Loading...
1980 09 17 APPROVED ON IO-~dj~J'{) -- MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION HELD SEPTEMBER 17, 1980, AT 7:30 P.M. CHANHASSEN COUNCIL CHAMBERS AMENDED ON /6 -~t5I'-J?() Members Present: Chairman Horn, A. Partridge, T. Hamilton, and w. Johnson. Members Absent: W. Thompson, M. Thompson, and J. Thompson. Staff Present: M. Koegler, City Planner, B. Waibel, Land Use Coordinator, and N. Rust, Secretary. 1. DISCUSSION - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCHEDULE: e Mr. Koegler referred to the September 12, 1980, memorandum to the Planning Commission covering the Comprehensive Plan schedule. The intent is to complete the Plan by November 1, 1980, in draft form. He said that evening the Commission was to review the existing housing inventory, discuss identified housing goals and the programs and methods which may be used to achieve these goals. On OctoBer 1, 1980, the Commission would review the Housing Plan and Transportation Plan which should be nearly com- pleted in draft form. On October 15, 1980, the Commission would again review the Housing and Transportation Plans as well as the Community Facilities Plan. Finally, the additions and modifications to the Land Use Plan would be reviewed on October 29, 1980. He said there will be one or two sessions with the City Council on the Plan and possibly one joint session with both the City Council and the Planning Commission. The public hearings will be conducted by the Planning Commission and the City Council, at their discretion, may also hold a public hearing, particularly after the Metrppolitan Council has reviewed the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Commission would be receiving more detailed information in the near future pertaining to the public hearing schedule. The Commission generally agreed with the Comprehensive Plan schedule. Discussion occurred regarding the completion of other major items such as the completion of the Capital Improvements Program, review of the Zoning Ordinances, and the review of the Stormwater Manage- ment Plan. 2. DISCUSSION - HOUSING INVENTORY AND PLAN: - Mr. Koegler indicated the Commission should review the existing housing inventory and relay to staff any comments regarding deletions or additions of that document. He said the former Planning Commission had included a great deal of background material be- cause the Plan was supposedly identified as one where anyone could understand it with ease. The former Commission had also felt that because Chanhassen was primarily a single family community, varied housing types should be described in the Plan. e 9-17-80 Planning Commission Minutes -2- Chairman Horn felt the definitions of housing types at the beginning of the document should be retained to provide a better understanding of those terms for the general public. In response to Mr. Johnson's question of whether or not the Comprehensive Plan should serve as an educational tool, Mr. Koegler said it should in the area of City policies. Mr, Koegler suggested the Comprehensive Plan contain two major elements - the Plan itself and the city map with a summary of the major points of the Plan on the reverse side of the map. In response to Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Koegler said the. Metropolitan Council needs enough material showing the analysis of the City's housing stock and the inclusion of the housing goals set by the Metropolitan Council. Mr. Hamilton felt the definitions should be to the point without any expansion which would include judgments of the writer. The Commission generally agreed with that point. Discussion fol- lowed regarding whether it would be possible to include a section in the Plan which looked at specific housing types within the city and why they exist in those areas. -- Mr, Koegler explained the minimum of statistics on Chan- hassents housing situation is due to lack of information available in this area. The only statistics available are those obtained from the 1970 census and some surveys done by staff. Thus, it is difficult to look at Chanhassen trends individually. He said more data will become available when the preliminary 1980' census data becomes available. Mr. Partridge expressed concern about the area on Planned Unit Developments (PUD) saying he felt the community was oriented too strongly toward this design concept. Mr. Hamilton commented on the difference between PUD's and Planned Residential Districts (PRD). He said PRD's were restricted to residential development while PUD's included commercial development within the residential development. He did not agree with the PUD concept and also felt the difference between the two concepts should be noted in the housing section. Following discussion of the inclusion of ordinance standards within the definitions, it was generally agreed by the Commission members that the ordinance standards and policies should be included in the policy and implementation sections of the plan. Mr. Koegler explained that the reason for the section on neighborhood units in the Plan is that the Planning Commission's and the City Council's original concept was that a person should be able to move into the city at a young age and De able to live 4It basically in the same neighborhood and retain the same circle of e e e 9-17-80 Planning Commission Minutes -3- friends as they progress through a life cycle of housing needs. Thus, staff looked at the city in terms of neighborhood units. A further breakdown was subsequently made in order to look at individual site data for each section. In response to Chairman Clark Horn,Mr. Koegler said the neighborhood sections could probably be even further divided but it would not be as workable. The units were defined through the location of collector streets, lake locations, and other major physical featu.res of the city. He further indicated the neighDorhood sections set the tone for the other data and encouraged the Commission to include it as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Partridge asked why apartment units were not included in the neighborhood unit data. Mr. Koegler responded that basically all the rehabilitation programs that are available are tailored toward the single family type of unit; thus, multiple dwelling units were not included in the neighborhood units. He further commented that Chanhassen has few apartment developments and what it does have is recent and in good condition. Mr. Johnson felt the section comparing mortgage rates should not be included in the Plan because it was not necessary. Mr. Koegler responded to this request saying it was outdated infor- mation, but it was inserted by the request of the former Planning Commission because it felt people were not aware of the increasing mortgage rates at that time. Now people are more aware of them. Discussion of mobile homes followed. Mr. Koegler said that mobile homes are now a better investment than they were in the past. He said if the section onnnbile homes under "distribution of Housing Types" was excluded from that sec.tion, he encouraged the Commission to place it in the Plan portion stating why they do not see it as a viable way of achieving housing goals and that they expect to obtain those goals through other housing means. He said this should be done because the Metropolitan Council does suggest the provision of mobile homes as a way to meet low- and moderate~income housing goals. The Commission generally agreed to include mobile homes in the housing type definition section, as well as in the policy area, wherein it would be stated why they were not allowed within the city. Mr. Koegler said the remainder of the Plan was statistical in nature and was based on both local and metropolitan data. He further said the Commission's comments would be compiled and used in preparing the rough draft of the housing plan which would be distributed to them for the October 1, 1980, meeting along with the Transportation Plan. Mr. Koegler proceeded to recall to the Planning Commission t~at Chanhassen, as a community within the Metropolitan area, was mandated by the Metropolitan Council to describe within the housing element of the Comprehensive Plan housing strategies for obtaining - e e 9-17-80 Planning Commission Minutes -4- housing opportunities for the low- and moderate-income families. He said there is a maximum limit of 700 arid a minimum goal of 280. The City must at least recognize the minimum figure. Addi- tionally, he said it is recommended by the Metropolitan Council that there be an inclusion of strategies to obtain modest cost housing, which essentially is just lower-cost housing and not necessarily' 'subsidized. Ms. Rust proceeded to explain the various options or programs available to Chanhassen to use to obtain the low- and moderate-income goals. Among these was the Community Development Block Grant Program, whereby the City can use the funds for land write-down or land-banking programs. This was thought to be a feasible option. She said the Section 8 Housing Assistance Program was another option. This included both existing subsidized units and the new construction of units. It was thought that the Section 8 New Construction Program would be feasible for Chan- hassen due to the amount of existing vacant land within the city. Ms. Rust indicated the possibility of operating the Section 235 Homeownership program through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. This program assisted moderate-income households with mortgage payments on single family homes. Other programs mentioned wherein available funds is questionnable are the Apartment Development Program, Affordable Home Mortgage Program, and Home- ownership Assistance Program, all operated by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). She indicated the traditional public housing option was not as feasible for the City due to the time element involved. The City's Housing and Redevelopment Authority would have to manage and maintain the public housing units as well as administer the p-rogram itself. Two programs for the elderly and the handicapped were also available. Discussion followed with the Commission discussing the desirability of the various programs mentioned by Ms. Rust. Chairman Horn felt a possible way to achieve the low- and moderate-income housing goal would be to incorporate the sub- sidized units within new larger scale developments rather than in older established neighborhoods. Mr. Koegler said sensitivity is important in the subsidized housing placement but, for instance, some Section 235 single family homes could be placed in older neighborhoods with smaller homes. He felt the subsidized units should not be constructed in concentra- tions. In response to Mr. Partridge, Mr. Koegler responded we could solicit developers of subsidized housing units throughdis- cussions with the developers and Chanhassen's Housing and Redevelop- ment Authority. - 9-17-80 Planning Commission Minutes -5- Mr. Johnson asked if development under assured loans of D-3 and D-4 projects would comply with the restrictions for low- and moderate-income housing; Mr. Koegler said it probably would not because there are not strict income restrictions. (Slides of various Section 8 New Construction developments and Section 235 single and duplex homes in the surrounding Metro- politan area were shown at this time.) Chairman Horn felt the City had a need for elderly housing. Mr. Koegler responded the Metropolitan Council and federal guidelines say a maximum of 40 percent of total subsidized units in a community may be for the elderly with 60 percent for family. Within the family percentage there is a breakdown for large families and families. - Mr. Johnson felt the multi-family subsidized developments would be better options than the Section 235 single family home- ownership program. Mr. Koegler said Chanhassen's opportunity.of obtaining more Community Development Block Grant funds was not good because the Metropolitan Council, in the past, has looked more intensely at the percentage ~d number of minority groups and low- and moderate- income households, of which Chanhassen has a small number of both. The program is tailored to people with high concentrations of th~e individuals. He said we should still pursue these funds, however, because city composition does change over time. Discussion followed on various options available to Chanhassen in the area of low- and moderate-income housing programs. Mr. Koegler said the Metropolitan Council has indicated Chanhassen should look toward new construction programs because we have much construction activity that is occurring now and will be occurring in the future. Also, the existing stock is not good to draw from in terms of rehabilitation. OPEN DISCUSSION: Discussion occurred regarding the Council's decision on the Lake Study Committee outlot policies and first draft of the surface usage ordinance and the procedures which remained to be followed regarding them. ADJOURNMENT: e The September 17, 1980, Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.