Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05-17-95 Agenda and Packet
AGENDA FILE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIOI WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 1995, 7:00 P.M. CHANHASSEN CITY HALL, 690 COULTER Ii CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. OLD BUSINESS 1. Rezoning request to rezone 16.34 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family, preliminary plat of 16.34 acres into 19 single family lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot wide right-of- way located south on Lake Lucy Road (1471), Lake Lucy Estates, Michael Byrne. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2, Conditional Use Permit request for a 48' x 36' storage building and stable located on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located at 1680 Arboretum Blvd, Michael Gorra. 3. PDK Investments, Inc. request for a variance to locate a 23.5 sq. ft. monument sign at the Hwy. 7 entrance to the 7 and 41 Crossing Center on property zoned BN, Neighborhood Business and located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 7 and 41. 4. Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 22.4 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to subdivide 46.57 acres into 78 lots, 1 outlot and associated right-of-way; site plan review for 75 single family detached zero-lot-line homes on 19.95 acres; and a wetland alteration permit on property located on Lake Riley Boulevard, on the north side of Lake Riley, North Bay, Rottlund Company, Inc. 5. *Item Deleted OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS APPROVAL OF MINUTES CITY COUNCIL UPDATE ONGOING ITEMS OPEN DISCUSSION 6. Wetland Regulatory Simplification, Diane Desotelle. 7. Affordable Housing 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. *Item Deleted 5. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment from office/industrial to residential low density; Rezoning from A2, Agricultural Estate to RSF, Single Family Residential; preliminary plat approval for 59 single family lots and 2 outlots and associated right-of-way on 46.27 acres; and wetland alteration permit on property located at 8470 Galpin Blvd. (the northwest corner of Galpin Blvd. and Lyman Blvd.), Southern Oaks, Scherber Partnership Properties. C i TY 0 F pC DATE: 5/17/95 1 \\ 10 c A s s CC DATE: 6/12/95 \ CASE #: 95-3 SUB 95-1 REZ By: Al-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Rezoning of 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 14.53 Acres into 18 single family lots and I-" two outlots, Lake Lucy Estates Z 4 A Variance to Allow a 20 Foot Front Yard Setback, a 10% street grade, V and a 50 Foot Wide Right-Of-Way, a 10 foot side yard setback, and five homes to be served via a private street. CL_,,- LOCATION: South of Lake Lucy Road and North of Lake Lucy U. 4 APPLICANT: Michael J. Byrne Brian & Nancy Tichy 5428 Kimberly Road 1471 Lake Lucy Road Minnetonka MN 55345 Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District ACREAGE: 14.53 acres DENSITY: 1.2 Units per Acre-Gross 1.98 Units per Acre-Net ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Shadow Ridge Subdivision S - Lake Lucy E - RR, Rural Residential District gW - RR, Rural Residential District 0 WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site. W PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site contains two single family residences. The majority of 1"' the site is wooded. It contains two wetlands. The topography IIND varies significantly throughout the site. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 2 This application first appeared before the Planning Commission on April 5, 1995. Numerous issues were raised by the Planning Commission, residents, and staff. These issues included excessive grading, tree loss, environmental concerns, and variances. The applicant listened to the issues and attempted to address them through a revised plan. The application reappeared before the Planning Commission on May 3, 1995. At that meeting, staff prepared a sketch plan to act as a guideline to improve the plat. The recommendation in the report was based on the layout prepared by staff rather than the plan prepared by the applicant. The Planning Commission unanimously agreed that the plan was not ready to be sent to City Council. Action on the application was tabled and the applicant was directed to modify the plans and incorporate recommendations made by staff. This staff report has been modified to address the changes. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 14.53 acres into 18 single family lots and two outlots. The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential Single Family. The average lot size is 30,122 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.2 units per acre. Most lots meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance with the exception of Lot 2, Block 2. This lot has an average depth of 123 feet. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum depth of 125 feet. These variances can be easily eliminated by shifting Lakeway Drive to the east. The site is located south of Lake Lucy Road and north of Lake Lucy. Access to the subdivision will be provided via a public street/cul-de-sac south of Lake Lucy Road to service the proposed lots, as well as internal private streets. The majority of the site is wooded with a diverse range of species and ages. According to the proposed plans, the minimum tree canopy to be maintained is 46% or 5.23 acres. Staff calculated 1.32 acres of trees to be removed in excess of the minimum requirements. Additional tree replacement will be required. In reviewing this plat, staff worked with the applicant and offered some suggestions to minimize the impact on the natural features of the site. Some of these options were locating a storm pond on the site, moving the cul de sac to the west to avoid some mature trees, custom grading house pads, and using variances to minimize impacts on the site. The applicant incorporated these suggestions into the plans, however, additional work was required to further improve the plan. Staff then prepared a modified sketch plan to give the applicant additional direction and recommendation to further improve the plat. The applicant incorporated these suggestions into the revised plans. Staff has offered additional suggestions to reduce the height of some retaining walls, minimize grading, and reduce impact on some mature trees. Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 3 Changes that took place between the previous plan and the subject plan include the following: * The ultimate number of lots to be served via Lakeway Court which is a private street is five vs. three. * The previous plan showed 10 lots with a 20 foot front yard variance. The current plan shows a total of 3 lots with a 20 foot front yard setback variance. * Tree plan has been revised by saving trees in clusters as well as individual trees. However, the overall tree loss has not been reduced. * Grading has been reduced through custom grading of the lots and shifting house pads and dwelling type on the lots. * Filling on Lots 6 and 7 has been reduced. The type of home is designated as a lookout rather than a walkout, which requires less fill. The revised plans are another step in the right direction; however, additional revisions could be incorporated to further improve the plan. Staff will be providing recommendations to minimizes grading and variances. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family. The area to the north is zoned Residential Single Family to the east and west is zoned Rural Residential and is guided for Residential Low Density. The 2000 Land Use Plan shows this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.2 units per acre and 1.98 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out. This area is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending approval for rezoning to RSF consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide an 14.53 acre site into 18 single family lots and two outlots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.98 units per acre net after removing the roads (2.28 acres) and wetlands (3.16 acres). All lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 30,122 square feet. The depth of the lots meets ordinance requirements with the exception of Lot 2, Block 2. This parcel has an average depth of 123 feet. The ordinance requires a minimum lot depth of 125 feet. The applicant shall adjust the plan to eliminate the lot depth variance. Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 4 The previous plan submitted by the applicant reflected four walkout lots along the lakeshore. Two of those lots have been revised to show lookout-type dwellings verses walkouts. This will reduce the amount of filling required on the site. The house pad on lot 7, Block 2, has been shifted closer to the westerly property line. This will result in saving a number of mature trees along the east property line. Staff is supporting a 10 foot side yard setback on the westerly lot line of Lot 7, Block 2. This will push the house pad even further away from the cluster of trees located along the southeast corner of the site. Some of the recommendations attached to this proposal will reduce the fill on some lots and shifts the house pads into areas that would further minimize impact on the tree canopy. The 20 foot front yard setback variances on some of the lots is promoting the preservation of trees and wetlands. We believe it is warranted. There are a total of three 20 foot front yard setback variances as was shown in the sketch plan prepared by staff. The street grades and alignment could be modified slightly to the south, closer to Lot 9, to minimize impact to trees located on Lot 4, Block 1 and within the proposed alignment of Lakeway Court. Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, located to the south of the cul-de-sac, are proposed to be served via a private street, as well as homes proposed on Lots 10 and 11, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1. The lower portion of the property located to the east of the subject property (Morins) can only gain access to a public street through the subject property. The adjacent property has the potential to subdivide into three lots. Two of those lots will utilize the same driveway as proposed Lots 10 and 11, Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1. The ordinance allows a maximum of 4 homes to be served via a private drive. The plan proposes 5 lots to be served via a private street. This will minimize grading and preserve trees in that area. Staff supports granting a variance to allow up to five lots accessing a private street. Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, show a 20 foot front yard setback. The zoning ordinance requires all neck lots or lots served via a private driveway to have a 100 foot width. The ordinance further states that the 30 foot front yard setback shall be measured from the point where the lot achieves that 100 foot width. The setback for Lots 5 and 6, Block 2, can and must be revised to reflect a 30 foot front yard setback. Although the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance, we believe that revisions as recommended within this staff report should be made to minimize impacts to the natural features of the site. WETLANDS There are 2 wetlands delineated on-site and they are as follows: Wetland A is a natural wetland located on the property just east of Lots 8 through 11 along the southeastern portion of the property. The wetland is approximately 5.3 acres and is Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 5 characterized as an inland shallow fresh marsh. Approximately 1.7 acres of the wetland is located on the property. Wetland B is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland is above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR jurisdiction. Approximately 1.4 acres of the wetland is located on the property. Since both of the wetlands are classified as natural, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet wide with an average width of 20 feet. It is recommended that any disturbed areas of the buffer strip be seeded with a mixed variety of natural upland vegetation. Although these wetlands will not be filled or excavated as a result of the development, erosion control and maintenance on the erosion control is a key factor in protecting wetlands. Type III erosion control shall be provided around the wetland at the start of construction and maintained until vegetation is fully re-established. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City has had discussions with the applicant's engineer on the water quality ponding. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$800/acre for single-family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. The stormwater quality pond shall be designed to retain up to 75% phosphorus according to the Walker Pondnet model. Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 6 Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 16.34 acres; however, 4.86 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of$22,730. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. GRADING & DRAINAGE The applicant has incorporated many design changes that staff had proposed previously. Some of the changes include custom grading the wooded lots, increasing the street grades up to 10% to conform better with the existing ground contours which results in less grading, adjusting of building pad elevations and/or changing the dwelling types to conform with the existing ground to minimize grading, modify the street and cul-de-sac alignment to accommodate a water quality storm pond (Walker basin) for pretreatment of storm water prior to discharging into the wetlands, adjusting lot lines and building types where significant trees can be saved, combine the sanitary sewer alignment from Morin's property with the private street (Lakeway Court). The plans have been prepared with a 50-foot right-of-way, again, which is less than the City's standard right-of-way in an attempt to preserve trees and lessen the amount of grading. Staff believes that this compromise in right-of-way width will reduce grading and minimize impacts to the site. Another alternative would be to reduce the building setbacks. Staff has also worked on the street grades which we believe will minimize grading, trees loss, and the amount and height of retaining walls. The applicant should incorporate street grades throughout to conform better with the existing terrain. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant's engineer to assure that this is accomplished. Staff also considered shifting the intersections of Lakeway Court and Lakeway Drive as well as Lakeway Lane and Lakeway Drive southerly by approximately 20 feet to match existing grades better and lessen the sanitary sewer depth. Lakeway Court is currently proposed with up to 7% street grades. The relocation of Lakeway Court further to the south will, however, result in the loss of an additional 14-inch oak tree on Lot 9, Block 2 but will in return save two significant oak trees which are proposed to be lost on Lot 4, Block 1 (24-inch and 26-inch oaks). Lakeway Court also needs to provide for a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A temporary turnaround could be created on site (Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 11, Block 2) until the Morins further subdivide. The southerly private street (Lakeway Drive at the end of the cul-de-sac) is proposed to serve Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2. The applicant has revised the grading plans to limit fill to only the Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 7 house pad areas and the service drive. Previously, the applicant had proposed up to 8 feet of fill in this area. Staff has reviewed this proposal and believes the applicant has minimized the impact to this area short of reducing the number of overall lots at the end of the cul-de- sac. In order to provide sanitary sewer service to Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, up to 4 feet of fill will be required to provide adequate cover to prevent freezing. The homes in the cul-de- sac (Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2) have been designed to eliminate the need for an ejector pump as well. House dwelling types on Lots 6 and 7 have been revised from walkouts to lookouts to further minimize grading. Surface water runoff from Lakeway Drive will drain between Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 towards Lake Lucy. Staff feels there is a more than adequate buffer to pretreat the amount of runoff generated from the additional homesites prior to discharging into Lake Lucy. The applicant has further designed the stormwater basin located on Lot 3, Block 2 which is proposed to convey and pretreat stormwater runoff from the street and front yard areas of the subdivision. This pond will then outlet underneath Lakeway Drive easterly back to the wetlands to assure recharging of the wetlands. At the Planning Commission meeting residents were concerned about the runoff being directed back into the wetland and being detrimental to wetland. Staff believes that it is necessary to route the treated stormwater runoff back to recharge the wetland. The exact location of the outlet pipe underneath Lakeway Drive is subject to change. Staff will locate in the field a path for the storm sewer to minimize impacts to the existing vegetation. This typically is done in conjunction with review of the final construction plans. Other concerns from the residents were location of numerous existing groundwater springs, storm sewer calculations, water quality, environmental impacts, erosion control measures, height of the retaining walls. The plans as submitted do not show erosion control fence; however, staff will require fencing around the perimeter of the grading limits on the final grading plans. Storm sewer calculations are typically not submitted for staff review and approval until the final construction plans are prepared. Typically with preliminary plat approval, there are numerous revision in grading and lot layouts that will change the storm sewer calculations. Staff is confident that there is adequate room being provided for the stormwater pond to pretreat the runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands in accordance with the City's SWMP. Within the City of Chanhassen groundwater is evident typically with each development. This groundwater is not necessarily springs. The City with its rolling terrains and heavy clay soils frequently contain areas of groundwater. Subdivisions typically deal with groundwater through the use of either storm sewers or draintile systems to convey the runoff to the stormwater ponds and/or wetlands to maintain the groundwater migration pattern. The applicant is proposing boulder retaining walls up to 12 feet in height along Lakeway Lane/Drive (Lot 3, Block 3). Staff believes that with revised street grades, these retaining Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 8 walls can be reduce in half. This will also minimize impact to existing trees adjacent to boulder retaining walls. To preserve existing vegetation, staff is proposing the homesites on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 and Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 2 be built lower than the street to reduce the amount of fill required in the front yards. Typically, staff has reservations regarding placing the homesite lower than the street due to drainage concerns, however, a grading and drainage plan could be developed with each individual homesite to ensure proper drainage around the structures. A good example of this within the City is along Bighom Drive within the Shadowmere subdivision. Staff has also further reviewed access and utility service to the "Willis parcel" west of this development. It appears the parcel may be further subdivided once sewer and water is available to the parcel. The applicant has incorporated staffs' recommendation by providing a 50-foot right-of-way (Lakeway Lane) to extend utility and street service. The Willis parcel would be required to access this street pending further subdivision of the parcel. Drainage off Lakeway Court is proposed to drain to a low point between Lots 10 and 11, Block 2. Staff believes the road should be tilted to provide sheet drainage across the street between the house pads towards the wetlands. Most of this runoff is from backyards or lawn areas which requires minimal treatment. The buffer strips between the houses and the wetlands will be sufficient in pretreating runoff prior to reaching the wetlands. Typically, with the soil conditions on hilly terrains, ground water may be of concern. The City requires a drain tile system behind the curb and gutter for homes which are not adjacent to a wetland/pond. The drain tile system provides an acceptable means of controlling sump pump discharge from the homes as well as improve the street subgrade. The building setback lines, buffer strips, and tree fencing needs to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for maximum protection. The final grading plan shall incorporate erosion control fence around the perimeter of the grading limits. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the grading and drainage plan as well. Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 9 UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the Coey parcel which was recently subdivided into Point Lake Lucy. The Coey parcel is located approximately 200 feet east of this site. The sewer line to date has not been extended to service this parcel from the Coey parcel. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended this spring, early summer through the Coey parcel and deadend at that the property just east of the development (Morin's). The exact alignment of the sewer line has now been staked in the field up to the Morin's property. The alignment minimizes tree loss and impacts to the wetlands and Morin's property. The applicant has been working with the Morins to acquire the necessary utility easement for this extension in order to proceed with the project. The sanitary sewer will need to be extended through the Coey and Morin properties. Without the sewer, this project would be considered premature for development. A condition has been added in the staff report that final plat approval will be contingent upon sanitary sewer being extended through the Coey and Morin properties. The plans have relocated the sanitary sewer line to follow Lakeway Court in an effort to minimize impacts to the existing vegetation. Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose on extending water service throughout the development. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's 1995 edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be subject to City Council approval. The applicant will be required as a part of final plat and construction plan approval to enter into a development contract and provide the City with financial securities to guarantee conditions of approval and installation of the public improvements. The development contains two existing homesites (Tichy and Christensen). Both of these homesites are currently on their own well and septic system. The existing home on the westerly portion of the site (Lot 1, Block 2 - Christensen's) is proposed to be removed. The other home (Tichy) is proposed to remain on Lot 1, Block 1. Both on-site well and septic systems will have to be abandoned in accordance with the City and State health codes in conjunction with this development. The well and septic on Lot 1, Block 2 will have to be abandoned in conjunction with site grading. The well and septic system on the Tichy property (Lot 1, Block 1) may be delayed since the construction activities appear not to impact the systems. However, city ordinance requires properties within 150 feet of a municipal sewer system must be connected to the City's system within 12 months after the system becomes operational. Connection to City water is not required until the well fails. The sanitary sewer to serve this development will be designed and constructed to service the Morin's property as well as the properties to the west and north of the site. The applicant has shown sewer and water extension west of the cul-de-sac towards the Willis property. Staff has reviewed the utility service to the Willis parcel and feel Lakeway Lane is the appropriate Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 10 extension point for utility service. The sanitary sewer elevation should be at 996.0 at the end of Lakeway Lane. This can easily be changed on the plans and is typically reviewed during the final construction plan review process. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. This road is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Street right-of-way on the public street has been reduced from the 60-foot requirement to 50 feet wide to reduce grading and tree loss. Staff has evaluated this compromise with the revised plans and believes the reduced right-of- way is warranted. The plans are also incorporating the use of private streets to service portions of the development and adjacent parcels. City ordinance provides up to four homes to be serviced off a private street. A turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal will also have to be provided. The private street will reduce impacts to the wetland and tree loss versus the public street. Staff believes the use of private streets to service Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2 is warranted to reduce impacts to the area. The house pad on Lot 7, Block 1 has been relocated westerly as shown on staffs layout to minimize grading and tree loss. The use of a public street in this area would destroy the natural features. In addition, Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 would be marginal lots due to setback requirements from wetlands and the street. Staff believes the applicant has followed the layout prepared by staff to minimize the environmental concerns. Another private street is proposed to service three lots (Lots 10 and 11, Block 2 and Lots 2, Block 1) and the Morin's parcel to the east. The Morins and staff have reviewed the development potential of the Morin's parcel and it appears that the site may be further subdivided into two additional lots. Therefore the private street (Lakeway Court) as proposed would be serving up to five homes which exceeds the City's ordinance. Staff believes there is no other way to create a street system to serve these lots which would minimize impacts and therefore recommends a variance be granted for up to five (5) homes accessing Lakeway Court. A turnaround which meets the City Fire Marshal's requirements will be necessary at the end of Lakeway Court. If the Morins are not in favor of the turnaround at this time, a temporary turnaround could be developed on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 11, Block 2 until the Morins are ready to subdivide. Future access was also considered for the parcel west of the development (Willis) which is currently for sale. The Willis parcel currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road via a long gravel driveway. Part of the driveway is actually located within the proposed subdivision and is shown through Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3. The Willis driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road is across from Yosemite. This intersection has substandard sight distance which makes it difficult to safely turn to and from the property. Eventually, when the Willis parcel further subdivides, staff will recommend that the driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road be eliminated and the driveway be relocated to access Lakeway Lane. It appears the Willis property has ability to further subdivide into more than four lots. The applicant has proposed a 31-foot wide City street and 50-foot wide public right-of-way between Lot 1, Block 2 and Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 11 Lot 3, Block 3 to provide future access to the site. Lot 1, Block 2 will also be accessed from this street. Staff has reviewed the street grades in detail and believes further modifications are warranted to minimize tree loss, grading and the height and number of retaining walls. Staff has provided the applicant's engineer with some street grades to incorporate. Due to the short turnaround time the current plans do not reflect staff's street grade changes. These changes should only improve the overall development by minimizing grading. These types of modifications are typically done during the construction plan review process. All lots except for Lot 1, Block 1 are proposed to access the interior streets and not Lake Lucy Road. Private driveway maintenance and access agreements will need to be incorporated into covenants to permit access to the lots adjacent to private driveways as well as the Morin parcel. DOCKING ISSUES ON LAKE LUCY The issue of lake access has been considered and the following options are available for residents. 1. No more than one dock shall be permitted on any lakeshore site. No dock shall exceed six feet in width and no dock shall exceed the greater of the following lengths; 50 feet or the minimum straight-line distance necessary to reach a water depth of 4 feet. 2. Intensive removal or alteration of vegetation is not allowed. Furthermore, impacts to wetlands, if any, would have to be mitigated if the altered area is over 400 square feet. 3. Land owners can share a dock by placing the dock on the property line. 4. A beachlot can be created if the developer dedicates the land for it. 5. Any dock will have to receive City and DNR approval. PARK DEDICATION The Park and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on March 28, 1995 and recommended full park and trail fees be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. They also recommended that the existing house located on Lot 15 be exempt from these fees. If the home is demolished and a new residence is built, the site would then be subject to these fees. Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 12 TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING The revised development plan for Lake Lucy Estates has been submitted by the applicant. Custom grading on home sites should help preserve wooded areas on each lot. Changes have been made in the positioning of homes and streets although removal of canopy coverage has not changed significantly. Where applicable, homes have been moved either closer or farther from the street in order to avoid individual or stands of trees. Accommodations such as this could be applied to additional lots. In Lot 2, Block 3, pulling the home a minimum of five feet closer to the road would give the ash trees in the rear at least 15 feet from the grading limits. On Lots 9 and 10 in Block 2, moving the building pads closer to the roadway would give additional distance from the grading limits to the very large oaks that exist on the lots. The same is true for the 32 inch oak on Lot 11, Block 2. Sliding the building pad to the east would insure a reasonable amount of space between the grading limits and the tree. To assume that the shaded areas on the tree inventory denote the extent of tree loss in the development is unrealistic. Additional trees that are near the grading limits will have questionable survival possibilities. At least ten trees on the survey appear to be near enough to the grading limits that preserving them will be difficult, although they are shown as being saved. Case in point is a 30 inch Linden that will sit on a corner approximately 7 feet from a 12 foot retaining wall and 10 feet from a 10 foot retaining wall. Severance of roots that close to such a large tree are usually fatal. Shifting the entrance of Lakeway Lane to the south may help the tree's odds. Twenty feet from the base to the retaining wall would give the tree the extra distance it may need. Whether or not it will live because of the shift depends on the treatment it receives during construction, as is the case with all preserved trees in the development. • It's important that preservation of trees in the development does not become a tree by tree issue at the time of construction. Trees in front yards are much more difficult to protect during construction as well as trees near cuts or fills. To avoid tree conflicts and attempt to save as many trees as possible, a tree removal plan must be clearly identified. Preservation areas are one alternative, they provide coverage of large wooded areas, but also allow for significant removal and prove difficult to regulate after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Another alternative is a numbered inventory which authorizes tree removal by number prior to construction. This is valuable for saving trees that would otherwise fall outside of a preservation area but are not within the construction limits. An encumbrance is that excellent judgement and foresight must be used in order to realistically decide which trees should be saved. This can be a difficult task. Canopy coverage on the site is 7.45 acres. Removal of the canopy due to grading and construction will be 3.58 acres, leaving 3.87 acres on site. The minimum requirement of canopy coverage to maintain is 5.23 acres. The applicant exceeds the minimum by 1.36 acres Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 13 and therefore must replace the loss times 1.2. The reforestation requirement for Lake Lucy Estates is 1.63 acres or 65 trees. The Landscaping and Tree Preservation requirements state that a landscape buffer is required when a subdivision plat is contiguous to a collector street. Required buffering shall include berms and landscape materials consisting of a mix of trees and shrubs and/or a tree preservation area. The plan must identify plant material locations along Lake Lucy Road as well as planting within each front yard. Appropriate financial security will be required. This plan should show the type and size of trees proposed to be planted as well as the location of any berms along Lake Lucy Road. A replacement plan incorporating the 65 trees designated for reforestation will be required. Staff recommends caliper replacement of trees at two times the diameter for trees lost in excess of the tree inventory plan. All trees currently listed on the inventory must be tagged and recorded as to species, condition, and diameter prior to any development. That list and a woodland management plan must be provided to the city. Staff will work with the applicant to meet the requirements. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Wetland&Buffer Area Width Depth Setback Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 60' Average 10' sides BLOCK 1 Lot 1 40,300 160' 185' 70'/30' Corner lot 185' 50' Lot 2 16,300 105' 162.5' 30'/30' 10' Lot 3 19,000 135'** 162.5 *20'/30' 10' Lot 4 25,520 230' 212' 30'/30' Corner lot 10' BLOCK 2 Lot 1 22,200 180' 127'** Lot 2 15,000 121' 122.5'** Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 14 Lot 3 19,800 195' 125' Lot 4 50,500 90' 447.5' 30'/50' 40710' 10' Lot 5 41,800 145' 370' **** 20'/50' 40'/10' **** 10' Lot 6 28,600 105' 275' **** 20'/70' 40'/30' **** 10' Lot 7 94,000 180' 385' **** 70'/70' 40'/30' **** 10' Lot 8 31,000 125' 307' * 20'/50' 40'/10' 10' Lot 9 29,500 110' 335' 30'/60' 40'/20' 10' Lot 10 27,000 135' 295' 30'/60' 40'/20' **** 10' Lot 11 21,400 148' 245' 20'/50'/60' 40'/20' 20' BLOCK 3 Lot 1 23,000 105 232.5 Lot 2 17,900 100 200 Lot 3 18,200 110 165** *20'/30' 10' * Side yard and/or front yard variance required. ** Lot depth variance must be eliminated *** Wetland & Buffer setback supersedes typical setbacks. **** Front yard or side yard setback variance must be eliminated. Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 15 FINDINGS SUBDIVISION 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision requires variances to meet the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan density designation. 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site has a significant tree coverage and rolling topography. The applicant will be changing the site characteristics in order to develop it. The plans can be revised to make the subdivision more suitable for this site. 4. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by a public street and infrastructures contingent upon acquiring an easement through the Morin's parcel. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will need to be revised as discussed in the staff report and in the conditions of approval. Grading and tree removal must be minimized. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 16 7. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will be provided with adequate public infrastructure with the extension of the sanitary sewer from the east. V ARIANCE As part of this plat approval, a variance to allow 20 foot front yard setbacks, a 10 percent street grade, five homes accessing via a private street, and a 50 foot wide right-of-way is requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. 2. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land. 3. The condition of conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. 4. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: Staff recommends the variances be approved as shown in plans dated May 8, 1995, for the following: a. A 20 foot front yard setback for Lot 3, Block 1, Lot 8, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3. b. A 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way . c. Five homes accessing via a private drive. d. A 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 7, Block 2. PRIV ATE STREETS As part of this subdivision, the applicant is requesting the use of private streets to service portions of the site. The subdivision ordinance allows up to four lots to be served by a private street if the city finds the following conditions to exist: Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 17 1. The prevailing development pattern makes it infeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and existence of wetlands. 2. After reviewing the surrounding area it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of wetlands and mature trees. Finding: The applicant is utilizing two private streets to access Lots 5, 6, 7, 10, and 11 Block 2 and Lot 2, Block 1. Private streets will minimize impact on the vegetation and preserve site grades. It will require 5 lots to be served via the private street, however, we believe in this case a variance is appropriate. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning 14.53 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family (95-1 REZ); Preliminary plat (95-3 SUB) to subdivide 14.53 Acres into 18 single family lots and two outlots, with variances (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lot 3, Block 1, Lot 8, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way, Five homes accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 7, Block 2), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in plans dated April 25, 1995, with the following conditions: 1. Establish a tree removal plan incorporating preservation areas or numbered inventory of trees removed and saved. Trees lost in excess of plan will be replaced at two times the diameter of the tree lost. All trees currently listed on the inventory must be tagged and recorded as to species, condition, and diameter. Applicant must submit a Woodland Management Plan. 2. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road with the exception of Lot 1, Block 1. 3. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way of Lake Lucy. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 18 conservation easement shall permit removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. Staff shall provide a plan that shows the location of the conservation easement and the applicant shall provide the legal description. Elevation of all trees to be saved within grading limits must be shown on the grading plan. 4. A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. 5. Building Department conditions: a. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. b. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. c. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. d. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 6. Fire Marshal conditions: a. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. b. Due to the close proximity of surrounding homes, any trees, shrubs, bushes, natural vegetation, will either have to be chipped, shredded or removed from the site. No burning permits will be issued. c. Additional premise identification signage will be required for Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, per Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. d. Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. The turnaround may be modified if homes on Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 are protected by Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 19 a NFPA 13 D fire sprinkler system or other means acceptable to the Fire Marshal. e. Fire hydrants shall be located at intersection and end of cul-de-sacs, and spaced 300 feet apart. 7. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. 8. Revise the plat to eliminate the following variances: a. Lot depth for Lot 2, Block 2 shall be increased to 125 feet. b. Side yard setback for Lots 5, 6, east side of Lot 7, and Lot 10, Block 2, and Lot 2, Block 1, shall maintain a 20 foot side yard setback. c. Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, shall maintain a 30 foot front yard setback. 9. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent the grading limits. 10. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 11. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 12. 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 accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 20 Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 14. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 16. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. A 40-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court. 17. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 18. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 2 are subject to the high water level of Lake Lucy and not the wetland on Lots 7 through 10, Block 2. 19. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The stormwater pond shall be designed and constructed with a 75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 20. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to City water is not required unless the well on Lot 1, Block 1 fails. 21. The proposed single-family residential development of 11.48 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. These fees are payable Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 21 to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The water quality fees will be waived if the applicant provides for on-site stormwater treatment. 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The construction plans shall include a draintile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond. 23. Lots 2 through 4, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 3, 9 through 11, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the City engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the lot. 24. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins. 25. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s). A temporary turnaround may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides. 26. A variance for street grades.up to 10% and the City's right-of-way reduced to 50-foot wide is recommended. 27. The building setback line, buffer strips, erosion control fencing and tree fencing shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to all wetlands. The grading, drainage, and construction plans shall be revised incorporating street grades that conform better with the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss. 28. The intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Court shall be shifted southerly approximately 20 feet as well as the intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane. 29. The applicant shall extend utilities to the "Willis parcel" through Lakeway Lane. Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be placed on the barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future". A condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners in Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension. Lake Lucy Estates May 17, 1995 Page 22 30. A variance to the City's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access Lakeway Court is recommended. 31. The private streets (Lakeway Court and Lakeway Drive) shall be either platted as outlots and deeded to Lots 2, Block 1 and Lots 5, 6, 7 10 and 11, Block 2 and the Morin's property for access purposes; or the plat revised to incorporate the outlots into the adjacent lots and a 30 ft. wide cross access easement and maintenance agreement for Lot 2, Block 1 and Lots 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, Block 2 and the Morin property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memo from Diane Desotelle and Dave Hempel dated May 10, 1995. 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman dated May 8, 1995. 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated May 3, 1995. 4. Preliminary plat dated May 8, 1995. CITY OF CHANHASSEN690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 �-f (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer DATE: May 10, 1995 SUBJ: Review of Preliminary Plat Documents - Lake Lucy Estates, Michael Byrne 95-3 SUB/95-1 REZ/95-12 LUR Upon review of the preliminary plat drawings prepared by Coffin & Gronberg, Inc., dated July 12, 1994, revised March 6, 1995, revised April 21, 1995, and further revised on May 6, 1995 and the wetland delineation report dated March 22, 1995 prepared by Peterson Environmental, Inc., we offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS There are 2 wetlands delineated on-site and they are as follows: Wetland A is a natural wetland located on the property just east of Lots 8 through 11 along the southeastern portion of the property. The wetland is approximately 5.3 acres and is characterized as an inland shallow fresh marsh. Approximately 1.7 acres of the wetland is located on the property. Wetland B is the natural wetland complex that borders the Lake Lucy shoreline. The wetland is above the ordinary high water elevation for Lake Lucy, and therefore, is not within DNR jurisdiction. Approximately 1.4 acres of the wetland is located on the property. Since both of the wetlands are classified as natural, the buffer strip required shall be 10 to 30 feet wide with an average width of 20 feet. It is recommended that any disturbed areas of the buffer strip be seeded with a mixed variety of natural upland vegetation. Although these wetlands will not be filled or excavated as a result of the development, erosion control and maintenance on the erosion control is a key factor in protecting wetlands. Type III erosion control shall be provided Sharmin Al-Jaff May 10, 1995 Page 2 around the wetland at the start of construction and maintained until vegetation is fully re- established. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. The development will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Storm Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of $2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. The City has had discussions with the applicant's engineer on the water quality ponding. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800/acre for single-family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. The stormwater quality pond shall be designed to retain up to 75% phosphorus according to the Walker Pondnet model. Storm Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of$1,980 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 16.34 acres; however, 4.86 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. Sharmin Al-Jaff May 10, 1995 Page 3 GRADING & DRAINAGE The applicant has incorporated many design changes that staff had proposed previously. Some of the changes include custom grading the wooded lots, increasing the street grades up to 10% to conform better with the existing ground contours which results in less grading, adjusting of building pad elevations and/or changing the dwelling types to conform with the existing ground to minimize grading, modify the street and cul-de-sac alignment to accommodate a water quality storm pond (Walker basin) for pretreatment of storm waterprior to discharging into the wetlands, adjusting lot lines and building types where significant trees can be saved, combine the sanitary sewer alignment from Morin's property with the private street (Lakeway Court). The plans have been prepared with a 50-foot right-of-way, again, which is less than the City's standard right-of- way in an attempt to preserve trees and lessen the amount of grading. Staff believes that this compromise in right-of-way width will reduce grading and minimize impacts to the site. Another alternative would be to reduce the building setbacks. Staff has also worked on the street grades which we believe will minimize grading, trees loss, and the amount and height of retaining walls. The applicant should incorporate street grades throughout to conform better with the existing terrain. Staff would be happy to work with the applicant's engineer to assure that this is accomplished. Staff also considered shifting the intersections of Lakeway Court and Lakeway Drive as well as Lakeway Lane and Lakeway Drive southerly by approximately 20 feet to match existing grades better and lessen the sanitary sewer depth. Lakeway Court is currently proposed with up to 7% street grades. The relocation of Lakeway Court further to the south will, however, result in the loss of an additional 14-inch oak tree on Lot 9, Block 2 but will in return save two significant oak trees which are proposed to be lost on Lot 4, Block 1 (24-inch and 26-inch oaks). Lakeway Court also needs to provide for a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A temporary turnaround could be created on site (Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 11, Block 2) until the Morins further subdivide. The southerly private street (Lakeway Drive at the end of the cul-de-sac) is proposed to serve Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2. The applicant has revised the grading plans to limit fill to only the house pad areas and the service drive. Previously, the applicant had proposed up to 8 feet of fill in this area. Staff has reviewed this proposal and believes the applicant has minimized the impact to this area short of reducing the number of overall lots at the end of the cul-de-sac. In order to provide sanitary sewer service to Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2, up to 4 feet of fill will be required to provide adequate cover to prevent freezing. The homes in the cul-de-sac (Lots 5, 6, and 7, Block 2) have been designed to eliminate the need for an ejector pump as well. House dwelling types on Lots 6 and 7 have been revised from walkouts to lookouts to further minimize grading. Surface water runoff from Lakeway Drive will drain between Lots 5 and 6, Block 2 towards Lake Lucy. Staff feels there is a more than adequate buffer to pretreat the amount of runoff generated Sharmin Al-Jaff May 10, 1995 Page 4 from the additional homesites prior to discharging into Lake Lucy. The applicant has further designed the stormwater basin located on Lot 3, Block 2 which is proposed to convey and pretreat stormwater runoff from the street and front yard areas of the subdivision. This pond will then outlet underneath Lakeway Drive easterly back to the wetlands to assure recharging of the wetlands. At the Planning Commission meeting residents were concerned about the runoff being directed back into the wetland and being detrimental to wetland. Staff believes that it is necessary to route the treated stormwater runoff back to recharge the wetland. The exact location of the outlet pipe underneath Lakeway Drive is subject to change. Staff will locate in the field a path for the storm sewer to minimize impacts to the existing vegetation. This typically is done in conjunction with review of the final construction plans. Other concerns from the residents were location of numerous existing groundwater springs, storm sewer calculations, water quality, environmental impacts, erosion control measures, height of the retaining walls. The plans as submitted do not show erosion control fence; however, staff will require fencing around the perimeter of the grading limits on the final grading plans. Storm sewer calculations are typically not submitted for staff review and approval until the final construction plans are prepared. Typically with preliminary plat approval, there are numerous revision in grading and lot layouts that will change the storm sewer calculations. Staff is confident that there is adequate room being provided for the stormwater pond to pretreat the runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands in accordance with the City's SWMP. Within the City of Chanhassen groundwater is evident typically with each development. This groundwater is not necessarily springs. The City with its rolling terrains and heavy clay soils frequently contain areas of groundwater. Subdivisions typically deal with groundwater through the use of either storm sewers or draintile systems to convey the runoff to the stormwater ponds and/or wetlands to maintain the groundwater migration pattern. The applicant is proposing boulder retaining walls up to 12 feet in height along Lakeway Lane/Drive (Lot 3, Block 3). Staff believes that with revised street grades, these retaining walls can be reduce in half. This will also minimize impact to existing trees adjacent to boulder retaining walls. To preserve existing vegetation, staff is proposing the homesites on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 and Lots 8, 9, and 10, Block 2 be built lower than the street to reduce the amount of fill required in the front yards. Typically, staff has reservations regarding placing the homesite lower than the street due to drainage concerns, however, a grading and drainage plan could be developed with each individual homesite to ensure proper drainage around the structures. A good example of this within the City is along Bighorn Drive within the Shadowmere subdivision. Staff has also further reviewed access and utility service to the "Willis parcel" west of this development. It appears the parcel may be further subdivided once sewer and water is available to the parcel. The applicant has incorporated staffs' recommendation by providing a 50-foot Sharmin Al-Jaff May 10, 1995 Page 5 right-of-way (Lakeway Lane) to extend utility and street service. The Willis parcel would be required to access this street pending further subdivision of the parcel. Drainage off Lakeway Court is proposed to drain to a low point between Lots 10 and 11, Block 2. Staff believes the road should be tilted to provide sheet drainage across the street between the house pads towards the wetlands. Most of this runoff is from backyards or lawn areas which requires minimal treatment. The buffer strips between the houses and the wetlands will be sufficient in pretreating runoff prior to reaching the wetlands. Typically, with the soil conditions on hilly terrains, ground water may be of concern. The City requires a drain tile system behind the curb and gutter for homes which are not adjacent to a wetland/pond. The drain tile system provides an acceptable means of controlling sump pump discharge from the homes as well as improve the street subgrade. The building setback lines, buffer strips, and tree fencing needs to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. EROSION CONTROL Erosion measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence which is a heavy duty silt fence be used around the wetlands for maximum protection. The final grading plan shall incorporate erosion control fence around the perimeter of the grading limits. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the grading and drainage plan as well. UTILITIES Municipal sanitary sewer service is proposed to be extended from the Coey parcel which was recently subdivided into Point Lake Lucy. The Coey parcel is located approximately 200 feet east of this site. The sewer line to date has not been extended to service this parcel from the Coey parcel. Sanitary sewer is proposed to be extended this spring, early summer through the Coey parcel and deadend at that the property just east of the development (Morin's). The exact alignment of the sewer line has now been staked in the field up to the Morin's property. The alignment minimizes tree loss and impacts to the wetlands and Morin's property. The applicant has been working with the Morins to acquire the necessary utility easement for this extension in order to proceed with the project. The sanitary sewer will need to be extended through the Coey and Morin properties. Without the sewer, this project would be considered premature for development. A condition has been added in the staff report that final plat approval will be contingent upon sanitary sewer being extended through the Coey and Morin properties. The Sharmin Al-Jaff May 10, 1995 Page 6 plans have relocated the sanitary sewer line to follow Lakeway Court in an effort to minimize impacts to the existing vegetation. Municipal water service is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The plans propose on extending water service throughout the development. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required in conjunction with final plat approval. The construction plans and specifications shall be prepared in accordance with the City's 1995 edition of the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be subject to City Council approval. The applicant will be required as a part of final plat and construction plan approval to enter into a development contract and provide the City with financial securities to guarantee conditions of approval and installation of the public improvements. The development contains two existing homesites (Tichy and Christensen). Both of these homesites are currently on their own well and septic system. The existing home on the westerly portion of the site (Lot 1, Block 2 - Christensen's) is proposed to be removed. The other home (Tichy) is proposed to remain on Lot 1, Block 1. Both on-site well and septic systems will have to be abandoned in accordance with the City and State health codes in conjunction with this development. The well and septic on Lot 1, Block 2 will have to be abandoned in conjunction with site grading. The well and septic system on the Tichy property (Lot 1, Block 1) may be delayed since the construction activities appear not to impact the systems. However, city ordinance requires properties within 150 feet of a municipal sewer system must be connected to the City's system within 12 months after the system becomes operational. Connection to City water is not required until the well fails. The sanitary sewer to serve this development will be designed and constructed to service the Morin's property as well as the properties to the west and north of the site. The applicant has shown sewer and water extension west of the cul-de-sac towards the Willis property. Staff has reviewed the utility service to the Willis parcel and feel Lakeway Lane is the appropriate extension point for utility service. The sanitary sewer elevation should be at 996.0 at the end of Lakeway Lane. This can easily be changed on the plans and is typically reviewed during the final construction plan review process. STREETS Access to the development is proposed from Lake Lucy Road. This road is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Street right-of-way on the public street has been reduced from the 60-foot requirement to 50 feet wide to reduce grading and tree loss. Staff has evaluated this compromise with the revised plans and believes the reduced right-of-way is warranted. The plans are also incorporating the use of private streets to service portions of the development and adjacent parcels. City ordinance provides up to four homes to be serviced off a private street. A turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal will also have to be provided. Sharmin Al-Jaff May 10, 1995 Page 7 The private street will reduce impacts to the wetland and tree loss versus the public street. Staff believes the use of private streets to service Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2 is warranted to reduce impacts to the area. The house pad on Lot 7, Block 1 has been relocated westerly as shown on staffs layout to minimize grading and tree loss. The use of a public street in this area would destroy the natural features. In addition, Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 would be marginal lots due to setback requirements from wetlands and the street. Staff believes the applicant has followed the layout prepared by staff to minimize the environmental concerns. Another private street is proposed to service three lots (Lots 10 and 11, Block 2 and Lots 2, Block 1) and the Morin's parcel to the east. The Morins and staff have reviewed the development potential of the Morin's parcel and it appears that the site may be further subdivided into two additional lots. Therefore the private street (Lakeway Court) as proposed would be serving up to five homes which exceeds the City's ordinance. Staff believes there is no other way to create a street system to serve these lots which would minimize impacts and therefore recommends a variance be granted for up to five (5) homes accessing Lakeway Court. A turnaround which meets the City Fire Marshal's requirements will be necessary at the end of Lakeway Court. If the Morins are not in favor of the turnaround at this time, a temporary turnaround could be developed on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 11, Block 2 until the Morins are ready to subdivide. Future access was also considered for the parcel west of the development (Willis) which is currently for sale. The Willis parcel currently gains access from Lake Lucy Road via a long gravel driveway. Part of the driveway is actually located within the proposed subdivision and is shown through Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3. The Willis driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road is across from Yosemite. This intersection has substandard sight distance which makes it difficult to safely turn to and from the property. Eventually, when the Willis parcel further subdivides, staff will recommend that the driveway access on to Lake Lucy Road be eliminated and the driveway be relocated to access Lakeway Lane. It appears the Willis property has ability to further subdivide into more than four lots. The applicant has proposed a 31-foot wide City street and 50-foot wide public right-of-way between Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 3, Block 3 to provide future access to the site. Lot 1, Block 2 will also be accessed from this street. Staff has reviewed the street grades in detail and believes further modifications are warranted to minimize tree loss, grading and the height and number of retaining walls. Staff has provided the applicant's engineer with some street grades to incorporate. Due to the short turnaround time the current plans do not reflect staffs street grade changes. These changes should only improve the overall development by minimizing grading. These types of modifications are typically done during the construction plan review process. All lots except for Lot 1, Block 1 are proposed to access the interior streets and not Lake Lucy Road. Private driveway maintenance and access agreements will need to be incorporated into covenants to permit access to the lots adjacent to private driveways as well as the Morin parcel. Sharmin Al-Jaff May 10, 1995 Page 8 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent the grading limits. 2. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 3. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 4. 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 accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 5. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval..The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 6. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. Sharmin Al-Jaff May 10, 1995 Page 9 8. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. A 40-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court 9. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 10. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 2 are subject to the high water level of Lake Lucy and not the wetland on Lots 7 through 10, Block 2. 11. A water quality pond shall be provided on site to pretreat runoff prior to discharging into the wetlands. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The stormwater pond shall be designed to 75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. 12. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to City water is not required unless the well on Lot 1, Block 1 fails. 13. The proposed single-family residential development of 11.48 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. The water quality fees will be waived if the applicant provides for on-site stormwater treatment. 14. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The construction plans shall include a draintile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond. 15. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road except for Lot 1, Block 1. 16. Lots 2 through 4, Block 1 and Lots 1 through 3, 9 through 11, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed Sharmin Al-Jaff May 10, 1995 Page 10 grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the City engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the lot. 17. The grading, drainage, and construction plans shall be revised incorporating street grades that conform better with the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss. 18. Final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins. 19. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s). A temporary turnaround may be permitted on Lot 2, Block 1 or Lot 14, Block 2 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides. 20. A variance for street grades up to 10% and the City's right-of-way reduced to 50-foot wide is recommended. 21. The building setback line, buffer strips, erosion control fencing and tree fencing shall be denoted on the final grading and drainage plans prior to final plat approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to all wetlands. 22. The intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Court shall be shifted southerly approximately 20 feet as well as the intersection of Lakeway Drive and Lakeway Lane. 23. The applicant shall extend utilities to the "Willis parcel" through Lakeway Lane. Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be placed on the barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future". A condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners in Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension. 24. A variance to the City's private street ordinance to allow up to 5 homes to access Lakeway Court is recommended. j ms/ktm c: Charles D. Folch, Director of Public Works/City Engineer g\eng\diane\planningVklucw•3.ppr CITY OF 4 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 , (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jaff, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ,,, DATE: May 8, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-1 REZ & 95-3 SUB (Lake Lucy Estates, Michael Byrne) I was asked to review the proposed subdivision plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, MAY 08 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project . It appears that recommendation #4 from my earlier memo is the only item that has been addressed, so the other comments and renumbered recommendations are repeated below. Analysis : Elevations . Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments . Dwelling Type. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types . These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process . I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations . Soils Report . In addition, a soils report showing details • and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes . Demolition Permits . Existing structures on the property which will be demolished will require demolition permits . Proof of well abandonment must be furnished to the City and a permit for septic Sharmin Al-Jaff May 9, 1995 Page 2 system abandonment must be obtained and the septic system abandoned prior to issuance of a demolition permit . Recommendations: 1 . Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval . 2 . Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings . This should be done prior to final plat approval . 3 . Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits . 4 . Obtain demolition permits . This should be done prior to any grading on the property. enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\lkicyest.sj2 CITY OF 1 CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 f (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN i UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rcar Lookout This includes dwellings with tic basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entry. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. SSE R s�� WO F17.20 F � -- — — —— °` RLO Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. Or PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CITY OF PC DATE: 5/17/95 CHANHASSEN' CC DATE: 6/12/95 CASE #: CUP 95-1 By: Rask:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit request for a 48' x 36' storage building and stable F- Z LOCATION: 1680 Arboretum Boulevard Q a. APPLICANT: Michael Gorra 0.. 1680 Arboretum Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential ACREAGE: 140 acres DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - RR, Agricultural & Lake Ann Q S - RR, Agricultural E - RR, Agricultural & Applicant's Home QW - RR, Agricultural WATER AND SEWER: The site is within the MUSA line f' PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: The site is currently used for agricultural purposes, including tilled U agricultural fields and a wholesale nursery. The site also contains a single family home. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential Gorra Conditional Use Permit May 17, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a 48' x 36' foot storage building and stable. The building would be located approximately 1,350 feet from Arboretum Blvd. and over one thousand (1,000) feet from the nearest property line. Stables are a conditional use in the RR, Rural Residential District. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit with five (5) conditions. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed use meets all the requirements of the general zoning ordinance. The attached conditions should help ensure that the proposed use does not negatively impact surrounding properties, the wetland, lake or stream. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. Section 20-594 allows private stables as a conditional use in the RR District. 2. Section 20-232 provides general issuance standards which apply to all conditional uses. 3 Section 20-260 provides standards for stables located in agricultural or residential zoned district. The following applies to private stables: 1. Stables shall comply,with Chapter 5, Article Ill 2. Stables must be located a minimum of two hundred (200) feet from wetland areas. ANALYSIS The proposed site is in close proximity to a large wetland, Lake Ann, and the creek leading from Lake Ann to Lake Susan. These natural features are a significant part of the City's water resources and should be protected to the extent possible from agricultural or urban development impacts. Since there will be horses pasturing in the area, staff recommends that a buffer strip be incorporated into the permit. Staff recommends that the buffer strip be the area between the sanitary sewer line and the creek or lake. This provides an approximately 100 foot buffer that can be easily identified. The buffer should be left undisturbed to the extent possible after the stable is constructed. If vegetation is allowed to grow up in this area and the horses are kept out of the area, it will hopefully serve as some form of a filter system since the runoff from the area will have an increase in nutrient loading due to animal waste. Grazing in the area will also increase the runoff to the water resources. The applicant should take care to prevent erosion in order to reduce concentrated flows to the lake and the creek. Gorra Conditional Use Permit May 17, 1995 Page 3 The corral or pasturing area is currently proposed to be located over a portion of the Lake Ann Interceptor. The Metropolitan Council does not object to the project provided that the applicant enter into an agreement with the Met Council, and that the stable fence does not interfere with access to the interceptor. Staff is recommending that the fence be moved to the southeast so that it is not located over the interceptor. This will also allow for a buffer strip to be established between the interceptor and the stream or lake. The proposed stable will be located approximately 1,350 feet from Arboretum Boulevard and over 1,000 feet from the nearest property line. The natural topography and vegetation will help screen the building from the roadway and surrounding properties. The location of the stable will not be impacted by the future Highway 5 frontage road, nor should the building be visible from the frontage road because of the natural features. In addition, the applicant has indicated that the stable will match the design of the home. 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 stable will be located on a 140 acre parcel and will not be visible from any surrounding neighborhood. Separation from the creek is a condition of the proposal. A stable permit is also required. The stable will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare if the appropriate conditions are attached to the permit. 2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Finding: The proposed use will be consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan and all provisions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has indicated that the building is temporary and easily movable. 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 140 acre parcel is currently used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, a horse stable is compatible with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of the area. Gorra Conditional Use Permit May 17, 1995 Page 4 The applicant has indicated that the building will match the design of the house. 4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Finding: The proposed site is over 1,000 feet from any existing or planned neighboring uses. In addition, the majority of the building will be screened from view by the existing vegetation and topography of the site. Therefore, the use will not be hazardous or disturbing 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 site is served adequately by essential public facilities and 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 use will not create requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 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 use will not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare if the appropriate conditions are attached to the permit. A stable permit requires annual inspections. 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 use will not drastically increase traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. 9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Gorra Conditional Use Permit May 17, 1995 Page 5 Finding: The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance if the appropriate conditions are attached to the permit. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Finding: The stable will be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding agricultural area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Finding: The proposed use will not depreciate the surrounding property values 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Finding: The applicant's proposal will meet all standards prescribed for this use. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-1 based on the findings presented in the staff report and with the following conditions: 1. A natural buffer strip shall be maintained between the interceptor and the wetland, lake, and stream (approximately 100 feet). Horses shall not be kept or allowed to graze in this area. 2. A stable permit is required by the City and must be renewed annually. The property owner shall contact the Stable Inspector for an application form. 3. Erosion control shall be maintained throughout the construction period and until new vegetation is established. 4. The site plan shall be revised to show the fence outside of the required buffer area and outside of the interceptor easement. 5. If required by the Metropolitan Council, the property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Council to protect the sanitary sewer facilities." Gorra Conditional Use Permit May 17, 1995 Page 6 ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from applicant dated April 12, 1995 2. Letter from Metropolitan Council dated May 5, 1995 3. Memorandum from Carol Dunsmore, Stable Inspector dated May 9, 1995 4. Memorandum from Steve Kirchman, Building Official dated May 8, 1995 5. Memorandum from Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator dated May 9, 1995 6. Public Hearing Notice 7. Site plan dated April 17, 1995 060 CONSTRUCTION ENTERPRISE CORPORATION 323 WEST 59th ST. MINNEAPOLIS,MN 55419 C hA 0 61sseki APRT�L C ` i‘Y Covn/cIL t ;,9195.5 'ea Cok \ c PeP4'1 'T' CoiciL 1,r) 0AMeS oP popeR:ryocooe S co i f-t, i , soot op i) R,(1), 1- ' tied ss7 . - A moue_ Luc € (lc vA Qovl.�ere PiiRh. gdCJP F ,Thi 0 1--eANDk e12.Qei (ito)- 0 Ag.60AeTmM). J C,� (flot A u d A bo N Rb • C i A u 1,Ass ek1). .,) cry 6' c. G, A u 6 sscki E. \ LSkAJA 2-'uet2S o po eh, D . D ' i LpM t S ) 1- I CR. eeK S b CT; ' flew przA ) r � e SS414- C© fri e t_ 1 VC e_ W -t'L e c u t la-c,1 crA &)d A g d s rs K°7 A PP-06Lei--10 ( See- f9tted-c a) . d 0 S)*LiNeN, •\t 6N, e,,,214°,, g•) eirzzi°14 . ozirxi;-‘ tjt, P&401-011 • h) UA°c-v.ao opt24-0- -z, a; 4 4fp:e, 4011Nit4.31,1 I) we)11/ orlk% divlem 6A4- lorgf°e4J; T) y £ tif 4w2-16444 . K tik) (:0 ct;t- .e4g,t.oc4, Pi . ` erAe,4 joilem064-zi wc:1:4 0/14-ezde, wc-i/ (46r15i\- -6)- ,Etv=e4 0.4Q. imw-4 at-a , AJc / It ip‘-/%11-?%,-m-tm. , 440-‘4.pazf /)„i- se).4,6,4 , /04 ty-Le frt‘rtta gc4 e,0") .# q_ stedea, auta dtm_ (,t) Q tkR. 615v-0-7A4.4_efia_d tt)- CeNitt : a/J. r .4-ee.-v-ai&a ,tn.. CD" a 64 Q-24 , Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future Wastewater Services May 5, 1995 QFC E°"rrl Mr. John Rask, Planner I ;Y1 A. - 1995 City of Chanhassen . 690 Coulter Drive CITY OF ChmM-jASSEf P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: 95-1 Conditional Use Permit Request 1680 Arboretum Boulevard, Michael Gorra Dear Mr. Rask: Thank you for informing the Metropolitan Council of the above referenced subject. The Metropolitan Council owns and operates a sanitary sewer interceptor on the above referenced property as evidenced by easement document number 110046 . The Metropolitan Council will not object to the proposed plan with the following conditions : 1) The property owner enter into an agreement with the Metropolitan Council to protect the sanitary sewer facilities; and 2) It appears there is a sanitary sewer access structure within the stable area. The Metropolitan Council will require that access to its sanitary sewer facilities not be interfered with. Therefore, the stable fence should 'be constructed to not interfere with that access . If you have any questions, please call Carol Johnson at 229-2147 . Sincerely, • 1 171/1"--_, � r'v William G. Moore Manager, Wastewater Services cc: C. L. Johnson W. P. Moeller T. F. Keegan J. K. Matross WGM:CLJ: 230 East Fifth Street St.Paul,Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 222-8423 Fax 229-2183 TDD/TTY 229-3760 CITY 4F CIIANHASSEN J-: 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask, Planner II FROM: Carol Dunsmore, Stable Inspector �1 DATE: May 9, 1995 SUBJ: 95-1 CUP (Michael Gorra) Upon review of the conditional use permit request for a storage building and stable located on Michael Gorra's property at 1680 Arboretum Blvd., I offer the following requirement for conditions of approval: A stable permit is required by the City and must be renewed annually. The property owner shall contact the Stable Inspector for an application form. CITY OF C HAN' HASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: May 8, 1995 SUBJECT: 95-1 CUP (Michael Gorra) I was asked to review the permit request proposal stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, APR 17 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project. I have no comments or recommendations concerning this application at this time. g:'cafety\cak\memos‘plan\orra.jr 1 MEMORANDUM TO: John Rask, Planner FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: May 9, 1995 SUBJ: Conditional Use Permit request for a storage building and stable located at 1680 Arboretum Blvd. Michael Gorra 95-1 CUP Upon review of the conditional use permit request for a storage building and stable located on Michael Gorra's property at 1680 Arboretum Blvd. I offer the following recommendations for conditions of approval. Lake Ann, the creek leading from Lake Ann to Lake Susan and wetlands bordering Lake Ann are a significant part of the City's water resources and should be protected to the extent possible from agricultural or urban development impacts. The area is designated as a natural area, and therefore, should be protected with a buffer strip. Since there will be horses pasturing in the area, staff recommends that a buffer strip be incorporated into the permit. Staff recommends that the buffer strip be the area between the sanitary sewer line and the creek or lake. This provides an area that can be easily identified that should be left undisturbed to the extent possible after the stable is constructed. If vegetation is allowed to grow up in this area and the horses are kept out of the area, it will hopefully serve as some form of a filter system since the runoff from the area will have an increase in nutrient loading due to animal waste. Grazing in the area will also increase the runoff to the water resource. The applicant should take care to prevent erosion and filling in order to reduce concentrated flows to the lake and the creek. g.'?eng\dian e\plannin g\gorra.cup NOTICE OF PUBLIC LAKE ANN HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION a� � �� ' � �;: 1 MEETING a1��� = = . • Wednesday, MAY 17, 1995 _ at 7:00 p.m. LOCATION-, LAKE City Hall Council Chambers ANNPARK 690 Coulter Drive Project: Conditional Use Permit for - - :. -■ 1 BOULEVARD Storage Building and Stable I zin Developer: Michael Gorra11011t4_,( Location: 1680 Arboretum Blvd Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a Conditional Use Permit for a 48' x 36' storage building and stable located on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located at 1680 Arboretum Blvd, Michael Gorra. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact John at 937-1900, ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 4, 1995. ^l Axl Dave Luce Leander Kerber Paisley Park 15236 Boulder Point Rd. 1620 Arboretum Blvd. 7801 Audubon Road Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Hwy. 5 Partnership c/o D. Dirlam 15241 Creekside Court Eden Prairie, MN 55344 \ 1 t t \. \ 1 \ y. ‘ \ \\ 040'� r,\.____-_ ----,-.. -\\, A; ---'t \I 1 ' _J ..' li P1411411 ; \ �`� s;Ni-iikiksh 1 ,,,, .. \ ll , ••• i -1:%. iii "`'C sRA i••• ••/••, s,r J W • • V • s 1. i ..i\ • 1 CT i .': :N \ '''''''''\.:. 00/. \\ � C4';;L'IASSEN PLANNING DEPT. s CARLISLE MADSON SC/►Lt; COUNTY SURVEYOR 5.L, a , CARVER COUNTY, MINN. 4-)." W I _ 60 D-tiy�" [r 7/-7/ m APRILL 1970 Fti n7'_COuo - o: . MAR 1910 COW ; Y W OEC.t9t3 COM • it 2 Q _ W 765. '-ss.-. • .os- ,so CITY pC DTE: 5CUANIIAIE CC DATE: 6/12/95 CASE #: 95-2 Sign STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Variance request to locate a monument sign at the Highway 7 entrance to the 7 & 41 Crossing Center LOCATION: Lot 1, Seven-Forty One Crossing Center. The sign is proposed to be located on Qthe vacant lot immediately west of SuperAmerica V APPLICANT: PDK Investments, Inc. Seven Forty One Partnership 7.3 Diane Mitchell c/o R. Soskin Suite 1050 5591 Bristol Lane a_ 5500 Wayzata Blvd. Minnetonka, MN 55343-4307 Minneapolis, MN 55416 PRESENT ZONING: BN, Neighborhood Business District ACREAGE: .92 Acres, Lot 1 DENSITY: N/A ADJACENT ZONING Q AND LAND USE: N - City of Shorewood, Commercial S - RSF, Residential Single Family E - RSF, Residential Single Family W - RSF, Residential Single Family W WATER AND SEWER: Available to the Site PHYSICAL CHARACTER.: Lot 1 is a vacant parcel which abuts Highway 7. Lot 2 contains the 7/41 Crossing Shopping Center, and SuperAmerica is located on lot 3. The 7/41 crossing center has access from Highway 7 and Highway 41. 711(1(1 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial • _ 0 O 0 0 0 0o g , M N pN '71 in � LOCATION � N N� N h VI- I _i _W ,... .iwir gm. . . c a 1 ----Aiwa... :1;:eramr ri--A2witi• 4101,r-% 1_,LwAre „trait k irfto Nromatuv .,, I-• , , bit A d:oplant.t , . 11E a r - vals-rim ..... - -------- -----,=,\___ ___, -----_? ,41v1p4i: ImilFol kolitur,,,,irii ?il ..., TA imatika iiiiiP ver ...- -•=, •V�.ui� �_� ..". 16011HERMAN F/ELD 11 U'ilW.I.M: 0_, PARK !,�i��iE3l i--- ‘t-t 4 gg 1 LAKE 1.11I'' c7 r, Ti rcil.- f,%1 2 dr zT ,_i `'"; 1, - -,..., , ill // REGIONAL — - PARK a - - �_ LAKE • ` ?' , 44., . 0. Q I Man 0-, HARRISON all I 1 lb 4 I __ ,,,..., I mi * A cctiii ,.\''O.,,.. p 1111: oJ\' 0 r4pi io 4,4 .. Q's, DRIVE N., ti :,,-+52) J- a IIM , I \ 1 � IN ■ 44) i � "•-• Sign Variance Request 7/41 Center May 17, 1995 Page 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. Section 20-1302 states that one (1) ground low profile business sign is permitted per center. BACKGROUND On April 11, 1988 the City Council approved Site Plan 86-2 subject to twelve (12) conditions. The site plan showed one sign located on Highway 41. On May 25, 1993, 7/41 Partnership applied for and received a permit to locate a sign on Highway 41. This sign is similar to the one being proposed. The 7/41 Shopping Center is located on Lot 2 which has frontage on Highway 41 only. Lot 1 is a separate lot of record which is owned by the 7/41 Partnership. The sign would be attached to the existing brick pillars located on Lot 1. ANALYSIS Staff is recommending denial of the variance request based on the findings presented in the staff report. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. In addition, the sign variance would be inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance. One of the purposes of the sign ordinance is to establish standards which permit businesses a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service. The 7/41 Shopping Center and the occupants within the Center already have this opportunity with the existing wall signs and the 7/41 Crossing Sign located on Highway 41. This neighborhood shopping center already has two monument signs on Highway 41 (7/41 Crossing and SuperAmerica) and one on Highway 7 (SuperAmerica) with the potential for one more on Highway 7 within this development. Permitting another 7/41 Crossing sign on Highway 7 would lead to the potential of having four monument signs within close proximity (approximately 400 feet) near the intersection of Highway 7 and 41. In addition, if the future occupant of Lot 1 would request a monument sign, a variance would be required to locate a second monument sign on a single lot. One of the objectives of the sign ordinance is to limit the number of signs which may conflict with the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of the roadway, as well as protecting the image and aesthetics of the area. Special consideration should also be given when locating additional signs at major intersections. FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: Sign Variance Request 7/41 Center May 17, 1995 Page 3 a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The applicant has reasonable use of the property with the existing shopping center and the sign located on Highway 41. In addition, the center and the occupants within the center have a reasonable and equitable opportunity to advertise their name and service. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: Other properties and businesses located in a BN, Neighborhood Business District have similar hardships when trying to capture the attention of the traveling public. c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: Whereas, the purpose of the variation may not be based entirely upon a desire to increase the income potential of the parcel, the variance would permit the applicant to have an off-premises sign. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged hardship appears to be a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: This neighborhood retail center already has two monument signs on Highway 7 (7/41 Crossing and SuperAmerica) and one on Highway 41 (SuperAmerica) with the potential for one more on Lot 1. One of the objectives of the sign ordinance is to limit the number of signs, especially near major intersection, which may conflict with the safely of motorists, cyclists,pedestrians and other users of the roadway and adjacent properties Sign Variance Request 7/41 Center May 17, 1995 Page 4 f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or increase the danger of fire or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends denial of Sign Permit Variance #95-2 based on the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship that would warrant the granting of a variance. 2. The Shopping Center and the occupants located in the center already have a reasonable opportunity to advertise their name and service. 3. The variance is inconsistent with the purpose and findings of the sign ordinance." The majority of staffs findings are based on the assumption that vacant Lot 1 will be developed and a monument sign erected. The Commission may want to consider granting a variance which would permit the 7/41 Crossings sign on Lot 1 until such time as Lot 1 is developed. If the Commission wishes to grant a variance with a time frame attached, staff would recommend the following: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Sign Permit Variance #95-2 with the following conditions: 1. The sign shall be removed from Lot 1 prior to the development of the parcel. 2. The applicant shall obtain a sign permit. 3. All permanent and temporary signs located at the Seven and Forty One Shopping Center shall comply with the City Sign Ordinance prior to issuance of the sign permit." Sign Variance Request 7/41 Center May 17, 1995 Page 5 ATTACHMENTS 1. Site Plan 2. Sign Copy 3. Letter from Applicant dated April 7, 1995 4. Application 5. Public Hearing Notice r . NW1Y �.7 • t .( ,:C,4 srr- i .. i OUTLOT NO. 1 I i�4 d 1 L :UPET;CA ) , ., , ..c\c, .„._ 1 _ . . dZ y 3 I IL- ■ RETAIL BUILDING H IIIILIII [ II ; ♦ 1 64th ST. EIIH SITE PLAN SCALE: 1'= 100'— 0" .42ax a...,... . ... �_______ 1��M - - ., i_. ' • .. jU I I - 1 i 1 ,1 , i. i t , . .. ... ' . , .,. : 1 : 1 .. . 1 Wi ' '.ai'-� A.}9t .ti• 1 v%. d / r „ ,:„ Vit. ``•�.,.. jF ,....,„..., . ..__. ..,....,_.. ...___:.. . _ ,. •"al...m.19A..•;aa.••^---'4. - \7' 0 e •-•-`�• J' C • V JI !. 1 Fr ,LFI•~ .;.1‘;.4'-'i57:: t. I ..,- 1C_�r -,,,,,,, , :.,, _ ::• ::.•,,,,...,..,„,,,,„.7 _ .. . , ,.: ___, ,.. ..„.. , . . . ...„ __..„...,„fi`` •-- 141111114114111‘46444; r X a_ E▪ r.�Y `• f-q ' -ti b t -- y'.�5• =3 „-Z. , €.r .firr + ^ % ; :s - . a :ca r: ' .... V 1 ir.' yF 'fri ...,-.1..1..I_ Z.' o ft r. 1....6.....a :::,,-11_,....:_-,--.. , -,.z...t--Ach-,-:-- .,moi• = .cP ` ` i m Z 4411161174 2 1 _. ,_,......,...r..41,....sa c N i !I > c6 O iI .N April 7, 1995 To: City of Chanhassen From: 7 & 41 Crossings Center Limited Partnership RE: 7 & 41 Crossings Center Lot 2,Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing, Carver County We wish to put a sign at the Highway 7 entrance to the 7 & 41 Crossing Center. The electrical and the posts are currently in place. We wish to put a plexiglass sign with the name of the center. We have enclosed pictures as well as diagrams of the proposed sign. We need this for the benefit of the center to attract more customers for the business operators. Presently the only sign for the Center, of which 11 businesses occupy, is at the Highway 41 entrance. This sign is not visible to traffic on Highway 7. The entrance was put in when the Center was built therefore it only makes sense that we have signage to designate entrance into our Center. FROM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 02. 16. 1995 14: 36 P. 3 1 � I I CITY OF CHANHA8SEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937.1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION I 1 APPLICANT: PcD\I--, ; c\leS\M 1 Sgcr . OWNERL 77'4/7 ADDRESS: �S16.0 � ��J- Q-\`' ADDRESS: S s'v:.' 4-" - -c TELEPHONE (Day time) TELEPHONE: 6.44 — p S�\v2 CaCC 1. Compre iensive Plan Amendment 11. Vacation of ROW/Easements 2. Conditional Use Permit 12, Varianoe S / 1 3, Interim lJse Permit 13. Wetland Alteration Permit 4, Non-ooniorming Uee Permit 14, Zoning Appeal 5. Planned,Unit Development 15, Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review Notification Signs 9. Site Pia6 Review Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost" $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes 8 Bounds 10.` Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ /,S A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included w4th the application. Twenty-alx'full size last copies of the plans must be submitted. SW X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. " Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract FROM CITY OF CHANHASSEN 62. 16. 1995 14: 36 P. 4 I , PROJECT NAME .›.e1�c'. /'� 'l) Z7- Cl/�, 'i c�6s LOCATION IG i /47/15-/,,4-z,,‹ r CA`41 LEGAL DESCRIPTION ,o ./ . .c c' r- (i ) . -�� PRESENT ZONING v REQUESTED ZONING /f-'o PRESENT LAND UriE DESIGNATION /4a/', / REQUESTED LANG USE DESIGNATION X1.1 REASON FOR THit REQUEST _ This application must be completed In full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be a000mpanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City require encs with regard to this request, This application should be prooessed in my name and I am the party whom the City shoyid contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a Dopy of proof of ownership (eitherpy 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 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this appiioatIon, I further understand that ad itional fees may be oharged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to pro ed with the study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Reoorder's Office and the original document retumed to City Hall Records. �\� y1 \3vO Signature of Applic nt Date vJ tfE L . /-.4-- Signature JSignature of Fee ner bate .55 Application Received on .gid- q5 Fee Paid ! Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a Dopy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING LOCATION n N 2 . PLANNING COMMISSION MANSI�RRte; MEETING410ctpo wow AR i Wednesday, MAY 17, 1995 ,w.•_;- • Jr' Irif at 7:00 p.m. ��:: � , EEE��T maim City Hall Council Chambers aktai i 690 Coulter Drive 1I1 ft* £RMAN`F/ELD =, PARK RE Project: Sign Variance Request Developer: PDK Investments, Inc. r' % ASH ( Location: Hwy. 7 and 41 - 7/41 Crossing Center Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a PDK Investments, Inc. request for a variance to locate a 23.5 sq. ft. monument sign at the Hwy. 7 entrance to the 7 and 41 Crossing Center on property zoned BN, Neighborhood Business and located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Hwy. 7 and 41. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: . 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact John at 937-1900, ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 4, 1995. 7q5 qr1/4 fr; 4> Seven Forty One Partnership Sheldon Rubenstein LTD Rick G. Bateson �/o R. Soskin Suite 620 6440 Oriole Ave. 5591 Bristol Lane 5500 Wayzata Blvd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Minnetonka, MN 55343-4307 Minneapolis, MN 55416 James & Jody Majeres Agnes Anderson Dale J. & Kelly L. Hance 6450 Oriole Ave. 6470 Oriole Ave. 6480 Oriole Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 William & Delores Ziegler Joseph & Marcia Massee George & Beulah Baer 6441 Oriole Ave. 6381 Hazeltine Blvd. 6300 Chaska Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Elsbeth D. Reutiman Mike & Diana Dudycha Richard & Paulette Oftdahl 5915 Galpin Lake Road 6451 Oriole Ave. 6461 Oriole Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Richard & K. Schmidt William Swearengen Gary & Janet Reed 5136 Willow Lane P. O. Box 756 2461 64th Street W. Minnetonka, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Gary & Pennie Reed Mark & Danielle Steele Shawn & Joanne Killian 2471 64th Street W. 2451 64th Street W. 2449 64th Street W. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Thomas & Rebecca Don Howard & Michelle Nelson Fred Britzius & Susan Stewart 2447 64th Street W. 2445 64th Street W. 2444 64th Street W. Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Gregory & Michelle Curtis ROR, Inc. Mark & Lorena Flannery 2446 64th Street W. 2461 64th Street W. 2350 Melody Hill Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Excelsior, MN 55331 Benjamin & H. Gowen D. C. Wakefield et al, Trustees Elsbeth Reutiman 6440 Hazeltine Blvd. Scott J. Wakefield Richard Carlson Excelsior, MN 55331 24000 State Hwy. No. 7 6140 Lake Linden Dr. Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 City of Shorewood 23780 Partnership Ryan Construction 5755 Country Club Rd. 23780 State Hwy. 7 23680 Hwy. 7 Shorewood, MN 55331-8927 Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 Gretta J. Reese et al Everett J. Driskill Frank Reese 6105 Lake Linden Drive 6200 Chaska Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Shorewood, MN 55331 PC DATE: 5/17/95 �+ C TY O F � 1 CllA1 'llAE1'T CC DATE: 6/12/95 • k� CASE #: PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 . ■ _ I ■ STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to subdivide 46.57 acres into 78 lots, 1 outlot and associated right-of- way; site plan review for 75 single family detached zero-lot-line homes on 19.95 acres po and a wetland alteration permit. The project is known as North Bay. U LOCATION: Lake Riley Boulevard, on the north side of Lake Riley a APPLICANT: Rottlund Company, Inc. Charles Adelmann Q. 2681 Long Lake Road 1411 W. 97th Q Roseville, MN 55113 Bloomington, MN 55431 1111 (612) 638-0500 (612) 888-4303 PRESENT ZONING: R12, High Density Residential ACREAGE: gross: 46.57 net: 14.83 DENSITY: units/acre (gross): 1.61 units/acres (net): 5.06 ADJACENT ZONING IIII Q AND LAND USE: N - R12, Hwy 212 corridor and proposed open space S - none, Lake Riley E - R12, Lakeview Hills Apartments Q W -RSF, vacant W WATER AND SEWER: Pending, part of Lyman Blvd & Drainage Improvements/Lake Riley �. Area Trunk Utility Improvements (75 PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site has been in agricultural use for many years and is devoid of trees, within the proposed developable area, except for the areas immediately around the major wetland in the southwest corner of the site and within the area between Lake Riley Boulevard (future Lyman Boulevard) and Lake Riley. • 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - High Density (8 - 16 units per acre net) — lsit lir- A /'fir«y. [:[��C���..i. :i1ti9, \1 ANN `'� ��•r. +- 4,7 Icn�»�racrr�n f �,� �L♦ I PARK r �'rw7 x ■.�iir.G9eFIAs�E- . 1:000 ,,<A,,, \ b .�co�c�r..r.mss- �IE!..p c` 'rj . ThilOill,:•i 2 :a`:r.:`lt,am �.. \� .. J r� � W 1 wu ..r r�!i7/�BRF / { ii iL'�` I OIC ESC 17��11 - 2 ^e aril I=�;i1 .5.s-usllIs �, ,:f: i 11111 1111 ' ! 3 • r• B• VAR.- __ilk Al Ri ii: 1:111 11P'�'_�' .u. .,..:.,. r !!11 permit �� ` .i-w.�i%•s�! ESTATES W4,111'/. �. ' ,.,..„.„,..-...4 . „ . , , I St ! '�,..,-- 'F.;.I_e_�1 n"cM/N PARK ;larlkW Sri _=4 X1\3 ' -MI i� ` m—ao0 PA!rib Orel � i 7 / 11 -1• v PARK a , '�!'r"il 41r 4L,;�RACE z—etoo It km. / / 4cIri i. 4.`" fir•W ti .�rS� y Y s3611ht91:41111 ~ 2 PARK eaoo r° ° IMM 91 % ' off`' �Ao�%� , LAKE SUSAN ,Mgl — mo*ON FT, e •• % iv A OAV A,.' c 1�i'0:�` R/C E M RSH LAKE ,.4.-- / e ,,, s��a,ommoi ��j°'fF ► i ` `� Qr' � 100 PARK --— 1 I- ux.l'_ rF 7 thriri /✓ I 4imiii _ „..ios .• ,,- ,.z .s _ -.4. , asoo i.q_ .il ,:111/1 gs• 11 -Off•?_ ;:-- —s OO -ARA• ” ".":1 ` Id V� �'' =�+/1 J ' :"9B�_ - .._._ 1 161.1M/NO iwillISVIFS — .. tf_i I © ‘1111 ` ei• fI ��� '1 , PIN ' eso ir wip Y/l � �-- - �..0-„, .. : 1 ri 1 4-----i-.-±.4:- ': IT1 `%i .. !'- I 'L7M:. 1��1,�iY�MRr.� EVAR ( . .r.To �l ■ ' 906 . ,...._. N1L�5 y�o/ I I, �� 1 r t �Q/r BINOMFA•F o Qe n�iwr�rs .; —std - 1 / B„vdNfRf r��l�fl igrn„n� i LAKE —s,o / � to✓Auvin Y,�P` r i j'� ! IF RILEY lit . / S ..„4„, / - - l , I 1- 1 .W 0 4i1I1llIøri: 9i i� r`ANNT 2. 1E1,:: ----‹ :�. Slir ....0frilh‘.. *S'• —9 Q .11111rfy "'Sr6,40-11 ILIsai . i - • / 2x2 i i I I l, 4).' 16, /113 1 I �1� -0 �c, i7 IJ /RIC E r /LpKE.�7 l •1 North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant, Rottlund Homes, is proposing a 75 dwelling unit single-family detached project based on a variation of a zero lot line concept. Two housing types, two and one story, are being proposed with attached common open space. All structures will be slab on grade. A total of seven different unit plans are proposed with living areas ranging from 1,300 to 1,600 square fee. Homes will be 24 feet in width with a minimum of 11 feet between houses. Houses will have windows on three sides with one side windowless to provide privacy for adjacent units. Individual lots range from 2,432 to 3,864 square feet with a total lot area of 5.07 acres. Common open space consists of 9.76 acres with an additional 4.81 acres of wetland. Proposed Block 3 will be maintained as common open space and will be brought back under a separate Conditional Use Permit for approval. BACKGROUND The property is currently zoned R12, High Density Residential, which permits townhouses, two family, and multi-family dwelling dwellings or apartments. There are numerous design applications that could be applied in this district including rental apartments and for sale townhouses. However, the district does not permit single-family detached housing. The applicant is proposing a single-family detached project with a PUD, Planned Unit Development, zone. The PUD zone is the only district which permits zero lot line and cluster development. To the east of this project is the Lakeview Hills Apartments which contain 170 dwelling units. The Klinglehutz property west of this property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). In February, 1995, the property was brought in for final plat approval on the Lake Riley Hills subdivision which received preliminary plat approval on February 25, 1991. In order for staff to proceed with the application for Lake Riley Woods, we requested that Klinglehutz submit plans reflecting the following changes: lots that meet the required wetland setbacks and redesign the plat to eliminate the road running immediately north of Lyman Boulevard. Klinglehutz is currently reevaluating their proposed plans. To the south of the project is Lake Riley. This development is within the shoreland district. The property immediately adjacent to the lake will be maintained as common open space and will be brought back for city approval as a beachlot. Basin A is an ag/urban wetland adjacent to the large natural DNR basin located on the northwestern edge of Lake Riley. Portions of the basin were excavated in the past to create some deep water areas. The basin extends via a drainage swale to the east and stops near the easterly property boundary. This basin will be impacted as a result of the development. Staff believes that impacts can be reduced by directing the road around the basin to the property North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 3 line. Staff has reviewed the street access point and believes that due to the close proximity to the existing driveway access for Lakeview Hills Apartments, consideration shall be given for common or joint street access point. The current submittal proposes filling a portion of the wetland to construct the street and Lots 2 and 3. Staff believes that a better alternative would be to continue the street alignment easterly to intersect the existing Lakeview Hills Apartment service drive and have homes single loaded on the west side of the street. This will minimize impacts to the wetland and also increase the stormwater holding pond capacities adjacent to Lyman Boulevard. Coordination between the property owners of Lakeview Hills Apartments will be necessary in order for this to originate. Staff is aware of that the property owner to the east is considering a development potential as well. The applicant should meet with the Lakeview Hills Apartment owners to discuss a joint access street. The relocation of the roadway will significantly alter the proposed plat. In conjunction with the City's Public Improvement Project No. 93-32B, Lyman Boulevard is proposed to be widened. This will impact the plat as shown on this submittal. The applicant has contacted the city engineer regarding the potential realignment of Lyman Boulevard to provide additional room on the north side for stormwater ponding. However, staff has reviewed this alignment change and has concerns with regards to meeting state aid design standards. Lyman Boulevard is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector street. Collector streets have an 80-foot wide right-of-way with a 36-foot wide street section. In addition, an 8-foot wide bituminous trail is proposed along the south side. Lyman Boulevard is designated on the City's Municipal State Aid System and therefore must meet state aid design standards. The city will reconsider the alignment conditioned upon the following items: 1. The right-of-way must remain uniform throughout at 80 feet. This applicant at this time is considering a narrowing down or neck in the right-of-way to minimize conveyance of right-of-way. The city would need to have the right-of-way dedicated prior to finalizing construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. 2. The street design must meet state aid, 35 m.p.h. design standards. Upon review of the proposed layout with this submittal, it appears the alignment does not meet the 35 m.p.h. design standards. 3. The proposed alignment should not add any extra cost to the project, i.e. retaining walls, steep slopes, surcharging, etc. Staff suppots this type of development. It provides another housing alternative in Chanhassen for detached single-family residential houses. It can provide additional protection for the wetland area located north of Lyman Boulevard. Finally, this project provides a transition from the Lakeview Hills Apartments to the single-family residential (RSF) district to the west. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 4 Staff is recommending that the concept be approved at this time with the modifications to the plan and the appropriate conditions, issues and concerns being addressed prior to acting on the preliminary PUD approval and wetland alteration permit. Staff is recommending conceptual approval only due to the issues resulting from staffs recommendation to develop a joint access with the property to the east which will make a significant change to the plat. In addition, staff and the applicant must resolve the issue regarding Lyman Boulevard alignment. We also anticipate that significant reductions in wetland filling will occur with these revisions. Site Characteristics The site has been in agricultural use for many years and is devoid of trees, within the proposed developable area, except for the areas immediately around the major wetland in the southwest corner of the site and within the area between Lake Riley Boulevard (future Lyman Boulevard) and Lake Riley. The site slopes gently from the north central portion of the project with an elevation of approximately 910 feet to Lake Riley with an ordinary high water (OHW) mark of 865.3. An extensive tree canopy area is located along the shore of Lake Riley. Lakeview Hills Apartment complex is located to the east of the site. Land designated for low density residential is located to the west of this property. The Highway 212 corridor borders the project on the north. REZONING Justification for Rezoning to PUD . The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 82.6 acres from A2 to PUD, Planned Unit Development. There are three components to the PUD: industrial/office, multi-family and single family. The following review constitutes our evaluation of the PUD request. The review criteria is taken from the intent section of the PUD Ordinance. Section 20-501. Intent Planned unit developments offer enhanced flexibility to develop a site through the relaxation of most normal zoning district standards. The use of the PUD zoning also allows for a greater variety of uses, internal transfer of density, construction phasing, and a potential for lower development costs. In exchange for this enhanced flexibility, the City has the expectation that the development plan will result in a significantly higher quality and more sensitive proposal than would have been the case with the other more standard zoning districts. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 5 FINDINGS It will be the applicant's responsibility to demonstrate that the City's expectations are to be realized as evaluated against the following criteria: 1. Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, mature trees, creeks, wetlands, lakes and scenic views. Finding. The major site characteristic of this property is the large wetland complex. The wooded area in the south of the site will be maintained as private open space and will largely be left intact. Staff believes that the development, as proposed, excessively impacts the wetland complex in the southern portion of the property. The relocation of the access road to the east would reduce the amount of wetland that needs to be filled. In addition, North Bay Drive through the project should be shifted to the north to pull the housing pads away from the wetland area and allow the building pads to be situated at grade, eliminating the need for much of the grading on Block 2. The shoreland area will be maintained as common open space. 2. More efficient and effective use of land, open space and public facilities through mixing of land uses and assembly and development of land in larger parcels. Finding. The proposed development, through the use of smaller lots and reduced front and perimeter setbacks, is an efficient use of the project site and reduces infrastructure costs. The applicant is proposing a nine plus acre common open space for the future residents of this project including a future beachlot area. A segment of the city's trail system is along Lyman Boulevard. The applicant's sidewalk along North Bay Drive and street will connect into the Klinglehutz development to the west, which is proposed as a neighborhood park. 3. Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city will be encouraged. Finding. Lakeview Hills Apartment complex is located to the east of the site. Land designated for low density residential is located to the west of this property. This project is unique to Chanhassen and will provide a natural transition between the different intensities of use. 4. Development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 6 Finding. The comprehensive plan guides this land for Residential - High Density which permits a net density of 8.0 to 16.0 units per net acre. The proposed development at 5.06 units per net acre is lower than would be permitted in this area. This development provides an alternate housing type as envisioned by Housing Policy No. 8: "The development of alternative types of housing will be considered to supplement conventional single family homes." 5. Parks and open space. The creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. Finding. The development contains a large wetland complex that will be maintained and enhanced as part of this development. While not providing open space for the general public within the confines of this project, the proposal maintains large areas of opLn space for residents of this neighborhood. The Parks and Recreation Commission is recommending that a portion of proposed Block 3 be dedicated to the city as public open space. 6. Provision of housing affordable to all income groups if appropriate with the PUD. Finding. The applicant is proposing a development with housing cost projected to range between $110,000 and $140,000. While these amounts do not represent affordable housing in the strictest sense of the term, which would require housing prices of under $80,000, it does represent a lesser cost housing product than is typicc:Aly found for single-family detached developments in Chanhassen. 7. Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sightings and the clustering of buildings and land uses. Finding. Narrower lot frontages and clustering of units allows for more efficient infrastructure provision and lower development costs per unit. 8. Use of traffic management and design techniques to reduce the potential for traffic conflicts. Improvements to area roads and intersections may be required as appropriate. Finding. The use of curvilinear streets tends to reduce vehicular speeds. Staff is recommending that the access to the site utilize a common access with the Lakeview Hills Apartment property to the west with a separate intersection off that road into this development. This will reduce the number of connecting streets to Lyman Boulevard which is designated as a collector street in the city's comprehensive plan. The North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 7 applicant shall provide the necessary right-of-way for the upgrading of Lyman Boulevard. North Bay Drive will also connect this development with the Klinglehutz development to the west. A sidewalk is being required along one side of North Bay Drive to facilitate pedestrian traffic reducing vehicular and pedestrian conflicts. Summary of Rezoning to PUD Rezoning the property to PUD provides the applicant with flexibility, but allows the city to request additional improvements and the site's unique features can be better protected. The flexibility in standards allows the disturbed areas to be further removed from the unique features of the site. In return for the flexibility, the city is receiving: Development that is consistent with Comprehensive Plan. Preservation of desirable site characteristics (wetlands, water quality in lake, trees, topographical features) through the creation of common open space. Sensitive development in transitional areas. More efficient use of land. GENERAL SITE PLAN/ARCHITECTURE The applicant, Rottlund Homes, is proposing a 75 dwelling unit single-family detached project based on a variation of a zero lot line concept. Two housing types, two and one story, are being proposed with attached common open space. All structures will be slab on grade. a total of seven different unit plans are proposed with living areas ranging from 1,300 to 1,600 square fee. Homes will be 24 feet in width with a minimum of 11 feet between houses. Houses will have windows on three sides with one side windowless to provide privacy for adjacent units. Individual lots range from 2,432 to 3,864 square feet with a total lot area of 5.07 acres. Common open space of 9.76 acres is being proposed with an additional 4.81 acres of wetland. It should be noted that only a portion of this common space is usuable for recreational activities. However, much of it will be revegetated with trees. Exterior materials consist of brick accent, vinyl lap and shake siding, asphalt roofing, and a mix of rectangular and arched window systems. Building elevations which vary through the use of single- and two-story structures, option "bonus" rooms over garages, variation of garage orientation, option front porches, and a 30 percent offset form the street for cottages. Brick (Gray Copperfield and Ohio Limestone) and roofing (Crestwood Shadow - Shale) colors will be consistent throughout the project. A pallet of three colors for siding (Cape Cod Gray, Antique Parchment, and Platinum Gray), three colors for shakes (Antique Linen, Desert Tan, and Sterling Gray), and two colors for trim, soffit, and facia (Ivory Shell and Special White) are being proposed. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 8 SITE PLAN FINDINGS In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: (1) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; (2) Consistency with this division; (3) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas; (4) Creation of a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; (5) Creation of functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and general community; b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and d. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (6) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 9 and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: Conceptually, this development creates a harmonious and functional project. However, the revisions recommended by staff will improve the protection of natural features and lead to development that is environmentally friendlier, consistent with the comprehensive plan and city code. WETLANDS A full wetland report has not been received by the City at the time of drafting this report. There are five wetland basins on the property and they are described as follows: Basin A is an ag/urban wetland adjacent to the large natural DNR basin located on the north western edge of Lake Riley. Portions of the basin were excavated in the past to create some deep water areas. The basin extends via a drainage swale to the east and stops near the easterly property boundary. This basin will be impacted as a result of the development. Staff thinks that impacts can be reduced by directing the road around the basin to the property line. A discussion later in the report on road alignment and unit location follows. Basin B is an ag/urban wetland located in the northeast corner of the property. Most of the wetland lies on the property to the east. Portions of the basin were excavated in the past and it appears that there was a great deal of disturbance to the area since there are vegetated mounds all around it. This wetland, however, is more diverse in vegetation than some ag/urban basins. The basin will not be impacted as a result of the development. Basin C is an ag/urban wetland located in the northwest corner of the property. Most of the wetland lies on the property to the north which is the future road right-of-way for Highway 212. A swale extends south of this basin to Basin A along the road alignment. Since it appears that this road created the drainage swale, this portion of the wetland is exempt from wetland permits. Basin C will not be impacted as a result of the development, however, the swale will be removed. Basin D and E are ag/urban wetlands located in the new Lake Riley Boulevard road alignment. It is suggested that both of these wetlands be removed with the road alignment shifted to the south. This will create more area to the north of the road for a regional stormwater pond. The City would handle the wetland permitting since this would be part of the road project. A second alternative would be to keep the road alignment to the north where it avoids most of Basins D and E. The regional stormwater pond would then be located to the north and possibly south of the road. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 10 Buffer Strip The buffer strip width required for ag/urban wetlands is 0 to 20 feet with a minimum average width of 10 feet. The principal structure setback is 40 feet measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip. All lots shall meet the buffer strip setbacks. Currently, Lots 1 and 6, Block 2 and Lot 24, Block 1, do not meet the wetland buffer and structure setbacks. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) The City has adopted a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) that serves as a tool to protect, preserve and enhance water resources. The plan identifies, from a regional perspective, the storm water quantity and quality improvements necessary to allow future development to take place and minimize its impact to downstream water bodies. In general, the water quantity portion of the plan uses a 100-year design storm interval for ponding and a 10-year design storm interval for storm sewer piping. The water quality portion of the plan uses William Walker, Jr.'s Pondnet model for predicting phosphorus concentrations in shallow water bodies. An ultimate conditions model has been developed at each drainage area based on the projected future land use, and therefore, different sets of improvements under full development were analyzed to determine the optimum phosphorus reduction in priority water bodies. Stone Water Quality Fees The SWMP has established a water quality connection charge for each new subdivision based on land use. Dedication shall be equal to the cost of land and pond volume needed for treatment of the phosphorus load leaving the site. The requirement for cash in lieu of land and pond construction shall be based upon a schedule in accordance with the prescribed land use zoning. Values are calculated using market values of land in the City of Chanhassen plus a value of$2.50 per cubic yard for excavation of the pond. Since the water quality basin for this site is already in place these fees will be charged according to the volume of ponding needed for the site. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of$1,530/acre for multi- family residential developments. Credits will be given to the applicant for providing water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. Storm Water Quantity Fee The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average city-wide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single family residential developments will have a connection charge of $2,975 per developable acre. The total gross area of the property is 22.4 acres; however North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 11 approximately 5.3 acres is wetland. Therefore, the proposed development would then be responsible for approximately 17.1 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $50,873. The developable area will vary depending on the ultimate impacts and mitigation area to wetlands. DRAINAGE The site is part of a large drainage area that drains south and west into the large wetland (Basin A). The site is approximately 22 acres and the parcel to the east is approximately 23 acres giving a cumulative drainage area of over 45 acres. Prior to discharge into the wetland, the runoff needs to be pretreated for phosphorus retention of 35 to 50 percent. The stormwater ponding area should be designed to treat the runoff from the entire drainage area and the City will credit the applicant for land, excavation costs, and oversizing of the hydraulic system. Some of the storm sewer laterals may need to be oversized to accommodate future runoff from the site to the east. The applicant shall also pick up the existing storm sewer line coming from the parcel to the east and tie it into the storm sewer system. The City is working on a SWMP water quality project that involves Basin A and the natural wetland to the west. The water table of the wetlands will be raised in order to provide more storage for treatment. Staff will continue to discuss these plans with the applicant as the plat progresses. GRADING A majority of the site is proposed to be graded for the lots and streets. Staff believes that Lots 1 through 12, Block 2 could be adjusted northerly to minimize impact to the large wetlands and trees. Also, grading in the backyards of Lots 26 through 38, Block 1 should be revised to drain southerly around the structures and out to the street rather than along the rear lots and eventually out to future Trunk Highway 212 as proposed. This would be inconsistent with the existing neighborhood drainage pattern. Site grading in general will need to be compatible with the future upgrading and widening of Lyman Boulevard. In addition, drainage patterns from the adjacent parcels should be incorporated into the developments overall improvements. All berming shall be located outside of the City's right-of-way. No site grading except for the trail (by the City) is proposed on Lot 1, Block 3. This lot does contain a number of significant oaks that apparently will be left intact. The applicant's engineering should incorporate emergency overflows in the low points along the street system. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 12 EROSION CONTROL An erosion control plan has been incorporated on the grading and development plan and submitted to the city for review and approval. Staff recommends that Type 3 erosion control fence be used around all of the wetlands. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, shall be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. UTILITIES. Municipal utilities are proposed to be extended along Lyman Boulevard as a part of the City's public improvement project (No. 93-32B). The project is tentatively scheduled to begin in the fall or next spring (1996). This project is dependent on the utilities being extended to the site. Without these utilities, this development should be considered premature. The development proposes both public and private infrastructure systems. The utility system should be designed and constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of the Standards Specifications and Detail Plates. Final construction plans and specifications will be required for review by City staff and formal approval by the City Council. The applicant will also be required to enter into a PUD/Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and compliance with the conditions of approval. Currently, the City has an existing sanitary sewer line located in the northeast corner of the site. This line runs south parallel to the east lot line to approximately where Lots 19 and 20, Block 1 are located. The line then proceeds easterly and serves the Lakeview Hills Apartments. This line will need to be abandoned or relocated prior to this area being developed. The developer may do a phased approach whereby they retain existing utility service in this area and develop the southerly portion of the site. The utility easement may be vacated once alternative sewer service has been provided to Lakeview Hills Apartments. In addition, a storm sewer line has also been extended from Lakeview Hills Apartments and discharges in the proximity of Lots 9 and 10, Block 1. The applicant is proposing to relocate the storm sewer line and incorporate it into the site's overall development. STREETS In conjunction with the City's Public Improvement Project No. 93-32B, Lyman Boulevard is proposed to be widened. This will impact the plat as shown on this submittal. The applicant has contacted the city engineer regarding the potential realignment of Lyman Boulevard to provide additional room on the north side for stormwater ponding. However, staff has reviewed this alignment change and has concerns with regards to meeting state aid design standards. Lyman Boulevard is classified in the City's Comprehensive Plan as a collector North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 13 street. Collector streets have an 80-foot wide right-of-way with a 36-foot wide street section. In addition, an 8-foot wide bituminous trail is proposed along the south side. Lyman Boulevard is designated on the City's Municipal State Aid System and therefore must meet state aid design standards. The City will reconsider the alignment conditioned upon the following items: 1. The right-of-way must remain uniform throughout at 80 feet. This applicant at this time is considering a narrowing down or neck in the right-of-way to minimize conveyance of right-of-way. The City would need to have the right-of-way dedicated prior to finalizing construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. 2. The street design must meet state aid, 35 m.p.h. design standards. Upon review of the proposed layout with this submittal, it appears the alignment does not meet the 35 m.p.h. design standards. 3. The proposed alignment should not add any extra cost to the project, i.e. retaining walls, steep slopes, surcharging, etc. The interior public street system as proposed meets the City's right-of-way and street design standards. The private streets will be required to meet the City's private street ordinance. Detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates will be required to be submitted to City staff for review and formal approval by the City Council. Staff has reviewed the street access point and believes that due to the close proximity to the existing driveway access for Lakeview Hills Apartments, consideration shall be given for common or joint street access point. The current submittal proposes filling a portion of the wetland to construct the street and Lots 2 and 3. Staff believes that a better alternative would be to continue the street alignment easterly to intersect the existing Lakeview Hills Apartment service drive and have homes single loaded on the west side of the street. This will minimize impacts to the wetland and also increase the stormwater holding pond capacities adjacent to Lyman Boulevard. Coordination between the property owners of Lakeview Hills Apartments will be necessary in order for this to originate. Staff is aware of that the property owner to the east is considering a development potential as well. The applicant should meet with the Lakeview Hills Apartment owners to discuss a joint access street. LANDSCAPING/TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has performed the required tree canopy calculations for the development. A baseline canopy coverage of 11 percent (1.78 Acres) is estimated. Code requires a minimum canopy area of 15 percent (2.43 acres). Therefore, a forestation area of 0.65 acres is required North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 14 which equates to 26 trees. The applicant proposes the removal of 0.43 acres of canopy area. Code requires a replacement area of 1.2 times the amount of required canopy being removed. The applicant must provide 0.516 acres of replacement planting or 21 trees. At a minimum, 47 trees would be required for this development. The applicant proposes the planting of 90 overstory trees, 103 ornamentals, and 29 evergreens as part of this development, which exceeds minimum quantity requirements. The applicant is proposing an extensive landscape buffer between this development and the property to the east. Staff has the following recommendations regarding the landscaping plan: • provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings • provide additional landscape screening south of Lot 1, Block 1 • revegetate the area behind Lots 6-11, Block 2, with central hardwood species which would expand the forested area adjacent to Basin B • increase the number of evergreens to 20 percent of the tree plantings PARKS AND RECREATION The Parks and Recreation met on May 9, 1995 to review this development. The commission recommended that the city council require the following conditions of approval for the proposed Norah Bay PUD in regard to parks and trails: 1. Dedication of the westerly portion of Block 3. This dedication is generally described as lying west of the trail easement at the point where it is perpendicular to Lake Riley Boulevard. This dedication to be a condition of the granting of planned unit development status. 2. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance. As a part of a PUD, it is the applicant's responsibility to meet certain criteria. These criteria include: - Parks and open space—the creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. The Comprehensive Park Plan identifies this area of the city as park deficient. The city is attempting to negotiate the acquisition of a neighborhood park of no less than North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 15 five acres in an adjoining conceptual plat referred to as Lake Riley Hills (Klingelhutz). The future of this submittal is uncertain. The commission's recommendation to require the dedication of a portion of Block 3 is directly attributable to this criteria. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council grant conceptual approval of PUD #95-1 with the following conditions, issues, concerns and recommendations:. 1. A ten foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, NW Bell, cable television, transformer boxes. This is to insure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 2. Fire hydrant changes: a) Add one fire hydrant at the intersection of Lyman Blvd. and the new proposed street (near lot 1). b) Add one fire hydrant at the intersection by lot 43. c) Relocate the current hydrant between lots 46 and 47 to between lot 47 and the trail. d) Relocate the current hydrant from between lots 36 and 37 to between lots 33 and 34. 3. Submit street names for review and approval. 4. Submit turning radius of cul-de-sac to Fire Marshal for review and approval. 5. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 6. Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings. This should be done prior to final plat approval. 7. Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits. 8. Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 16 9. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the property. 10. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands. 11. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. 12. 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 accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. 13. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. 14. The ...pplicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 15. The applicant will meet wetland rules and regulations as stated in Corps of Engineers section 404 permit, the State Wetland Conservation Act, and the City's Wetland Ordinance. Mitigation work shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with wetland fill activity in all phases of the project. Impacts resulting from sanitary sewer installation shall be provided to staff as an amendment to the replacement plan application. 16. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 17 Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. 17. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of the ponding areas. 18. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. 19. The lowest exposed floor or opening elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands shall be a minimum of 3 feet above the 100-year high water level. 20. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. 21. The proposed single-family residential development of 17.1 developable acres is responsible for a water quantity connection charge of$50,873. These fees are payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 23. Site grading shall be compatible with the future widening and of upgrading of Lyman Boulevard and also with existing drainage characteristics from the adjacent parcels. 24. Existing sanitary sewer located in the northeast portion of the site will need to be relocated prior to development of the area. 25. Lyman Boulevard alignment may be further refined conditioned upon the following: a. The right-of-way must remain uniform throughout at 80 feet. This applicant at this time is considering a narrowing down or neck in the right-of-way to minimize conveyance of right-of-way. The City would need to have the right- of-way dedicated prior to finalizing construction plans for Lyman Boulevard. b. The street design must meet state aid, 35 m.p.h. design standards. Upon review of the proposed layout with this submittal, it appears the alignment does not meet the 35 m.p.h. design standards. North Bay PUD 95-1, SP 95-9, WAP 95-3 May 9, 1995 Page 18 c. The proposed alignment should not add any extra cost to the project, i.e. retaining walls, steep slopes, surcharging, etc. 26. The applicant shall meet with the Lakeview Hills Apartment property owners to discuss a common street access along the easterly property line of the site. The currently submittal of the roadway alignment is not acceptable due to the impacts to the wetlands. 27. Lots 1 through 12, Block 2 shall be adjusted northerly to minimize impact to the large wetlands and trees. This also requires the realignment of North Bay Drive through the site. 28. Revise the landscaping plan to provide upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings; provide additional landscape screening south of Lot 1, Block 1; revegetate the area behind Lots 6-11, Block 2, with central hardwood species which would expand the forested area adjacent to Basin B; and increase the number of evergreens to 20 percent of the tree plantings. 29. Dedication of the westerly portion of Block 3. This dedication is generally described as lying west of the trail easement at the point where it is perpendicular to Lake Riley Boulevard. This dedication to be a condition of the granting of planned unit development status. 30. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance." ATTACHMENTS 1 Development Review Application 2. Memo from Steve Kirchman to Bob Generous dated 5/8/95 3. Letter from David Mitchell to Charles Folch dated 4/28/95 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT:7i; Fc. fji,vct ('l'✓Lfitii„y I Ott- OWNER: e1QN/i S Ade- bi/dGG1fL ADDRESS: 2-1'1' I Le74,:1 LeerADDRESS: /4-/I - /it t CJ77 ? 1 i i((,e. 1 initirr€ li e/O 'm/j%1, /1///i/ TELEPHONE (Day time) /.'''Y% TELEPHONE: - 43o E5 - 1. X Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 11. X Vacation of ROW/Easements ,•^z ltiacs a t (.i la/ /74- 2. 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance CCP 3. Interim Use Permit 13. n Wetland Alteration Permit -* 2-. - `"- 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. 1 v Planned Unit Development YI7',�C, 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning - L c) 7. Sign Permits att 8. Sign Plan Review k Notification Signs I rte, 9. � Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost"' $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. X Subdivision Ce F i 1 a\ 4'I�t i '� TOTAL FEE $ C'Z'`� tL r «' 1--)1� 3 sys A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must Included with the application. Twenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted. 8'k" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract PROJECT NAME kel ext.) cy Ncv t\ bX LOCATION —c� ' IE'N �Cl(��GG�t�<� /g kr! e bt'e t ,,,t (.-C/ Lt.i i [ LEGAL DESCRIPTION A �"T 16 ke ( 6-71 pre i i ill, i z J C(rim nil f"iyc it PRESENT ZONING J '� REQUESTED ZONING f PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION r�`'`�1 !'I�((.t� (J I� �'] i-� ��crl• I(� REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION7ihtirtax I ((hi f REASON FOR THIS REQUEST TL cd-1 I(?� L{;161, gf/ ..0(,1 J I, REASON ('S Y I lt�1f a' u'1 tt? titfJ Ct Silt ivdd(l1C 5 ofih Z�- 1 a ve,vd t' ��Gt( >r �''�%t' c I is ' This application must be completed in full and be type'vritten or clearly printed/and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either 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 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand 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 best of my knowledge. I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. /e � t i0_`5/6/11.,,e„:64:),(„„, nature of A ' licant4%irid ev' Date SrrSignature of Fee Owner , Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. 1:IRP-1_-19' 15:5 FPOH 4:10 1:H6= HH TO 99271575 P.02 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT:—ML L il1eiIli/./4411, /ktri , f 1/4___T OWNFR ADDRESS: 1-601 j !l xADDRESS:/ /i - /-6 ? 2 17e7viriR , h111406/1'a ��c .��,.4� 575-7,3 TELEPHONE (Day time) 6.?7(i- /cTELEPHONE:58)69e3 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment k� 11. )( Vacation of ROW/Easements t jo-,1 2. Conditional Use Permit 12. Variance 3. Interim Use Permit 13. X Wetland Alteration Permit 4. Non-conforming Use Permit 14. Zoning Appeal 5. Planned Unit Development ,7,5--z) 15. Zoning Ordinance Amendment 6. Rezoning 7. Sign Permits 8. Sign Plan Review X Notification Signs I -- 9. 9. Site Plan Review X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" -roc, $100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP $400 Minor SUB/Metes & Bounds 10. Subdivision TOTAL FEE $ A list of 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. 81/2" X 11" Reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract HF'F' 1_-1990. 1S:S: FF'011 1-*:i0 HH€€- HH To 99_716 P. PROJECT NAME F1i fiteanm' ICY OA LOCATION L akz f--t l eiq 5e' �e zG''�� vfy 1�N 1 ie J. ec.t o f cj L r/ L4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A , C at . Fr' t Y1G, C' •n PRESENT ZONING 1A9 (` 'f REQUESTED ZONING ru I? PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION Este 11kJ 11 REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION fs1et1G REASON FOR THIS REQUEST -ro Cd-lit ?- Z_46 ai�ui,!9 "Civ6 Y J .ett9ctit. !1 W/7`tl G vake sf v 5 d Waif s vvh.,4i atlo sr 156v u v T is application must be completed in full and be ty written or clearly prints and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any natter pertaining Io this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either 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 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with tlw study. The documents and Information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 1 also understand that atter the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be invalid unless they are recorded against the title to the property for which the approval/permit is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records. iz//0.5- Signature of iicant Ze,, 2 Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Receives on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 1i MEMORANDUM TO: Bob Generous, Planner II FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official /1 j,_, DATE: May 8, 1995 "[ SUBJECT: 95-1 PUD, 95-9 SPR & 95-3 WAP (North Bay, Rottlund Companies, Inc . ) I was asked to review the proposed subdivision plans stamped "CITY OF CHANHASSEN, RECEIVED, APR 17 1995, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT. " for the above referenced project . Analysis: Elevations. Proposed lowest floor level elevations, top of foundation elevations and garage floor elevations are required in order to insure adequate plan review by the Public Safety and Engineering Departments . Dwelling Type. The proposed type of dwelling designations are necessary to enable the Inspections Division, Planning Department and Engineering Department to perform a satisfactory plan review of the structure at the time of building permit issuance. Standard designations (FLO or RLO, R, SE, SEWO, TU, WO) must be used for proposed dwelling types . These standard designations lessen the chance for errors during the plan review process . I have included the 1993 memo which lists and explains these designations . Soils Report. In addition, a soils report showing details and locations of house pads and verifying suitability of natural and fill soil is required for plan review purposes . Street Names . In order to avoid conflicts and confusion, street names, public and private, must be reviewed by the Public Safety Department . Proposed street names are not included with the Bob Generous May 8, 1995 Page 2 submitted documents . The public street shown aligned predominantly north-south should be given an east designation in its name. Recommendations: 1 . Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval . 2 . Revise the Grading and Drainage Plan to show standard designations for dwellings . This should be done prior to final plat approval . 3 . Submit soils report to the Inspections Division. This should be done prior to issuance of any building permits . 4 . Submit proposed street names to the Public Safety Department, Inspections Division for review prior to final plat approval . 5 . Obtain demolition permits . This should be done prior to any grading on the property. enclosure: 1/29/93 Dwelling Type Designation memo • g:\safety\sak\memos\plan\nrthbay.bgl t� CITY OF ,?.• ,t ,. - J ClIANIIASSEN' \-:. .14' ; eV:- ... s. .i' ' ` ,.; 690 COULTER DRIVE • PD. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 . (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORAN P UM TO: Inspections, Planning, & Engineering Staff FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official DATE: January 29, 1993 SUBJ: Dwelling Type Designation We have been requesting on site plan reviews that the developer designate the type of dwelling that is acceptable on each proposed lot in a new development. I thought perhaps it might be helpful to staff to explain and diagram these designations and the reasoning behind the requirements. FLO or RLO Designates Front Lookout or Rear Lookout. This includes dwellings with tic basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Fatly. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4'below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. SL3'O Designates Split Entry Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. WO Designates Walk Out This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8'below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. ill . SE SEWO 1, WO F/ Lo la � � - — _— orRLO 1 Inspections staff uses these designations when reviewing plans which are then passed to the engineering staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. n P4, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Srr chelen April 28, 1995 =G Mayeron& Associates,Inc. 300 Park Place East 5775 Wayzata Boulevard Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. Minneapolis,MN 55416-1228 Director of Public Works/City Engineer 612-595-5775 City of Chanhassen FAX 595-5774 5 P. O. Box 147 Engineers Architects 690 Coulter Drive Planners Chanhassen, MN 55317 Surveyors Re: Review of Preliminary Plat Property ID No. 25-0136300 Proposed Right-of-Way Design & and Utility Improvements along Lyman Boulevard (Lake Riley Boulevard) RECEIVED . Lake Riley Area Trunk Utility Improvements: Phase II City Project No. 93-32B MAY.`(° 0 ` 7995 OSM Project No. 5183.00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Dear Charles: We have reviewed the preliminary grading plan and preliminary site & utility plan for the above Adelman/Rottlund property and offer the following comments as they relate to City Project No. 93-32B: 1. The developer's proposed horizontal alignment of Lake Riley Boulevard indicates a 30 mph design. OSM's design for Lyman Boulevard is 35 mph minimum, with 40 mph being the desired design speed. The horizontal alignment currently proposed on the City project through this property does not exceed the 35 mph design speed. 2. The developer's proposed vertical alignment, as indicated on the preliminary grading plan, does not reflect our"proposed vertical alignment for Lake Riley Boulevard. Our proposed profile indicates a centerline elevation of 873 to 877 (see attached profile for this property), the developers profile indicates an elevation of approximately 870. Our proposed elevation meets State Aid Standards for roadway design adjacent to DNR wetlands. 3. The proposed street width for Lake Riley Boulevard through this property on the City project is 48 feet. The developer's preliminary plans are consistent with this width. However,the preliminary plat indicates a Right-of-Way width of 60 feet. This is not consistent with City standards which require a Right-of-Way width of 80 feet for this area. A Right-of-Way width of 60 feet provides 5.33 feet of boulevard behind each curb. This is inadequate for proper maintenance of the roadway and does not provide sufficient space for possible future appurtenances to the roadway such as lighting, streetscapes, or walks. 4. The City and the developer should review the possibility of combining the access to this development with the access to Lakeview Hills Apartments. The current proposal by the developer creates an intersection with Lake Riley Boulevard that is approximately 200 feet from the existing driveway to Lakeview Hills Apartments. H:\5l83 OO\CIVIL\CORR6\M2195.CP Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Charles Folch, P.E. Director of Public Works City of Chanhassen April 28, 1995 Page 2 Each access has the potential to generate a significant amount of traffic. This combined with the anticipated traffic on Lake Riley Boulevard, and the horizontal curvature at this location, creates a very undesirable traffic flow situation. The City ordinances may address this situation too. 5. The 8-inch watermain along the proposed interior dedicated City street should be changed to a 12-inch watermain. This change would be consistent with the City of Chanhassen's Comprehensive Water Supply and Distribution Plan. 6. Alignment of the trail & utility easement is preferred along the proposed roadway. This alignment is consistent with the remainder of Lyman Boulevard and provides for efficient trail maintenance. If the City desires, a second trail could be installed by the developer that would access the proposed open space in the development between Lake Riley Boulevard and Lake Riley. Ownership and maintenance would be by the developer similar to other trails proposed in the development. 7. Invert elevation of the developers proposed sanitary sewer manhole at Lake Riley Boulevard should be 863.00. If the proposed intersection is relocated to the east, then the developer should contact our office to coordinate a new invert elevation. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 595-5699 or Wayne Houle at 595-5736. Sincerely, ORR-SCHELEN-MAYERON & ASSOCIATES, INC. I 44 ajOi, 1, 'gr. David D. Mitchell, PE Project Manager Enclosure c: David Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, City of Chanhassen Kate Aanenson, City Planner, City of Chanhassen Wayne Houle, OSM Project Engineer wh/nm/ce H:\5183.00\Cf VIL\CORRFS\D42S95•CF s w m m • 2 O D D O b 0 $-r m i ati ` y�-y� 240.00 co IY►Tp1-I,ME'{.'�i.iilA.SMt {TA71011- - , : -- t • \;4 'Y.j-rE-1.-f'T�; 111 - ___ y�-yi.. •• •ATTOt-216156— y6~ «1 " telO25 4". j� r 'film \ \I� a✓2 : a e , R 7 C•• 72' 2 \ 'ink 9 h ---t- .. � •o �E \i MPi i \ \ o N. — : 4--i : --i-----1----: -........, RA v.," %.‘.IL Is qii.f• - ,. .. �\2— ;y =.:Pra 40_111 _ 1 1 6. $;� '.77.1p,,...,4 � ` . 8 € :v '. li • -01127 c'T.E ii'P •aG r- °STAs5a1 :^E •'E. t: ti R. T �`\ 1 zr� .+n : i • I. U _ 71....N ;stator—4-4=—...;.. , 1 r i ,„`^m 2 O • .-. -.o .. ...yT:e:.elY:T2 i ' i P I C r ---t" r 1 �� , l i i p m T C 12 IN 0 i i r. •„.:_............,._ : . i� -M i A_____,__ _. : : _ :), : : , ‘ ...,..zz,t...:- i . ,•... k _.•4p...... i I i '' ... I.. ‘: j ... _ • e 8-610 CONCRETE _ -_ 'fig•-^- ;::// CURB 6 CUTTER Y ', 1 L 1 . N 1.. r- : rr n 2 'I a vim..'7�''.” 41, , 1 s P.:.. ,1 . ;STROON 7B.W4: ^.y i;a s ' f�.,.. T.Q. B!S• ` '•.Tt - 1 ]]] c: ,5 1 - : ", —STATI0.2 .OB- •- l I N �e - 0 • T.e..BBS. Ts... ..... i y ue, e`�:T s�� • En ' 1 s ee 1. . 1c II �...__ - - -f•i 1152 3d a rev... .. : • -2:..g08 - 1 i le . ;•.c... ._.... bIM .... ` sTA771M$1....;. o. l .Z 9 ' :_:_: - m _—_ r. : E ..... r _ - g-.or-sr? �x I�µyy,M:� n a... ...... ... ....:.. ... - �� f •Nmn r • - r_.Sej......«.i..__—......-.__._...p.____—.._______.-.. a �9 z m m 0 - r v n Nb .. bbbm a O O 6.zi g O O O O O O O n ll, P- PO Orr ST(RY SE MER 6 STREET CUISTRUCTIRI '• tet' K5� i °"r 1050.15a Sehelen LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK �n 11. le.rr A.Teron 6 T E PHASE 2 r i (BliA.•ocl.le..Inc. UTILITY IIPROVEIEN S ^-+w-� 0.1.1•r IUM Engine....arcbillects•Es .S. CITY PROJECT NO. 93-328 ••^• •. a„,,.e,;, 1•••••,•I•..n...Gator ..666 r.6.w CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA -- , '^ ...53.6.1..u2.5 5.5 mm m m m m .o v o o 0 0 O 0 0 g r- trim tae' 11321E20'STATORS"ssseoo ia 1 ; / ` RT icew,s ! € °' $TSTJ I.;utlo... i 0 • F .•. t.C..1E1iN _ - -_,-.C. , :. : /It i i 1 41; .....- __;dr ,h S `Fa i _--s Cl1►;tc 1 . ... • ----4_- �I �_.r STAI`ib11'33: •47.. wHy trsi:�>tl,.k:; ...: .... = i I / ` -.- t / � - q e,, _ E ; , ,y.,1 ._ ...„:„,,,r,i, 1:-.1: /),,.:-Is'f!-: '�' T - i �1 : _ IL STATION ..0n'M. ac .. , a\ A' 6i € Z 1 1€11 A' r• 1 O is , rf C o -a _ _.-..�Wl6 \ \ \\\lam \\ 'o ++c+.... S At�,W 2Y1.¢p... o r•� \oA. 0 g. i . ...... .:. . 1 \ 4 Y . \\ . : j I i„,--01\ .. \ r- ..%,\ ' 11 i' "telwrr- m ii es--'— :suricn:KSS 1 \ ss !�+1..1,s..r.TS;os 37 .i` a 13 =i �, coons. ETI 1 .rt g .... m -.. ....STATION 2XMs... • w . T.C . S1!y , ' _ . 1 y •tl . 1 . -.- ' - _ --.— du " * f_.—_ _ 1 I pp I : -- N 1 r m \ star ON 40• $ /I+ I; _ t ............. . . T.G.172: ;/ d i. ` i114 ..`. �1 +/ a 1 IAATG)LRE: ?.STATION.2111.00• -g �; II. • I: .... . . ... .... • • y m CO 0t Co 4 m mm .a O b m O Q O O O O o 0N 0. Orr STORY SEUER 6 STREET CONSTRUCTION F. N CB�Y ch I. LAKE RILEY AREA TRUNK """'01• w..nF .. \� �•^-•,p O. A.oU.Les.Inc. UTILITY 3I 'ROYEIENTS t PHASE 2 a� [Aunt...A.ak I.cI .PI •s....<L.. C 1 TY PRO.IECT N0. 93-32B «.,. .. «. .••... v ..r...n...C...«.Nm..r«.....w.... :MGM cm.R w� CHANHASSEN. MINNESOTA - - ..� 0 °Ara':I Rk'E 0.6200 �.`�It� MARE O --_1- , r � _ LAKE W—__ ' 0 S trot ! PARK , ,..\ 8300 IKE SUSAN 11 �, "4 ► J NOTICE OF PUBLIC •.': et , R/CE M RSH LAKE HEARING 1 t ,,� ` , -- . . PLANNING COMMISSION ��7-� _. . . ___. ____14.=4_—°° .h SYT ..j.� .:: . 6600 MEETING E78T7 . .� ,, . ::4-4,THWednesday, MAY 17, 1995 '�,'- POSE :7 I °,� = at 7:00 p.m. " 6666 \ 46•W" City Hall Council Chambers ,If»-� 6900 690 Coulter Drive r MI fl,,, ne.,,.1- .11__1,____J � 9000 moi= `5 ATIO Project: North Bay 1 ' r L 9,00 Developer: Rottlund Company, Inc. a.. m.?, ! ,I;,n rmat' . LAKE . coM r r�c — —9 SO0 Location: Lake Riley Boulevard, on the """ 4. 14E, RILEY Zj`_ 9400 north side of Lake Riley 0 I' - Notice: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a development proposed in your area. The applicant is proposing a Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to subdivide 46.57 acres into 85 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of-way; site plan review for 83 single family detached zero-lot-line homes on 19.95 acres; and a wetland alteration permit on property located on Lake Riley Boulevard, on the north side of Lake Riley, North Bay, Rottlund Company, Inc. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the developer's request and-to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Commission Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an over view of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses project. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council. Questions or Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Bob at 937-1900, ext. 141. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 4, 1995. ** THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION WILL BE REVIEWING THIS ITEM ON TUESDAY, MAY 9, 1995 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL463,_, CHAMBERS. - t1 PAUL ZAKARIASEN JEFF P NELSON DALE KUTTER 600 WEST 94TH STREET 300 DEERFOOT TRAIL 301 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT D REBERTUS MR. KENT RAMLIDEN CHRISTINE MCGRATH 320 DEERFOOT TRAIL 321 DEERFOOT TRAIL 331 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55331 MS. PAMELA N. GUYER STEVEN SEKELY DANIEL/JEAN CHRISTENSEN 340 DEERFOOT TRAIL 341 DEERFOOT TRAIL 360 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 SCOTT WIRTH KEVIN SHARKEY RICHARD MADORE 361 DEERFOOT TRAIL 380 DEERFOOT TRAIL 381 DEERFOOT TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL TERRY MR. WILLIAM JANSEN WILLIAM STOKKE 400 DEERFOOT TRAIL 240 EASTWOOD COURT 241 EASTWOOD COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WILLIAM HENAK STEVEN SHIPLEY WILLIAM HENAK ALLERS 280 EASTWOOD COURT 261 EASTWOOD COURT 280 EASTWOOD COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 WENDELL SCHOTT JAMES DINGEL ARLIS OLSON 7034 RED CEDAR COVE 720 VOGELSBURG TRAIL 9370 FOXFORD ROAD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 THOMAS E ANDERSON MR. DONALD B. DEAL STEVEN P. MCMEEN 9371 FOXFORD ROAD 9390 FOXFORD ROAD 9391 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOEL N MEYER DOUGLAS RYNDA JOEL MEYER 9410 FOXFORD ROAD 9411 FOXFORD ROAD 9410 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 KENNETH POTTS ROBERT MCCARGAR WAYNE KINION 9431 FOXFORD ROAD 9450 FOXFORD ROAD 9451 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JOANN BROWN-LEE/JOHN LEE JAMES LOFFLER MR. RICHARD LAMETTRY 9470 FOXFORD ROAD 9471 FOXFORD ROAD 9490 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 HAROLD SIEVERS DENNIS MILLS MR. DUANE D. HOFF 9491 FOXFORD ROAD 9510 FOXFORD ROAD 9511 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RICHARD J CHADWICK JOHN ANDERSON WILLIAM O'NEIL 420 LYMAN BLVD 8654 CHAN HILLS DR NO 9550 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEVEN MCCLINTICK THOMAS JESSEN MICHAEL WISE 9551 FOXFORD ROAD 9570 FOXFORD ROAD 9571 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DAVID WONDRA GEORGE T MCCLURE PAUL J MARTIN 9590 FOXFORD ROAD 9591 FOXFORD ROAD 9610 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT SCHOEWE DOUGLAS DUCHON DAVID GATTO 9611 FOXFORD ROAD 9630 FOXFORD ROAD 9631 FOXFORD ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DANIEL WHALEN PETER PEMRICK ELDON L. BERKLAND 9650 FOXFORD ROAD 9251 KIOWA TRAIL 9261 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RONALD J. FRIGSTAD BARRY BERSHOW JAMIE HEILICHER 9270 KIOWA TRAIL 9271 KIOWA TRAIL 9280 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CRAIG HALVERSON CRAIG HALVERSON CITY OF CHANHASSEN 9283 KIOWA TRAIL 9283 KIOWA TRAIL 690 COULTER DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MR. STEVEN A. WILLIAMS FREDERICK AMRHEIN MR. SCOTT A. BABCOCK 9291 KIOWA TRAIL 9350 KIOWA TRAIL 8570 MAGNOLIA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 APT. 112 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 PETER C. LILLIE JAMES E SLOSS RICHARD BLUMENSTEIN 9355 KIOWA TRAIL 9360 KIOWA TRAIL 9361 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 DENNIS M LEFLER RAYMOND BRANDT JOHN BELL 9366 KIOWA TRAIL 9370 KIOWA TRAIL 9371 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ARTHUR HALL WILLIAM BERNHJELM MARK MOKSNES 9376 KIOWA TRAIL 9380 KIOWA TRAIL 9381 KIOWA TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 ROBERT L. EICKHOLT JOYCE E. KING PRINCE R NELSON 9390 KIOWA TRAIL 9391 KIOWA TRAIL 7801 AUDUBON ROAD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TERRY MARTIN LAKEVIEW HILLS RANDI BOYER 9411 KIOWA TRAIL 8800 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9005 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 BEN SWENSON NORMAN JR GRANT DELBERT SMITH 9015 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9021 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9051 LAKE RILEY BLVD P 0 BOX 129 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 RAY LEWIS ROBERT H. PETERSON JAMES L. TONJES 9071 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9101 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9111 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JACK HUNGELMANN JOHN GOULETT RICHARD OLIN 9117 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9119 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9125 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JIM HENDRICKSON ALAN DIRKS MR. LELAND G. SAPP 9131 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9223 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD C/O CERIDIAN EMPLOYER SER CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 5354 PARKDALE DRIVE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55416 CURTIS KRIER GREG HASTINGS DENNIS BAKER 9211 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9217 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9219 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 EUNICE KOTTKE ALAN DIRKS GEORGE DEWITT 9221 LAKE RILEY BLVD. 9223 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD 3127 SE 4TH STREET CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414 RON YTZEN FREDERICK POTTHOFF JOHN W. ARDOYNO 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 PAUL OLSON JOY A. SMITH LUCILLE REMUS 9239 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9243 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9245 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 JAMES F. JESSUP DONALD W SITTER STEVE BURKE 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD 9591 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MATTHEW TRILL BILL PREDOVICH RICHARD P VOGEL 9610 MEADOWLARK LANE 9611 MEADOWLARK LANE 105 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MR. MICHAEL D. WISTRAND MICHAEL MONK STEVE/CHARLOTTE ZUMBUSCH 9670 MEADOWLARK LANE 9761 MEADOWLARK LANE 9700 MEADOWLARK LANE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MICHAEL REILLY PARAG DESAI NEIL A KLINGELHUTZ 2305 INDIAN RIDGE DR 9691 PORTAL DR 9731 MEADOWLARK LANE GLENVIEW, IL 60025 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 MARK DANIELSON DAVID R ERICKSON MAGDY EBRAHIM 9751 MEADOWLARK LANE 520 PINEVIEW COURT 521 PINEVIEW COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHARLES FRAZER RICHARD ASPLIN ROGER NOVOTNY 540 PINEVIEW COURT 541 PINEVIEW COURT 560 PINEVIEW COURT CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 STEPHEN WHITEHILL RICHARD VOGEL DAVID 0 HANSEN 7001 DAKOTA AVENUE 105 PIONEER TRAIL 108 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 CAROL GRAY 50 PIONEER TRAIL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Klingelhutz Development Co. Lakeview Hills Investment Co. Brenda Schaeffer 350 East Highway 212 3025 Harbor Lane 27306 County Road A Chaska, MN 55318 Plymouth, MN 55447 Spooner, WI 54801 Kimberly Jones & Joseph & Gayle Hautman Beverly A. Fielder Staffond Nelson 8551 Tigua Lane 8521 Tigua Lane 8571 Tigua Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Metro Waste Control Comm. Mears Park Centre 230 5th Street East St. Paul, MN 55101 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 'J. (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Robert Generous, Planner II FROM: Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Director 7, DATE: May 10, 1995 SUBJ: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development, North Bay, Rottlund Company, Inc. The Chanhassen Park & Recreation Commission reviewed the aforementioned submittal on May 9, 1995. Don Jenson of The Rottlund Company was present at this meeting. A copy of the staff report prepared for the commission is attached. Upon listening to the comments of Mr. Jenson and reacting to the staff report, the commission made the following recommend^tion: "Commissioner Lash moved, Commissioner Huffman seconded to recommend that the city council require the following conditions of approval for the proposed North Bay PUD in regard to parks and trails: 1. Dedication of the westerly portion of Block 3. This dedication is generally described as lying west of the trail easement at the point where it is perpendicular to Lake Riley Boulevard. This dedication to be a condition of the granting of planned unit development status. 2. Payment of full park and trail fees per city ordinance." As a part of a PUD, it is the applicant's responsibility to meet certain criteria. These criteria include: Parks and open space—the creation of public open space may be required by the city. Such park and open space shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Park Plan and overall trail plan. The Comprehensive Park Plan identifies this area of the city as park deficient. The city is attempting to negotiate the acquisition of a neighborhood park of no less than Mr. Robert Generous May 10, 1995 Page 2 five acres in an adjoining conceptual plat referred to as Lake Riley Hills (Klingelhutz). The future of this submittal is uncertain. The commission's recommendation to require the dedication of a portion of Block 3 is directly attributable to this criteria. c: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director Don Jenson, Rottlund Companies Park & Recreation Commission PRC DATE: May 9, 1995 (p C i TY O F PC DATE: May 19, 1995 ISL CC DATE: June 12, 1995 UAUAE N HOFFMAN:k STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Conceptual and Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to rezone 24.85 acres from R12, High Density Residential to PUD, Planned Unit Development; preliminary plat to subdivide 46.57 acres into 85 lots, 2 outlots and associated right-of- way; site plan review for 83 single family detached zero-lot-line homes on 19.95 acres and a wetland alteration permit, North Bay V LOCATION: On Lake Riley Boulevard, north side of Lake Riley a_ APPLICANT: Mr. Don Jensen CL Rottlund Company, Inc. 2681 Long Lake Road Roseville, MN 55113 (612) 638-0500 PRESENT ZONING: R-12, High Density Residential ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: N - Proposed Hwy. 212 right-of-way • S - Lake Riley E - R12, Apartments W - RSF, Residential Single Family Q COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN: The neighborhood park needs of this proposed development are to be met by a future 5 acre park site. This new neighborhood 0 park is currently being required from the adjoining proposed plat to the west - Klingelhutz Lake Riley Hills. The Lake Riley Hills W acquisition is proposed as a 50%+ park dedication/50%+ cash sale arrangement. (f) COMPREHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: Lake Riley Boulevard is identified as a trail alignment. An appropriate corridor has been identified as a part of this plat. Construction will occur in the future by others. The applicant has shown an interior trail loop system. North Bay tfav 9. 1995 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION PARKS It is recommended that full park dedication fees be collected per city ordinance. These fees are in lieu of land dedication. TRAILS It is recommended that full trail fees be collected per city ordinance. These fees are in lieu of trail construction. Trail easements shall be dedicated as depicted on the proposed plat. Interior trail loop system to be constructed by the applicant. 1 urn' 'RL ►YUi I 3 icC; CC C- CITY CF ‘2. ,, 1 CHANHASSEN ,,,,„_;.„6.1„ ,,,,,., ,L, 7,,, ` •c 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: May 8, 1995 SUBJ: Wetland Regulatory Simplification I am pleased to inform the planning commission that the City of Chanhassen has been selected as one of the pilot local governments to implement a general permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act for impacting less than three acres of wetland. The City will also continue to administer the State Wetland Conservation Act. The Section 404 permit is usually issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, but the federal and state agencies involved with wetland legislation are trying this program in order to provide "one-stop shopping" for wetland permit applications. The permit is scheduled to take effect on June 1, 1995. A training session will be offered in May to provide the City with the information and resources to make this initiative successful. Attached is some additional information on the program. Chanhassen was chosen as a pilot local government because of the strong efforts to implement local wetland and surface water management plans and ordinances. This program will be an added service to the public and private sector working in this community. If the pilot program proves successful it may be implemented among all local governments with the appropriate plans and ordinances. Attachments g:\engldianelwetlandslgp I7pc.mem : MEMORANDUM Date: April 21, 1995 ` "4?C' BNi�td & � To: Local Government Units Approved for <.' itbWater � Resources General Permit 17 (see attached list) WEI-Mgt P Pr_ From: John Jaschke Wetland Management Speciali One West Water Street Suite 200 St. Paul,MN 55107 Subject: GENERAL PERMIT 17: (612)296-3767 WETLAND REGULATORY SIMPLIFICATION Fax (612)297-5615 Field Offices Northern Region: Your local government unit has been selected as one of the pilot local 394 5. Lake Avenue governments to implement General Permit 17 (GP-17) which provides "one-stop- Room 403 shopping" for persons impacting less than three acres of wetland. Under GP-17, Duluth, MN 55802 receipt of a local government replacement plan approval via the Wetland (218) 723-4752 b Conservation Actprocedures means landowners no longer have to also get Fax (218) 723-4794 Section 404 approval or permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This 3217 Bemidji Avenue N. General Permit is a major step towards achieving significant wetland regulatory Bemidji,MN 56601 simplification in Minnesota. This opportunity for local governments to (218) 755-4235 Fax (218) 7554201 administer wetland protection regulations on a state-wide programmatic basis -- in lieu of the Federal 404 Program -- is the first in the nation to transfer federal 217 S. 7th Street authority to local governments on a broad basis. Although implementation of Suite 202 Brainerd, MN 56401-3660 GP-17 will reduce duplication of effort, it also translates into a high degree of (218)828-2383 responsibility for all of you to do a good job and show the benefits this Fax (218)828-6036 arrangement can provide in terms of cost-efficiencies and improved public Southern Region: service. Highway 15 S. Box 756 GP-17 will be signed shortly and is scheduled to take effect on June 1, New Ulm,MN 56073 1995. We will be sponsoring a training session sometime in mid-May to provide (507)359-6074 Fax (507)359-6018 you with the information and resources to make this initiative successful. Robyn Molina will be contacting you shortly to select a date. 40-16th Street SE Suite A Rochester, MN 55904 As an incentive to make this regulatory simplification initiative a (507) 285-7458 workable reality, the Board of Water and Soil Resources is prepared to provide Fax (507) 280-2875 you with an additional grant through the Natural Resources Block Grant Program Box 267 if additional effort is made on the part of your local government to achieve true 1400 E. Lyon Street regulatory simplification. Details of the grant will be forthcoming at or before Marshall,MN 56258 the May training session. (507) 537-6060 Fax (507) 537-6368 Please call me at (612)297-3432 if you have any questions. Metro Region: One West Water Street attch. Suite 250 St. Paul,MN 55107 (612) 282-9969 c: Ron Harnack, Executive Director Fax(612) 297-5615 Greg Larson, Administrator, Water and Land Section Wayne Zellmer, Grants Coordinator An equal opportunity employer Robyn Molina, Land and Water Section Secretary Board Conservationists Printed on recycled paper Interagency Wetland Group a:gp17.jj GP-17-MN ATTACHMENT B GP-17-MN Applicants/Selected Local Government Units page 1 of 2 Mr. Jack Wimmer Stearns County Administration Center, Room 343 705 Courthouse Square St. Cloud, MN 56303 612-656-3613 FAX 656-6130 Mr. John Sumption Wetlands Act Administrator Cass County Courthouse P.O. Box 3000 Walker, MN 56484 218-547-3300 FAX 547-2440 Ms. Linda Meschke Water Plan Coordinator Martin County Room 102 210 Lake Avenue Fairmont, MN 56031 507-238-3221 FAX 238-3259 Mr. Gerry Wind Environmental Engineer City of Lakeville P.O. Box 957 Lakeville, MN 55044 612-469-4431 FAX 469-3815 Mr. Clifton Aichinger Administrator Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District 1902 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 612-777-3665 FAX 777-6307 Mr. Dan Money Kittson Water Plan Coordinator Kittson Soil and Water Conservation District P.O. Box 185 Hallock, MN 56728 218-843-3333 Mr. Tim Kelly District Administrator Coon Creek Watershed District 12301 Central Avenue NE Suite 100 Blaine, MN 55434 612-755-0975 FAX 755-0283 GP-17-MN Applicants/Selected Local Government Units page 2 of 2 Mr. Doug Easthouse Lake of the Woods Soil and Water Conservation District P.O. Box 217 Baudette, MN 56623 218-634-2757 FAX 634-3067 Mr. Brad Grant Becker County Soil and Water Conservation District 809 8th Street SE Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 218-847-2651 Mr. Keith Pohl Crow Wing County 5122 NE C Street Brainerd, MN 56401 218-828-7880 Ms. Diane Desotelle, P.E. City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 612-937-1900 x156 FAX 937-5739 Mr. Roger Berggren Mille Lacs County Soil and Water Conservation District 560 125th Avenue SW P.O. Box 7 Milaca, MN 56353 612-983-2154 Ms. Ann Perry Director of Planning City of Minnetonka 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 612-939-8200 FAX 939-8244 Mr. John M. Klaers City Planner/Zoning Director City of Hermantown 5255 Maple Grove Road Hermantown, MN 55811 • 218-729-6331 FAX 729-9860 Ms. Helen McLennan District Manager Morrison Soil and Water Conservation District Route 4, Ag Service Center Little Falls, MN 56345 612-632-6606 FAX 632-3344 APR 1 9 1995 10 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT 416:0 4: Permittee The General Public in Minnesota 44r44-p,, it Permit No. GP-17-MN } Effective Date June 1, 1995 St. Paul District Issuing Office U. S. Army Corps of Engineers NOTE The term 'you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer. The general public in CERTAIN AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW in Minnesota is authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below. Project Description: The general public in the State of Minnesota is authorized, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, to conduct certain discharges of dredged or fill materials, as described below, into waters of the United States, including wetlands, provided the projects which involve the discharges are regulated and approved by a local government unit (LGU) as designated pursuant to the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (MN Rules Part 8420.0510 to 8420.0630) and as identified in Attachment B of this permit. Note that not all LGUs in Minnesota are designated to participate in this general permit. IMPORTANT: This general permit is valid ONLY in the LGU areas designated in Attachment B. Further, this general permit is valid ONLY for WCA-approved projects that include activities which involve draining or filling NOT MORE THAN 3 (three) acres of existing water/wetland area. Also, this general permit is valid for projects which involve excavation or inundation up to a 3 total acres (including any filling or draining) of wetland that are regulated by local government ordinances which are consistent with the permit evaluation procedures the Wetland Conservation Act requires for draining and filling. CAUTION: Not all activities that involve a discharge of dredged or fill material are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act or are eligible for authorization under this general permit. Further, in some cases, certain restrictions or requirements apply. Carefully note all of the exclusions, limitations, and conditions described below. Project Locatiom All waters of the United States, including wetlands, in the State of Minnesota that are subject to the jurisdiction of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, except the specific areas excluded below. EXCLUSIONS: The following discharges of dredged or fill material are NOT AUTHORIZED by this general permit: 1. WCA EXEMPTIONS. Activities which are exempted, or not regulated, by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (note Attachment A—WCA exemptions), or not regulated by the local government unit by ordinances consistent with the procedures of the Wetland Conservation Act 2. CALCAREOUS FENS: Activities within, or in wetlands adjacent to and within 1,000 feet.of, a.c Icareous fen as identified by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in Minnesota Rule Chapter 7050. 3. CERTAIN WETLANDS IN CULTIVATED 1FllLDS: Wetlands in a cultivated field, as defined in MN Rule 8420.0100, Subd. 53, unless evidence of compliance with Minnesota Rule 8420.0520, subpart 1, items A through E, is provided. ENG FORM 1721, Nov 86 EDITION OF SEP 82 IS OBSOLETE (33 CFR 320-330) 4. OTHER AUTHORIZATION DENIED: Activities which are denied any required local, State, or Federal authorization. This general permit is not valid for any project unless and until all other required authorizations are granted. 5. FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES: No activity is authorized under this general permit which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or a species proposed for such designation, as identified under the Federal Endangered Species Act, or which is likely to destroy or adversely modify the critical habitat of such species. Non-Federal permittees shall notify the District Engineer if any listed species or critical habitat might be affected or is in the vicinity of the project, and shall not begin work on the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the Endangered Species Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Should the District become aware through contact with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or other means, that a project may jeopardi7r a species as described above, the District will advise the applicant that the project may not be eligible for authorization by the general permit. Consultation procedures, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act will be initiated by the District. 6. HISTORIC PROPERTIES: No activity which may affect historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places is authorized under this general permit until the District Engineer has complied with the provisions of 33 CFR 325, Appendix C. The prospective permittee must notify the District Engineer if the authorized activity may affect any historic properties listed, determined to be eligible, or which the prospective permittee has reason to believe may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and shall not begin the activity until notified by the District Engineer that the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act have been satisfied and that the activity is authorized. Should the District become aware, through contact with the Minnesota State Historical Society, or other means, that a project may affect historical properties as described above, the District will advise the applicant that the project may not be eligible for authorization by the general permit. Consultation procedures, pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act will be initiated by the District. In addition, if the prospective permittee discovers any previously unknown historic or archaeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit, the permittee must immediately notify this office of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 7. Projects which the Corps believes would result in more than minimal impacts or which could result in unacceptable cumulative impacts are not authorized by this general permit. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. SPECIAL WATERS/WETLAND AREAS: Activities in, or in wetlands adjacent to and within 1,000 feet of, any of the following areas are NOT authorized under this permit UNLESS AND UNTIL the project proponent obtains a project- specific water quality certification, under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency- Outstanding Resource Value Waters as designated in Minnesota Rules, chapter 7050. 2 WETLANDS ADJACENT TO CERTAIN LAKES AND LARGER WETLANDS: This GP does not authorize any activity that would result in draining and/or filling more than 1/2 acre of wetland within a shoreland area as defined in Minnesota Rule Chapter 6120. PERMIT GENERAL CONDMONS: 1. The permittee must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. 2 If a conditioned Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification has been issued for your project,you must comply with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions of this permit. 3. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit. 4. The permittee shall utilize best management practices on the project site to minimize the potential for adverse impacts associated with erosion and sedimentation. 2 5. Violations of State or local regulations on projects subject to this general permit will be enforced through procedures in the Wetland Conservation Act or local ordinance. However, the St. Paul District shall retain the right to enforce all applicable laws and regulations pertaining to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, independent of any enforcement actions pursued by the LGU. 6. The St. Paul District shall retain the final authority to determine the extent of jurisdictional wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Further Information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: ( ) Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). (X) Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). ( ) Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413). 2. limits of this authorization. a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal project. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following. a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest. c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit. d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work. e. Damage claims associated with any future modification, suspension, or revocation of this permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data: The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided. 5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (See 4 above). c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. 3 Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost. This permit will become effective on June 1, 1995, after the Federal official, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below. This permit is valid for 5 (five) years, unless it is sooner revoked, modified, or reissued; however, project- specific authorizations granted under this permit remain effective as long as they are in compliance with all of the conditions and provisions of this permit or until revoked or suspended by the District Engineer. (DISTRICT EN, E (DATE) JAME Colonel, Co -.4Engineers District Engineer 4 GP-17-MN ATTACHMENT A MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT (WCA) EXEMPTIONS NOTE: This is a summary. Refer to the WCA and/or implementing regulations, or contact your LGU, for a more comprehensive description of WCA exemptions. 1.) Wetlands that have been cropped at least 6 of the 10 years prior to 1/1/'91. 2.) Areas enrolled in the Federal Crop Reserve Program that have been cropped at least 6 of 10 years. 3.) Drainage system maintenance and repair work that does not affect wetlands that have existed for more than 20 years. 4.) Activities in wetlands which have received a commenced drainage determination by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. 5.) Certain activities exempted from Corps Section 404 regulation arc also exempted by the WCA_ Such activities do not require either Corps or WCA authorization. 6.) Activities authorized under Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14 (except new roads), 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 25. 7.) Type 1 wetlands on agricultural land. Refer to the WCA definition of agricultural land. 8.) Type 2 wetlands less than 2 acres in size on agricultural land. 9.) Wetlands restored under a contract that allows drainage. 10.) 'Accidental' wetlands formed by beavers, culvert blockage, and government-approved projects. 11.) Utility Line placement which impacts less than 0.5 acre of wetland/water area. 12.) Utility line maintenance projects. 13.) Interstate pipeline projects. 14.) Temporary roads constructed for forestry activities. 15.) Permanent roads constructed for forestry activities. 16.) Public road maintenance work 17.) Public works projects which do not drain or fill wetlands. 18.) Private structural projects which do not drain or fill wetlands. 19.) Duck Blinds. 20.) Aquaculture activities that are authorized by the Corps of Engineers. 21.) Wild rice production projects that are authorized by the Corps of Engineers. 22.) Weed and pest control that does not drain or fill wetlands_ 23.) Activities on land enrolled in the Federal Farm Program. 24.) Development projects approved between 7/1/86 and 1/1/92. 25.) Projects that impact less than 400 square feet of wetland. MEMORANDUM CITY OF SSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 •FAX (612) 937-5739 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Planning Director DATE: May 10, 1995 SUBJ: Affordable Life Cycle Housing Please finj_:`rached a summary of the Opening Doors to Affordable/Life Cycle Housing Data, March 1993. I have provided this document for your review. The first part of the document is how the information will be used. For Chanhassen, this has significance when a MUSA extension is requested. Life -Cycle Housing is a goal of the new Regional Blueprint. The Executive Summary and Subregional Picture gives an overview of housing issues. This document defines affordable housing as defined by the Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Affordable is costing less than 30% of a household's income. In this report it is an income of S?0,000 in 1990. Using the 30% guideline, this means homes valued at $60,000 or less or rental units with a gross rent of $500 a month is considered affordable. Pages 7-15 compare communities on rental and owner occupied units. Chanhassen has: • 5% to 13% households with income below $20,000 and paying more than 30% of income for housing, ® 33% to 50% rental units with gross rent less than $500 0 5% or less owner occupied units valued at less than $60,000 • under 20% renter occupied units built before 1960 under 250/!o owner occupied units built before 1960 Affordable Housing May 10, 1995 Page 2 Life Cycle housing refers to availability of housing for people at all stages of their lives. The report looked at a distribution of single family housing. In Chanhassen there is: • 75% to 90% single family detached housing • 20% up to 33% married couples with no children under 18 present • 3% up to 6% single parent families with children • 15% up to 25% non-family households • 30% or more households headed by person age 35-44 • under 5% households headed by persons age 75 or older The next section ranks estimated affordable housing at $20,000 income level in 1990, Chanhassen: • ranked 138 in affordable units • had 8% total units affordable • 296 total affordable units • 245 units with gross rental under $500 • 51 uwner occupied units under $60,000 Part II of the study uses a different standard of affordable housing. This definition looks at median family income, which is higher than household income. The following factors were looked at: • percent of undeveloped land • jobs and labor force ratio • homestead valuation - less than $72,000 • publicily assisted housing and federal assisted rent • gross rent under $500 • housing diversity % not single family detached • % 65 years and older • multi-family housing density What all this means for Chanhassen is that the city ranks towards the top (26) in job growth and land availaibility (9). The city ranks low in housing diversity and affordable housing to low incomes. What this docoment points out is how the Metropolitan Council will evaluate cities for meeting the goals of the Regional Blueprint. Chanhassen should be looking at diversifying its housing stock. Remember the date on this report is from the 1990 census. Affordable Housing May 10, 1995 Page 3 Since 1990-1994, the city has added 120 units of single family attached housing. While these units do not meet the lower income affordability standard, some units meet the moderate income standards. The city is working to diversify its housing stock. The affordability issue is more challenging for the city to address. Finally, Appendix B outlines ideas that communities can do to provide affordable housing and life cycle housing. Things such as reducing lot size, road widths, etc. do not sigificantly reduce the cost of housing. Opening Doors To Affordable/Life-Cycle Housing: Baseline Data March 1995 Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. 5th St., St. Paul, MN55101 612 291-6359 Publication No.78-95-013 This report was printed on recycled paper containing at least 10 percent postconsumer waste Upon request,this report will be made available in alternative formats for people with disabilities Please call the Metropolitan Council Data Center at 291-8140 or TDD 291-0904. About This Report This report contains information about the supply and demand for existing, affordable owner- and renter-occupied housing and life-cycle housing for the Twin Cities region as a whole. Part One of the report identifies the demand and distribution of affordable and life-cycle housing in the region and the demographic and other factors that will influence demand in the future. This section of the report contains a ranking of all the communities in the region based on the amount of affordable housing each community contains using a Council staff estimate drawn from 1990 census information. Part Two contains data from the census and some other more current sources. The section has a number of tables comparing communities by Council planning areas and geographic sectors. It is the Council's initial effort to gather data that is most useful to local governments because it will help local governments understand their needs in relation to other, similar communities. Finally, the report offers a check list of steps communities might take to increase the amount of affordable and life-cycle housing in their community (See Appendix B). This report is intended as a tool local governments can use to understand their needs and evaluate their city's housing in the context of other communities and the region as a whole. It can also establish a basis for local government actions on life-cycle and affordable housing. The Council also has developed a more detailed census profile of each community. Length precludes publishing them in this report, but they will be made available upon request to each community (See Appendix C for a sample of data items). This report is the first step in fulfilling a Council Regional Blueprint commitment to address the demand for affordable and life-cycle housing (See Appendix A for an excerpt of key Blueprint housing policies). Three other Council reports address the general housing issue. They are: Housing Policy for the 1990s, Trouble at the Core, and Keeping the Twin Cities Vital. 1 Significance to Local Governments The Council's Regional Blueprint underscores a role for government in focusing attention on the housing needs of people most in need of assistance. This report is the first step in an ongoing planning process aimed at making more affordable and life-cycle housing available. The income and housing cost amounts used in this report to rank communities should not be interpreted as the Council's definition of affordable housing, nor as representing local goals for affordable housing. The Council will work with local governments to achieve more affordable and • life-cycle housing in the region. As part of that process, the Council will develop measurable guidelines indicating the Council's expectations for actions communities should take to increase the availability of affordable and life-cycle housing. These guidelines will recognize differing local circumstances. The Council will encourage cities to review their land use and development regulations as well as their access to housing programs and resources. For this regional comparison the Council selected homes valued at $60,000 in 1990 and rents of under $500 a month in 1990 for two reasons. First, the data is available for all 189 communities in the region, thereby making it possible to establish the comparative ranking. Second, the $60,000 value and $500 a month rental figures are affordable by a household earning $20,000 a year. This income level is roughly 50 percent of the average household income in the region as measured by the 1990 census. People at this income level have difficulty finding adequate housing. The Next Steps This report is the first step in a series of actions the Council will take to carry out the direction it has spelled out in its Regional Blueprint. 1. The Council will update and maintain this data base, and encourage communities to update this information so the data base is as current as possible. 2. The Council will use the information in this report to work with local officials to help facilitate the availability of affordable and life-cycle housing. 3. The Council will initiate a public process to develop criteria the Council will take into consideration as it conducts its review responsibilities for community comprehensive plans and makes decisions on regional investments. The criteria will be developed through a Council task force made up of affected parties and Council members. The task force is preparing a handbook to aid in the implementation of the Regional Blueprint. The public process will involve developing review criteria for the following Council activities: • Reviewing the housing elements of local comprehensive plans. • Setting priorities for regional investments, such as sewer service or road improvements. • Creating housing incentives for discretionary funding, such as portions of funds from the 2 federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. 4. As the Council conducts the above reviews, it will negotiate agreements with local governments involving local commitments to provide affordable/life-cycle housing. • 3 { Executive Summary The Regional Picture This report ranks all the region's cities based on the amount of"affordable" housing available in each city. Cities are also compared with cities in the same geographic part of the region or in the same Metropolitan Council "policy area" The report contains information cities can use to assess their current housing situation and 1,1! identify opportunities to provide affordable and life-cycle housing. 1 • A large number of Twin Cities households pay too much for rent About 125,000 households } (16 percent of the households in the region) pay more than 30 percent of their income for } housing (in 1990). Some 75,000 of the households live in Minneapolis or St Paul, and make up } 25 percent of all the households in the two cities, fi 1111 • Affordable housing is both a "backyard" issue in nearly every community and a regional issue. Nearly every city in the region has a significant number of lower-income households paying too much for housing. };i • Affordable rental units tend to be concentrated. Newly developing suburbs have the fewest affordable rental units. Units are most heavily concentrated in Minneapolis, St. Paul and in 1 ` Freestanding Growth Centers. { • Affordable owner-occupied housing tends to be concentrated in the two central cities as well. Some suburban communities have a fairly high percentage. Others, particularly in the south and southwest parts of the region, have less than 10 percent in the affordable price range. • The newer developing suburbs as a whole have relatively little affordable housing. While they have land available, they have high land and development costs, as well as increasingly limited subsidies and complexity in creating housing for lower-income households. • Most of the older housing is located in Minneapolis and St. Paul, along with a few older suburbs. Over 50 percent of the rental units, and 80 percent of the owner-occupied units, are 30 years old or more. In the developing suburbs 20 percent of the owner and 9 percent of the renter housing is 30 years old or more. • The demand for housing alternatives (life-cycle housing) is likely to increase. However, in more than 60 cities and townships, over 90 percent of the housing stock consists of single-family detached housing. The Subregional Picture • There is considerable variation in housing costs across the planning areas. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, 67 percent of the monthly rents are less than S500. This figure is 45 percent in the 4 fully developed suburbs; and about 35 percent in the developing area (See Figure 12). • There is also considerable variation in housing diversity among the planning areas. Over one half of the central cities housing is rental. It is over one third in the fully developing suburbs; and less than one fourth in the developing area. • The developing area has a land reservoir. This area has 84 percent of the region's vacant, developable land (in 1990), compared with 2 to 5 percent in the other planning areas within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). • There is more affordable housing in "sectors" in the northern part of the region, less in the southern (See Figure 13). • Most new jobs will locate in the developing area. This area will receive 64 percent of the job growth in the 1990s. • More than 40 percent of the job growth in the region is expected to occur in the sectors south and southwest of Minneapolis. This base line inventory is the first step in reaching a goal of more affordable housing in the region. The Council will work in partnership with communities toward this end. The Council will also develop criteria by which to assess community efforts to achieve affordable housing through its review of local comprehensive plans and its priority setting for regional investments. 5 { Part One: The Regional Picture Defining Affordable and Life-Cycle Housing What is "affordable" housing? The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development defines "affordable" as housing costing less than 30 percent of a household's income. In Part One of this report, affordable housing is defined as housing a household with an income of$20,000 annually could afford in 1990. Using the 30 percent guideline, this means homes valued at $60,000 or less, or rental units with a gross rent of$500 a month This report focuses on households with low incomes. The report uses income data current as of the 1990 census, because much of the data in this report comes from the 1990 census. The median household income for the region in 1989 (from the 1990 census) was $36,678. A household income of$20,000, slightly more than half of the 1989 median, is used in Part One of this report. This income level was also used in the Council's 1994 Housing Policy for the 1990s report. Twenty-two percent of the region's households had an income of$20,000 or less in 1989. What is life-cycle housing? It's a term the Council and others use to refer to the availability of housing for people at all stages of their lives. Communities that have a wide variety of housing types and prices are in a good position to meet peoples' changing needs as their incomes and circumstances change. For example, because of their household composition and income, people in their 20s are more likely to live in smaller quarters and are less likely to commit to ownership than are those in their 30s and 40s, who are likely to occupy larger family homes. Those in their 50s or 60s with grown families may want to return to smaller quarters with fewer maintenance obligations. The Demand and Supply of Affordable Housing This section presents and analyses data at the regional level in the following categories: • Housing cost burden—households paying more than 30 to 50 percent of their income for housing (rental and owner-occupied). • Supply of affordable housing. • Age of housing stock. EE Housing Cost Burden In 1990 there were 207,407 households in the region with an income of less than $20,000 (approximately 55 percent of the median). Of these low income households, 124,878 (60 percent) paid more than 30 percent of their income for housing. In total, this is 16 percent of all households in the region. 6 t f Table 1. _a Percent of Households With Income of Less Than $20,000 and Paying 30 Percent or More of Income For Housing By Income and Owner/Renter Status t)i } Income Less Income Income 17f Than $20,000: Less Than $10,000 To Region Total $10,000 $19,999 Renters Number 95,846' 48,323 47,523 Percent 73%' 77% 69% Owners Number 29,032 13,495 15,537 Percent 38% 54% 31% :i Total Number 124,878 61,818 63,060 Percent 60% 70% 53% •iI - ( Percent of Total 16% 8% 8% j Households in Region .l ! 1 Source: 1990 Census • Explanation: 95,846 renter households have an income of less than $20,000 and pay more than 30 percent of their income for gross rent. That is 73 percent of all renter households with an income of less than $20,000. Figure 1 shows the percent of households that had incomes below $20,000 and paid more than 30 1 percent of their income for housing. Minneapolis and St. Paul each have approximately 25 percent of their households in this category. This amounts to a total of 75,782 households or 60 1 percent of the region totaL However, this is not just a central city problem. With few exceptions, each community in the region has a significant percent of its households with incomes below $20,000 and paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing. The fully developed suburbs, such as West St. Paul, St. Anthony and Hopkins, have a considerable number of these households. However, the rapidly developing suburbs, such as Eagan, Minnetonka, Eden Prairie, Blaine and Apple Valley, also have a meaningful number of households in this situation (See Table 8A &B). 7 Figure 1 Households With Income Below $20,000 and Paying More Than 30% of Income for Housing 4 . • Percent of Total Households ' [' Under 5% I 1-_-_I5% up t0 13% ` 13% up to 19°/O , ` ,_ 41111" _, I t , 19% up to 25% '` , II 25% or more - -.- .L L ''SkC�' '......1.,,,!,..,`,.f- --.!.-'•,- . L- I 1 ti 1 t - `.. .1- I 4 Iale ' 0, j ` •c -f y _ j' , --r , -t:; I _ , - _ r 1 .r. / 1 1 .. S�Mq.,..1„X .o �I I - ,_,, c: j ; I- , 1 -- _L_ - r r , J -,I , yi • 4'i , I -- 1. 1 ..—..jeir,> ...v ,� j j t 1 I son The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 16% ISource: 1990 Census t 8 Supply of Affordable Housing it Rental Units Census data is available for gross rent levels (including utilities) for 0 to $299 and $300 to $499. A monthly gross rent of$500 would require 30 percent of an annual income of$20,000. With an income of$12,000, a household could afford only $300 per month in gross rent. Across the region over one-half of all rental units have a gross rent of less than $500. Table 2. Rental Units Affordable To Lower-Income Households Percent Of All Rental Units - 1990 Gross Rent Gross Rent Total Gross Rent Tess Than $300 $300 To $499 Less Than $500 Number 37,106 112,434 149,540 Percent* 13 40 53 * Percent of total Rental Units Source: 1990 Census i' While this supply of units seems to meet the number of households, many of these affordable units are not occupied by lower-income households. The supply problem is most acute for the '. lowest income households. These affordable rental units are highly concentrated in Minneapolis and St Paul and in the freestanding growth centers such as Farmington, Hastings and Forest Lake (see Figure 2). Many rapidly developing suburbs, such as Eden Prairie (11 percent), Maple Grove (4 percent) and Woodbury (15 percent) have a significantly lower percentage of their rental units with rents affordable to lower-income households. Owner-Occupied Units At an interest rate of 9 percent, a household with an income of$20,000 can qualify for a mortgage of approximately $52,0001. Due to limitations in the data available, this report uses values of less than $60,000 as "affordable" by lower-income households. Data in this section and accompanying map differ from the data printed in Appendix C "Sample Community Profile." The "Owner-Occupied Units by Value" census data excludes mobile homes and most townhouses and condominiums. In this section, all owner-occupied mobile homes (89.4 percent) have been included. Also included is an estimate of owner-occupied condominiums. For 1 Source: Fannie Mae l 9 Figure 2 Rental Units With Gross Rent Less Than $500 - V Percent of Total Renter Occupied Units n Under 25% ' 1i t ❑ 25% up to 33% x ` 33% up to 50% 50% up to 65% in ill 11111_ U 65% or more ,, 4 -- - I- ' : '- it ., - `: J F � - I ' f , - - 4 t Mr P -. Iia E rt' I I - 1 3 F _ �E-'-f, # I i /i a : .f i ,1 _ i ,A a I I , r l __ 111 The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 53%. Source: 1990 Census 10 details of how this estimate was derived, see introduction to Table 6. Across the region 75,500 units (14 percent) of all owner-occupied units had a value below $60,000. Figure 3 shows the percent of owner-occupied housing valued at less than $60,000 for each community. The higher concentrations of affordable, owner-occupied units tend to be in Minneapolis and St Paul. The two cities combined had 33,191 units at this value, or 44 percent of the regional total. Many rural cities and townships have a relatively high percent of their owner- ' occupied housing valued at less than $60,000. Some developing cities, such as Blaine (27 percent) and Chaska (31 percent), have a high percentage of owner-occupied housing that is affordable to lower-income households. Many developing cities, particularly in western and southwestern Hennepin County, have less than 10 percent of their owner-occupied housing at this low value. Some fully developed suburbs, such as Golden Valley and Falcon Heights, also have a low percentage of lower cost owner-occupied Ihousing. Age of Housing Stock , i Housing older than 30 years is more likely to need major repair or rehabilitation. For the entire region, 35 percent of renter-occupied housing and 46 percent of owner-occupied housing was constructed prior to 1960. Table 3 shows the number and percent of housing built by time periods. I ' i Table 3. Year of Housing Construction -Twin Cities Region Units Built Built Built Built Built Built Before 1940- 1950- 1960- 1970- 1980- 1940 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 •Renter- Number 58,239 14,165 25,057 58,051 68,672 57,175 Occupied Percent 21% 5% 9%a 21% 24% 20% Owner- Number 118,987 44,170 108,532 83,158 112,145 127,043 Occupied Percent 20% 7% 18% 14% 19% 21% Source: 1990 Census, occupied units { Figure 4 shows the percent of renter-occupied units built prior to 1960. Over 50 percent of the rental units in Minneapolis and St Paul are this age. Though limited in actual number, many townships as well as cities near Lake Minnetonka or the St. Croix River also have more than 50 percent of their rental units built prior to 1960. In contrast, in many of the developing suburbs, 11 Figure 3 Owner-Occupied Units Valued At Less Than $60,000 (Inc. Mobile Homes and Estimate of Condominiums) , , Percent of Total Owner- Occupied Units CI 5% or less I ❑ 6% up to 1 1 % 11 up to 19% ( i I 19% up to 25% "' _-� ' ' ■ - - 25% or more r— ai 1 4' .T i • A ( . J -'1 T1 1 7 ,,,-4,":"--..,:: •'.--^ , io , ,„. , , ". , _ .....,--.,'4„..14-,..0,-...-, illfir ',,,_:tf,., ig..___. :,,,,,i, , „ , --.,,,.,-, , , , .... ..., ,,,,,.... ,., . IF I :+ :`.. I I I I 1 _I „' f--- 3 -- v ¢ -- l Fw F '. � -t The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 14%. Source: 1990 Census and Estimate 2 i Figure 4 Renter-Occupied Units Built Before 1960 , Percent of Total Renter- 1 -------- , Occupied Units I El Under 20% -. "' lair , El 20% up to 30% � 1 131 30% up to 40% _------- _ 1 , 11 40% up to 50% I "'1111 1111 50% or more ----J-41IL 1 � i 4. , I I i y` ' s 6 � JI EV s - 1 '.-------- _ I I ----- -- . ,- t >^_- - � - - ' �' „ I: E t 5 c.;-a- , < ' I', , r.rte; i t .Kra maw -c-1-K, ,Po , , i 1 1i , ' t _i I t I I , t-j The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 35%. Source: 1990 Census 1 3 less than 20 percent of the rental housing stock was built prior to 1960. This includes cities such as Apple Valley, Burnsville, Cottage Grove, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Lakeville, Maple Grove and less Plymouth, where five percent or less of the rental units were built before 1960. The concentration of older housing is even greater for owner-occupied housing (Figure 5). Over 80 percent of owner-occupied units in the core cities are at least 30 years old. In addition, more than 75 percent of the owner-occupied homes were constructed before 1960 in long-established suburbs such as Excelsior, Hopkins, Mendota, Richfield, Robbinsdale and South St. Paul. In sharp contrast, many of the developing suburbs have less than 15 percent of units that age. Summary of the Supply and Demand for Affordable Housing In 1990, the region had 207,407 households with incomes below $20,000, and 225,040 renter- or owner-occupied housing units affordable to these households. However, not all of the affordable units were matched with people who could afford them, resulting in a "mismatch" of available, affordable housing in the region. Sixty percent, or 124,878 of these households, were paying over 30 percent of their income for housing. This results from at least two circumstances. Fust, many of the affordable units were occupied by households that, using the 30 percent benchmark, could afford to live in more expensive housing. These households chose to spend less than they could "afford." Second, affordable options are very limited in some parts of the region, particularly in the newer developing communities. As a result, some households who want to live in certain communities and parts of the region end up with limited choices and must often spend more. 14 I Figure 5 Owner-Occupied Units Built Before 1960 r' Percent of Total Owner- 1.- Occupied Occupied Units ElUnder 25% lJ l 0 25% up to 40% i 40% up to 50% -- --- - I Ill 1I I III 50% up to 70% - == - I i 170% or more t- -r _ L T J -T T E. 1 4,....,7'... '.I I i 1 4I ,- , , I I f r f moi+ a.---- --z--� ,I ' ' F !} .,.. Z:. �� ---'" - --- fit ' `(4 _- t_ i'''A7`4.'*zr.-- .0:*- '. -—1, I l 7 f �� 1 i 3 t f I I ma�c...^ .„: { -AL J -e. . .I l . Ems, c k i'.%, 4 y -Y -. -t 4 yam 5"., The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 46%. Source: 1990 Census 5 Life-Cycle Housing in the Region "Life-cycle housing" refers to the availability of housing for people at all stages of their lives. Communities with a wide variety of housing types and prices are in a good position to meet peoples' changing housing needs as their incomes and circumstances change. This section presents and analyzes region level data in the following categories related to life-cycle housing: • Distribution of single-family detached housing compared with all other housing types • Growth of various household types • Age of household head Distribution of Detached Single-Family Housing Versus Other Housing Types The traditional single-family detached house is, and will likely continue to be, the type of housing preferred by a majority of residents in the region. However, other options are necessary to meet the needs of many households. The preferred housing type will change for many as they move through various stages of life. Housing types can be split between single-family detached and "all others." Other types include multifamily housing as well as attached single family housing{e.g. townhouses). In 1990, 59 percent of all housing units in the region were single-family detached. However, as Figure 6 shows, the percent of single-family detached housing varies dramatically across the region. Only 44 percent of Minneapolis' housing stock is single-family detached. In contrast, over 60 cities and townships have over 90 percent of their housing stock in the form of single-family detached. Growth of Various Types of Households The composition of a household has a strong influence on the type of housing desired. The number of households grew overall by 21 percent during the 1980s. Table 4 shows that strong growth occurred among three groups during the 1980s: married couples with no children under 18 (increased by 25 percent); single-parent families (by 39 percent); and non-family households (single persons and other unrelated individuals living together [by 33 percent]). These households may have above-average demand for housing other than the traditional single-family detached house. 16 Figure 6 Single-Family Detached Housing t , Percent of Total Occupied , ____--- Housing Units irir , 1 11 Under 65% ❑ - -` 3 1 65% up to 75% 75% up to 90% �_. � : -__ II ill 90% or more , 1 , " 4. - •':::iP i1 . it , ilt I , r L .ti L 1, _ 1----- re' i, j I ' , L ----: 4. se I, r- 1 ' 1 , , 1 , , i , , 1 A ' , I 1 1 --___ _ ...-..—- _i 1 I :l The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 59%. Source: 1990 Census17 Table 4. Twin Cities Region Household Growth During The 1980s Change Percent • 1990 From Change Percent Total 1980 From Of Total Household Type (000) (000) 1980 Households • Total 876 +154 +21% 100% Married Couples - Total 472 +53 +13% 54% With Children Present 238 +7 +3% 27% No Children Present 233 +46 +25% 26% Single Parent Families With 71 +20 +39% 8% Children Present - Total Female Parent 58 +15 +33% 7% Male Parent 13 +5 4-74% 1% All Other Families 42 +13 +43% 5% Non-Family* - Total 292 +69 +31% 33% Living Alone 223 +46 +26% 25% ' Not Living Alone 69 +23 +50% 8% *Singles and unrelated individuals in household. Married couples with no children present will continue to grow faster than the population as a whole. Over the next decade many "baby boomers" will be moving into their "empty nest" stage. At that point many may begin moving into smaller homes including some who will look for housing that requires less maintenance activity on their part As seen on Figure 7, the percentage of total households that are married couples with no children present is low in Minneapolis and St. Paul. The number in the two cities of this type of household actually declined by over 9,000 18 { 's Figure 7 Married Couples With No Child Under 18 Present !-..' r Percent of Total Households + ,ir - ❑ Under 20% 3 ❑ 20% up to 33% 1[ I 1. IN 33% or more Y � : , s t \' -1 \"' ry , '1. L _� 1 , 1 1 1 _ 1 - ' t , r IP _ y r-1 , -------- -'- ----- - - ----- --- -• .C., r---....-• "-- -,--- _ ' it , [ , 1 al .0k • , s-rr 1 The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 27%. Source: 1990 Census • during the 1980s. From a housing perspective, single-parent families are a particular concern. Single-parent families need space for children but frequently have very low incomes. In 1990 over 20 percent of single- parent households were living below the poverty leveL Figure 8 shows high percentages of single-parent families in Minneapolis, St_ Paul and several developing suburbs. In 24 cities, 10 percent or more of the households are single-parent families with children. Of these 24 communities, 17 have a majority of their rental units with rents of less than $500 per month. The exceptions: Brooklyn Center, Chaska, Inver Grove Heights, Rockford, Rosemount, St. Francis and Spring Park. Non-family households include single persons and other unrelated individuals living together. This household type is dominant in the central cities and a few suburbs (See Figure 9). This segment will probably continue to grow faster than the population as a whole, at least in part as a result of the rapid growth of older citi7rns. Whatever their age, non-family households tend (more than families) to prefer housing other than single-family detached. The communities with a very low percent of non-family households are primarily the townships and rural towns with a limited variety of housing types. Age of Household Head The age of a household head can play a significant role in determining housing preferences. Adults age 20 to 24 tend to live in rental apartments. The 25-34 age group is the typical first-time homebuyer, and adults age 35-54 often are "move-up" housing buyers. At ages 55-64, "empty- nesters" whose children have grown and left home often want smaller, easier to maintain rental or ownership housing. The housing choices of people ages 65-74 affect primarily the condominium and private rental markets. Older seniors, age 75+, frequently require an increase in services, necessitating a move to rental or co-op housing with services, or to a nursing home. The various age groups (See Table 5) grew at different rates between 1980 and 1990. The youngest households, age 15-24, actually declined by 28 percent. The strongest growth was driven by the "baby boom" generation, soon to begin moving into their 50s. The 35-44 age group, the core of the baby boom years, grew by a remarkable 62 percent. Also notable is the strong growth by those households headed by a person aged 75 or more. This group increased by over 27 percent. 20 Figure 8 Single-Parent Families With Children • _ f , Percent of Total , Households ❑ Under 3% Iditt 4 ❑ 3% up to 6% ` IN 6% up to 1 1 III1 1 % or more - .,y. 5 A d I — ��� : mak : I , 1 iYk' i *, lig , , yy 1 ff T t =fie' r - - - -- l , _-i_ i - - ' i - l i , i i ' C i t 7. .'rte,. - ;Y`! t ' t 1 it 1 The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 8.1 %. Source: 1990 Census 21 Figure 9 Non-Family Households i- Percent of Total F Households 11 Under 15% tat,, i, _ _ 15% up to 25% ill 25% up to 40% Y 1 ® 40% up to 50% y -_ -- II 50% or more l_ BY lu i ' fig' r -� f .._ - D"` { , i iii ger — 'a / � eta .:.:_:t-il,,z-7:-"Ti-,:::::„.z.-;-.--4,.s.,.:,,T7: ; - - - . Fii,i-;57,---v.€ p f - I i }' F' £ 1— t -_; i .: -. \- b is _ r _C ! I l i � ' -24I : j 0. T IF _. ' r.f. 1�' I ° zy "2s+' sra—_-------..-_-1,i%-..,,q� w�x fls Q: The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 33% Source: 1990 Census 22 Table 5 Age Of Head Of Household - Twin Cities Region 1990 and Change From 1980 Change Percent 1990 From Change Percent Age Of Head Total 1980 From Of Total Of Household (000) (000) 1980 Households Total 876 +154 +21% 100% 15-24 Years 53 -20 -28% 6% 25-34 Years 234 +37 +19% 27% 35-44 Years 214 +82 +62% 24% 45-54 Years 133 +28 +26% 15% 55-64 Years 98 +2 + 2% 11% 65-74 Years 81 +13 +18% 9% - 75+ Years 64 +13 +27% 7% Source: 1990 Census Figure 10 shows the percent of households headed by a person 35-44. The concentration of this age group is high in such rapidly developing suburbs as Eagan, Plymouth and Woodbury, and in some rural areas. This may reflect in part a choice of the larger, newer housing in these areas, and rising incomes and/or growing families of this age group. Figure 11 shows the percent of households headed by a person age 75 or older. This group is found most often in Minneapolis, St. Paul and some freestanding cities and rural areas. In 1990, there was a very low concentration of these households in many of the developing suburbs. Summary of Life-Cycle Housing The vast majority of the housing of many communities in the region is single-family detached It is the type most preferred by residents of the region. However, a significant number do not wish to own housing, preferring to rent Others, particularly single people and "empty-nest" couples, want ownership options such as condominiums and townhouses requiring minimal responsibility for home maintenance. Most people, when they move from one housing type to another due to changing needs or circumstances, want to stay in the same community if possible. These 23 Figure 10 Households Headed by Person Age 35 to 44 f 1 1 I f Percent of Total ; • Households • ❑ Under 20% - ❑ 20% up to 30% Y1 , ® 30% or more c i - 1 ' —1 s , is g Y The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 24% Source: 1990 Census 24 • is Figure 11 Households Headed by Persons Age 75 or Older • _ _A Percent of Total Households ❑ Under 5% ,, + drit • 05% up to 10% ® 10% up to 15% 7- ` riii 111 15% or more __- 1 , \ I I y L_ A1���`,, _, - ,- - , I - 1 f ; f -1 L 9 f. 1 .:,.. :.;1..f'.:!..,7: 'r '1` F- ' , 1 ./ice M;:a.i �- � .T y� 0 I. 1 . y a T - 3. f f a r 1 -I \' r ve Mi _ r I --- '_1 I I , ( I ( �+— r —.L-———— •- - -- - - i I t-"Pr _ + I ---- 1 I F ' ! 1 - ' J I 1 , 3 � I , I I ` I - I r , 1 I - I F J fl 1 The percentage for Twin Cities Region is 7%. Source: 1990 Census 25 circumstances call for a choice of housing options in every community. Demographic changes during the next two decades may increase demand for a variety of housing types. The aging of the baby-boom generation will bring this large segment of the population into their "empty nest" phase. There will be a strong growth in the number of households headed by a person age 75 or older. Continued strong growth in single-parent households, singles and households made up of unrelated individuals could further increase demand for more housing options. 26 Estimated Affordable Housing Units Table 6 below shows housing units affordable to households with incomes of less than $20,000. Rental units are those with gross rents of less than $500 per month. The owner-occupied units are those with a value of less than $60,000. The following data sources have been used to compile this table: 1. Rental units are occupied rental units, directly from the census data 2. Owner-occupied units consist of: A. "Owner-Occupied Units by Value" from the census. This data is largely limited to single-family detached homes, omitting mobile homes and most condominiums and townhouses. Excluded are homes on 10+ acres and homes attached to a business. B. "Owner-Occupied Mobile Homes" from the census. This is a sub-set of the mobile home total included under "Housing Unit by Type" in the "Sample Community Profile" table (See Appendix C). A separate census table (not included in this report) gives the number of owner-occupied mobile homes for each community. For the region as a whole, 89.4 percent of all mobile homes are owner-occupied. All owner-occupied mobile homes are included in the less than $60,000 value group. C. An estimate of condominiums. A separate census table (not included here) gives the number of condominium units for each community but does not give values for these units. A recently published report by the Municipal Legislative Commission,An Overview of Affordable Housing and Related Issues,' includes data on the current value of homesteaded multi-family housing. This includes condominiums and townhomes that are: 1) owner-occupied and 2) include 4 or more units in the building. The data in the report covers a total of 15,739 units across seven cities. The cities included are: Bloomington, Burnsville, Eden Prairie, Edina, Plymouth, Roseville and Woodbury. The distribution of units by value shows that 30 percent were valued at less than $60,000. This percentage was multiplied by the number of condominiums for each community in the region. The base used in calculating the percentage of total units includes: all occupied rental units (281,545); all owner-occupied units for which a value is given in item No. 19 (517,571, See Appendix C); and all owner-occupied condominiums (34,066) and mobile homes (14,579); a total base of 847,761 units. Two tables of the same information are included. The first, Table 6 below, lists all communities in order ranked by the percent of all housing that is affordable, highest to lowest. Table 7 (Appendix I)) lists the cities in alphabetical order by county. ' Copyright 1994, used with permission. 27 Estimated Housing Affordable at$20,000 Income Level In 1990: 1990 Census and Estimate . Eagan 128 10% 1788 1186 602 . g Denmark twp 128 10% 22 11 11 Cedar Lake twp 128 10% 19 7 12 ' Victoria 128 10% 66 41 25 Northfield (Pt) 12.8 10% 5 0 5 I New Market twp 128 10% 26 13 13• White Bear twp 134 9% 297 38 259 I 1 Champlin 134 9% 486 304 182 i. Empire twp 134 9% 31 14 17 i 1 Lino Lakes 134 9% 197 19 178 Eureka twp 138 8% 22 7 15 ; ' Marine on St. Croix 138 8% 16 8 8 j ' Edina 138 8% 1565 641 924 ' Mahtomedi 138 8% 134 28 106 • i Nininger twp 138 8% 14 5 9 1 . Chanhassen 138 8% 296 245 51 ,I - Savage 138 8% 236 175 61 3 Plymouth _ 138 8% 1384 732 652 • Burns twp 146 7% 32 9 23 : t Miesville • 146 7% 8 2 6 i ; Lakeland 146 7% 44 16 28 I j , Woodbury 146 7% 485 208 277 ' Greenfield 14.6 7% 21 8 13 ' Oak Grove twp 146 7% 92 10 82 Birchwood Village 152 6% 24 20 4 r Forest Lake twp 152 6% 113 43 70 , New Scandia 152 6% 42 15 27 Minnetonka 152 6% 1139 528 611 Gem Lake 152 6% 7 0 7 Manic Fecal-Ire Iota( r� SOb AIu l�cpoo un r4� aye Un unci u_r,c1> ran�csea t0,5fi -1-ti on c?D � all uni�fs ik 4he COmmurlY +- i+ a(e 11. a-(-ord e wf in romp S,16w J2,010o0 . Part Two: Subregional Picture About This Section Data Presented in this Section This section contains data on affordable housing, homing type, age and density, demographics, land availability and employment This section contains some more current information than Part One of the report, and uses some different definitions. In addition, it has some additional indicators not included in Part One, such as land availability and employment Part Two of this report uses a different definition of"affordable' homing than was used in Part One of this report The Part Two definition follows the definition contained in the data source. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy data presented in this section is based on median family income, which is higher than household income (See Appendix E for precise definition). This compilation of information provides the opportunity to examine a community's housing situation by focusing upon several housing and housing-related characteristics that may signal current or future housing issues for the community. These housing indicators are as follows: •The affordability of both renter- and owner-occupied housing for low-income households. Data is presented looking at the share of each community's housing stock, both rented and owned, that is affordable to low-income families in order to give the community some perspective on this issue. •The cost of both owned and rented housing units. The value of owned housing and the rents paid by renters in the community are two additional indicators of affordability. The figures offer some indication of the degree of access people of modest means might have to buying or renting housing there. For communities concerned about the ability of young household or workers in its expanding labor force to afford to live there, these numbers may also indicate reason for concern and future action. •The percent of publicly assisted housing. The numbers illustrate the share of each community's housing supply that was developed with some form of public assistance or in which residents receive housing subsidies. •The diversity of housing by type and tenure. Indicators regarding housing type and tenure will help to identify communities that are 42 i1-11 very likely not providing sufficient life-cycle housing opportunities for either younger households not ready financially for ownership, or for older households that may want to live in the community, but no longer want the work and responsibility of the single-family detached housing lifestyle. •The age of both owned and rented housing. In the absence of accurate and uniform housing condition data for all communities, the age of a community's housing stock is the next best indicator for current and future housing rehabilitation concerns. These figures reveal how much of the community's owned housing is more than 25 years old, and how much of its rented stock is at or nearing an age when rehabilitation and renovation is usually necessary. •The age of the head of household. Rental housing and attached forms of housing are very frequently the type of housing units, either by choice or necessity, of young, newly-formed households and households at or approaching retirement. Age group data is provided to help a community see what percent of its households are at each end of the age spectrum and the obvious implications this may have for its future housing needs. .The density of existing multi-family housing. This data will help a city see its overall, community-wide density for its multi-family housing. Some units may be more densely developed in some parts of a community and less densely developed in other areas. The density cited in these indicators may encourage communities to increase their permitted multi-family densities or establish an average minimum density below which additional, new multi-family development may not be permitted. •The availability of land for future residential growth. The data shows the percent of land within the community and the MUSA that is, as yet, undeveloped and could be guided or zoned for more affordable and diverse housing types. Older, more developed cities will, as expected, have less undeveloped land available, while newer, growing suburbs will have the largest share of developable land. •Current and forecasted employment. The data shows which communities are "job-rich," that is, those with more jobs than working age residents, and which communities are expected to experience significant employment growth to the end of the decade. Strong employment growth may translate into new housing needs for the community and raise the question of access to those new jobs for people living elsewhere in the region. The data also allows communities to compare themselves with other communities on several 43 subregional bases as well as with the entire region. This set of data may also become one of several tools the Council may employ as it implements Blueprint policy regarding the cost-effective provision of regional services and facilities to support development and revitalization. The Blueprint suggests the Council give priority for regional infrastructure investments or expenditures of public dollars to communities that have implemented plans to provide low- and moderate-income affordable and life-cycle housing opportunities. This set of data will be one element of information the Council will consider in this priority setting. How Data is Organized The data that follows is presented at the community level and, as well, in other groupings to facilitate subregional comparisons between communities that have a similar geographic location, and between those at similar levels of urbanization such as older, fully developed cities, developing suburbs and rural communities. The various levels and groupings of communities for which the data is aggregated are as follows: • For MUSA planning areas—central cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul), fully developed cities, developing area communities, freestanding growth centers, as well as the non- MUSA rural service area and rural town centers. Cities tend to be more similar, in development patterns and characteristics, to other cities in the same planning area (See Figure 12 and Table 9). • For each of eight sectors, Minneapolis and St. Paul omitted (See Figure 13 and Table 10). Groups of contiguous cities within these sectors are often part of the same subregional housing markets and employment subregions. In addition, housing markets in the inner and outer portions of a sector have historic relationships that can affect current housing markets. • For all cities and townships in the region (See Table 11). • For each county. Plus Hennepin County without Minneapolis, and Ramsey county without St Paul (See Table 12). Ranking of Selected Indicators All of the housing indicators provide information communities can use to assess their current housing situation and plan for the future. However, Tables 13 to 23 focus on several selected indicators that offer a snapshot of how a community's housing situation compares with others at a similar stage of development or within the same geographic area. The indicators compare housing value, rents, diversification, multi-family housing density and the number of federally subsidized rental units. Also included in this data are the percent of households at age 65 or older, which indicates both probable housing turnover and the possible need for life-cycle housing options. The percent of land available for development gives some indication of whether housing needs can be met with new housing or redevelopment, while the jobs-to-labor-force ratio identifies communities where jobs outnumber residents. 44 The tables ranking communities within the planning sectors do not include non-MUSA communities. { ki i 11 iI Ii 1; 45 ;z� R...A.CI• 111•R.[L Figure 12 v0..000 O.. •tTXtL Ca 0 Planning Areas '°"' ` _.. Oil.- w.Y•[T N..arO0VSN•e MAY . _ uu PO ��11.. .f.lu.ou III �ul,y �eveiopea Area ..E grl It Developing Area ,w«A _ _— _ �r— �c Freestanding Growth DA‘10111 —� Centers ``PS rr.T tlRli wp= g CN rPUt � Rural Area (includes ! ��-- Rural Centers) .. [..ItLD o«.o 7} Rurn. A oelvo.D Cwoow.w rA.te awolt`E tROOlriM' -. _ PU -.2molt_ — o00 • s - 7 -AM O Y t OI • 01.11-10 iXOC/[X°[XC[ LJ y •Lry� T>� _ � '"'"'.4-.44;:s.. IR mi. 11(01X. /tYrO lw W- - . CA.•!...., Y..LI MOL _ ...OAT .LA1M n Jt u �:e..ri _ '`.. yYTO.. a- c _ L.113`-":: lIYD IONS LA.t 4.-. -- ..? �- =I,- — r_.iltNO� -m • ,T7 _ C"'- ate—_ 3 --- .!R �Tw TOYw ri..Rfl!T• _Y. �`_ _ ��F _ _ LO.LLA.o /amu/I —gore t+` .,y,,5T _ ji ^lL..o ...t. 47:7-----r,',1-121. fY X.[T X14 .. ,...--,=,-,-- _± (LAND•:IM[• ..TTATOr. et. �� Can ---Y------ r I.T.C.di•aI .011/.CIV• �1P' ---42 MO rK j c �.T.YYT'!Pa.T • _ _ - -. dOe00Yrt ARO.. G23 `..[w Y1C aJ 11�1(NAOIfr s, •N1L� _ OUr.wT ..cwu tA.fTDWI u wrt-- la.lE 0.1.04• __ _ Olwr.wa _ NTL= COTTAOt •w1Yoo0/ I •E�X n O.XtO1lfX q� - i •L�yi r I C.11T� 40 C {J.1 a4f 1 yt.-7- :WALLM11 S70ttYOttT ��� CMOONC LOU{T.11 ' -710: _- 1(O.7[_ r. Vc.IJ'.!� T, ---i---__-, 1 {.X . - - 6.ILLtf_ Tt.rILL10. ...COC. nLL.CISCO cum CAM -._ -- -..- CIICDR tit- ___,-f EWME r 0.•... .vl.w. ` iAl 4.....'PI 1..1.0 t..l .w'I. }d.: :. D b �Ir,,,°X Non ET, UT+R.CE �— mem.,. �I -�=rP. rl • _.t. �� N . 47 iT C Kw NAS C �i1 NA yip• 1 a 00001..{ wt.rurtR umE w[Y ^ CV.(u (OCT Ttltw 111, ■Welt• [ELLE PLOWS KU.. CEO..,...-E [Lt0 ..rlo. rizevi LLt PI ACV t ..Ica).* I.413 ••w00L O.El.Y.LE 0 10 20 30 {"DT. ...D0.M I I I Miles ST. PAUL City LINWOOD Township 1.8P FAO LAKE PARK 11.FALCON HEIGHTS 21-.WOOCLANO 2.COU1u NEIONTS 12.ULTDALE 22WAYZATA NB 3.W1llERNE 13.LIEN00TA 21.AIRPORT 4,WRCffWOOO 1{.SURFER LAE 24.U.S.OWL S.POS.PWT 9 15.SPRING PARK 2s.MEDICINE LAKE 4.LANDFALL IE.YNNEIDI[KA BEACH M.ROB&/ 1E 7.LIMPI 6VIEW 17-TONK PAY 27 CRYSTAL /.WNfit BEAR TWP It.EXCELBKIR ;at NEW NO/£ 9.0KW LAKE 14.OPE 0~0002O.BROOKLYN CENTER 10.LAUDERDKLE 20 0€EPI4AVEN 46 E $t rRucis L., 1 . I I 1.IM1.000 t•1T 0000,5i O.1t G.OE Figure 13 NORTH 1( ----- Suburban Planning •MINNEAPOLIS ANOKA CO. GOLUN 6v1 c vq�J/�y/w. {moi Sectors • =arf" aw.o•fN r•w LAR[ lAR[ I w[w SG.w O.. IOR[!t L•4[ I NORTH ST. PAUL I I —� w-R4 LI00 L•st3 ' w-5s•w l ° _ NORTHEAST LI [«•41/1.1 coo.•48101 ;c[w Loi a•1.[ ,/ ST. PAUL w•• 11104 ;0rV40I NORTHWEST l(RI8CTOw . clfcL.3 rl.Cs WASHINGTON CO. I MINNEAPOLIS j033[0 — — L. 1.t reu« sr0r(n[. j r---- •[[./t[le [O eco uw ( •IL[08.2.61.7 // , /f0041 Tw 1.1R ,.w0•Tw I STILIwar(R 12 O•RS w15(star. I OCR/ORO •105[7 .« R( ,I// • .444.4 HENNEPIN CO. OO «t. V'Osst ,,;,iI ItIIC ,/(y.7aIoC�13i•tQtSfel. 2S x'029f'Illw•rUI• la II♦ 553 ' 1 w[. • 30 rt0u• nrrou5r 01 to UrTtC �{ �j aw•0 O�w I ll.._i:-- tof[.115[ fT. •Yl 26 2 1•TTr;wN METROPOLITAN ran(rutty %y L[•000 lJ�[ ' COUNCIL �' �� Ie.Re.0 n ° — _ ••IACT «EST ' e.G tic Ili S c.•r . RA1d5EY CO. uNES•ro • I •r111e.. OI IStf %� j %// rl 7r lOVlf i41wT?AUL l L•RLt I I•f• 0 r1 us wOLLTwOCO w•T RM••M ' 6.;:i' +/ /• 0581 Sw 5.. ! ST.[NOIR IC C I E I �����/ .�; % ZZl I 1 q / �� �� fJ .[s, i .000•11f}T}�����1^ li I f'-,O.If•=IVS`�j, _ t01w• v ✓ e st I•�ISOVT �70V rHEA..71 �_—_ ST.PAUL ---JI' �r[. /iii % •1c«5[((061 sr. 1....•r I j. I I 'l2 (16«53 [ / /./ .�1tT�Otl�y �C 1,.3• C' UCM I +.•COi•i.S / (•R(TO*Ii. [0[1 Ifat11C .T.rain 1 SOUTHWEST SLOOrt. 10565 65056 �� I MINNEAPOLIS O11S [.G•• w[IG wrs 261. GOrTJGt 6.0.6 1.:(w I OAKOTA CO. f(�y�{TOY«G I CwAS.A l — f 1 , ,/ `V... i,.,w. , .o•.oe0`}.•r,HC• rf:iI CAB . 1 J•C115001 1 c SOUTH ST. PAUL ///// I coloG•G oAwtGR(w L_I �JL. a••G[ //i(/'/ ':'.• TOUM.:Sw(R1GJ I 1[«row i �—,- I ant[ MIw1wG[R MOS / «•STINGS � I I t- Louls.It(t LA=[ ----y----J ---_ SOUTH ; I 1 1 S•M /1•NCISCO I r(•wI w•rGx4 I .3I MINNEAPOLIS I LIiO. l.J 1 ILL[ I O I w4.lw•M I S•.O CRICK I SIRIwG L•4( I CR600 I c...0.1.6amt. I ClL101L10r 1 I I FANO TOO SCOTT CO. I I I I_S:.1.444.C.CCI tore•" I _L_ I I I ►LAI.( I I I 1 I I maw w•R4[i I w•rr 04C.IOU, ED OR 1.44EL(T I °EILE.ta1MC I w(5(w• Cto•R lAlt 11.1•60. I C•sTLE=OCR • 1 51[3.,1[ I I •`o 1 .«.row I ooltGl•s 1 — —J- - —I— —r •40.001.1...—• —--— —-- I I ••ROOTrC 1 1 MILES ! 10 12 20 2! GREEM+SLE I•I•rEaO.O 1 SC10T TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Political Boundaries, 1 IPIiU I5.4 1 UOVRO 17 /•ICO.w(16 Ors 25 Cu.LACS 2 e 10 .ora 1N 26 a ANOKA County Boundary 3 1.1111•11,24s•1[4Cw 11 IrUIR6 156[rug 19 51LTR•t[ 27 wwlf[1(41 / A TO.=./.T 12 V.1.CO•T. 20 Gr Cr CLOVO 21 N•T101I ORO.O Municipal Boundary S tZCtU101 U wItLTOI 29 . R C 6att11000 14 COLe4r1•«tICOTS 22 Cot 30 O•R r•IR 01160,1 ...OEr TownshipBoundary 7 100.55.1 15 ST. 23 Till 1511.63 21 La4lt400 smarts 1 .t.ICIR[LAIC 16 L•10 24 .•1T0rte. 37 77..••5.1 501.5 47 Subregional Picture Suggested by the Data Planning Areas There is marked variation across the planning areas in housing costs and diversity (See Table 9). Slightly over one-half (53 percent) of the housing in Minneapolis and St. Paul is rental, compared to about one-third in the freestanding growth centers and the fully developed suburbs, and only one-fourth in the developing area. The central cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul) and freestanding growth centers each had 68 percent of units renting for under $500 a month, a level affordable to people with lower incomes. About 45 percent of rental housing in the fully developed suburbs rented for this amount, and about 35 percent in the developing area. In Minneapolis and St. Paul, a majority (59 percent) of homesteaded property is valued below $72,000, a level affordable to many lower-income households (See Definitions of Indicators, Appendix E). In freestanding growth centers, 33 percent is in this affordable range, followed by the fully developed suburbs (26 percent) and developing area (21 percent). Minneapolis and St. Paul had the highest amount of federally-assisted rental housing, 9.2 percent of their total housing supply. The freestanding growth centers had 72 percent of its housing as federally-subsidized rental units, followed by the fully developed suburbs (3.6 percent) and the developing area (2.6 percent). Multi-family housing density is highest in the central cities, at 23 units per acre. In the freestanding growth centers, multi-family density is about 14 units per acre, 15 in the fully developed suburbs, and dropping to only 11 units per acre in the developing area. A measure of housing diversity is the percent of housing units other than traditional, single- family detached. Minneapolis and St. Paul have the highest level (54 percent) of these units, which includes condominiums, townhouses and other forms of attached housing, and some mobile homes. The fully developed suburbs have 41 percent of their housing which is other than single- family detached. The least diverse areas are the developing area and freestanding growth centers, each with about 35 percent housing their that is not traditional, single-family detached units. Not surprisingly, in 1990 the Developing Area had nearly 84 percent of all land within the MUSA vacant and available for development. By contrast, the Minneapolis and St. Paul had just two percent, while the suburban Fully Developed Area and the Freestanding Growth Centers each contained approximately five percent of all vacant MUSA land. Even though the job-to-labor-force ratio indicates there were 67 jobs for every 100 working age residents in the Developing Area in 1990, this area is expected to receive well over half-64 percent—of the region's job growth in the 1990s. About one-quarter will occur in the fully developed suburbs, and only three to four percent each in the central cities and freestanding growth area. 48 •i In summary, the developing area had the highest-cost rental housing, and the highest-value homesteaded property, of all the planning areas. Minneapolis and St. Paul have the highest amounts of affordable rental and lower-valued homesteaded property. The developing area has the lowest multifamily density of all planning areas and the least diverse housing, as measured by percent other than single-family housing and percent rentaL The pattern of where job growth will occur is the reverse of where the most affordable and most diverse housing is located. Planning Sectors The two sectors south and southwest of Minneapolis have the highest percent of rental housing, at 30 and 32 percent, respectively (See Table 10). The lowest percent of rental housing is in the area southeast of St Paul, 18 percent Rental housing in the South of Minneapolis and Southwest of Minneapolis sectors is relatively expensive. Only 26 percent (in the South Minneapolis sector) and 30 percent (Southwest Minneapolis sector) of the rental housing in these areas rents for $300-$499, while 43 percent of the rental housing in the North of Minneapolis, and North of St Paul rents for this amount Other sectors have from 32 to 38 percent of their housing in this rental price range. The distribution of relatively affordable homesteaded property shows a similar pattern. In the area north of Minneapolis, 33 percent of homesteaded property is valued at less than $72,000. In the South of Minneapolis and Southwest of Minneapolis sectors, 16 and 19 percent of the homesteaded property is in this price range. Multifamily density is the lowest, at 8 units per acre, in the sector southeast of St Paul. Other sectors have multifamily densities ranging from 11 to 14 percent Housing that is not single-family detached makes up only 26 to 29 percent of all housing in the two sectors southeast and northeast of St Paul. Other sectors range from 33 to 38 percent Over one-quarter of the job growth in the region during the 1990s is expected to occur in the South of Minneapolis sector. The Northwest and Southwest of Minneapolis sectors are projected to receive 14 and 13 percent of the job growth, respectively. Other sectors range from a three percent projected growth (Southeast of St Paul) to ten percent in the North of Minneapolis and South of St Paul sectors. 49 How Cities Can Use the Data What follows is an example of how the subregional in the report can be used by cities to evaluate their community compared with others. The example uses the sector, planning area and region for comparison purposes. City X is located in the developing planning area. The developing area includes the communities beyond the fully developed area up to the metropolitan urban service area boundary. The developing area has a generally adequate supply of the most essential services and facilities. These automobile-oriented suburbs have, for the most part, good highway access to most portions of the metropolitan area. Public transit is either unavailable or largely serves trips to and from the central cities. The community and/or Council can construct tables like the following ones. Tables A and B show that housing costs in City X, as measured by homestead valuations and gross rents, are considerably higher than in the region as a whole. About 17 percent of City X's owner-occupied housing is valued at less than $72,000, compared with 31.4 percent in the region; and 28.7 percent is valued above $115,000, compared with about 22 percent in the region. Gross rent levels in the affordable range of$300-499 apply to 28 percent of City X's rental housing, compared with about 40 percent in the total region. City X's housing costs are most similar to the developing cities, although still higher. Compared with the developing area cities as a whole, City X has less housing valued under $72,000 (17 percent compared with 21 percent for all developing cities) and more housing in the two higher price ranges. Gross rents in the affordable $300-499 price range are slightly less than in the developing area, 27 percent compared with 28 percent Table A HOMESTEAD VALUATIONS CITY X COMPARED WITH REGION AND SUBREGIONS % under $72,000 % $72,000-115 % above $115 City X 17 54 29 Sector 24 50 26 Developing Area 21 52 27.1 Region 31 47 22 50 • Table B GROSS RENTS CITY X COMPARED WITH REGION AND SUBREGIONS % under $300 % $300-499 % $500+ City X 5 28 67 Sector 7 32 60 Developing Area 6 28 65 Region 13 40 47 The levels of publicly-assisted housing in the region, as shown in Table C, are nearly double what they are in City X. However, City X has about the same amount of federally-assisted housing as the developing area. The percent of all publicly-assisted housing (which includes other non-federal funding sources) in City X is lower than for the entire developing area, 2.4 percent compared with 3.3 percent. li Table C PERCENT PUBLICLY-ASSISTED HOUSING CITY X COMPARED WITH REGION AND SUBREGIONS % Fed-assist. % Fed-assist All public- rental non-eld.rental assisted hsg. • City X 2.4 1.7 2.4 Sector 4.3 2.9 4.7 Developing Area 2.6 1.7 33 Region 4.8 2.5 5.8 City X has significantly less housing in the form of non-single-family detached (32 percent), compared with the region and sector (38 and 41 percent), but only slightly less than the developing area, which has 35 percent. The proportion of rental housing shows a wider variation_ The proportion of rental housing in City X compares most closely with the developing ring, but City X has only 14 percent of its housing as rental, compared with over 25 percent in the developing ring. ► 1 I : 1 51 if 1.1 i Table D HOUSING DIVERSITY CITY X COMPARED WITH REGION AND SUBREGIONS % Not SF Detached % Rental City X 32 14 Sector 38 28 Developing Area 35 25 Region 41 36 Multifamily density (See Table E), is significantly lower than the sector or developing area, and is only one-half of the regional multi-family density. Table E MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DENSITY CITY X COMPARED WITH REGION AND SUBREGIONS City X 6.4 Sector 11.4 Developing Area 10.7 Region 15.1 City X has about the same amount of land remaining to be developed as in the developing area as a whole—approximately 43 percent. This land could provide opportunities to provide more rental and other affordable housing. City X had three jobs for every ten persons in the labor force in 1990, compared with almost six jobs for every ten workers in its sector. City X is expected to add over 2,600 jobs by the year 2000. The city should examine the wage structure of current and projected jobs and plan for housing affordable to persons working in these jobs. Conclusions and Next Steps This kind of analysis is a beginning step in a process of joint Council/community evaluation of steps the city might take to diversify its housing type and cost to meet future housing needs. The above summary indicates that City X should consider ways to provide more affordable housing, particularly rental housing, that more closely resembles the total affordable housing available in the developing area as a whole. Additional further analysis would be done, with City X and the Council working together, using different subregional levels for comparison. For example, a subpart of the developing area that includes cities of very similar stage of development could be used for a more "fine-tuned" comparison, or other subregional clusters of cities that have similar circumstances and needs. These could become subregional areas used by the Council for planning purposes, or could be "custom clusters" developed for specific analysis. 52 Table 9 Housing Index of Indicators for Planning Areas METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA RURAL SERVICE AREA Freestanding Indicator REGION Developing Growth General Rural Town Total Fully Developed Area Area Centers Rural Area Centers Central FDA Cities Suburbs AFFORDABLE TO LOW INCOME FAMILIES[ • %rented 41.6 42.1 61.6 26.5 21.8 29.9 %owned 8.0 8.5 18.4 4.1 5.9 5.4 HOMESTEAD • VALUATIONS • %under.=572;000 31.4 322 59.4. 26.3 . 213 33.0 172 43.43. %$72;000 t0$115,000 471 46.9.: . 30.4 532 51.7 543 50.8 7. ., 27:3.: . 12.7 ., ... %aboveS115,000. 215 20:9': X102 .,.243::: : GROSS RENTS 65 20 7 10.3 25. %under$300 133 132 19.7 6.9 47.6 35.0 42. %$300 to$499 40.2 40.3 47.6 37.7 28.6 S500 and above 465 46.5 32.7 55.4 64.9 31.7 54.7 31. • PUBLICLY ASSISI .D HOUSING2Q2 4. %fed-assisted rental 4.8 5.1 ' 92 3.6 2.6 72. %fed-assisted 0.2 1 non-elderly rental: 25 ..".•:„.:.:H,.....2-,7"..:: 4.5 1.8 1.7 02 • 1 All public:assisted 5:8 ;6,1:: 111 :41 33 ' 7.8 6 HOUSING DIVERSITY. 35 7 7.9 24 %not sf-detached 405 42.5 54.1 41.1 34.7 6 9 24 %rented 35.7 37.0 53.3 35.6 245 32.4 AGE OF OWNED < HOUSING "...'-i -.•--' %built'before 1950 27528.4 ?33 205 -:-:...:::::.1:S.' 30A TS 6 29 %built 1950 to 1959 183 192 :14.7. 365 „:"..,...."-,124, 14 0 fi5 12 %built 1960 to 1969 14.0 • i: 14.0: 4.1 :21.4 : '15.4" .. 142 135.,.. 14 AGE OF RENTED HOUSING %built before 1960 34.6 345 565 18.6 9.4 27.8 53.6 31 %built 1960 to 1969 20.6 20.8 18.3 31.6 15.9 12.3 10.0 1( %built 1970 to 1979 24.4 245 173 29.9 32.2 31.7 17.1 2( AGE:OFHEAD • • • . OF HOUSEHOLD • • . %age 151o.24 6.0 62 :::i8,9 51 ',Ai.: "::-:":':".."."":•:":"..::::.:::5,0 %.age 5510 64 112 112 :: 9 4 ....:•••••:::.:"..,:14.1'.. 10.3 118 4�6 11 %age:65:and ever 165 ......':::16.E.••• 2I.0 • 225 '' ••9.4 ,=207. 9.9 - 1 MULTI-FAMILY DENSITY3 15.1 15.0 22.9 15.3 10.7 13.8 LAND AVAIIABILrfY: %undeveloped' 32.4 317. 54 94 432 452 %of total undeveloped in MUSA3 100.0. . 96.1 .225.4... 83.6 ;49 EMPLOYMENT023 C Jobs ratio 0.88 0.92 1.09 1.17 0.67 0.96 206,650 198,334 8,186 50,382 133,157 6,609 6,879 1, Job growth %of regional job growth_ 99.913 , 95.8% 3.958 24.359 643 3.195_ 3.326 0. (1)Data available for only 49 cities.(2)Data applicable to only 116 communities.(3)Data applicable to only 90 communities.(4)Data applicable to only 108 communities.(5)Data applicable to only 89 communities. I Source:Metropolitan Council. 53 Table 10 Housing Index of Indicators for Suburban Plannin Sectors North- North South- South North- North South- South Indicator REGION west of of west of of east of of east of of Central Cities Mpls. Mpls. Mpls. Mpls. St. Paul St. Paul St. Paul .St. Paul Mpls. 1St. Paul AFFORDABLETO LOW INCOME FAMILIES1 %rented 41.6 272 33.4 18.7 17.0 36.0 13.8 31.5 24.3 61.4 61.8 %owned 8.0 2.7 8.9 3.6 42 4.6 3.6 3.2 7.0 18.2 18.6 HOMESTEAD - VALUATIONS %under 572,000 31.4 253 33.4 18.7 16.3 235 20.1 26.1 23i.. • 583 60.8 %S72,000 to S115,000 47.1 54.9 55.9` 455 52.3 53.1 50.5 523 501:; 30.2 30.7 %above S115,000 21.5 19.8 10.7 35.8 31.4 23.4 29.5 21.4 261` 113 8.6 GROSS RENTS %under S300 13.3 5.1 7.8 9.0 6.2 14.0 5.6 9.5 72 20.4 18.7 %$300 to 5499 402 35.8 43.5 29.7 25.8 38.0 42.5 38.2 32.4 46.4 49.4 %S500and above 46.5 59.1 48.7 61.3 68 48.0 51.9 52.3 60.4 332 31.9 PUBLICLY ASSISTED HOUSINGZ %fed-a. isted rental 'i 4.8 2.5 2.6 32 3.0 3.8 1.6 1.8 4.3 8.7 10.0 %fed-assisted non-elderly rental 2.5 1.6 1.3 1.4 1.8 2.2 0.8 1.1 2.938 5.6 Allpubile assisted 5.8 32 3.5 3.7 3.4 4.2 2.0 1.8 4.7 --.10.4 ...:::?:,. .:11.9 HOUSING DIVERSITY %not sf-detached 40.5 33.8 32.8 36.7 37.8 28.9 35.8 25.7 37.5 562 51.1 %rented 35.7 27.6 25.0 32.8 30.1 23.0 25.9 18.5 282 55.4 50.1 AGE'OF OWNED HOUSING %built before 1950 27.5 9.3 8.0 25.7 11.6 20.1 10.3 11.0 1/41:: :::::-.16:5..:.: 68.9 %built 1950 to'1959: 18.3 19.2 17.9 23.7 22.5 18.1 21.6 13.0 122 I2 8 - 17.4 %built 1960 t01969' 14.0 17.0 21.8 15.3 17.3 142 14.2 202 15.0 3_2 5.4 AGE OF RENTED HOUSING %built before 1960 34.6 12.4 15.0 21.0 12.7 21.7 14.9 18.1 12.4 602 50.7 %built 1960 to 1969 20.6 27.7 26.0 19.1 22.4 17.9 28.8 13.6 19.0 17.5 19.6 %built 1970 to 1979 24.4 32.4 30.6 26.4 29.9 31.4 392 30.4 31.3 15.7 19.8 AGE OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD %age 15 to24 6.0 5.1 5.4 4.5 4.9 3.8 4.4 33 4.9 9.5 7.9 %age 55 to 64 11.2 11.4 12.0 12.4 12.4 13.0 12.6 11.9 102 8.8 10.4 %age 65 and over 16.5 12.4 11_6 19.0 15.8 15.6 15.8 102 12.7 19.8 22.7 MULTI-FAMILY DENSITY3 15.1 11.0 12.8 14.4 13.8 12.7 12.4 8.0 11.4 20.3 28.8 LAND AVAii..;ABILFfY %undeveloped32.4 28.9 26.7 30.1 38.1 39.1 34M 593 ..48.4' %:..2.7. 8.4 %of total undernebped : .. in MUSA5 100.0 113 8.8 11.9 2.4.3 9.8 6.8 9.6 152 0.6 1.6 EMPLOYMENT Jobs ratio 0.88 0.66 0.58 1.04 1.12 0.73 0.84 0.43 0.59 1.14 1.03 Job growth 206,650 29,080 22,070 27,426 56,237 19,387 15,688 7,092 21,484 4,190 3,996 %of regional job growth 99.913 14.060 10.671 13260 27.190 9.373 7.585 3.429 10.387 2.026 1.932 (1)Data available for only 49 cities.(2)Data applicable to only 116 communities.(3)Data applicable to only 90 communities.(4)Data applicable to only 108 communities.(5)Data applicable to only 89 communities. Source:Metropolitan Council. 54 I ii Table 11 II .I • Housing Index of Indicators for 'nor Civil Divisions I Benton Camden i I Chaska I 1. 1 li Indicator Twp. j Twp. Carver I Chanhassen J Chaska Twp. Cologne] li Value Rank i Value Rank I Value Rank I Value Rank I Value Rank Value Rank I Value Rank li AFFORDABLE TO LOW INCOME FAMILIES' %rented i 33.1 24 j 44A 11 j .1 • i owned i i 0.9 46 46.5 1 I • .I • . - • r• S ' ...--- `.: 't ti ani _. ' : ,,.;„.-A-.4.--,�. �a, ;- . �s .;� .72 e p� *.� �'r ...,-„,.,,.-_,-.. ..-......„--.-..,i,,..„,‘,---„,>: - -F 'Yfj . ` -. ," ., ` £ ,"sem'= ;11^4'1.!.1-, --- . .- IX00 --,,,,4."=-7-4'7--;=f % ��`•i i• _�.�.iii : _ .:.�,1- � �-�� !• - - i GROSS RENTS 1 i ! 1 1 %under$300 j 19.2 35 14.3 54 1 8.8 81 ' 0.7 134 I 17.1 45 1 30 14 1 423 7 ' %$300 to 5499 i 46.2 64 0 180 1 47.1 60 I 43.6 73 I 32.3 112 I 0 180 1 375 92' %$500 and above• 1 34.6 144E 85.7 23 j 44.1 1241 55.7 80 I 50.6 97 1 70 47 1, 20 169 I •. ..r.+,.•r-a i7 k-_ -1-1f;�` :r-... ger» �'s+-'^ t'• -• a. qp :65'�t a.nd `'v '<wx r,'"`<' x .. -x a rr"'°c ,,�� t � ---s cd Y `, :::;;:,i%;1:::;.:: ,z ixw,tgC..:„.,,---,...:...,..7„..--. ... v...,[.: �.c�'" % i �C"�`I,t i:R'v } �S F'" 7 .`3, N+ 3,'' 6- ii r"_ v�I �_�12Cffi6 - 1 _ f.' _ _ - i HOUSING DIVERSITY ; i • %not sf-detached I 4.1 154 1 6.8 137 4 18.9 93 1 19.2 92 1 48.5 21 1 17.2 97 22.5 84 I %rented j 22.6 74 j 8 142 1 143 101 ! 14.8 99 I 39 27 I 27 62 20.5 84 i r� 1 �! i 1 �Oi?SIId _ i j a 16211 132 . .3 27 a�buds-g efore 9�0 S 1.. 17 51.5' 16 42.6 32 • 50,tu 9593: 7.6 129 '_ 164 j 4.7 160 8.8 118 ' 6.6 1361- 12 96 7 133 • � •'�-s 969x .__.,,,,,,,,,,_„1.___J6.5,...„._ 61 -k. ? _::_326. :123 w111 _...13, �9 `--.-..>.11.-1,-,-133 -,...-2,2 ,-4-....--30-4,-,:,-12-8,-;,----105 • I 1 AGE OF RENTED I j HOUSING ! ! I i 1 %built before 1960 ! 83.3 17 I 66.7 40 4 70.6 31 1 25.5 116 1 18.2 1341 83.3 17 4 60 51 j I %built 1960 to 1969 4.8 145 I 7.4 131 1, 0 175 1 18.2 74 1 9 1241 0 175 I 5 143 %built 1970 to 1979 I 4.8 161 25.9 74 j 29.4 61 I 18.4 109 1 27.2 70 I 0 177 5 160 j E I AGEOH ADS '�° ,. _ - - - I, IS LQ 2 -- 33- 94 21 13 149 3.1. 99 6.8 26 I 1.7 143 i - 4.6 67= %age55to64 _i c 11 e c 5, 1601 29 6 9. 1-c?4. 9b G 4ndover,__ .._-..t 55 ;7.4 65 13.7 1:1 I1. 164•, 32-?.�_ 117-,� 11./ 4.4,-.. � _- f 1 MULTI-FAMILY DENSITY; i 11.3 54! 10.2 64, . .i 418r ,<" .. .._ _.'°"`".<.'°` -«tom.. Y __ r .F•a.r_ - -a* ] OpC F q of S 67 16 + OfCOw4:1 _ MtiS , z,' 0A 0. . •tGl} a. • j EMPLOYMENT 1 Jobs ratio 0.42 91 j 0.02 187 . 0.2 139 0.8 49! 1.1 26 0.83 44 0.4 94 1 Job growth i 63 121 I 18 173 I 35 146, 2565 26 2567 25 j 43 139 33 149 4 %of regional job growth 4 0.03 121 ' 0.009 173 ! 0.017 146; 1.24 26 1 1.241 25: 0.021 139 i 0.016 149 l 'Data available for only 49 cities. 2Data applicable to only 116 communities. 3Data applicable to only 90 communities. 'Data applicable to only 108 communities. SData applicable to only 89 communities. Source:Metropolitan Council. 58 '. Table 14 Selected Housing Indicators - Developing Area Percent of Land in Community Jobs to Labor Force Ratio Undeveloped in 1990 Rank Value Rank Value 1 North Oaks 79.2 % 1 Wayzata 2.28 2 Woodbury 74.3 2 Gem Lake 2.02 3 Sunfish Lake 73.3 3 Osseo 1.96 4 Inver Grove Heights 70.7 4 Arden Hills 1.87 5 Savage 70.7 5 Maplewood . 1.64 6 Lakeville 68.3 6 Eden Prairie 1.36 7 Lino Lakes 67.9 7 Long Lake 1.22 8 Chaska 67.5 8 Shakopee 1.14 i 9 Centerville 66.8 9 Minnetonka 1.11 10 Chanhassen 64.0 10 Plymouth 1.11 11 Gem Lake 60.7 11 Chaska 1.10 12 Rosemount 60.4 12 Anoka 1.09 13 Shakopee 53.9 13 Excelsior 1.09 14 Victoria 53.6 14 Mendota Heights 1.00 15 Prior Lake 52.3 15 Spring Park 0.91 16 Eagan 51.9 16 Lexington 0.86 17 Oakdale 51.0 17 Minnetonka Beach 0.84 18 Mendota Heights 50.6 18 Chanhassen 0.80 19 Brooklyn Park 46.4 19 Eagan 0.80 20 Mahtomedi 46.3 20 Rosemount 0.78 21 White Bear Twp. 45.621 Newport 0.75 22 Cottage Grove 45.5 I 22 Burnsville 0.73 23 Eden Prairie 44.4 23 Little Canada 0.70 24 Apple Valley 42.8 24 Vadnais Heights 0.54 25 Maplewood 39.6 25 White Bear Lake 0.53 26 Arden Hills 39.3 I 26 Savage 0.50 27 Burnsville 39.1 27 Coon Rapids 0.49 28 Andover 37.1 ! 28 Mounds View 0.49 29 Vadnais Heights 37.1 29 Blaine 0.48 30 Blaine 35.1 i301 Brooklyn Park 0.44 i 31 Shorewood 34.7 31 Greenwood 0.43 32 Newport - 34.5 32 Lakeville 0.43 33 Coon Rapids 33.2 33 Victoria 0.43 34 Plymouth 33.1 34 North St. Paul 0.42 35 Champlin 32.1 35 Prior Lake 0.41 36 Orono • 31.1 36 Inver Grove Heights 0.40 37 Little Canada 27.9 37 Woodbury 0.39 38 St.Paul Park 27.1 I 38 St. Paul Park 0.37 39 Anoka 26.0 39 Shoreview 0.36 40 Maple Grove 25.7 40 Oakdale 0.33 41 Shoreview 25.6 41 Woodland 0.33 42 Circle Pines 25.2 42 Cottage Grove 0.32 43 Tonka Bay 21.6 ! 43 Maple Grove 0.32 44 Wayzata 21.3 44 Apple Valley 0.30 45 White Bear Lake 20.1 , 45 North Oaks 0.30 46 Long Lake 20.0 i 46 Mound 0.29 47 Minnetonka 18.5 47 Circle Pines 0.28 48 Willernie 16.5 48 Mahtomedi 0.28 49 Minnetonka Beach 16.1 49 Willernie 0.26 50 Mounds View 13.7 j 50 Andover 0.24 51 North St.Paul 13.0 51 Shorewood 0.23 52 Medicine Lake 12.8 52 Deephaven 0.22 53 . Mound 10.4 53 Lino Lakes 0.22 54 Deephaven 8.7 54 Orono 0.21 55 Birchwood 7.8 55 Sunfish Lake 0.20 56 Excelsior 7.8 56 Medicine Lake 0.18 57 Osseo 7.8 57 Centerville 0.17 58 Lexington 5.8 58 White Bear Twp. 0.15 59 Spring Park 3.9 59 Champlin 0.11 60 Greenwood 3.7 60 Landfall 0.11 61 Landfall . 61 Pine Springs 0.11 62 Pine Springs . 62 Tonka Bay 0.08 63 Woodland 63 Birchwood 0.04 Source: Metropolitan Council. 91 ii Table 18 . it ii .Selected Housing Indicators -Southwest of Minneapolis , i Homestead Valuation-Less than$72,000 Gross Rents-$0 to$499 per month Rank Value Rank Value ii� 1 Mound 35.1 % 1 Excelsior 69.8 2 Hopkins 31.6 2 Waconia 62.0 3 Waconia 31.6 3 Victoria 53.3 t 4 Spring Park 29.9 4 Chaska 49.4 5 St.Louis Park 26.8 5 Long Lake 48.6 1 6 Chaska 24.8 6 Mound 46.8 ! tt 7 Golden Valley 14.5 7 Hopkins 44.9 . 8 Wayzata 13.7 8 Golden Valley 44.6 9 Excelsior 12.6 9 Chanhassen 44.3 10 Minnetonka 10.3 10 St.Louis Park 37.5 I 11 Tonka Bay 9.7 11 Spring Park 37.0 12 Victoria 9.3 12 Wayzata 35.9 13 Orono 9.1 13 Woodland 33.3 • i 14 Chanhassen 7.7 14 Shorewood 33.1 411!. 15 Long Lake 6.3 15 Deephaven 22.5 :!;; i 16 Greenwood 6.2 16 Orono 18.0 17 Deephaven 5.2 17 Tonka Bay 12.4 i+ 18 Shorewood 3.2 18 Minnetonka 12.1 :vii19 Minnetonka Beach 1.0 • 19 Greenwood 9.1 • I 20 Woodland 0.6 20 Minnetonka Beach 0.0 Publicly Assisted Housing- Housing Diversity- Percent federally-assisted rental 1 Percent not single-family detached Rank Value Rank Value - • 1 Waconia 8.7 % 1 Spring Park 76.6 i 2 Excelsior 6.7 . 2 Hopkins 72.2 • 3 Chaska 6.6 ! 3 Excelsior 61.2 ' 4 Long Lake • 5.9 4 Wayzata 51.2 5 Hopkins 5.5 5 Chaska 48.5 111 6 Wayzata 4.7 6 St Louis Park 44.2 7 Golden Valley 3.9 7 Waconia 42.6 41, i 8 St.Louis Park 3.9 8 Minnetonka 38.5 9 Mound 2.8 9 Long Lake 34.4 I.'i10 Minnetonka 1.9 10 Golden Valley 27.6 wI' 11 Spring Park 1.0 11 Mound 22.4 :I ; 12 Chanhassen 0.4 12 Chanhassen 19.2 . r 13 Tonka Bay 0.2 13 Shorewood 14.1 1 14 Victoria 0.2 14 Victoria 12.9 15 Shorewood 0.1 • 15 Greenwood 8.4 .I 16 Deephaven 0.0 16 Tonka Bay 6.3 ' 17 Orono 0.0 17 Orono 2.3 1 18 Greenwood . 18 Minnetonka Beach 1.8 19 Minnetonka Beach ! 19 Woodland 1.E u' 20 Woodland 20 Deephaven 1.5 it 11 ii ' Source: Metropolitan Council. i 95 r' 1 i! Table 18 1 Selected Housing Indicators - Southwest of Minneapolis Percent 65 Years and Older Multifamily Housing Density � Rank Value Rank Value ' 1 Waconia 30.8 % 1 Excelsior 25.3 2 Spring Park 27.1 2 Spring Park 22.2 3 Wayzata 26.5 3 Mound 20.9 4 Golden Valley 25.2 4 Hopkins 18.5 5 Excelsior 23.5 5 St.Louis Park 17.3 6 St.Louis Park 23.3 6 Waconia 17.1 7 Hopkins 21.3 7 Wayzata 14.9 8 Woodland 21.0 8 Long Lake 13.3 9 Deephaven 15.8 9 Minnetonka 11.7 10 Tonka Bay 15.8 10 Chanhassen 11.3 11 Minnetonka 15.7 11 Chaska 10.2 12 Greenwood 15.6 12 Golden Valley 10.2 13 Mound 15.0 13 Orono 6.2 14 Orono 15.0 14 Shorewood 5.9 15 Minnetonka Beach 14.2 15 Victoria 3.9 16 Victoria 13.9 16 Deephaven 0.9 . 17 Long Lake 13.0 17 Greenwood 18 Chaska 12.3 18 Minnetonka Beach . 19 Shorewood 11.3 19 Tonka Bay 20 Chanhassen 7.1 20 Woodland Percent of Land in Community Jobs to Labor Force Ratio Undeveloped in 1990 • Rank Value Rank Value 28 2. 1 Chaska 67.5 % j 1 Wayzata 2 Chanhassen 64.0_ 2 Golden Valley 2.14 3 Victoria 53.6 3 St.Louis Park 1.27 4 Shorewood "34.7 ? 4 Long Lake 1.22 5 Orono 31.1 ' 5 Hopkins 1.11 6 Waconia 24.7 6 Minnetonka 1.11 • 7 Tonka Bay 21.6 i 7 Chaska 1.10 8 Wayzata 21.3 8 Excelsior 1.09 9 Long Lake 20.0 ; 9 Waconia 0.99 10 Minnetonka 18.5 10 Spring Park 0.91 11 Minnetonka Beach 16.1 1 11 Minnetonka Beach 0.84 ' 12 Mound 10.4 12 Chanhassen 0.80 13 Golden Valley 9.7 � 13 Greenwood 0.43 14 Deephaven 8.7 14 Victoria 0.43 15 Excelsior 7.8 15 Woodland 0.33 16 Hopkins 7.4 16 Mound 0.29 17 St.Louis Park 7.3 17 Shorewood 0.23 18 Spring Park 3.9 ! 18 Deephaven 0.22 19 Greenwood 3.7 19 Orono 0.21 20 Woodland . 20 Tonka Bay 0.08 • Source: Metropolitan Council. 96 Appendices Appendix A Regional Blueprint Policies on Expanding Housing Opportunity Excerpted from pp. 56-57. Action Step SF. The Council will work with local communities in a partnership to meet the range of housing needs of people at various life-cycle stages; broaden locational choice and access throughout the region for people of all income levels; and support use of public funds to help achieve these goals. Council actions: 1. Give priority for regional infrastructure investments or expenditure of public dollars to communities that have implemented plans to provide their share of the region's low- and moderate-income and life-cycle housing opportunities. Work with local government to develop measures of progress toward meeting housing goals, whether achieved individually by communities or through participating with other communities in a multi-community cluster. 2. Establish criteria for reviewing housing elements of local comprehensive plans. By December 1994, working with local governments and municipalities, develop goals for life-cycle and affordable housing by municipality and/or cluster. The Council will continue to review the housing and implementation elements of local comprehensive plans, provide local governments with technical assistance and information on housing finance mechanisms, and actively monitor and evaluate progress in the provision of affordable and life-cycle housing in the region. Information needed to develop affordability goals includes: • Housing profiles for individual communities. o Index to compare local housing market with region and subregion. • Identification of barriers to housing production and rehabilitation. 3. Six months after establishing criteria for reviewing housing elements of comprehensive plans (Action Item 2, above), take into account the progress made by cities toward life-cycle and affordable housing goals when making discretionary funding decisions, and reviewing comprehensive plans and amendments. In 1997, evaluate results in achieving expanded life-cycle and affordable housing, and determine whether to pursue additional legislative authority in order to increase life-cycle and affordable housing. 4. By December 1995, establish density standards on a community basis, or in clusters of 102 communities (subregional areas) that have cooperative agreements to address housing needs jointly.... 5. Monitor and evaluate progress in expanding life-cycle and affordable housing in the region, and publicize findings.... 103 Appendix B What Communities Can Do To Open Doors To Affordable, Life-Cycle Housing i - Many factors affect the production and cost of housing. This section reviews ways local governments can provide more affordable housing in their communities. Four areas are covered: • Finding opportunities in land-use ordinances, fees or administrative processes to reduce the purchase price or cost of new or rehabilitated housing. Authority for land-use regulation is provided to local governments in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Land use regulations also protect against inappropriate land use and safeguard the natural environment. Adhering to land-use objectives helps keep development costs down and allows for housing opportunities for all residents. Local governments can impose fees and exactions to recoup the costs of development. When used appropriately, this mechanism helps cities recover public costs associated with development. Review and approval processes involving subdivisions, building permits, sewer and water facilities and environmental impacts are necessary. However, short, succinct and uncomplicated procedures can help keep the cost of development down. • I.inking up with the financial resources to get affordable housing-built. The funding environment for affordable housing has changed dramatically over the last decade. During the 1970 and early 1980s, housing was easier to produce because federal funds, such as those from the Section 8 New Construction program, were available. In addition, a favorable tax climate provided incentives for developers to produce affordable housing. Today, with most federal funding no longer available, affordable housing requires combining public and private funds in complex housing "deals'. To plan and produce affordable units, local governments need to seek out and use the financial tools that are available today. • Using land-use ordinances or other means to locate affordable, life-cycle housing near employment concentrations, or link people who live in a distant locale to jobs. Access to affordable housing in the community of their choice is a shared value of many metro area residents. Many also prefer to work in or near the community in which they live. Unfortunately, many residents are denied the option because affordable housing is not available near their place of employment or they aren't qualified for the jobs near their homes. In addition, getting to and from job sites is often a problem due to inadequate transportation services. Providing access to employment, whether through location of affordable housing or transportation services, is a vital link to a healthy regional — and local — economy. • Educating residents on housing issues to build community support for proposed housing developments. Opposition to affordable housing by prospective neighbors and other city residents is often based on misinformation and fears. Residents may express opposition to 104 specific types of housing, to changes in the character of the community, to certain levels of growth, to any and all development, or to economic, racial or ethnic diversity. A compelling case can be made that the development is, in fact, in the cities best interest. The community needs to make the case. What follows are suggested actions, for each of the four factors described above. The actions will help create an environment more conducive to the production of affordable, life-cycle housing, but producing the housing is recognized for what it is — a difficult task. It requires political wilL It takes resources, which have dwindled, and include not only money but support services to meet the needs of assisted families. It takes expertise. The Council will work with local governments in a partnership to meet the goal of more affordable and life-cycle housing in the region. Some of the factors discussed in this section are directly under the control of local government, such as land-use ordinances. In other areas, linkages need to be made with resources to get the housing built. The Council will provide assistance to local governments toward this end. ♦ Finding opportunities in land-use ordinances, fees or administrative processes to reduce the purchase price or cost of new or rehabilitated housing. Examples of Local Action: • Reduce required lot sizes. • Encourage zero lot line development or other innovative site planning techniques. • Offer density bonuses for developing at higher densities. • Allow planned unit developments or mixed-use development • Allow some housing without two-car attached garages. • Reduce surfacing width or depth requirements for residential streets. • Implement flexible land-clearing ordinances that protect the environment and are cost effective. • Allow for a variety of housing types, including manufactured and accessory housing, through local zoning ordinances. • Establish criteria that ensures fees are related and fairly proportioned to the need for facilities and services generated by the proposed development. • Exempt or provide reduced fee schedules for affordable housing. • Impose linkage ordinances." These ordinances require the developer to pay a fee in lieu of construction into a housing trust fund, or make equity contributions to low- and moderate-income housing projects. • Reduce or consolidate reviews by advisory bodies to the municipality's elected council or board. 105 • Implement a simplified permit process, • Linking up with the financial resources to get affordable housing built. Examples of Local Action: • Work with Metropolitan Council staff to make the best use of currently available programs_ Identify tools available through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as identify local funds that may be available to develop housing opportunities. For more information on these and other programs, call the following organizations: Department of Housing and Urban Development (370-3000); Metropolitan Council housing staff(291-6456); and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (296-7608). Communities can make use of such local fiscal initiatives as: - Housing Revenue Bonds' - Tax exempt bonds can be used to fund a multi-family development, providing 20 percent of the units for families at 50 percent of the median regional income. - Tax Increment Financing (Ti ) - TIF can be used to write down land costs. Restrictions also apply. - HOME - This is a federal grant program to rehabilitate existing rental properties. - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) - These funds facilitate the development of affordable housing. - Metropolitan Council Credit Enhancement Program - This program allows HRA's to back their bonds with the Metropolitan Council's AAA credit rating. - Employ Local HRA Levy. • Become informed about available tools, how to use them, and look for ways to provide these opportunities to residents. Seek advice and guidance from the Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, local banks or other experts to link complex programs in order to take full advantage of opportunities. The Minnesota Housing Finance Agency alone offers 16 different home improvements programs, 14 homeownership programs and 17 rental programs. Some of these are as follows: - Low-Income Housing Tax Credits - Offers a 10-year reduction in tax liability to owners and investors in these categories: eligible low income, new construction, rehab, or existing rental housing with rehab. - Housing Trust Fund - Provides funds for development, construction, acquisition, S Federal regulations limit the volume of tax-exempt private activity bonds that may be issued each calendar year in each state. In addition, there are restrictions on multi-family housing bonds including reporting requirements and targeting requirements. Three main components are set- aside requirements, continuous compliance and "deep rent skewing election" tax law. 106 preservation and rehab of low-income rental housing, and homeownership. - Affordable Rental Investment Fund - Provides funds for acquiring, rehabilitating, or constructing new, affordable rental housing. - Community Reinvestment Act Incentive Program (CRAIP) - Provides set-aside of mortgage revenue bond funds (below-market interest rate first mortgage financing) to assist local lenders in meeting homeownership needs of their communities and their Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). - Minnesota Communities Program (MCP) - Provides cities with "spot" loan set- asides of mortgage revenue bond funds (below-market interest rate first mortgage financing) for specialized homeownership projects undertaken to address locally identified housing needs. - Low- and Moderate-Income Rental - Provides for acquisition and rehab or permanent and construction financing for multifamily low-and-moderate-income rental housing (minimum of 5 units). • Locating affordable housing near employment concentrations, or using reverse commute programs to link people who live in a distant locale to jobs. Examples of Local Action: • Participate in or create a reverse commute program. • Implement land-use regulations that promote higher-density, affordable development close to new employment sites or public transportation. • Participate in programs that may target the provision of affordable housing near job sites. • Partner with local businesses to offer training and re-training opportunities for lower- income households. • Educating residents on housing issues to build community support for proposed housing developments. Examples of Local Action: • Prepare materials and programs to educate residents about affordable, life-cycle housing, and its benefits to the community. • Establish housing or human services commissions or task forces to work on affordable, life-cycle housing issues. 107 7-C O U R T Y TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Appendix C Sample Community Profile - Estimate forecast-= 1990 1993 2000 2010 2020 1. Population 2,288,721 2,383,725 2,578,910 2,789,300 2,977,420 2. Households 875,504 914,108 1 ,003,040 1, 114,100 1,219,410 3. Persons Per Household 2.6 2.6 4. Age of Householder 1990 Percent 15-24 Years 52,743 6.0 25-34 Years 233,713 26.7 35-44 Years 213,525 24.4 45-54 Years 133,101 15.2 55-64 Years 97,915 11.2 65-74 Years 80,701 9.2 75 Years and Over 63,806 7.3 6. Household Composition: 875,504 100.0 Family Households: Married-Couple Family With Children Under Age 18: 238,126 27.2 With No Children Under Age 18 233,381 26.7 One-parent families with Children Under Age 18: Male Parent 12,457 1 .4 Female Parent 58,150 6.6 Other Family Households: 41,786 4.8 Nonfamily Households: Householder Living Alone: 222,622 25.4 Householder Not Living Alone: 68,982 7.9 7: People 8 Families in Poverty 1989 Percent Total Persons 182,680 8.1 Under Age 18 66,758 3.0 Age 65+ 16,491 0.7 People Under 200% of Poverty 431,864 19.3 Families Below Poverty 33,938 5.8 Single Parent Families 23,852 4.1 American Asian/ Other 8. Race/Ethnicity Total White Black Indian Pac. Isl. Race 1 Hispanic Number 2,288,721 2,096,659 89,459 23,340 64,583 14,680 I 36,716 Percent 100.0 91•,6 3.9 1 .0 2.8 0.6 1 .6 Total Minority (Includes Hispanic White) = 211 ,783 9.3 9. Household Income by Race/Ethnicity of Householder, 1989 Less than $15,000 144,159 122,453 12,484 2,934 5,274 1 ,014 2,139 $15,000 to 524,999 131 ,617 121 ,698 5,605 1,116 2,527 671 1,629 $25,000 to 534,999 136,346 128,971 4,046 835 1,964 530 1,263 $35,000 to 549,999 187,253 179,715 3,873 949 1,887 829 1 ,861 $50,000 and above 276,458 267,896 3,803 861 3,290 608 1 ,770 Less than $15,000 16.5% 14.9% 41 .9% 43.8% 35.3% 27.8% 24.7% S15,000 to $24,999 15.0% 14.8% 18.8% 16.7% 16.9% 18.4% 18.8% $25,000 to 534,999 15.6% 15.7% 13.6% 12.5% 13.1% 14.5% 14.6% $35,000 to 549,999 21.4% 21.9% 13.0% 14.2% 12.6% 22.7% 21.5% $50,000 and above 31 .6% 32.6% 12.8% 12.9% 22.0% 16.6% 20.4% 10. Persons in Poverty By Race/Ethnicity 182,680 118,375 31 ,829 8,856 20,474 3,146 I 6,275 8.1% 5.8% 37.1% 40.6% 32.3% 23.8% 19.4% 11 . 1989 Median Household Income $36,678 12. 1989 Median Family Income $43,781 108 7-COUNTY TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA Estimate 1990 1993 13. Housing Units 922,224 960,106 14. Total Vacant Units 46,720 Vacant for Rent 25,051 Vacant for Sale 8,700 All Other Vacant 12,969 American Asian/ Other Total White Black Indian Pac. Isl. Race Hispanic 15. Tenure6084 1 ,628 4,754 593,959 574,959 9,194 2,094 41 .5 41 .8 47.2 Owner 67.8 70.1 30.6 31.2 9 2,264 5,319 4,615 8,57 Renter 281 ,545 245,269 20,818 5879 58.2 52.8 32.2 29.9 69.4 68.8 16. Units by Gross Monthly RentL969 2,533 342 652 4,662 3,887533 933 1 ,954 $300 thano9900 37,106112,434 28,60097,020 8,537 2,0571 ,556 $500 to $749 06 11 1 ,223 1 ,551 625 5500 to 5749 100,644 91,186 6,059 152 450 94 168 25,506 23,743 1 ,067 40 33 53 $750 or more 3,715 3,523 83 30 No Cash Rent 1990 Percent 18. Households Paying 30% or More of O 17. Housing Unit by Type 540,602 58.6 1989 Household Income for Housing Costs One--Unit Detachedd6.3 One-Unit Attached 58,2294.6 Households Percent 2 Units 41,977 2.6 3 to 4 Units 24,159Owner-Occupied 88,412 17.4 5 or More Units 234,879 25.5 Renter-Occupied 112,976 40.4 6 302 1 .8 Mobile Home/Trailer 16,076 0.7 Other 19. Owner-Occupied Units by Value Less than 560,000 50,599 10.1 19.5 198, $60,000 to $74,999 98,272 S75,000 to $99,999 115,953712 35.155 .1 5100,000 to S149,99935,959 3.1 $150,000 to 5199,999 27,891 5.5 $200,000 or Higher 20. Median Value of Owner-Occupied Housing $89,584 21. Median Monthly Contract Rent $5447 447 22. Median Monthly Gross Rent No 1 2 3+ 22. Bedrooms by Gross Rent Bedroom Bedroom Bedrooms Bedrooms 12,861 4,163 1,523 Less than $200 2,637 2,475 1 ,348 4,195 7,904 4,07834 $300 to $499 9,416 69,070 29,870 $500 to $749 1 ,089 25,816 60,353 13,386 $750 to 5999 223 2,272 8,820 9,478 $1000$ 0 to 5 162 427 1,348 2,776 oCa or more G2 581 1 ,513 1 ,579 No Cash Rent Owner- Renter- Total 24. Year Structure Built Occupied Percent Occupied Percent (Inc. Vacant) Percent 188,381 20.4 1939 or Earlier 118,987 20.0 58,239 20.7 1940 to 1949 44,170 7.4 14,165 5.0 60,373 0.4 137,343 16.5 1950 to 1959 108,532 18.3 25,057 8.9 137, 43 14.9 1960 to 1969 83,158 14.0 58,051 20.6 189,342 16.0 1970 to 1979 112,145 18.9 68,782 24.4 189,32 20.5 1980 to March 1990 127,043 21.4 57,175 20.3 6 X of All Mixed Elderly Total Housing Units ---- - _ 4.8 25. Federally Subsidized Housing Units (1994) 24,529 22.032 46,561 109 Estimated Housing Affordable at $20,000 Income In 1990: 1990 Census and Estimate „ Total Anoka County 22% _ 16910 _ 7616 9294 1 Carver County Benton twp ,, 39 36% 43 17 26 ' Camden twp 76 23% 23 . 1 22 Carver 53 29% 69 19 50 Chanhassen 138 8% 296 245 , 51 Chaska 35 37% 1503 , 633 870 _ ap Chaska t117 14% 5 3 2 t Cologne 19 45% 89 , 32 57 r , Dahlgren twp 108 17% 33 10 23 I Hamburg 8 54% 96 34 62 Hancock twp 18 46% 18 2 16 Hollywood twp 34 38% 48 8 40 Laketown twp 86 20% 85 68 17 Mayer 35 37% 54 20 , 34 'i New Germany 3 75% 91 27 64 3. Norwood 7 55% 266 142 124 San Francisco twp 86 20% 28 3 25 - Victoria 128 10% 66 41 25 Waconia53 29% 392 302 90 Waconia twp 86 20% 48 15 33 Watertown 11 52% 425 163 262 Watertown twp 85 21% 43 15 28 Young Afnerica 30 39% 166 87 79 Young America twp 51 30% 39 6 33 'Total Carver_:+Ci imty >::...::: =? _ 28% 3926 1893 2033 •i Dakota County Apple Valley 119 13% 1442 459 983 I Burnsville 112 15% 2932 1810 1122 Castle Rock twp 76 23% 68 22 46 1 Coates 13 49% 28 17 11 Douglas twp 61 26% 27 7 20 i Eagan 128 10% 1788 1186 602 j Empire twp 134 9% 31 14 17 i Eureka tai 138 8% _ 22 7 15 Farmington 66 1 25% 480 335 145 'i Greenvale twp 95 19% 17 4 13 .i., Hampton 30 39% 42 16 , 26 Hampton twp 86 20% 28 , 8 20 i Hastings ,, 45 33% 1677 1121 556 Inver Grove Heights _ 70 _ 24% _ 1851 673 1178 111 Appendix E Definitions of Indicators Affordability to Low-Income Families Percent Rental . The percent of rental housing units in the community in 1990 that were affordable to families at incomes no more than one-half of that year's regional median family income of$43,781. The data source is the 1990 Census and the Special Census Bureau tabulation called the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. The data is available only for communities with 1990 populations over 10,000 and is only applicable to 49 communities. Percent Owned The percent of owned housing units in the community in 1990 that were affordable to families at incomes no more than one-half of that year's regional median family income of $43,781. In this case, "affordable" means housing with a value of no more than 2.5 times the median family income of the region. The data source is the 1990 Census and the Special Census Bureau tabulation called the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. The data is available only for communities with 1990 populations over 10,000 and is only applicable to 49 communities. Homestead Valuation The percent of homesteaded properties in the community at three valuation levels as compiled for 1993 by the Minnesota Department of Revenue in its Abstract of Assessment for Real and Personal Properly. The data indicates the percent of homesteaded properties in the community in three levels of valuation as of 1993. These levels are: less than $72,000, $72,000 to $115,000 and above $115,000. Gross Rents The percent of rented units in the community in 1990 at each of three gross monthly rent levels - less than $300 per month, $300 to $499 per month and more than $500 per month. In 1990 Census data, gross rent was calculated for all specified renter-occupied housing units which includes all renter-occupied households except those that are single-family homes on 10 acres or more. The percent is based on the total specified renter-occupied housing units in the 1990 Census. Publicly Assisted Housing Percent Federally Assisted Rental The percent of all housing units in the community in 1993 that were federally-assisted rental units such as those using Section 8 certificates or vouchers, public housing, or units built through such programs as Section 8 New Construction, Section 202 or Section 236. Council 116 housing unit estimates and subsidized housing unit totals from 1993 are used to calculate the percent Percent Federally Assisted Non-elderly Rental The percent of all housing units in the community in 1993 that were federally-assisted rental units not specifically reserved for use by the elderly such as those using Section 8 certificates or vouchers, public housing, or units built through such programs as Section 8 New Construction or Section 236. Council housing unit estimates and subsidized housing unit totals from 1993 are used to calculate the percent. Percent All Publicly Assisted Housing The percent of all housing units in the community in 1993 for which some form of public subsidy or assistance was used by the occupant or helped make development of the housing possible. This includes the subsidy programs set forth above as well as other federal housing assistance programs or the use of tax credits. This data does not reflect units for which the only form of public assistance was the use of mortgage revenue bonds, multifamily housing revenue bonds, or tax increment financing. Housing Diversity Percent Not Single-Family Detached The percent of all housing units in the community in 1993 that were not traditional, single- family detached units. These units include all multi-family housing and mobile homes as reported in the Council's housing unit estimates for 1993. Percent Rental Units The percent of all occupied housing units in the community in 1990 that were being rented as indicated in that year's Census. Age of Owned Housing The percent of the community's owner-occupied housing built in three different periods - before 1950, from 1950 to 1959, and from 1960 to 1969 as taken from 1990 Census data. Age of Rented Housing The percent of the community's renter-occupied housing built in three different periods - before 1960, from 1960 to 1969, and from 1970 to 1979, as taken from 1990 Census data. Age of Head of Household The percent of all households in the community headed by a householder at three age increments as taken from 1990 Census data. The age groups are - 14 to 24 years, 55 to 64 years, and 65 years or older. Multi-family Housing Density This figure is determined by dividing the total number of multifamily units, not including duplex units in the community as taken from 1990 Census data by the number of acres of land in the community that were in a multi-family land use in 1990. The land use data is taken from the Council's 1990 land-use survey data derived from the Council's interpretation of 1990 aerial 117 photography of the seven county Metropolitan Area. All multi-family units in the community, except duplex units, are counted whether they are in a multi-family land use area or not, thus some communities that may have townhomes or quad units in a single family area may have a multifamily density for this indicator that exceeds the actual multifamily density prevalent or officially permitted in the community. Undeveloped Land in the MUSA Within the Community Land categorized in the Council's 1990 land use survey as public and recreation, highways and lakes and streams was not included in computing a community's total land for this indicator. The land-use survey data is taken from the Council's land use survey data derived from interpretation of 1990 aerial photography of the seven county Metropolitan Area. Within the Region Each community's total undeveloped land is presented as a percent of the total undeveloped land within the MUSA at that time. The land-use survey data is taken from the Council's land use survey data derived from interpretation of 1990 aerial photography of the seven county Metropolitan Area. Employment Jobs-to-Labor-Force Ratio The employment base data used to generate the ratio is from Council estimates, while the labor force figures are 1990 Census data. Ratios in excess of 1.0 mean the community has more jobs than residents of working age. Community Growth (1990-2000) This number is the difference between the total number of jobs forecasted by the Council for the community for 2000 and the Council's estimate of employment in each community in 1990. These numbers were published as part of the Appendix to the Regional Blueprint in 1994. Percent of Regional Growth (1990-2000) The community's percent of total forecasted regional employment growth between 1990 and 2000. The employment estimates for 1990 and forecasts for 2000 are published in the Appendix to the Regional Blueprint. help h:Wbrary\comsrlib\publicat 118