Census;Metropolitan Council;Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. It is important to note that the projections contained in Tables 3-11 and 3-12 are generated using the best available information. The year 2000 projections 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 that development activity. These projections instead are based on the type of consistent, steady growth that has been occurring in Carver County in recent years. Demographic Data 3-12 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-12 Household Protections Through 2020'-Metropolitan Council .•:: 1990 Census 1995 2000 2010 2020 Estimate Projection Projection Projection Carver 262 282 350 500 700 Chanhassen 4,016 4,829 6,300 9,500 13,500 Chaska 4,212 5,116 5,900 8,000 10,000 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 1,350 2,000 3,000 Waconia 1,401 1,727 2,100 2,300 2,400 Watertown 848 910 1,000 1,300 1,650 Young America 457 541 600 800 1,000 Carver County 16,601 19,352 23,070 30,810 39,950 Source: 1990 Census;Metropolitan Council Carver County Households Projected to the Year 2020 40,000 I I 35,000 30,000 :::... 25.000 20,000 15,000 10,000 ; 1 1990 1995 2000 2010 2020 Households Demographic Data 3-13 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Employment While many factors influence the need for housing, employment opportunities represent a predominant demand generator. Without jobs and corresponding wages, the means to afford housing is severely limited. Employment opportunities may be provided by a broad range of private and public business sectors. Jobs may be available in manufacturing, commercial services, agriculture, public administration, and other industries. The type of employment, wage level, and working conditions will each influence the kind of housing that is needed and at what level of affordability. The western portion of the Twin Cities Metro Area has been a strong and expanding location for economic development. According to the Growth Options report (January 1996) prepared by the 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 same report projects that following current trends, the quadrant of the Metro Area that includes Carver County will significantly lead the Metro Area in total employment by the year 2020. Carver County has seen steady growth in the labor force and in the level of employment since 1990 (Table 3-13). From 1990 through 1995, the available labor force has increased by over 21 percent, while the actual number of employed people has increased by nearly 23 percent. The County's unemployment rate has also dropped since 1990, and has been below 3 percent since 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. Table 3-13 Labor Force 19901995 Labor Force Employed Unemployed Unemployment Unemployment Year Rate Rate-MN 1990 28,014 26,983 1,031 3.7% 4.8% 1991 28,933 27,786 1,148 4.0% 5.1% 1992 29,566 28,406 1,161 3.9% 5.1% 1993 31,089 29,957 1,132 3.6% 5.0% 1994 33,540 32,622 918 2.7% 4.0% 1995 33,934 33,097 837 2.5% 3.5% 1996 (thru Oct.) 34,301 33,486 815 2.4% 3.7% Source: Minnesota Department of Economic Security Demographic Data 3-14 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Carver County Work Force 1990-1996 36000 34000 32000 I I w v 30000 , 28000 I o \ vry .' `> �4A '� Z ` 26000 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Labor Force Employed Work Force 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 38 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 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-14.Carver Counq..Employment by Indust r detail 199© 1994 ;> Industry 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 (Jan-June) Total All Industry 17,049 18,072 20,211 22,364 23,598 Agriculture, Forestry 210 214 243 264 291 Construction 707 733 790 971 918 Manufacturing 7,242 7,644 8,874 9,452 9,849 Transportation, Public Utilities 733 778 515 535 527 Wholesale Trade 348 410 515 570 599 Retail Trade 2,150 2,168 2,289 2,781 3,053 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 492 484 507 545 591 Services 2,762 3,014 3,698 4,253 4,492 Government 2,405 2,627 2,780 2,993 3,281 Source: Research and Statistics Office,Minnesota Department of Economic Security From 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. Table 345 Total Covered Employment and Wages . Total Active Units Average Employment Total Wages 1990 1,125 17,049 $381,525,701 1991 1,173 18,072 $414,673,679 1992 1,250 20,211 $489,098,020 1993 1,351 22,364 $564,196,295 1994 (2 Quarters) 1,317 23,598 $291,622,579* Source: Research and Statistics Office,Minnesota Department of Economic Security_ 'Extrapolated into an annual amount would equal$583,245,158 The Department of Economic Security also reports average weekly wage information for industry sectors. Table 3-16 Presents average weekly wages for the second quarter of 1994, the most current reporting period available. Demographic Data 3-16 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$393, below the average for all industry of$484. Table 3-46 Carver County Average eekiy image by I dust -199 Industry Second Quarter Average Weekly Wage Average Employment Total All Industry 24,025 $484 Agriculture, Forestry 393 $282 Construction 1,047 $557 Manufacturing 9,877 $593 Transportation, Public Utilities 516 $521 Wholesale Trade 597 $595 Retail Trade 3,098 $226 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 590 $479 Services 4,656 $393 Government 3,250 $502 Source: Research and Statistics Office,Minnesota 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 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3- '7 Seven County Metro.urea Projected Employment by Industry beta 1993 Qtl 1993-2001 Projected 1993-2001 Projected Industry Percentage Change Numeric Change Total All Industry 13% 190,000 Agriculture,Forestry* 5% 520 Mining 0% 0 Construction 3% 1,600 Manufacturing 3% 8,370 Transportation, Public Utilities 10% 7,750 Trade 10% 33,370 Finance,Insurance.Real Estate 11% 11,270 Services 24% 113,720 Government 8% 7,100 Self-Employed,Unpaid Family Workers- 10% 8,390 Non Agriculture Source:Research and Statistics Office,Minnesota Department of Economic Security The Metropolitan Council has also produced employment projections for both Carver County and the cities in the County. As with other recent projections, the Metropolitan Council forecasts use different methodologies as a base. The year 2000 projections were generated using current trend development patterns, while the year 2010 and 2020 projections reflect the Council's recently adopted Regional Growth Management Strategy. The Regional Growth Management Strategy assumes that development 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 Table.348.-Eiiiployment Projections 'hrough 202Q etropolitan ouncil ;� 1995 Estimate 2000 Projection 2010 Projection 2020 Projection Carver 103 120 160 200 Chanhassen 6,538 9,000 10,150 10,600 Chaska 10,884 12,700 12,500 13,200 Cologne 150 160 180 200 Hamburg 84 90 110 120 Mayer 59 80 100 130 New Germany 42 50 80 90 Norwood 375 400 480 550 Victoria 676 720 1,100 1,350 Waconia 3,233 3,800 5,020 5,500 Watertown 611 850 1,300 1,540 Young America 1,619 1,650 1,800 1,900 Carver County 25,402 30,930 34,820 37,070 Source: Metropolitan Council The Governor's Economic Vitality and Housing Initiative In response to a shortage of decent affordable housing in much of Greater Minnesota and its resulting impact on economic development efforts, in 1995 the Governor announced an Economic and Housing Vitality Initiative (EVHI). The Initiative is intended to "strengthen communities' economic development efforts by addressing the housing needs associated with economic development". To accomplish its goal, the Initiative combines new State appropriations of$15 million with $30 in recycled bond proceeds through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). To target these EVHI funds, MHFA and the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) have developed an index to assess net job growth in each region 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 EVHI statistics for Carver County show that the County had a 33.3 percent increase in employment, the largest percentage gain of the seven Metro counties and the second largest percentage gain in the State. The Metro Region had an 8.2 percent change in employment between 1991 and 1994. Demographic Data 3-19 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. Demographic Data 3-20 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. While 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. Table 3-19 Per Capita? edian and l ousel old Income=1983 Per Capita Median Income Average Income Income- All Persons Families Households Families Households Carver $15,466 $43,162 $40,833 $46,173 $43,898 Chanhassen $20,654 $55,525 $52,011 $63,383 $59,522 Chaska $14,803 $38,708 $34,235 $42,817 $39,802 Cologne $12,421 $35,096 $31,250 $38,549 $33,626 Hamburg $13,323 $38,000 $29,861 $41,682 $34,595 Mayer $10,070 $36,000 $30,625 $35,782 $31,040 New Germany $11,277 $27,188 $22,404 $32,120 $27,738 Norwood $13,018 $33,929 $27,813 $35,158 $33,569 Victoria $23,192 $52,352 $48,973 $76,081 $70,636 Waconia $14,720 $37,708 $29,561 $44,824 $36,327 Watertown $11,606 $33,000 $28,667 $37,897 $32,522 Young America $11,810 $37,560 $32,917 $38,563 $35,077 Carver County $16,116 $43,554 $39,188 $50,524 $46,217 Minnesota $14,389 $36,916 $30,909 N/A N/A Source: 1990 Census Demographic Data 3-21 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 A more current estimate of household income is presented in Table 3-20. These estimates have been calculated by Claritas, Inc., a national data reporting company, by updating 1990 Census data. Claritas estimates that the 1995 median household income in Carver County is $44,916, a 15 percent increase from 1989. Household income includes total money received in the stated calendar year by all household members 15 years old and over, tabulated for all households. The household wealth estimates provided in Table 3-20, have also been prepared by Claritas, Inc. Household wealth is defined as a measure of financial well-being by net worth. Household wealth estimates include all assets (property, vehicles, bank accounts, etc.) minus liabilities (loans, payments, debts, etc.) for the entire household. The basis for all wealth estimates is from continuing, comprehensive telephone surveys of more than 90,000 households per year. Table 3- 0:Tttbnated Household Inccome anc Wealtt Household Income Estimated Household 1989 Median 1995 Median Percent Change Wealth Census Estimate 1989-1995 1995 Median Carver $40,833 $46,719 14.4% $91,250 Chanhassen $52,011 $59,819 15.0% $99,278 Chaska $34,235 $37,979 10.9% $52,705 Cologne $31,250 $34,625 10.8% $79,082 Hamburg $29,861 $34,000 13.9% $84,211 Mayer $30,625 $33,542 9.5% $82,639 New Germany $22,404 $25,714 14.8% $69,643 Norwood $27,813 $32,554 17.0% $59,848 Victoria $48,973 $56,500 15.4% $119,903 Waconia $29,561 $32,111 8.6% $63,693 Watertown $28,667 $32,417 9.6% $66,896 Young America $32,917 $38,095 15.7% $75,758 Carver County $39,188 $44,916 14.6% $81,943 Source: 1990 Census; Claritas,Inc. Demographic Data 3-22 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 The following tables provide a breakdown of the number of households in each income category in the County and each City. Income information is provided by age of householder. These estimates are from Claritas and are based on their household estimates for 1995, which may be different than the household estimates from the Metropolitan Council. Table 3 21 Carver Estimated Housebold.Income by;Age of Householder 1.995 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 - $9,999 4 3 3 12 22 $10,000 - $14,999 6 6 2 3 17 $15,000 - $24,999 8 7 1 3 19 $25,000 - $34,999 32 11 4 3 50 $35,000 - $49,999 41 15 3 1 60 $50,000 - $74,999 58 30 3 6 97 $75,000+ 23 28 0 3 54 Total 172 100 16 31 319 Source: Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. Table 3-22 Chanhassen Estimated Household Income by Age of Householder 1995. 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 - $9,999 66 40 14 10 130 $10,000 - $14,999 44 34 26 8 112 815,000 - $24,999 190 119 57 33 399 $25,000 - $34,999 313 143 49 52 557 $35,000 - $49,999 546 196 41 46 829 850,000 - $74,999 1,172 486 68 15 1,741 $75,000+ 1,106 661 52 1 1,820 Total 3,437 1,679 307 165 5,588 Source: Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research, Inc. Demographic Data 3-23 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-23 Chaska Estimated Household Income by Age of Householder- 1995 Householder Householder Householder Householder Total Household Income 44 or less 45-64 years 65-74 years 75+years Households years old old old old SO - $9,999 198 40 69 175 482 $10,000 - $14,999 128 42 64 91 325 515,000 - $24,999 351 157 61 46 615 525,000 - $34,999 640 214 35 19 908 535,000 - $49,999 951 240 51 7 1,249 550,000 - 574,999 728 307 32 11 1,078 575,000+ 283 240 15 4 542 Total 3.279 1,240 327 353 5.199 Source: Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. 7 Table 3-24 Cologne Estimated Household Income by Age of Householder- 1995 Householder Householder Householder Householder Total Household Income 44 or less 45-64 ,'ears 65-74 years 75+years Households years old old old old SO - $9,999 3 5 2 20 30 $10,000 - S14,999 3 2 6 8 19 S15,000 - 524,999 19 0 15 14 48 525,000 - $34,999 21 4 4 3 32 S35,000 - $49,999 45 12 5 1 63 S50,000 - $74,999 23 12 3 0 38 575,000+ 4 20 1 0 25 Total 118 55 36 46 255 Source: Claritas, Inc.:Community Partners Research, Inc. Demographic Data 3-24 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-25 Hamburg Estimated Household Income by Age of Householder . 1995 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 - $9,999 0 2 4 14 20 $10,000 - $14,999 1 3 5 8 17 $15,000 - $24,999 14 11 0 7 32 $25,000 - $34,999 15 9 2 4 30 $35,000 - $49,999 23 8 3 4 38 $50,000 - $74,999 18 13 2 0 33 $75,000+ 10 14 0 0 24 Total 81 60 16 37 194 Source Claritas,Inc.,Community Partners Research,Inc. Table-3-261yer Estimated Household:Income by Age of Householder .1995 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 - $9,999 4 - 5 4 12 25 $10,000 - $14,999 1 1 3 3 8 $15,000 - $24,999 11 7 3 5 26 $25,000 - $34,999 15 9 3 3 30 $35,000 - $49,999 24 11 4 1 40 $50,000 - $74,999 22 10 3 0 35 $75,000+ 2 5 0 0 7 Total 79 48 20 24 171 Source: Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. 3-25 Demographic Data Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-27 New;Germany Estimated Household Income by Age ofHouseholder ' 995 :< Householder Householder Householder Householder Total Household Income 44 or less 45-64 years 65-74 years 75+years Households j years old old old old $0 - $9,999 4 3 5 11 23 $10,000 - $14,999 8 2 5 12 27 $15,000 - $24,999 8 1 0 8 17 $25,000 - $34,999 19 7 1 4 31 $35,000 - $49,999 13 5 2 0 20 $50,000 - $74,999 5 5 3 0 13 $75,000± 6 4 1 0 11 Total 63 27 17 35 142 Source: Claritas, Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. Table.3-2S Norwood Estimated Household Incomeby Age of Householder 19 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 - $9,999 9 8 15 44 76 $10,000 - $14,999 10 2 7 18 37 $15,000 - $24,999 49 13 13 24 99 $25,000 - $34,999 51 16 5 7 79 $35,000 - $49,999 68 30 3 0 101 $50,000 - $74,999 69 44 2 1 116 $75,000+ 13 14 1 1 29 Total 269 127 46 95 537 Source: Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. Demographic Data 3-26 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-29 Victoria Estimated Household Income by Age of Householder 1995 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 - $9,999 11 3 12 19 45 $10,000 - $14,999 8 7 9 5 29 $15,000 - $24,999 16 13 21 11 61 $25,000 - $34,999 37 19 15 9 80 $35,000 - $49,999 122 49 13 4 188 $50,000 - $74,999 190 102 17 9 318 $75,000+ 150 154 14 1 319 Total 534 347 101 58 1,040 Source:Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. 1: 171113 34.1 R aiiiI1 a EstiiliO:i Honsehv t T>a€ lie by Age aFRO:40104pr ig95 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 - $9,999 20 11 31 142 204 $10,000 - $14,999 31 27 39 59 156 $15,000 - $24,999 99 69 65 91 324 $25,000 - $34,999 103 50 21 24 198 $35,000 - $49,999 181 78 10 8 277 $50,000 - $74,999 189 120 6 3 318 $75,000+ 70 80 6 0 156 Total 693 435 178 327 1,633 Source: Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. Demographic Data 3-27 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3=31 Watertown Estimated Ho sebold income bi Age utHausehoider 1995 Householder Householder Householder HouseholderTotal Household Income 44 or less 45-64 years 65-74 years 75+years Households years old old old old $0 - $9,999 32 21 16 49 118 $10,000 - $14,999 22 9 13 30 74 $15,000 - $24,999 55 25 19 23 122 $25,000 - $34,999 110 43 19 8 180 $35,000 - $49,999 141 33 13 2 189 $50,000 - $74,999 114 32 5 5 156 $75,000+ 32 33 1 2 68 Total 506 196 86 119 907 Source:Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. Table 3. 32 Young America Estimated Household income by Age of H tuseholde 1995 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 - $9,999 13 0 7 21 41 $10,000 - $14,999 8 2 11 10 31 $15,000 - $24,999 29 14 13 13 69 $25,000 - $34,999 50 16 8 8 82 $35,000 - $49,999 69 29 5 3 106 $50,000 - $74,999 86 48 2 0 136 $75,000+ 22 13 0 0 35 Total 277 122 46 55 500 Source: Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. Demographic Data 3-28 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 3-33 Carver County stimated Hou old Income by Age of seholder-1995: 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 - $9,999 392 183 222 602 1,399 $10,000 - $14,999 306 186 238 315 1,045 $15,000 - $24,999 987 531 344 365 2,227 $25,000 - $34,999 1,659 663 245 204 2,771 $35,000 - $49,999 2,704 962 224 100 3,990 J $50,000 - $74,999 3,198 1,677 205 71 5,151 $75,000+ 1,978 1,642 119 21 3,760 Total 11,224 5,844 1,597 1,678 20,343 Source: Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc. Demographic Data 3-29 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 This page intentionally left blank Demographic Data 3-30 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 EXISTING HOUSING INVENTORY City of Chanhassen 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. Table 4 1fl Oc eupted Rousm Uni Year Built 1939 and Earlier 1940-1969 1970-1989 1990-1995* Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented Owned Rented Chanhassen 141 51 812 206 2,475 331 1,431 304 Carver 2,414 692 3,435 636 7,268 2,156 3,904 607 County 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 Table 4-11 identifies the existing housing stock by structure 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 4-11. Total Units - Owner Renter New Units Total 1990 Occupied Occupied 1990-1995 (1990 Total 1990 1990 + 1990-95) 1 Unit 3,316 3,102 105 1,349 4,665 Detached 1 Unit 345 292 31 163 508 Attached 2 Units 29 8 21 0 29 3-4 Units 48 15 30 0* 48 5+ Units 489 1 390 223 712 Mobile Home 2 2 0 0 2 Total 4,229 3,420 577 1,735 5,964 Source: 1990 Census;Metropolitan Council Building Permit Trends *Multifamily units since 1990 have been included in 5+unit totals. The section that follows will analyze a variety of existing characteristics. The section has been divided into two parts, addressing single family, primarily owner-occupied housing, separately from rental housing. Single Family and Owned Housing Construction Activity Chanhassen has lead all cities in Carver County in new housing construction in recent years. From 1990 to 1995, 1,349 new single family homes were constructed. In the 1980s, 1,634 new houses were built. Projections for the City indicate that high levels of household growth will continue for at least the next 25 years. In 1995 Chanhassen had more attached and multifamily construction activity than single family construction. According to City officials, most of this construction was owner-occupied town houses. Existing Housing Inventory - City of Chanhassen 4-12 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. 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Single 189 246 292 352 311 196 191 228 249 269 216 Family Source:Metropolitan Council Building Permit Trends Single Family Construction 1985-1995 360 320 280 , sg000ggoow_--•adON-I.. 240 000000 200 160 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 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. 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 using 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 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Table 443 Estimated,Owne r eupied Rouse.Values 1 1199 r 1990 Census Values 1995-96 Median Estimates Median Value Average Value 1995 Median 1996 Median Value Claritas Value Assessor Chanhassen $124,400 $144,037 $140,597 $138,900 Source: 1990 Census;Claritas,Inc.;Community Partners Research,Inc.;Carver County Assessor 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 ownership options 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 factor to the low percentage 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 parcel 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. Number of Homesteaded Percent of Homesteaded Houses Houses $0 - $71,999 124 2.6% $72,000 - $114,999 1,071 22.8% $115,000+ 3,497 74.5% Total 4,692 100% 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 the local housing market and as a method to determine housing affordability. From May 1, 1995 to July 1, 1996, there were 264 improved residential sales in the City(Table 4-15). The median sale price was $159,900. Sales data was obtained from the Carver County Assessor. It is important to note that the sales Existing Housing Inventory- City of Chanhassen 4-14 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 June 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. Table 4-IS es ent l Sa e A t ty w, Y! 1995 o Ju 1, Number of Sales Percent of Total Sales Less than $72,000 3 1.1% $72,000 - $114,999 44 16.7% $115,000+ 217 82.2% Total 264 100% Source:Carver County Assessor;Community Partners Research,Inc. Recent Residential Sales by Value 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Less than$72,000 m $72,000-$114,999 • $115,000+ 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 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 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 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 programs, activity will generally be"spot" rehabilitation and will not involve any concentration of 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 by the Carver County Assessor's Office. For this analysis only 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 represent the majority of the estimated building value for the parcel. 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, square footage, location and comparable sales prices. This data provides an 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 4,692 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 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. Existing Housing Inventory - City of Chanhassen 4-16 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 a -4-t6i H est ed Bunn'Values 1996 ct#e Value Only Value Range Number of Homesteaded Percent of Homesteaded Structures Structures $0 - $29,999 58 1.2% $30,000 - $59,999 267 5.7% $60,000 - $89,999 1,221 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 m . .L<» 71 $0-$29,999 • $30,000-$59,999 ® 60,000-$89,999 • $90,000+ 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, Chanhassen's percentage 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. According 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, although one tax credit rental project exists with 28 of the 60 units assisted with tax credits. The Census identified 105 single family houses as renter-occupied and an additional 21 rental 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, with the only vacant units in the newly opened Centennial Hill senior apartment which had just opened and already was 66 percent leased. None of the other buildings contacted had any vacant units and most building managers indicated that vacancies were rare. Some buildings did report that they would have units turning-over in the next few months, but most were confident 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 properties contacted. Most of the building managers we 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 using 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. Rental rates for unit types ranged as follows: Studio/Efficiency units $345 - $400 1 Bedroom units $445 - $695 1 Bedroom+Den units $710 - $765 2 Bedroom units $540 - $835 3 Bedroom units $895 Only one building surveyed, West Village Townhomes had any 3 bedroom units, and this project only had eight 3 bedroom units. al1e 4»17 ' anlbasear1flayttao�ts llnrent4 > 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- 1+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 $475485 vacancies electricity. Amenities include A/C,cable TV, inc.heat coin laundry. Existing Housing Inventory - City of Chanhassen 4-19 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 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- 1+Bedroom $710-760 lease-up include A/C,laundry in apt,dishwasher,security Hill 3 -2 Bedroom $800 66% entrance,community space,heated underground inc.heat leased parking for extra rental. Source:Carver County HRA; Community Partners Research,Inc. The physical condition analysis included in the table above has been provided by the building owner or manager. Many of the buildings reported that maintenance and repair projects were undertaken as needed. Rental Housing Affordability According to analysis and standards from the Metropolitan Council, 44 percent of Chanhassen's rental units are considered affordable. This percentage is well above the benchmark of 35-37 percent established by the Council based on communities of similar location and stage of development. Chanhassen's high percentage of affordable units is due in part to the large number of units in the City that were built in the 1960s and early 1970s that have rent levels well below the rents charged by the City's newer buildings. Existing Housing Inventory - City of Chanhassen 4-20 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS City of Chanhassen 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) =$1,495 Monthly affordable rent payment ability (50%of median income household) = $748 Mortgage ability (median income household) = $152,000 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 by 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 similar 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's residential lot values are the highest in the County, with the median lot value over$33,000, High land costs will make it even more difficult to produce affordable priced ownership optionsTo 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 year 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 in Chaska. By providing lower priced lots, the HRA 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. 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 has resulted in a housing 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 rehabilitation assistance, activity will largely be "spot" rehabilitation. While there were houses in need of repair, there were no specific 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 Findings: Single family housing construction activity has been substantial in recent years, and projections indicate that Chanhassen will experience the second fastest household growth rate in the County between 1995 and 2000. Chanhassen is below Livable Communities Act benchmarks for both the percentage of attached/multifamily housing options, and in the percentage of rental units in the community. The City's goal is to increase the supply of both attached housing and rental housing options in the future. Recommendations: The private market has been addressing the need for housing construction and lot development in Chanhassen, including the development of town houses. The City's involvement in future housing development has been and should continue to be the 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 smaller lot sizes, town house development and other higher density development ideas. Housing Affordability - Rental Findings: The Metropolitan Council analysis indicates that 44 percent of the City's rental units are affordable by Metro standards, above the benchmark of 35-37 percent for comparable cities. The Metropolitan Council analysis used 1990 Census data as a base. Applying the same methodology to 1996, the threshold for an affordable rental unit would be $683 for gross monthly rent. The rental housing inventory conducted for this study indicates that a majority of the multifamily rental units in the City would be considered affordable by 1996 standards. This is due in large part to the number of rental units in the City constructed in the 1960s and 1970s. Most of 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 Development 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 growing at a significant 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 remaining 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 many years. Chanhassen's mix of owner to renter housing 85 percent owner/15 percent renter, well below the benchmark established for the Livable Communities Act. Chanhassen's goal 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 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. Rent Two Bedroom 8-10 1,000-1,200 $900-1,000 Three Bedroom 4-6 1,300-1,450 $1,025-1,200 Total 12-16 General Occupancy Market Rate Units Unit Type No. Of Units Size/Sq. Ft. Rent 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 1,300-1,450 $710-750 Total 36-40 General Occupancy Subsidized Units Unit Type No. Of Units Size/Sq. Ft. Rent One Bedroom 4-5 650-750 * 30% of Annual Two Bedroom 10-12 900-1,000 Household Income Three Bedroom 66=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 MUSA 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. 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 County have been determined through the analysis of the following: • Population and Household Growth Projections ► Employment Projections ► Household Incomes ► 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, Vacancy 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 for a number of reasons. Most of the future demand for rental units will be caused by projected household growth in the County. If this growth occurs as anticipated or at an even 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 price range that would be affordable to the intended occupant. Without federal housing production subsidies, it will be very difficult to produce new rental housing affordable to low income households. We have recommended some subsidized units that seem compatible with the communities and the subsidy resources available. The following table identifies the unit recommendations in the following categories: General Occupancy ► Luxury Market Rate ► Market Rate ► Subsidized Senior-Specific ► Market Rate ► Subsidized Rental Housing Development - Carver County 6-1 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Rental Housing Recommendations Carver County General Occupancy Senior Luxury Market Market Market Rate Rate Subsidized Rate Subsidized Carver 0 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 0 0 Hamburg 0 0 0 0 0 Mayer 0 0 0 0 0 New Germany 0 0 0 0 0 Norwood Y.A. 0 14-16 12-16 10-12 0 Victoria 10-12 0 0 10-12 0 Waconia 6-8 36-40 12-16 0 16-20 Watertown 0 14-16 8-10 0 0 Total 40-52 170-198 72-90 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 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 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 high level of amenities. This type of housing will appeal to approximately eight percent of the renters 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 targets low and moderate income households, typically young 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 County municipalities, 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, Chanhassen, 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 should include 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. Financing: 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 exist in market rate projects in Carver County, and many report a strong demand for units. Also, the majority of the general occupancy renter households moving into Carver County will be seeking 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 development concepts should include protected parking at a ratio of one space per unit, guest surface parking, ample closet space, storage area, dishwasher, micro wave, washer and 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 only vacancies that existed were in a FmHA project in Hamburg. Most of the projects had long waiting lists. The recommendations for subsidized units are modest, however, taking 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 cities include the objective that at least 21 percent of the rental units constructed through the year 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 units are constructed as multifamily buildings, we would recommend placement of units in Chaska, Chanhassen, 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 possible exception of Hamburg, which has vacant subsidized units. If the scattered site approach is used, the majority 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 6-4 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 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 finding. Subsidized housing projects in Carver County will include funding from many funding sources and 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 independent living senior units which totals 146-181 units. There may be additional demand for senior housing 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 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 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 from 1990 to 2000. We are recommending the development of market rate senior units in Carver, Chaska, Norwood Young America, and Victoria. The specific recommendations for unit sizes, type 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 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 building with underground parking. The smaller unit projects in Carver, Norwood Young America, and Victoria should be townhouse/cottage style projects with separate exterior entrances for each unit. All of the projects should include community space with a serving kitchen that could be utilized for meal service later as residents age and desire some type of meal program. We also recommend protected parking at a ratio of one space per unit. In addition, ample surface parking should also be available for guests and seniors who desire to maintain their cars but do not want to pay for a garage. Unit features should include ample closet space as prospective tenants will have numerous Rental Housing Development - Carver County 6-6 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 belongings they will be moving from their single family homes. At minimum, a walk-in closet should be included with each unit. If possible, a separate storage room should be incorporated into each unit. Other standard design features for senior buildings should include raised outlets, lever door handles and lowered kitchen cabinets. Expansive window area is also an asset for senior units as many seniors spend a significant portion of their time in their units and enjoy ample daylight and views to the outdoors. Balconies and patios are also recommended. 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 the public sector assistance can include Essential Function Bonds, Tax Increment Financing, tax credits, land donations, utility extensions, etc. Subsidized Senior Units Recommendation: All of the senior subsidized projects in Carver County were inventoried and no vacancies exist with the exception of some vacancies in a FmHA project in Mayer. The majority of the senior projects have extensive waiting lists. Additionally, as with the general occupancy rental units the Livable Communities Act Goals for Carver County include an objective that over 21 percent of the rental units constructed through the year 2010 are affordable. The recommended subsidized senior units represent approximately 14 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 this report. These three municipalities provide the services that low income senior households need on a daily basis. Design Concept: The design concept for Chaska should be a two level elevator building and the smaller projects in Chanhassen and Waconia should be one level buildings with common hallways and interior entrances into each unit. To the extent that is financially feasible, the subsidized senior units should include the amenities described for market rate units with the exception of protected parking and washers and dryers in each unit. Financing: State and Federal financing for subsidized senior units is virtually non-existent, thus, local public and non-profit funds must be utilized to subsidize senior housing. Rental Housing Development- Carver County 6-7 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 This page intentionally left blank Rental Housing Development- Carver County 6-8 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 55318 (612) 448-7715 Fax (612) 448-6506 The Carver County HRA is a comprehensive County housing provider. The BRA 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 ► MHFA Accessibility Improvement Loans ► MHFA Home Energy Loans ► MHFA Mobile Home Loans ► MHFA 3% Revolving Rehabilitation Loans ► MHFA Deferred Loans ► MHFA Deferred Accessibility Loans ► MHFA Community Fix-Up Fund ► MHFA 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 Ownership ► Carver County First Time Home Buyer Program ► MHFA 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 ► MHFA 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 was prepared with the assistance of Miller& Schroeder Financial Inc. All options have stipulations, regulations and limitations. It is suggested you consult with a financial advisor for specific information. The abandonment of housing development programs by the federal government coupled with the elimination of tax incentives for private developers has placed a huge burden on Housing and Redevelopment Authorities to take on the role of providing affordable housing in their communities. There currently is no advantage for anyone else to assume the role of housing developer. In fact, at the present time the only readily available government program for private developers, low income housing tax credits, is at risk of being terminated. Due to the lack of interest by private developers and the increasing demand being voiced by city councils, economic development authorities and employers, HRAs have been forced into the role of housing developers for which they have been searching for alternative funding 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 significantly reduced the incentives of the private sector to develop multi-family rental housing. The Tax Act, coupled with the prohibitive multi-family real estate tax costs in the State of Minnesota, make it 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 pro-active approach to providing the housing which the private sector, in more economically favorable times, traditionally developed. Housing Authorities throughout Minnesota have utilized Essential Function Bonds to finance the development and construction of affordable housing within their communities. Essential Function Bonds are available to certain public agencies such as an Economic Development Authority or Housing and Redevelopment Authority as tax-exempt financing to acquire or develop affordable housing. Essential Function Bonds are revenue bonds and not general obligations of the City. The primary advantages are: 1. Because the bonds will be tax-exempt for federal and state income tax purposes, lower interest rates will be obtained on the financing. 2. Because the bonds are Essential Function Bonds, the interest paid is not a tax preference item included in the calculation of the bond holders' alternative minimum tax, again permitting a lower interest rate on the financing. Agencies and Resources 7-3 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 3. Essential purpose bonds are not subject to private activity bond volume limitations. 4. Because the Authority is the owner of the development, it will make payment in lieu of real estate taxes (PILOT), 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. 5. It may be possible to structure the terms of the issue to meet the needs of your organization. 6. You may be able to structure your own tenant composition, free from federal tax law income requirements. . 7. Because the development is owned by a public entity, the profit motivation of a private developer is removed from the transaction, which also contributes to keeping the rents at an affordable level. 8. The Housing Authority has complete control over decisions regarding all development aspects. No federal or state approvals required. Timeline 1. Discuss study recommendations with participating cities; select and appoint Development Team - Months 1-2 2. Development Team completes planning phase - Month 3 3. Development Consultants selected; recommend sites, design financing options, development schedule and market conditions - Month 4 4. Finalize plans, prepare for bid - Months 5-6 5. Advertise and award bid - Months 7-8 6. Construction - Months 9-18 7. Project completion, grand opening and move-ins - Month 19 Credit Enhancements In an effort to obtain the best possible interest rate and term for your bonds, it is suggested that you structure your issue with credit enhancements. Those typically used include letters of credit, Agencies and Resources 7-4 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. 2. Operating Deficit Guaranty - A guarantee by the involved county, cities or local corporations to guaranty to cover any operating shortfalls, usually on an annual basis. 3. Excess Tax Increment Funds - If the project is located in a tax increment district or if a tax increment district in the city or county where the project is located is generating surplus funds, the surplus can be designated to cover any shortfalls for this project. The designation can be made for the life of the tax increment district 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 (city or county). This tax can be a maximum of 0.0131% of the taxable market value of the city or county in which the HRA is located. This is an annual process with annual approval required from the governing board. This levy can be used to back the housing projects. 5. General Obligation - Tax Pledge - In Minnesota, cities and counties can use full faith and credit taxing ability to secure projects developed by an HRA. The general obligation pledge would be used as additional security for revenue bonds payable from income or revenues of the project. The maximum general obligation pledge is the greater of.5% of market value of the property in the jurisdiction, or $3,000,000. In addition, no individual family may have an income higher than 80% of the median family income as estimated by HUD. Other Local Funding Mechanisms Corporate Involvement In communities where employee housing is a particular issue with local employers, corporations have stepped to the forefront to participate in the financing of community housing. They may act as a credit enhancer by posting an operating deficit guarantee or by providing such inducements as land, fixed assets or equity. In some instances, local corporations may also purchase low-income tax credits to provide an equity source. Pooled Housing Revenue Fund While any project can be financed on a project-by-project basis, it is possible to create a Pooled Agencies and Resources 7-5 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Housing Revenue Fund for the purpose 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 grants, corporate donations or excess gaming revenues. This process may allow stronger market rate projects to help subsidize housing for low income families. Agencies and Resources 7-6 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 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 up their bonds with the Metropolitan Council'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 promotes and funds affordable housing activities 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 Agencies Minnesota Housing Finance Agency 400 Sibley Street Suite 300 St. Paul, MN 55101 Katherine Hadley, Commissioner 1-800-657-3802 The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (1v11iFA) was created by the Minnesota Legislature to provide housing opportunities and financial resources to assist low/moderate income Minnesotans in obtaining decent, safe, energy efficient and affordable housing. MHFA also provides funds to cities for neighborhood redevelopment projects. Programs that MHFA offers that may assist Carver County in addressing its housing needs follow: ► Community Rehabilitation Fund Description: The Community Rehabilitation Fund provides a maximum of$250,000 for the acquisition and clearance of blighted properties. ► Minnesota Urban and Rural Homesteading Program (MURL) Description: This program provides grants to purchase substandard homes, rehabilitate the homes and then sell the rehabilitated homes to first time home buyers. The Program is designed to prevent the spread of blight and preserve the existing housing stock. ► Purchase Plus Program Description: The Purchase Plus Program is a purchase/rehabilitation mortgage program that provides funds to purchase and rehabilitate substandard existing homes. ► Minnesota Mortgage Program Description: The Minnesota Mortgage Program provides below-market interest rate 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 to specific communities throughout the State. Under this program, eligible cities may request single property 'spot' loan set asides for specialized home ownership projects which are undertaken to address locally identified housing objectives. ► Home Ownership Assistance Fund Description: The Homeownership Assistance Fund provides monthly payment assistance and down payment assistance to moderate income borrowers purchasing their first homes through an MHFA mortgage revenue bond program. A MHFA loan is provided in the form of a second mortgage loan without interest. The mortgage loan must be repaid on a graduated basis. ► Minnesota City Participation Program Description: The Minnesota City Participation Program provides a set-aside of mortgage revenue bond funds for a period of six to nine months to assist communities in meeting identified local home ownership goals. Agencies and Resources 7-8 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 and down 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. ► Home Stretch Home Buyer Training Program Description: This program provides materials and technical support to communities 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 qualifying 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 privately owned rental 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 property owners. ► Low and Moderate Income Rental Program Description: This program makes mortgage 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 Housing Study 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 who reside in a county 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 Description: Deferred payment loans may be available to low income homeowners for improvements directly related to the basic housing needs of a physically disabled person. ► Deferred Loan Program Description: Deferred payment loans assist low income homeowners in financing home improvements directly affecting the safety, habitability, energy efficiency and accessibility of their homes. ► Home Energy Loan Program Description: This program enables homeowners to increase the efficiency of the existing housing stock. ► Revolving Loan Program Description: This program provides rehabilitation financing to low and moderate income homeowners who are unable to qualify for other types of assistance. ► The Great Minnesota Fix-Up Fund Description: Property improvement loans available State-wide to assist homeowners in 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 Development 121 Seventh Place East 5th Floor Metro Square St. Paul, MN 55101 Louis Jambois, Community Assistance Director 1-800-657-3858 The Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development (DTED) is a State agency that provides programs and funding for housing, community, and economic development. Each year DTED receives approximately $20 million from the federal government through the Community Development Block Grant Program. DTED uses this money for the Small Cities Development Program, an annual competition among small cities, townships and counties for housing, public facilities, and economic development projects. Approximately 90 jurisdictions submit applications each year and normally 30 applications are selected for funding. Agencies and Resources 7-10 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Federal Agencies Department of Housing and Urban Development 220 Second Street South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Tom Feeney, Coordinator (612) 370-3000 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 they are established. USDA Rural Development 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 (FmHA) provides loans and grants in rural areas to finance housing related needs. Rural areas include populations with cities under 20,000. Programs which may assist Carver County include: ► 502 and 504 Housing Rehabilitation Programs Description: Loans and grants are provided for rehabilitation of substandard housing occupied by low/moderate income households. ► Rural Housing Preservation Grants Description: Housing rehabilitation grants are provided for communities to address specific housing needs in the community. ► Rural Housing Site Loan Description: This program is to assist public or private nonprofit organizations interested in providing sites for housing, to acquire and develop land in rural areas. Agencies and Resources 7-11 Carver County Housing Study December 1996 Federal National Mortgage AssociationfFannie Mae) 386 North Wabasha Capital Centre Suite 1026 St. Paul, MN 55102 Gloria Bostrom, Partnership Office Director (612) 298-9356 Fannie Mae is a Congressionally Chartered, private shareholder owned company that works to make sure that mortgage money is available to people in communities all across America. In May 1995, Fannie Mae announced plans for House Minnesota, which will provide $6 billion in 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 needs, 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 ► Affordable Housing Program Description: This program is to subsidize the interest rate on advances or provide direct 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 Investment Advance Program Description: This program is designed to encourage member financial institutions to provide favorable financing for home ownership and rental housing occupied by families with incomes below 115 percent of area median, and commercial and economic development activities that benefit and/or are located in low and moderate income neighborhoods. Agencies and Resources 7-12 POWERS AND DUTIES OF MINNESOTA HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES Prepared by: Robert J. Deike Bradley & Deike, P. A. 5100 Eden Ave. Edina, MN 55437 (612) 927-4333 • Rjd/mydoc/forms/hra 1. Statutory Authorization. The statutory authority to create and operate HRAs is found at Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001-.047. Many 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 May Create? (a) Municipal HRA. The governing body of any statutory or home rule charter city may create a municipal HRA. However, if a county or multicounty HRA has been created in the county in which a city is located and the county or multicounty HRA is active, the city 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. (b) County HRA. The governing body of any county, other than Ramsey County and any county in which a county HRA has been created by special law, may create a county HRA. (c) Multicounty HRA. The governing bodies of any two or more counties or cities, or combinations of counties and cities, may create a multicounty HRA. 3. Creation Process. (a) Municipal HRA. A municipal HRA is created through the adoption by the city's governing body of a resolution containing the findings as to the existence of blighted 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 general circulation in the city at least once not less than ten or more than thirty days before the hearing. (b) County HRA. A county HRA is created through the adoption by the county's governing body of a resolution containing the findings required for the creation of a municipal HRA at section 469.003, subd. 1, and that there is a need for a county HRA to function in the county. (c) Multicounty HRA. A multicounty HRA is created through the adoption by the governing bodies of two or more counties or cities or combinations of counties or cities declaring that there is a need for one HRA to exercise its powers in those political subdivisions and after making certain findings, required by section 469.004. subd. 3, as to blight, shortage of available housing for low income persons and as to the desirability of consolidating HRA powers in one entity. 4. Board of Commissioners. (a) Board Composition. (i) Municipal HRA. A municipal HRA is governed by a five-person board of commissioners. The members must be residents of the city and are appointed by the mayor with the approval of the city 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. (ii) County HRA. A county HRA is governed 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 distribution on a representative basis throughout the area of operation of the HRA. Appointments are for five years except for the initial appointments, which are staggered in the same manner as municipal HRAs. (iii) Multicounty HRA. A multicounty HRA is governed by a board of commissioners, the members of which are appointed by the respective participating political subdivisions which adopted resolutions authorizing the creation of the HRA. (b) Compensation. HRA commissioners are entitled to receive necessary expenses, including traveling expenses, incurred in the performance of their duties. In addition, Commissioners may be paid up to $55.00 for attending each regular and special meeting of the HRA. 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) Meetings. (i) Place of Meetings. Regular meetings of an HRA must be held in a fixed place, except that the meetings of a multicounty HRA may be held any where within the boundaries of the area of operation of the HRA or any additional area where the HRA is authorized to undertake a project. (ii) Open Meetings. Meetings of an HRA are subject to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.705, which, with certain exceptions, requires that all meetings be open to the public. At any meeting required to be open to the public, at least one copy of all materials relating to the agenda items of the meeting available to the commissioners must also be available for inspection by the public, except for items classified as 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 Minnesota Data Privacy Laws. the commissioners must make reasonable efforts to protect from disclosure that data. Such efforts may include acting by means of reference to a letter, number or other designation which does not reveal the identity of the subject of the data. (iii) Special Meetings. In order to hold a special meeting it is necessary to post 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 who has filed a written request for notice of special meetings. The notice must be posted and mailed or delivered at least three days before the date of the meeting. An alternative to mailing or delivering notice is to publish the notice in the official newspaper of the HRA at least three days before the meeting. (d) Removal from Office. A Commissioner may, for inefficiency, neglect of duty or misconduct in office be removed from the board of commissioners by the governing body of the municipality. At least ten days prior to a hearing at which the commissioner has an opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel, the commissioner must be given a copy of any charges. The commissioner may, pending final action on the charges, be temporarily suspended by the governing body. (e) 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 interest. This statement must be submitted no later than one week after the commissioner (or employee) becomes aware of the potential conflict of interest. (ii) 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 Projects. HRAs have the powers to undertake the following defined "projects": (a) Housing Projects. Housing projects, defined at Section 469.002, subd. 13, are any work or undertaking to provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for low income persons and their families. (b) Housing Development Projects. Housing development projects. defined at Section 469.002. subd. 15. are any work or undertaking to provide housing for persons of moderate income and their families. (c) Redevelopment Projects. Redevelopment projects. defined at Section 469.002. subd. 14, are. briefly, any work or undertaking to acquire blighted and other real property and the taking of actions such as demolition. clearance and site preparation to eliminate and remove the blight and the causes of blight. (d) Interest Reduction Projects. Interest reduction projects, defined at Section 469.012, subd. 7, include programs to pay interest on loans made to finance the construction, rehabilitation, and purchase of housing intended primarily for occupancy by 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 undertaken by an HRA, and the housing assisted is not a rental housing development located in a target area as defined in the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency laws, there must be compliance with specified income limitations of renters in the assisted housing unit. Any developer participating in an interest reduction program must enter into an agreement with the HRA providing for payment to the HRA of a portion of the proceeds from the sale of such assisted development. 8. Miscellaneous Powers. In addition to the above powers to undertake projects, HRAs have certain other powers. The following are some of those additional powers: (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, 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 improvements may be acquired only when the buildings or improvements are substandard, and the power of eminent domain may be used to acquire land only if the land contains buildings and improvements which are vacated and substandard. Section 469.012, subd. 1(7) contains a definition of what constitutes "substandard" buildings or improvements. (b) Acquisition of Assisted Housing. Section 469.012, subd. 1(30), allows an HRA to acquire and sell real property that is benefited by federal housing assistance payments, other rental subsidies, or interest reduction payments or contracts for the purpose of preserving the affordability of low and moderate income multifamily 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 HRA'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. HRAs 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 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) Minnesota Statutes. Section 469.034, allows HRAs 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. (b) Tax Increment. HRAs have the legal authority under the tax increment financing laws. Minnesota Statutes. Sections 469.174-.179. to create tax increment financing districts to provide a source of funding for its projects. Tax increment from such tax increment districts. or the proceeds of tax increment bonds may be used only to pay the "public redevelopment costs' of a project undertaken by the HRA. "Public redevelopment costs" is defined as the entire cost of a housing. project. housing development project. redevelopment project. or interest reduction project. (c) If the city council for the city within which an HRA was created consents, the HRA may levy a tax on all taxable property in its area of operation in an amount up to .0131 percent of taxable market value to be used to finance its operations. An additional levy of up to .0013 percent of taxable market value may be levied to pay 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 under the municipal industrial development laws. Minnesota Statutes Section 469.152-1651. (e) Housing Revenue Bonds. County HRAs or any municipal HRA which has been authorized by ordinance of its City to exercise the powers of a city under the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency Laws. may issue housing, revenue bonds to finance housing developments under the laws and regulations relating to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. (f) General Obligation Revenue Bonds. An HRA may pledge the general obligation of its city in the case of a Municipal HRA, or its county in the case of a county HRA, as additional security for bonds payable from income or revenue of a project or of the HRA. The HRA must find that pledged revenues will equal or exceed 110% of the principal and interest due on the bonds for each year. The bonds must be used to finance a qualified housing development project or projects. The principal amount of the bonds must be approved by the governing body whose general obligation is pledged. The maximum amount of bonds that may be issued is the greater of 1/2 of 1% of the taxable market value of the governmental unit whose general obligation is pledged or $3,000.000.00. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 1997 Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin Joyce, Allison Blackowiak, Jeff Farmakes, Ladd Conrad and Allyson Brooks MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Peterson and Bob Skubic STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II; Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer; and Anita Benson, Project Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REZONING APPROXIMATELY 13.5 ACRES FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF); PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 10 LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS, (AND REVISION TO PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 35 LOTS) LOCATED AT 6730 GALPIN BLVD., WOODRIDGE HEIGHTS (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SHAMROCK RIDGE), CENTEX HOMES. Public Present: Name Address Dwight Jelle Eden Prairie Kathy Faragher Chaska Scott Rickter Eden Prairie Dan Blake Eden Prairie Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: I would like to see the, and I don't know if it's at this point the previous plat... Okay, and what has changed? Generous: In the previous plat there were three lots on the north side. In this plat they're proposing two lots. The lot lines for the three have been slightly modified. The eastern two- thirds of the project is basically consistent with the preliminary plat approval that they have. The other item that changed on this site is previously the lots were being served by a private drive along the north boundary of the property and that's been eliminated. Instead they'll have a shared driveway on Lake Lucy Road. And additionally we will have a 30 foot wide conservation easement along the north side which is the same,but because of the revisions to the plat, we were able to save trees along the western and northwest corner of this site and thus we're recommending a 50 foot conservation easement over... On the south side you have two... One Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 with three houses served by a private street. The third house pad was pushed out into the poor soils area of the site, and closer to the wetland...with the rear two lots pushed closer. Where the building pads pushed closer to the lot line. With the proposed replat, all of that is pushed out of the way. Out of the poor soils area and it allows us to concentrate all our wetland mitigation in one area rather than on the previous site it was scattered on... Blackowiak: And a second question. It talks in here about a future site for a city well. I think am I on the right? Where is that going to be or I mean have you picked a spot for that? Hempel: No, we have not picked a spot for that yet. We have done some preliminary survey work to determine a well field in the area. The area is conducive to constructing a well. We're also looking further south along Galpin Boulevard or south of The Woods at Longacres, the Lundgren development there as well. We're just keeping the options open at this time. Blackowiak: Okay. I was just wondering if that would be a factor in this tonight. Hempel: No, it would not. Blackowiak: All right, that's it for me. Joyce: Any other questions? Conrad: Yeah. Outlot A and B, what can they be used for? Generous: Nothing unless it's platted as a lot, but this is the potential well field of the well site. ...this is back to that whole question that we thought the western third would be better to develop with the property to the north and have that walkout lot up on the top. So it's conceivable that it could be sold to the property to the north in the future when that develops and may be able to be platted as part of one of those lots. Outlot B, it will be wetlands. It's open space there. There's...utility easement over it. Joyce: I do have one question, sorry. On the original plat. How many curb cuts into Lake Lucy were there? Generous: On the original plat there were two proposed for driveway access points. On this plat there are five. Joyce: Okay, so we're increasing obviously. Generous: The number by three, yes. Joyce: Okay. And there is a, if I'm reading correctly, we do have restrictions on that? Is that something that we have to put into a condition or is that just? 2 Planning Commission Meeting-February 19, 1997 Hempel: Mr. Chairman,yes. I believe the code does want to restrict access, driveway accesses on collector type streets whenever feasible. In this situation,given the topographic constraints, the environmental sensitivity of the area, we believe it's a reasonable exception to allow these additional curb cuts in this location. We have existing driveways east of this development along Lake Lucy Road and as well west in the new subdivision Brenden Ponds. There will be a few homes sharing driveway access points as well. We believe that the low speed on the street, with the sight lines up and down the street will provide adequate safety. Joyce: We don't have to put that into any of our conditions though then, is that correct? Hempel: I don't believe so,no. Joyce: Okay. Hempel: The condition does state about common driveways along Lake Lucy. Joyce: It does? Okay. All right, I guess with that, would the applicant like to make a presentation at this time? Dan Blake: Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission,my name is Dan Blake. I'm with Centex Homes. I just want to say that we're happy to be back in Chanhassen. Centex is a national builder that we've been building homes throughout the Twin Cities, in many of the southwest suburbs, mostly in Eden Prairie lately. Chanhassen, last time we were here was about 10 years ago in the Curry Farms neighborhood. Just about a mile east of this site. I think Bob explained everything quite well. There were 10 lots before and there's 10 lots now. We are, the site's been looked at a number of times. A lot of problems with the development with the topography on the existing plan,the soil conditions. We think that this is the best scenario. The development, as the plan is in front of you now. We agree with the staff conditions in the report as amended here tonight and I guess I'd rather, instead of going on and on,just ask for any questions that you might have at this time. Joyce: Any questions from commissioners at this point? Are you going to show us something there? I hate for you to bring it all the way out here. Same thing, okay. Dan Blake: ...the one that Bob has. Basically these lots with direct access onto Lake Lucy Road, with the shared driveways that we talked about. And then the two lots up here... Joyce: Was that original plat a Centex plat? Dan Blake: No it's not. It was done by the landowner about 4 years ago, or 2 years ago. Joyce: Okay. That's what I thought. Okay. With that I guess we'll open it up to the public. Can I have a motion to open up the public hearing. Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 Joyce: Would anybody like to address the Planning Commission at this time? Seeing no one, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to close the public hearing. Joyce: Okay. Jeff. Farmakes: I have no comments on this issue. Questions have already been asked. Joyce: Allison. Blackowiak: My major comment is regarding the traffic on Lake Lucy Road, and I talked to Kate a little bit about this today. I am concerned about having so many driveway cuts on a collector type road. And I was not on the commission when the other plat came through. It did seem like it would be better to have fewer access points onto a main road but I don't know. I'm just not sure about the traffic pattern here. I like the idea of trying to keep the wetlands in one area. It does make sense but I don't know that that should be the driving force behind adding additional cuts, if we don't need them, on Lake Lucy. So that's really what I'm concerned about tonight. Joyce: Ladd. Conrad: Looks better than the last time we saw it. And staff did a good job. 1 agree with their report. Yeah, I don't have any comments. Joyce: Allyson. Brooks: No comments. Joyce: This has such an extensive history, I think maybe Jeff and Ladd are the only two people who really have been through the whole thing so I don't have a lot of comments. The only thing I can echo is you know the curb cuts. It's not the most ideal thing, but I'm not going to get into that. So, can we get a vote on it? Or a motion rather. Excuse me, a motion. Farmakes: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning the property from RR to RSF and preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 13.5 acres into 10 lots, 2 outlots, the associated right-of-way as shown on the plat dated January 17, 1997 and subject to the following conditions. With the proviso that 7, 8, 10 are deleted. 20, second sentence should be read as, a no parking zone should be designated along the north side of Lake Lucy Road. Joyce: Do I hear a second to that? Conrad: I'd second. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning of the property from RR to RSF and preliminary plat approval for the subdivision of 13.5 acres into 10 lots, 2 outlots, and associated right-of-way as shown on the plat dated January 17, 1997, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall revise the landscaping plan for Phase II to be consistent with Lake Lucy Road planting design. A landscape buffer shall be required along both sides of the Lake Lucy Road extension, Section 18-61(a)(5). This buffer landscaping shall be developed prior to final plat submittal for city approval. Berming shall be included south of Lake Lucy Road. 2. The following tree conservation and forestation areas shall be dedicated as part of the final plat: a 30 foot easement along the northern boundary of the site; a 50 foot easement along the western lot line of Outlot A. 3. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show the location of proposed dwelling pads, using standard designations and the lowest level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 4. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes,NSP, US West, Cable TV, transformer boxes, mailboxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 5. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with the surface so as to provide all-weather, year- round driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code Sec. 10.204(b). 6. No burning permits for trees removed will be issued. Any downed trees will have to be chipped on site or hauled off site. 7. The proposed development will be responsible for a water quantity assessment fee of $16,810 assuming 8.49 acres of developable land. SWMP fees for water quality will be waived conditional to the construction of the proposed treatment ponds. Additional credit will be given for the placement of a control structure at the outlet. The total SWMP fee for Phase II is then estimated at $14,310. If there are any modifications to the fees, they will be changed prior to final plat. 8. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The city will install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed buffer strip shall be shown on the grading plan. 9. Access to Lots 1 through 8, Block 1 and Lots 1 and 2,Block 2 along Lake Lucy Road will be restricted to shared access points shown on the final construction plans. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 10. A landscape plan directed towards slope stabilization north of Lake Lucy Road on Outlot A shall be submitted for review and approval prior to final plat. Sumac shall be planted in groupings within the Outlot to provide better stabilization and aesthetic appeal. The quantity to be planted shall be calculated based on plantings seven feet on center. This area shall also be seeded with a seed mixture conducive to the soil and slope conditions_ Erosion control mats shall be used after seeding. 11. The applicant should report to the City Engineer the location of all drain tiles found during construction. Drain tiles should be relocated or abandoned as directed by the City Engineer. 12. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement centered upon the common lot lines of Lots 6 and 7, Block 1 shall be dedicated on the final plat. 13. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to staff for review and formal approval by the City Council in conjunction with final plat consideration. 14. The applicant shall apply for and obtain the necessary permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota DNR, Minnesota Dept. of Health, MPCA and other appropriate regulatory agencies and comply with their conditions of approval. 15. Upon completion of site grading all disturbed areas shall be restored with seed and disc- mulched or wood-fiber blanket within one week of completing site grading unless the City's Best Management Practice Handbook planting dates dictate otherwise. 16. Upon completion the developer shall dedicate to the City utility and street improvements within the public right-of-way and drainage and utility easements for permanent ownership. 17. Lake Lucy Road shall be designed and constructed to meet state aid horizontal and vertical standards. A no parking zone shall be designed along the north side of Lake Lucy Road. 18. Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon the applicant extending utilities from Brenden Pond unless other feasible alternatives are provided to the City for review and approval. 19. The storm water pond south of Lake Lucy Road shall be constructed with the initial phase of grading. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL; REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM R-12 TO OI; LOT AREA VARIANCE REQUEST; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING, SCOTT & ASSOCIATES AND RYAN ENGINEERING, INC. Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Thank you. Any questions for staff at this time? Conrad: Just one. West of the parking lot Sharmin, what's, is that grass? Al-Jaff: Yes it is. Conrad: Is it grass now? If it was summer. Al-Jaff: There's gravel. Conrad: It's gravel. And they're putting in 12 stalls. They're required to put in 7. Al-Jaff: Correct. Conrad: No more questions. Al-Jaff: They will add some more about allowing maybe St. Hubert's to park there when they need to on weekends, since they're not going to be using this parking lot. Joyce: Okay. Would the applicant like to come up and make a presentation? Joe Scott: I'm Joe Scott with Scott and Associates and we're at 80 West 78th Street here in Chanhassen. The building that is affectionately known as the old detox center so obviously moving up to this place is quite a big deal for us. What I've got here, to give you some idea of the building materials that we're going to be using. You have a black and white rendering. This is a small color rendering. I'll just pass it around. And you also have a picture of what the building looks like today, and we took a look at the staff report over this last weekend and what we did is, there were some suggestions that were made by Sharmin with regard to adding additional landscaping and an overstory tree and what we've done is attached to that packet that you have there, we've made all the changes to the site plan to fit in with the suggestions made by staff. For such a small property, there's obviously a lot of things that we're asking for with the rezone and then also there's quite a few variances that we're basically stuck with because of the nature of the property. There's also another, the other interesting thing that's happening is that we'll be required to get a cross access easement from whoever's involved in the shopping center there but I think they're going to need a cross access easement from us because the property kind 7 Planning Commission Meeting -February 19, 1997 of cuts the drive in half but I'm sure that's something that we can work out. One other comment too about de-intensifying the use is that our hours of operation are the standard 9:00 to 5:00 and we'll be reducing the hours of operation about 50% and then the trips are going to be reduced by about 90% so the intensive use of the site as it sits today is going to be reduced quite a bit. If you have any other questions, Perry Ryan from Ryan Engineering can answer some of the more technical questions. Here's what we are going to be making the building look like, and you'll notice that the stacks off the roof are gone and so forth so we're pretty excited about this and I think what I'll do is I'll end my presentation and if you have any questions or something, I'll be more than happy to answer and then just let you get on with making your decision. Any questions? Joyce: The only one I had was, why do we need the 12 parking? Joe Scott: Well I think we're required to have 8 I think. Or 7 or 8. And from looking at what it was going to cost to put the 8 stall parking lot in, we just figured well for the additional, what was it like an additional $1,500.00 we could get 4 more spaces so we just figured, I mean right now we've got, there's five of us who work in our company so we figured well we've got five people. Every once in a while we'll have a customer. Then we have UPS so I'm just thinking, you know for the incremental dollars you might as well max out the parking lot so we don't end up with an issue there. And I think you can see from the packet too that we took a lot of time letting the neighbors know what we wanted to do and we got some of their reaction and people are pretty excited about what we're doing and so are we so. Any other questions or comments? Conrad: You're below the impervious surface ratio aren't you? Joe Scott: Oh yeah. I think we're at 36. 38. And I think it would support 60 or something so yeah. It's a pretty small building. Actually the parking lot is bigger than the building. Joyce: Okay. Thank you very much. Joe Scott: Okay, thanks. Joyce: At this time we'll open it up for, or make a motion to open it up for public hearing. Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. Joyce: It's open for a public hearing. Would anyone like to address the Planning Commission on this item? Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. Joyce: Commissioners. Allyson. Brooks: I have no comment. It seems reasonable. 8 Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 1997 Joyce: Ladd. Conrad: Nothing. It looks fine to me. Blackowiak: I'd say it's a big improvement over what's there and it seems like everybody in the neighborhood is in agreement with it. Joyce: Jeff. Farmakes: It's an improvement. Joyce: Okay. I would agree with that. It's a vast improvement. I think it's a wonderful, wonderful project. The only thing I said to Kate is, I wish we could have put some of that high density on top of it somewhere and rented out some space up there. We have those needs. Yeah, but no. It's a great project. Congratulations. So let's have a motion here. Farmakes: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning of 0.3 acres of R-12, high density residential to 01, Office Institutional. Approve site plan to renovate a 1,600 square foot building, lot area, front yard setback and lot depth variances and comprehensive plan amendment from high density residential to office as shown in the plans dated received January 21, 1997 subject to the following conditions, 1 through 11. Joyce: Do I have a second? Blackowiak: Second. Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning 0.3 acres of R-12, High Density Residential to OI, Office Institutional, approve site plan to renovate a 1,600 square foot building, lot area, front yard setback, and lot depth variances, and comprehensive plan amendment from high density residential to office as shown in plans dated received January 21, 1997, subject to the following conditions: 1. Rezoning approval from R-12, High Density Residential to 0I, Office Institutional. 2. Approval of the minor comprehensive plan amendment by the Metropolitan Council. 3. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement and provide financial security to guarantee improvements. 4. The applicant must provide 3 overstory boulevard trees along Chan View street frontage and one overstory tree with the parking lot landscaping. Also, parking lot landscaping will be increased to 264 sq. feet. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 5. The applicant shall provide to the City a$2,000 letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the sidewalk,curb and gutter and boulevard restoration. The boulevard area between the property line and the street shall be sodded. 6. Provide a cross access easement between Colonial Center and the proposed development for shared access from Great Plains Boulevard. 7. During construction, the streets shall be kept clean daily in order to prevent erosion from washing off site. Erosion control measures may be implemented later as the need arises. 8. One accessible parking space shall be provided. The space must be eight feet wide with a five foot wide access aisle. In addition, an accessible route must be provided from the parking lot to the building along with approved signage. 9. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. 10. The maximum area of the wall mounted sign may not exceed 90 square feet. A sign permit will be required prior to installation of the sign. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 24,285 SQ. FT. SHOPPING CENTER TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HWY. 5 AND GREAT PLAINS BLVD., CHANHASSEN COMMONS, OPPIDAN INVESTMENT CO. Public Present: Name Address Pat Hallasee Blue Circle Investment Company George Beniek American Legion Tom Lander M.A. Mortenson Company Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Okay. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Conrad: Yeah. This is a site plan for the whole area. The whole site. Al-Jaff: It is for the. Conrad: Not just the strip mall. This is the whole site. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 Aanenson: Well that's one way of looking at it. If you want to have a comprehensive look to the site, that may be an issue. That was part of the discussion why the restaurant got pulled off because we wanted some complimentary features in the design. But you're right. Conrad: But it's one lot. Al-Jaff: Correct. Aanenson: Correct. So you're going to have to take that into consideration when the other uses come in and that's kind of where Sharmin was going with this. Trying to make sure that we had some unifying themes in this and consistent with the Highway 5 standards. And we believe we're moving in the right direction and I think that's why the other was taken off. They want to make sure that they can meet those same issues. Joyce: So we have to come back with a conditional use if we want to put some more buildings on here obviously? Aanenson: That's correct. And a site plan, that's correct. Conrad: They wouldn't need a conditional use with one building on this site. But we're giving it site plan approval. Aanenson: We did the same thing with Byerly's when they came in with additional uses on one lot. We gave them a conditional use permit. It's handled the same way. Again they matched the, kind of the theme as far as design. Joyce: How'd you do it with Byerly's? I'm trying to follow this. Aanenson: There was an existing shopping center and other uses came on without separate lots. More than one building on the same lot, which you'll have here, which you can do under conditional use. You still have the review of the site plan authority to review what the architecture's going to look like. Now they may not be the same. I guess that's the issue that we were struggling with and Sharmin spent some time on, but we want to make sure that they compliment each other. Brooks: So you will have some say over whether the restaurant is of the same sort of architectural style as the strip mall so that it's not a jarring feel to it? Aanenson: That's what, that's kind of where we're at right now. Joyce: Well the restaurant's out so I mean right now we're not talking, you know, it could be anything. Aanenson: Right, but when it comes in, I think that's what Ladd... 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 Brooks: Yeah that's, so...completely different from. Conrad: So, but again I, we're approving, we're not approving or we're not looking at the restaurant or the out building but we are looking, we are giving approval for landscaping for the entire site? Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: Basically. Blackowiak: Following up I think where Ladd is going. Are we being premature since, as I look at this to me, I see that that restaurant, a potential restaurant location as probably being a dominant feature in this site plan. Is that a valid assumption? It closest to Highway 5. Probably the most visible? Are we putting the cart before the horse in approving the strip mall before having a little bit more of it? Aanenson: Well I guess everybody that's looked at that site has envisioned a restaurant there so in our mind that's probably what it's going to be. If you look at the marketability of that site. It's going to be a restaurant. And we've always intended for that to be pulled towards the front. That's what the Highway 5 dictates. So whether it's today or tomorrow, we believe pretty much that's going to probably be the use. If this one doesn't land there we believe something else along that caliber, based on what we know the market forces are out there. Joyce: Kate, we could potentially have a strip mall with 250 or whatever it is parking spaces for a while though too, correct? Or how are we going to do the parking of this? Aanenson: Well I believe, and you can check with the applicant, but they'd like to be in as soon as possible on the other use, with possibly your next agenda in two weeks. We just got hung up on the architecture and I'm not sure if the applicant was seeing the same issues that we saw, or the changes that were made so. Just to come forward with their best presentation and we want to make sure that everything is where we want it and they want it so it was pulled off. I think that's the best thing to do at this time. Farmakes: To me it's going to be interesting to see how you resolve the architectural issue between a fairly common strip mall approach here, and Famous Dave's which is more of a repro feel bar-be-que shack look. I don't think concrete wainscoting is probably going to do it. Aanenson: Herein lies the problem. Farmakes: But their operation has a lot of character. I don't know if we should. Aanenson: The direction we gave them is some unifying themes. We felt it at themes. They came back with color. I'm not sure we want all the same colors that's, we're trying to give them license there to work with that and that's kind of where Sharmin's left it so. 12 Planning Commission Meeting-February 19, 1997 Farmakes: But again, if you're talking about issues of what the strip mall looks like,as an evaluation, do you want to make everything look like that? I mean you use the word unifying. We've gotten into this before. Defining the word unifying. It doesn't mean the same as. That's an important corridor and I think strip mall less so on the two buildings that are adjacent to the highway. But still,all three of them are, it's a pretty important four corner area of Chanhassen. So the quality of those buildings I think are going to say a lot and it doesn't necessarily mean they have to high end. Just the character of them and how they look should be unique and... These other buildings on here, I don't, it worries me a little bit. I'll just make a general comment that we see a lot of these and I know we can't make comments on who these tenants are but it seems to me there's a tremendous pent up demand for coffee and bagels in Chanhassen. Joyce: Coffee and bagel capital of Minnesota. A lot of wired people in Chanhassen. Conrad: Let me make sure I know what we're doing. We are approving this site, which basically says there will be a restaurant on the corner. There will be another building on the northeast corner. But we're approving the parking configuration, landscaping. That's absolute. Aanenson: Let's say it wasn't a restaurant and for some reason that went away and an office user came in. We would still push it toward the corner. That would still be our criteria. I guess what we're saying is, if we hadn't seen this other stuff,we'd still go forward with this plat because they have a right, they've got a lot to build that on there. But I think the point you're getting at, which is a valid point, is this is kind of setting some of the design framework and I think you need to be comfortable with that for the rest of the development in the site. Farmakes: But we are then approving, if we approve that section of the mall, that's one lot, we're approving the architecture of that mall? Strip mall? Aanenson: In a sense a style, correct. I mean I don't think we want it to exactly match the other thing but you're setting some colors,just like we did on,does everything match across the street at Market Square? No. Farmakes: But it looks fairly conforming... Aanenson: There are some things correct that tie it together and I guess that's what we're trying to do here. Conrad: What if we decided, they decided to put another bank in town? Aanenson: It's been discussed at that place. Conrad: No you're kidding. We need more banks. Joyce: As long as it had a coffee shop in it. Conrad: Well yeah, at the drive thru. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 Farmakes: I'm somewhat concerned because we know that the builders coming into town,we recommended that they change the architecture and the City Council in their wisdom decided not to. There's an established group of buildings that are going to be similar in architectural style and then you come to this four corners area and it still concerns me because we're dealing with buildings we haven't seen yet. The exterior, the restaurant and the other retail building. That there are going to be tie ins to this architecture which I think is pretty basic. Retail architecture so it concerns me somewhat that we're approving a part of it without seeing how the others are integrated into it. Conrad: Yeah, that's what I'm having a problem with too. I know what staff's feeling. Aanenson: I guess I'd just go back to Market Square. We didn't know what Wendy's was going to look like when it came in. We didn't know what Capelli was going to look like or Einstein. Conrad: And that's okay. But we're approving the overall configuration of traffic and. Aanenson: Some framework issues, yes. Conrad: You're saying don't worry? Aanenson: I don't know if I'd go that far. We need to address them and make sure you're comfortable with them but I'm saying at the staff we are. Otherwise we wouldn't have recommended approval. Conrad: Okay. Joyce: Should we go forward? Is the applicant here and like to make a presentation? Keith Alsted: Good evening. Hi. My name is Keith Alsted. I'm a principle in Oppidan Investment Company. We're a relatively small retail and industrial developer in the five state area, compared to some of the giants in our market anyway. We've had, this is our first experience in Chanhassen. We've had a very, I think a very good working relationship with staff. We think the report is fair and they've actually they've given us some corrective guidance through the process that I think has actually made this development better. I heard you wrestling a little bit with us being out of sync a little bit with Famous Dave's. We expected them to be here with us tonight. Kind of working in parallel. I know that staff is working, kind of bridging the gaps between,you've referred to it as traditional,ordinary retail architecture which hopefully with some embellishments I guess we are undertaking here and Famous Dave's, which is a little more ascerteric concept. We're both, I believe both uses have been asked kind of mutually to come towards a middle ground and not to look alike but to look complimentary. We have assembled a team of experts here to help us work with staff. RSP Architects of Minneapolis and HKS Associates, land planners and civil engineers from St. Paul. I guess I'd like to defer to the experts here in each of their categories. I'd like to have Jeremy Mayberg,who is the lead architect in the project from RSP Architects come up and walk you through the physical 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 buildings and the project and then have Alan Krepman from HKS come up and talk about some of the site issues and some of the other issues that were brought out in the report and make some clarification on it. Jeremy Mayberg: My name is Jeremy Mayberg and I'm an associate with RSP Architects in Minneapolis and we're the architects of record for Chanhassen Commons...we're talking about is the building located on the south edge of the site,and it's actually only 17,000 and some change in square footage. The other square footage that makes up the 25 is the restaurant and the proposed retail building on the northeast corner. When we presented the building initially as three buildings we envisioned that second building,just as a piece of information for you, to be identical in design to the one you're looking at here. More of a campus plan. In working with Sharmin it was determined that it can be very similar but not identical so where you see on the main plan the curved entries, if you will,at each of the retail units, in the other building it might take on a different form. Same materials but that expression of entrance at the shops in the smaller building would be different in form but not in material. We see the building as primarily stucco from about 4 feet up and a concrete block base. That concrete block is integrally colored which means that it's a concrete material with the color all the way through it. If it chips off, you will still see the same color. It's not a painted material. The awnings are provided, once again to provide both sunscreen as well as to provide a certain amount of animation to the facade. The driveway that's located at, the store fronts which are located to the north would have equal amounts of landscaping. Joyce: Jeremy, excuse me. You might want to pull that back. I'm sorry that we don't, yeah. I can't see what you're doing over there. We don't have our TV's on right now and I want to make sure that if anyone wants to see it, I don't know. If anyone's interested,maybe you can move up here. Sony for the inconvenience. Jeremy Mayberg: That's fine. No problem. We're proposing landscaping in the corners of each of the setbacks. The building setback in four modulars and they're set back along the site 10 feet, 10 feet,4 feet...and at each of the setbacks we envision landscaping. So it's a way of both breaking up the storefront and provides some... There's also going to be a fairly large paved area where you can put outdoor seating for people who want to sit down and drink their coffee and read the paper, etc. The material all the way around the building is the same so the back of the building looks just like the front of the building. The same stucco and block material. These raised elements provide roof top screening of the roof top units. The roof top units are below that height so you'd have to be above the building to see the roof top units. And that's pretty much it in terms of the architecture. If anyone has any questions,I'd be glad to answer them. Joyce: Any other questions? Conrad: Can you take me through the site plan at all? Jeremy Mayberg: I sure can. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 Conrad: Would you? Wherever it is. Show me where the sidewalks are. Show me how all the different buildings connect sidewalk wise. Jeremy Mayberg: The bike path, walk path that was talked about earlier, comes up the south side of the site. Carries on through to whatever development should occur on this site...to the store fronts that I talked about. These larger areas to provide places for seating... There's landscape at the far east corner. There's an entry into the site is off of Great Plains Boulevard. Service behind the building. A driveway that moves through the center of it. Of the site...working out with the development in this site. Parking. The layout here is...to the required parking for a restaurant in this zone. The parking layout here with the required parking for retail in this zone so this could be essentially, each of these are I would say stand alone in terms of their parking requirements. There is the ability to circulate between the two at this point... Conrad: So the major pedestrian is the bike way basically? Jeremy Mayberg: This is one. Yes, there is a crossing that can occur and come down here. Conrad: Near the sidewalk. Okay, so that leads you into the shopping center. Without crossing traffic? Jeremy Mayberg: Without crossing, well there's this parking lot here. We're not crossing actual traffic. The traffic is in this area. You'd have to cross the service drive. Joyce: Pretty minor. Conrad: Tell me why you oriented the building on the northeast corner the way you did,just out of curiosity. Why angle it that? Why, what are you doing? Jeremy Mayberg: Well there's a need here. There's a change in elevation that we have to deal with and that's sort of what's going on there. We're trying to close a little bit on the site and still providing a right angle to Highway 5. If we pull the building over this way... Joyce: You have someone coming up talking about landscaping then, correct? Jeremy Mayberg: Yes. Joyce: Okay. Jeremy Mayberg: Thank you. Joyce: Thank you. Alan Krepman: Good evening. My name is Alan Krepman with HKS Associates and we are the land planners and landscape architects and civil engineers on the project. To go through the project I guess there's a number of things I'd like to cover but in general, as Jeremy has stated, 16 Planning Commission Meeting-February 19, 1997 the general layout of the plan is pretty well organized. Just to give you a little reminder of what's out there right now. You've got the Legion building...and there are some significant trees that staff has talked about. Some oak trees that are down in here,also some elm trees. We have had discussions with staff regarding the issues of the roadway alignment and have...oak trees down in this particular area in here and we've agreed that we can make some adjustments in there to possibly save one or two of those oak trees. Specifically the trees that are in these two locations right here. And we feel that of those two trees, the one...down south about 25 feet. So that's what we're going to try and do with that tree. In addition to that, that also has other affects on the property. In the staff report they also talked about other issues in terms of site design regarding closing off this driveway entrance here and we have...to line up with this driveway on this site plan so that both sites will work together...turning movement there and we want to make it as safe as possible. Staff has also commented about the landscaping and berming out on TH 5. We have prepared cross sections which illustrates how that works. I guess I would point out one thing before I get at the cross section. The cross sections are, these areas of the site right here. One section comes through the berm,through the building. The second section comes through from the Great Plans back to the structure here. And I think it's important that you know where the location is. Parts of the issues that staff has talked about are the elevation of Highway 5 in relationship to the back of the berm and I think when you talked about this for Americinn, because we were planners on that...making that work is the relationship of the berm height to the height of the road. If you look at the grading plans you'll find that Highway 5 down by the corner is at about 54 and as you progress to the east, the elevation of the road comes up higher. Joyce: Excuse me Alan. You folks can see that on the TV, right? Could you move that easel over so we can get. It seems like everybody's craning their necks. Can you see that Jeff? I want to make sure. Move the easel that way. Can you catch that on the camera? Can you folks see that? Maybe you can move up a little bit and get in some of these seats. I'd hate to have you losing out here. Okay. Are you okay? Alan Krepman: Is that better? Joyce: Okay,thank you. Alan Krepman: The key in making berms work,with the elevation of the road is,the relationship of the berm to the road. So I think it's very important that we note the elevation of Highway 5 out here rises from the intersection...it needs to be about 15 here and I think that's very important because as you're coming across the site you try to get the back berm, which would be about 961.5. So that's high enough so when a person looks out there...looks across the site, you're going to take out and hide the parking. Now in order to make that work towards the west... we've agreed to do. We don't have a problem with that because it's really the berm that's going to make that work. If you put landscaping in, it will filter the view and I think that obviously we want to have some landscaping in there to enhance the view of the site but the berming is really going to be the key to that and if you look,you know there's other examples on TH 5...parking lot in relationship to TH 5 and the berming where it really doesn't work and I think we're all aware of those sites in the city. But in the spirit of trying to make this thing work as good as possible we do want to have some berming that will screen out the parking and yet 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 still allow the view of the building. I think that's a real key thing. Especially with the elevation of the site. Other issues brought up by staff are issues regarding facilities and connections. And there's some discussion in there about providing water service to the restaurant. We do have cross connections with the water trying to come through underneath TH 5 over to the site. Looping around their building and providing a connection up to the restaurant. There was a question about fire hydrant locations. We've got one here that, it appears that the Fire Chief wants us to move that closer to the building. We don't have a problem with that. We'll definitely work with him to make that work to the best of his ability for taking care of any emergencies on this property. Now there's some of the issues that we would like to discuss a little further and one of those is in regards to the road access at Great Plains Boulevard and I think that there's been things that have been done in the past in the city that have kind of led us to believe that we would have a full access on that road and specifically I can look at the Highway 101 realignment that occurred back in 1989. Those plans were, when Highway 101 was located in this specific corridor, called for a full access to this property. Considering with the traffic volumes, the involvement of MnDOT and other agencies, that they had thought that the distances could accommodate a full access into the property. Then you can look at other things that have happened over time and I guess the development of the Villages on the Pond. That obviously does impact on this roadway, but at the same time you've got Highway 101 moving further to the west. The level of service on this road is changing from a State Highway down to a city collector street. In fact even TH 101, as you are aware, is going to become a County highway versus MnDOT. So there's some dropping in status of these roadways and we feel that, that coupled with the fact that there are other alternatives to address the issues, and that can provide us full access,that's an important issue to us and we'd like to maintain that property right of full access that we have. In your traffic engineers staff report to the staff back in July regarding Villages on the Ponds development traffic, they talked about a number of different ways to mitigate the traffic concerns on Great Plains Boulevard in this general area to provide access to the property. Obviously one of the comments was to have right-in/right-out. That is what the staff's recommendation is, but there are also four other recommendations or alternatives that can be utilized. One of those was to have a second lane on the southbound side of Great Plains which could accommodate a left turn movement into the property and allow for by-passing of that traffic so that there wouldn't be a stacking problem. People could come down and turn off TH 5 and take a left into the property. And if the traffic stacks, people could go around it and go down a ways and you know maneuver around so... they could use the Lake Drive East access. And that is our preferred alternative of how to deal with it. There are two other recommendations in that staff report. One was to provide a northbound lane on Great Plains and another was to provide a free right coming through from Great Plains to eastbound TH 5. And we feel that of those solutions, the best solution would be dealing with the southbound traffic because that's really the issue. We really want to have access to our site from traffic coming from TH 5 and I think that's real critical. That's real key for the development of this property. And we'd like to again, preserve that property right. Now one comment that I've typically gotten from engineering staff in situations like this is that times and conditions change and that's why recommendations change over time. I understand that and I think that the times and conditions that have changed are the development of the Villages on the Pond. And with this development over here, it becomes the responsibility to...the property rights of the adjacent property owners. We have full access. We'd like to maintain that. There's a solution provided in the staff report that was given 18 Planning Commission Meeting -February 19, 1997 to the city staff from the traffic engineer and we'd like to follow through and let that recommendation carry the answer for us on this. The other thing that comes with that is the responsibility for payment of that. It's not our responsibility to make that improvement since it's the traffic from the other development that's affecting our property and I think that's very succinct. It's very clear in the staff report that was written back in July regarding Villages and I think that that needs to be addressed by staff with the other developer. Other,there's only one other thing that we noticed in the staff report that we would like to discuss a little bit more and that would be issues regarding the storm water. Obviously we've been working with staff. We've been working with the existing storm water system trying to accommodate and to work with that... In looking at that we have storm water calculations•prepared and we're going to be sharing those with staff. But one of the issues that we see is the issue of fees regarding how that is,how there's some assessments that are applied to our property and the water quality connection charge and the water quantity fee charges are typically associated with plats and not with conditional use permits. In fact we don't even have a conditional use permit now. We have a site plan review and so we questioned the validity, the authority as to whether or not an assessment like this can be attached to our project. If we were having a subdivision of property, yes. And we know that's the appropriate time ordinances require that and we wouldn't contest it at that point but at this point we do question that and we would like to have the chance to have that removed from our requirements. Other than that, again we're very glad that staff has come up with some excellent recommendations. We've tried to work with them as much as possible and enjoyed that and we're looking forward to being under construction this spring. Anything else Keith? Okay. Do you have any questions specific to what I've presented? Joyce: Any questions for Alan? I have a question Alan. There's about 20, I think I counted 21 elms and oaks on that corner right there and you're saying that you'll be able to save 2 of them? Alan Krepman: Well, we are going to be saving a handful of. Joyce: I thought I saw 5 on the list and then I heard you say 2 so now I'm. Alan Krepman: Oh there's, staff had asked about saving a number of elm trees and I have an overlay here that shows those locations in relationship to the design. There are some elm trees over here. Joyce: Can we put that on the overhead or would that work possibly? Alan Krepman: Yeah,we could do that. When you look at the driveway location coming through here and this is the parking lot for Total. What we have out here are some cottonwoods in this location, elm trees across the southern part and the proposed driveway connection to, well up to our driveway is in the vicinity of this elm tree right here, so that will be coming out. The trees that we are looking at trying to preserve are an oak tree right here and another one right in here. There are some other oak trees. They are located in our service drive that provides access to the back side of our building. I don't know how we could avoid those. We've looked at some alternatives of moving our access location for the service drive but then you get into a conflict between the drive coming up from Total and the drive going back behind the building. We want 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 to have a separation with that and that was something that is shared with staff. In fact staff shared with us and we made those adjustments before. And in essence there's a couple of oak trees in here that we're trying to preserve and if we can, we'll sneak our road down through here and preserve those, we will do that. With oak trees, oak trees are very sensitive. Or their root systems, and the best way to preserve an oak tree is to not build even near it. So the real solution when you look at these two trees is to, again pull that road to the south and since we have a 34 inch oak tree out here, and I'd like to kind of key on that one to save it and the one back here is, granted it's 20 inches but even if you look in the context of the plan, the only way that we could preserve that would be to move the road to the north. And the other thing that moving the road to the south does is that it makes the whole issue of the access road out to Great Plains work even better because you'll have another car lane for stacking from the southbound lane that would be turning into the site. But this is the one we're trying to key in on. Joyce: That actually brings up my other question. Let's just assume that we're leaving the road the way it is. How many car lengths, talking about that left hand turn, how many car lengths are you talking about would be available? Alan Krepman: Available out in Great Plains? Joyce: Right. To turn left on there. Alan Krepman: I'd have to look at that. I'm not quite sure. Joyce: My concern is there isn't enough room there to do it and that's why 1 wonder. Alan Krepman: We've got about 170 feet. And you figure approximately 20 feet per car so you're looking at about 9 cars from TH 5 south. Joyce: And that's with this plan right here rather than changing it, right? Alan Krepman: Correct. And we shift it to the south 25 feet, that adds another car. It gets us up to about 20 vehicles. Or excuse me, 180. Yeah, you're looking at about 9 vehicles then. Joyce: Okay. Anything else? Thank you very much. Alan Krepman: Great, thank you. Joyce: I'd like to have a motion to open the public hearing please. Conrad moved, Farmakes seconded to open the public hearing. Joyce: The public hearing is open. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission, please step forward and state your name and address. Yes sir. 20 Planning Commission Meeting-February 19, 1997 Pat Hallasee: I'm Pat Hallasee. I'm the managing partner of Blue Circle Investment Company and we're the owner of the Total Mart shopping center just to the south of this property. I'd like to enhance a little bit on what Al just addressed to you about some of the history that's gone on with the road planning in this area. At the time we built our project, and if we go back to the city notes you'll find that as a part of our project,the approval of our project, there was a specific condition attached to that regarding the access to these properties. When we built we were originally allowed a right-in/right-out from what was then Highway 101,now Great Plains Boulevard. That was not a condition attached by the City of Chanhassen. It was a condition attached by MnDOT. It was also part of a joint planning effort with the city staff and ourselves and MnDOT. When we first approached the city, everybody recognized a problem. That at some point in time that roadway was going to be upgraded tremendously and we were told it would be Highway 101 being upgraded. And that the access, that the people at the Legion Club had rights of access. So at that time MnDOT recommended, and their recommendations was for approval of our development with a right-in/right-out to our development. Subsequently when TH 101 went away MnDOT took our right-in/right-out access away. We know have a full blown curb cut with two lanes in and one lane out. That wasn't, you know it wasn't our idea. It was MnDOT's idea and they did it and they have their crews do it. Another part of that was that we agreed that the best long term solution to this traffic situation for both of us was to share an access at the point of you know the need arose for it, which at that time was envisioned to be the upgrading of TH 101. In fact the approval,the Minutes of approval for our project state that when the American Legion property is developed the access will be moved to our north lot line, their south lot line,and we will share that. There was one small mistake that in retrospect now we can see, and that the word access has been pointed out to us by staff. It does not say full or limited access and I'd like to just address that a little bit. We always envisioned it to be full access. We drew sketches for the city and for MnDOT showing full access at that north lot line. From the time we went from Planning Commission with that recommendation to the City Council meeting and we were in, you know as most developments are under the gun to get started, we had never seen a copy of an agreement until we got into the Council chambers that evening and at that point in time the city engineer was writing out the agreement that we agreed to on a legal pad. So we're sitting here under the gun looking at what went into the record and I guess nobody really bothered to, you know with good faith said access. Bing,that's access. Because we had always envisioned and planned in all of our sketches,had looked at full access at that point. At that place, right on our north lot line. As you can see from the plot plans that was envisioned that that roadway between our parking spaces on the west side of Total would go right up and connect into the access coming into the Legion property. I guess I point out that although it doesn't say full access, it also does not limited access. It does say access and you know I just give you the background of the benefit of the meetings that I was at and what we went through when we agreed to that. And in response to Mr. Joyce's concerns about how many cars can stack making a left hand turn in, I would just invite you to go to look at the north side of this intersection where you turn off Highway 5 going north. There's left turns,and I believe the city engineering department told me it's 65 feet closer to the intersection than what we would be if they moved a full access to our lot line. To our north lot line. So it can and it will work and I guess you know that's what always was envisioned. And it's a better situation than what's on the north side of the road. Those were some of the very important things that we decided, took into 21 Planning Commission Meeting-February 19, 1997 consideration when making an investment decision in the city of Chanhassen. And we certainly expect that those agreements will be honored. Thank you. Joyce: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? George Beniek: Yes Mr. Chairman,members of the Planning Commission. My name is George Beniek and I'm President of the Chanhassen American Legion Housing Corporation. Our job of the Housing Corporation, for those of you that aren't familiar with it, there's a commander that runs the Legion operations and there is a Housing Corporation that manages, sells, leases, upgrades the property,the physical property and that's who I'm representing here tonight. I'd just like to comment on some of the issues. Most of them regarding the access to the property. Should that access not be granted, or as it now is, it will severely hamper our desire to sell the property. It's going to diminish it's value considerably. That's our feeling. The site is naturally zoned for retail establishments and if people can't get in or out of it easily, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out that the people are not going to patronize that establishment. I guess that's all I have at the moment. Thank you. Joyce: Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes sir. Tom Lander: My name is Tom Lander. I'm Director of Development for M.A. Mortenson. We are the owner of the property that is directly east of this parcel. Basically sitting between the development and the pedestrian bridge head. And I guess I would like to speak in support of the development in that we're very pleased with the way the development has been planned, the buildings have been placed and the parking's been laid out because of the way it begins to lend itself to a future development,joint development of the total parcel and we think that the planning does lend itself towards making this whole area into a nice statement for the community. And you'll notice that the access right here labeled Lake Drive North basically straddles the property line between both properties and we have agreed to this because again we feel that it is beneficial as far as the land planning of the overall site. The only concern to date has been that the grading within this area is accomplished so that this road does provide access to our parcel as well, and we've received letters from the developer that grading is going to be resolved in a manner that will be beneficial to both parcels. So I'd just like to speak in support of it. Also as a retail developer I would just like to reinforce the comments about the value and importance of the access drive here being a full access drive and the fact that if it isn't, it will have an impact on the economics of the proposed development as we would view it and I guess as a neighboring property, one of the things that we feel is important is that this is a viable and successful shopping center and that it draw strong tenants and it serves the community. And a change in the access will impact that and I guess we'd just like to speak in favor of as successful a developer here as possible so thank you. Joyce: Is there any comments from anyone else? Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Farmakes moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 Joyce: Thank you. Ladd. Conrad: Well I like the shopping center generally. I think it's just fine. I think that's a good looking strip center. The three issues that, maybe they're not three. I'll have to think about it. I think the screening off of TH 5 is an important issue. In the staff report Sharmin, it says we'll work with, have you seen the materials yet that say this is what you want? In other words, has the applicant given you what you're looking for? Al-Jaff: We haven't seen. We know they're willing to work with us but no, we haven't seen... Conrad: So we don't have that right now. The access is just sort of a, I'm not sure what to do about the access because the applicant's right. You'd like to give them the full access there. I have a tough time integrating everything. I do have to trust staff in terms of engineering on this. All I have is, I wish we would have a full access for this location and for the Total site. We need, but that's a wish and at this point in time all I can say is, I want to make sure that staff has analyzed this to the utmost degree because these are important sites. It's an important access and it's just without, other than saying that I have to go along with what the staff has recommended. They're the engineers and I'm not. They've done the traffic studies and I haven't. But on the other hand I guess I have this wish that says, is there a solution to the problem to give these sites the access that we should give them to make them viable in the city. I think those are my only two comments. Again, I'm a little bit nervous about the whole site when staff hasn't been given some of the things that we need. Especially for landscaping. It's a huge spanse of cars that are facing Highway 5 right now and we don't really have a mark on what the applicant's proposing there so that makes me a little bit nervous. But staff is telling us also that they're willing to work with it so I guess I'll wait and hear what somebody wants to do for a motion. Joyce: Well we closed the public hearing. Is there something. Alan Krepman: I guess I just wanted to reinforce the fact that we'll work with staff just as we worked with them on Americinn. Aanenson: Well, I wouldn't bring that issue up. Conrad: Well it's just nice that we know what we're talking about and the staff report says we will work and we want,but it's not concrete and so we're not sure what we're approving. Joyce: Okay. Allison. Blackowiak: Well I'd echo what Ladd said. Screening is definitely an issue. I know from the Villages, for the tail end that I was in on, that that is a major concern of the Highway 5 corridor. Access is also a big issue because if they do not have that full access off of Great Plains, everything's going to reroute from that I think. A large majority of the traffic will be going through the Lake Drive to the east and going right next to a residential area and I worry about the high volume of traffic in a residential area. But then again I understand. I mean if BRW account and recommended right-in/right-out, I've got to almost defer to their knowledge on the subject 23 Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 1997 because I have very little knowledge of traffic counts but I worry about a lot of traffic through the neighborhood because if there's not a good south access from Great Plains, it is going to come down Dakota Avenue and west on Lake Drive and that's going to be a lot of traffic in the neighborhood and I don't think that the neighbors, the people with lots of small children are going to want to see all those cars come down that street. Mr. Krepman talked about the water quality and water quantity fee and I really feel that that's something they need to work out with the city. I don't think we need to even talk about that tonight. My reservation is with giving approval to a site where I don't feel it's completed. I don't have the feeling that we've got a complete site. We have a strip mall. We have another little strip mall that's probably going to be fairly similar to the one that we've seen, but what I would consider to be the anchor tenant spot, whether it's a Famous Dave's or a bank or whatever it happens to be. An office building. I almost feel that I need to see that before I can approve the entire site because we're right now approving a strip mall and a whole lot of parking spaces and that scares me so those are my comments. Joyce: Thank you. Jeff. Farmakes: I agree. I don't think this site is...different elements. I'm more concerned actually with the two buildings that are aware from the strip mall, and how they relate. How the parking is shielded between those two buildings. The issue with the building, and I think of some of the other unsuccessful buildings that we've had screen parking here at Chanhassen and we haven't done a terribly good job with berms and cutting out parking. Berms seem to be too small and the parking lot's too big. The only successful one I can think of is over on TH 41 over there and it covers the residential development and those are mountains. The issue of architecture, it does not have to be the same I think. I think it's more important these two out buildings and how their architecture relates and that would be the perception of somebody who's driving through TH 5 other than looking through the cars and onto the other side. Now those store fronts are going to want to be seen. The only question is, is how many degree of sight lines is acceptable to them where they have some visibility from the highway but not, but the area's not diluted of any kind of foliage or landscaping. The berming seems to be carrying the entire side from what we see on the landscaping issue. Shielding that parking. There's some small plantings and so on along TH 5 but it seems to be that the berming is taking the brunt of that and it concerns me based on the examples of the other berming areas that we've had. I get the feeling that we should be seeing how these other buildings are related in this area just because of the confined space. I'll leave it at that. Joyce: Thank you. Allyson. Brooks: Well I agree with the other Allison that we probably want to keep cars away from the residential areas as much as possible. Along with everybody else I also agree that it is kind of piece meal. It's hard to envision the other two buildings and I think I read somewhere, they're talking about the restaurant being Frontier style and boy. Coming from South Dakota that brings in all sorts of connotations of what that can look like so, I'm not sure I'm that comfortable with approving a plan without seeing what the other two buildings are going to be. That's really about it. 24 Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 1997 Joyce: Okay. I don't have a lot to add on that. I guess I'm as uncomfortable as the rest of the Commissioners sending this forward to the City Council. I have to agree with Jeff that I don't think that these buildings even have to be uniform. I would like to see something a little more diverse in that area. You know if you want to put a Famous Dave's and it looks, I though the Famous Dave's looked nice. That would be fine. Whatever. I don't think it has to look like the strip mall. I don't see the urgency of getting this moved forward without the other two buildings. I don't see the urgency of another strip mall here. I just, I don't see why we have to move this forward. I'd kind of like to see it come back. You know as mentioned before, there's a lot of parking there and no buildings. I'm also concerned, I see that you're going to lose a lot of those trees but boy, it'd be nice to say a couple more of them. Those are a pretty important part of that development. I think they're being kind of knocked down in, not in a cavalier way but just, I think there might be some way of saving a couple more of them and I'd really like the applicant to look at possibly saving some more of those trees, particularly the oak trees. As far as the access goes, I'd have to agree with the applicant. I think to make any sense of this, you'd probably need the access but I think I'll leave it at that. So out of that can we get a motion here? Conrad: Can I just ask a question of staff? Joyce: Sure. Conrad: Mr. Chairman. Dave, access is a real issue from their standpoint and they're not happy with your recommendation, and we understand that. I don't really get at all, it's hard for me to sink it in with Villages. Sink it in with the property to the south. Are you pretty confident in what you recommended? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. Let me expand maybe where we're coming from. The traffic study that was generated with the Villages on the Pond did take this site into consideration. It's land use. It's trip generations. It's turning movements and that's where the results of that study came from so they did take this site into consideration. Currently what's out there is a painted median. Technically you should not be turning across a painted median, and that I believe left the access open because of the existing Legion facility there. The Total Mart station didn't receive a site plan approval with a right-in/right-out only. MnDOT plans for upgrading of Highway 5 which also upgraded that segment of Great Plains Boulevard. Also had a right-in/right-out only for the Total Mart station. They did leave the Legion access alone. They did however put a concrete median down part way then painted the rest. Trunk Highway 101 was turned back to the City of Chanhassen. Again the City redesignated it over to the west to Market, consistent with our comp plan and the land uses in the area. We had the same issue with the full access come up with Americinn. Trunk Highway 101/Market Boulevard. They also said that they needed a full access and we recommended right-in/right-out only based on traffic studies as well as jurisdiction from MnDOT on that situation which would prohibit a full access that close to Trunk Highway 5. I guess I'm not a traffic engineer myself. That's why we rely on other traffic engineering firms to prepare these reports. The City did hire though an independent traffic consultant, SRF to also review BRW's considerations and they also concurred with that staff report. One remark about adding traffic to Lake Drive against a residential neighborhood. 25 Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 1997 It's very valid. That is a purpose though of a collector road is to act as a frontage road to service the businesses, retail adjacent to Trunk Highway 5 so we can control access points. Make safe intersections. Certainly...with this during peak hours is a stacking of traffic. Not only north or backing up north into the intersection but the right turn lane northbound Great Plains onto Trunk Highway 5. The traffic report also indicated that that would back up past this intersection to the Legion and that would prohibit those left turn movements until the light would change so there's give and take. There was some mitigation measures pointed out in the traffic study. We considered some of them. However, you have an intersection that's just north of Trunk Highway 5 that would have to be a mirror image or reciprocate the type of lanes that are there and so you're talking quite a major renovation to that intersection to make that work. And also then you get MnDOT involved in this as well. They're another agency that would have to be consulted in any type of improvements to be made at this intersection so it kind of snowballs as you go. I have to agree with the applicant. A full access is really going to help support the site. However, we have to keep traffic safety in mind here as well. Joyce: The public hearing's closed but I don't do this normally so if you want to say something, come up Alan. What's up? Alan Krepman: I appreciate that very much. I guess there's two things I'd just like to help you with. One is,just from a pure land planning standpoint. Looking at the uses. Locations of the buildings. I think that, what Kate said I think is very true. That there will be a building up in this corner. I think it's beneficial to the city to have a structure in that area because that will prevent parking from keying in on this intersection. You'd rather have somebody looking at a structure than parking. And you place the parking between the buildings, you're going to have access from the parking...dealing with the issue of parking is, number one. If you don't have any parking up against TH 5, this drive lane. Number two, we will put a berm in there that will screen it. I think you said before that you trust your staff on those issues and I think that we, as design professionals can achieve the goal that you put in place through the approval whereas if you say you want this to be screened, and giving that authority to the staff, we can work with them to make that work. I think that that...was just the land planning issues and the framework that we're setting up with the design I think is a good framework. We don't know what's going to come of this building but before that building comes to you, we will look at it and make sure it works with our architecture even before they can come in and apply because that's on our property. It's not being bought by Famous Dave's. They're going to be leasing that space. So we need to approve it before you get it and we'll look at that same capability issue. We'll expect that they'll meet with staff before it even comes forward and that we will work together in a harmonious solution. The second thing would be regarding the access issue. You know we appreciate the support and the comments from the other landowners that are adjacent to us and I think that you know, staff is right. We do want to have a safe and workable solution in this location and I think it's really important to think and consider that the status, the traffic counts that you'll find on Great Plains versus Market are considerably different since Market is a MnDOT highway and goes through. Whereas Great Plains will connect to TH 101 and because of that, because of the lack, or not the lack but the less intensity of traffic, we feel that this thing can work and the solutions are pointed out in that same memo from BRW, the City's traffic engineer, as far as alternative solutions. And those solutions don't have to come up into the 26 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 intersection. What we want to do is deal with the taper area down in here and move that over so it's a full two lane road going southbound. That will achieve it. That will achieve the safety issue. And then just the idea of Lake Drive as a frontage road. I guess I consider that to be a local road that provides access to our property. It's not a frontage road. It's not a road that fronts on Highway 5. You have to go through intersections and other streets to get to that so, and that may be just a philosophical difference but nevertheless, we want to make it work. We want to make it safe. We want it accessible and if you can work with us on that, we will do the best that we can. Thank you. Joyce: Okay, thanks. With that do we have a motion? Conrad: I'll make a motion that we table this item for two issues. One for a landscape plan to come back so we can view it at one point in time that has staff approval. And two, that staff reviews the access one more time, even though I've heard you very clearly Dave but I'd like to see, I'd like to be real firm. You know I'm hearing the applicant ask for some, there are other solutions out there and I just want to give the applicant one more chance to persuade you Dave that there's a solution. And we want to see it here. I think if it's the same, that's fine. But I want the applicant to have your ear one more time. It would be nice if Famous Dave's was included when it came back. It would be nice. I think I can deal with it not being there and I think listening to Jeff, I don't know that we're all feeling there's got to be consistency of design. Famous Dave's is a different operation and I think, I stay out of design issues as much as I can but I think Jeff, your comment was they should be complimentary but certainly not. Farmakes: I think the issue of complimentary is that they're not the same but in that area, that they project some uniqueness. That it's not just another strip mall. In other words we can drive to any other corner in the suburbs and see the same thing. Conrad: But by that comment, and boy this is getting, this is not a motion but or it's turning into a narrative. You're basically not saying change the strip mall? Farmakes: For that type of situation, I think that's fairly high quality strip mall. The issue also is that it's not predominant. It's a ways back from the highway. The issue of more predominance, and this is where it comes in to what you're talking about. Maybe it's an issue we can deal with separately but obviously those two out buildings have to be integrated in some way in relationship not only to the strip mall but into Highway 5 as to how it projects. Conrad: Okay. I think that helps us communicate. So my motion was basically to table. Blackowiak: I second. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to table action on the Site Plan Review#97-1 for a strip mall for Chanhassen Commons to review landscaping and access issues. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 PUBLIC HEARING: U.S. WEST NEWVECTOR GROUP, INC. FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL TO ALLOW A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER AT 78 WEST 78TH STREET AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A 76 FOOT MONOPOLE TOWER, 12' X 24' EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY AND BUSINESS DISTRICT. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Questions? Why was it tabled, the other site at City Council? Generous: Council requested that the applicant provide additional documentation on their search area that they were looking for. Whether or not they could locate their tower on specific sites. One was in the Villages on the Ponds. Another was on the water tower at Eden Prairie and so the applicant has addressed that and they will be addressing that for City Council. Joyce: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Jay Littlejohn: My name is Jay Littlejohn. I've been here before a few times. The microphone is way out so I'll try to stand away from the podium. Oh good. I have some photo simulations that we had done, but I just want to limit my comments to the staff's recommended findings and the suggestions. First of all one of the suggestions that, Bob would you mind putting up the landscape plan. I faxed this to staff. Bob didn't have a mylar of it. One of the suggestions staff has that we submit a landscaping plan. In light of the fact that this is a landscape center, it's kind of a difficult thing to do. This building is generally screened by the existing inventory that's maintained on the site. Those are depicted specifically on the front. We recognize though that that landscaping fluctuates and if the Commission and the Council would like us to put additional screening that would not move, that's certainly an option to us. Screening to the right is, there's a berm there between the Redmond site. To the right would be to the east. There's a berm on the Redmond site that's between the existing drive for Redmond and this site and there are trees all up and down there. And that would provide the majority of screening to people entering Chanhassen from this site. If you wouldn't mind putting up the view on the, what would be the view from the, looking to the east from the west. Along the road. Thank you very much. We respectfully disagree with staffs recommendation that the character of the site is changed. There are two 90 foot high line poles that flank this property. This photo simulation shows where those poles are in relationship to where our proposal is. Our proposal is a 78 foot structure. It's 12 feet shorter than what's there. You can see that the last, the pole that is depicted as farthest away here, that's actually the last pole on the site and I don't know, does the video get this drawing? That is this high tension standard on the video. That's the last one in 28 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 line. Now the next site over, 80 West 78th Street and I'll come to the status of that in a minute. There are no more high tension lines. There's no other 90 foot structures between this one, well on this side of the street. At that point the electric transmission lines cross the road, and Bob you can put that back. The other view and I can show you what I mean. The other photo sim, yeah. This is a shot from, I think there's a school or a church and a residence that's across the road and you can see that the power lines cross the road so that over where the other building is, where the 80 West 78th Street is, there are no longer any more of these high tension lines. That part is relatively clear except for the street lights and traffic lights. So we respectfully disagree with the staff's conclusion that our pole is out of character with the neighborhood. It's right in character. In fact it's probably more in character than the site that you already recommended for approval. I'd like to talk about that site. Right now the City Council has tabled that. We don't know whether it's going to be approved or not. It's up for consideration. Certainly with your recommendation and with staff's recommendation, we have tried to get a lease with APT. We have been advised that it's in the works. We don't have a lease with APT. I understand you've imposed that condition on them. But we don't have a site right now and the ordinance requires that we go on other sites that have been approved. There have are none. And that's why we have to pursue this site as well. We've been mindful of some of your comments in the earlier applications about what you want to see in these sites and we've tried to incorporate them. One is the comment that the chain link fence should have the top rail on it. Ours has barb wire which we can easily remove but the chain link fence that we have proposed does have that top rail. We're not wedded to that barb wire. If you feel it's out of character for the neighborhood, we certainly can remove it. Although I should note that the only part of fencing that we have, it doesn't encompass the whole area as is the proposal for the 80 West 78th tower. Instead we only have the back of the building has chain link fence on it. That is the back side, as you look at it from Highway 5. It'd be the north end of the building. The chain link is only there to protect our air conditioning units and to further inhibit the climbing of the pole, or to inhibit climbing of the pole, which you really need to be determined to do in the first place because there's no climbing fence on the bottom 20 feet of it. Let's see. I would like to answer questions that you have about this site because I was kind of taken aback by staff's determination that this considerably shorter pole was not consistent with the ordinance that I stood here and testified on before. I mean we're talking about a much shorter structure. Consistent with what's existing there. There's no other approved sites. I don't understand why staff would disapprove this other than the hope that Council would approve the much taller site next door. Any questions? Joyce: When is that tabled and when does that come up before the Council? Aanenson: Monday night. Joyce: In five days, right? Aanenson: Correct. Joyce: Do you have a problem co-locating with them if it gets approved? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 Jay Littlejohn: As long as they let us, no. We would go on their site. In fact we've talked to them about it. We just haven't seen any agreements from anybody. Joyce: So you're saying we have to wait 5 days and then you can go to them and find out if you can co-locate or not. Jay Littlejohn: No, we've talked to them already and they said they will but we don't have any agreement. So I don't know whether they'll let us co-locate or not. What I would prefer to do is to have the Council choose. There is no reason why that tower couldn't be located on this site where there are those two high tension lines. We didn't apply for a 135 foot pole. We don't need one. Aanenson: But they do. That's the issue. So if it goes on this site, it is going to be higher. It's not going to be 78 feet. That's the evaluation we went through and we feel strongly that the other site is better. If this tower would be approved, we would put the co-location here so it would be taller so that kind of mitigates your argument. Jay Littlejohn: Well respectfully, that tower is still available for others to co-locate if they can do a deal with APT and if there is an approved site. The problem is that right now there is no approved site and I don't know whether Council will approve a 135 foot tower so we don't. Joyce: We have 5 days to find out. Jay Littlejohn: Absolutely, and if you'll send me to Council I'll go ask them in 5 days. Aanenson: Or we can table it and wait, that's an option too. Joyce: Any other questions? No? Thank you. Motion to open for a public hearing. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. Joyce: Would anyone like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, motion to close the public hearing. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. Joyce: Jeff. Farmakes: ...staffs recommendations over. I have a problem... It seems to me it will be resolved one way or the other in a few days. Joyce: Allison. 30 Planning Commission Meeting- February 19, 1997 Blackowiak: Again, I'll defer to staff. I would not have a problem either tabling it or just waiting 5 days. Since we're talking such a short time frame. I don't really feel that we need to act on this tonight. Joyce: Ladd. Conrad: Staff report is right on. The last thing we need to do is add another tower here. That's dumb. That's just dumb. It should be turned down. If the applicant, if it turns out that this is the site because the other site gets turned down, then we can entertain this again but tonight this should be turned down. Brooks: Yeah I agree. We should try to avoid two towers as much as possible and wait and see what happens with the other one. Joyce: I wouldn't have any problem tabling it. I mean if this site doesn't get approved, then it would come in front of us again and see if we can approve your site. I have no problem with that so that's my comment. So then I guess we need a motion on this. Blackowiak: Do we want to table? Okay, I'll make the motion to table the conditional use permit to build a 76 or 78 foot cellular communication tower and 288 square foot equipment building. Joyce: Do I have a second? Brooks: Second. Joyce moved, Brooks seconded to table Conditional Use Permit#97-1 for a personal communication service wireless telecommunications facility located at 78 West 78th Street. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER MODIFICATIONS TO CITY CODE, SECTION 20-415, IN REGARD TO EXTENSIONS OF WETLAND ALTERATION PERMITS. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Any questions for staff? Do we need to open this for a public hearing and all that Kate? Aanenson: Correct. Joyce: Okay. Can we make a motion to open this for a public hearing? Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - February 19, 1997 Joyce: Public hearing open. Seeing no one interested in talking, make a motion to close the public hearing. Farmakes moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. Joyce: Okay, and we're going to vote on this too, right Kate? Aanenson: Yes. Joyce: Okay, comments. Allyson? Brooks: None. Joyce: Ladd. Conrad: Looks fine. Joyce: Allison. Blackowiak: Pretty straight forward. Joyce: Jeff. Farmakes: Let's do it. Joyce: All those in favor. Oh, we forgot to make a motion right. Someone make a motion. Conrad: I'd make the motion that Planning Commission approve the amendment to the City Code for Section 20-415,condition C as stated in the staff report. Joyce: Second? Farmakes: Second. Conrad moved,Farmakes seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval City Code Amendment to Section 20-415 in regards to extensions of Wetland Alteration Permits as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: I received a letter from Jeff today that says based on other time commitments, instead of April lst resignation, as soon as the Council permits LuAnn who has been appointed to start in April,to succeed that... Conrad: What are these pressing time things? 32 Planning Commission Meeting-February 19, 1997 Fannakes: What's that? Conrad: What's pressing? Farmakes: Well you see my tan. I hope to retire by February... Aanenson: That's all I have for new business. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Conrad moved to note the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 15, 1997 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE: Aanenson: The last City Council meeting, the Highlands. The property on Galpin and State Highway 5 was tabled. The one tower we just talked about tonight was tabled. The other one located off the industrial park was approved. Those were the only planning items on. So the Highlands will be back on next Monday. ONGOING ITEMS: Aanenson: Yes, I just wanted to let you know what will be on the next agenda. It looks like we'll this antenna back on and then also the Legion site. In addition we thought we'd take an opportunity to go through some comp plan items, specifically looking at population projections. Ultimate build up in the city and then how that relates to the land uses that we have. The process again that we're going to try to undertake is to educate everybody on the different components and then as we're going through and then taking neighborhood input and then drafting the documents. So try to get everybody up to speed on where we're going... Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 33