Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 05-19-1994MAY 199 1994 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS .... 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR MAY: MAY 23 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL STUDY SESSION PROPOSED TOPICS: Discuss settlement of pending litigation in closed session - Plymouth v. W.J. Cavanaugh Approve settlement agreement West Medicine Lake Park Employee Survey Summer Study Session Schedule Public Safety Conference Room 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE FOR TUNE• JUNE 6 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers JUNE 13 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Public Safety Conference Room -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUNE 20 7:00 P.M. JUNE 27 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers *COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Public Safety Conference Room * Proposed to be cancelled To be discussed at May 23 Study Session. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO May 19, 1994 Page 2 3. PARK TOUR -- WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 4:30 P.M. Annual park tour. The bus will leave from the City Center at 4:30 p.m. A box supper will be served during the tour. A memo from Eric Blank on the tour is attached. (M-3) 4. PLANNING COMMISSION -- WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 7:00 P.M., Council Chambers. The public hearing on the CIP will occur at this meeting. Agenda attached. (M-4) 5. OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE -- THURSDAY, MAY 26, 7:30 A.M., Council Conference Room . (M-5) 6. HRA -- THURSDAY, MAY 26, 7:00 P.M., Council Chambers. Agenda attached. (M-6) 7. METRO WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION -- A series of budget breakfast meetings have been scheduled to receive input on the MWCC proposed 1995 budget. One session, June 2, will be held at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul at which a tour of the facility will be conducted following the breakfast meeting. A copy of the meeting notice is attached. Please contact Judy McMillin (5012) if you plan to attend. (M-7) 8. MEETING CALENDARS - City Council and City Center calendars are attached. (M-8) 1. MINUTES & AGENDAS: a. Planning Commission, April 27, 1994. (I -la) b. School District 284, Board of Education, Minutes of April 11 and 19, and Board Update for May. (I -lb) c. School District 279, Board of Education, Minutes of May 3, 1994. (I -lc) 2. NEWSLETTERS, PUBLICATIONS. ETC.: a. The Communicator, District 279 newsletter, May, 1994. (I-2) 3. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA - LAND USE PLANNING PRACTICES AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS STUDY -- Included with this week's information memo as a separate attachment, is a copy of a report from the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs of the University of Minnesota. The report examines the land use planning practices and regulatory requirements of ten suburban communities in the Twin Cities area. Cities in the study include: Plymouth, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Burnsville, Coon Rapids, Eden Prairie, Edina, Lakeville, Shakopee and Woodbury. CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO May 19, 1994 Page 3 4. MEMOS & CORRESPONDENCE: a. Memo from Anne Hurlburt, regarding Attorney General Opinion regarding time frames for Subdivision approvals and environmental review. (I -4a) b. Memo from Sara Cwayna on Operation Buckle Down to be held at Wayzata and Armstrong Senior High Schools. (I -4b) c. Correspondence received from residents in opposition to the Zachary Lane expansion. (I -4c) d. Letter of appreciation from Banning Hanscom, Zachary Lane Chess Support Group, to Mayor Tierney for writing to the Zachary Lane Chess Team. (I -4d) e. Memo from John Sweeney on 1994 Opt -Out transit legislative update. (I -4e) Dwight Johnson City Manager M-3 DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor and Council, PRAC, Planning Commission, Open Space Committee, Water Quality Committee, Department Heads FROM: Eric J. Blank, Director, Parks and Recreation ez SUBJECT: 1994 PARK TOUR The Park and Recreation Advisory Commission would like to invite each of you to join them for the annual park tour scheduled for Wednesday evening, May 25, beginning at 4:30 p.m. A box supper will be served on the bus. The tour will conclude at approximately 8:30 p.m. For Planning Commission members who would like to come along, we will have you back to City Hall at approximately 6:45, prior to your Commission meeting. To schedule the right size bus for this group and order enough box suppers, would you please RSVP no later than Wednesday, May 18. You may do this by calling my secretary, Nancy, at 550-5130. During the tour, we will attempt to hit as much of the park and trail system as we possibly can, but we'll certainly focus on the hot spots for new development and acquisition. Thank you for your interest in this. I look forward to seeing all of you on Wednesday, May 25. EB/np -M-4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WHERE: Plymouth City Center WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1994 3400 Plymouth Blvd. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS Plymouth, MN 55447 CONSENT AGENDA All items listed with an asterisk (*) are considered to be routine by the Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 P.M. 2. PUBLIC FORUM APPROVAL OF AGENDA 4. * APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5.* CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC HEARING A. Capital Improvement Program 1994 - 1998 B. Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company. Preliminary Plat for Fembrook Woods 2nd Addition for 47 single family lots located west of Fembrook Lane and north and south of Schmidt Lake Road (94018) C. Henry Lazniarz. Preliminary Plat for five single family lots, and, Rezoning from FRD to R-lA for property located at 18820 County Road 6 (94028) D. Laukka-Williams Parkers Lake. Amended PUD Preliminary Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Variance for a 41 single family detached lots, and Amendment to the Parkers Lake North 10th Addition located at Shenandoah Lane east of Vicksburg Lane (94032) E. Superior Ford, Inc. Conditional Use Permit, Amended Site Plan Amendment and Variance for a 39,480 square foot addition onto the existing building at 9700 56th Avenue North (94033) F. Cimarron East Homeowners Association. Amended PUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow the homeowners to add 3 -season porches to their homes, eliminating the need for individual applications in the future located east of Niagara Lane, north and south of 19th Avenue North (94036) G. William and Sheryl Hippe. Amended PUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a third car garage which would encroach into the side yard setback at 17305 5th Avenue North (94038) H. Told Development Company. Amended MPUD Preliminary Plan, PUD Final Plan and Conditional Use Permit to allow a loading dock on the east side of the proposed building for property located at the northeast comer of Northwest Boulevard and Campus Drive (94042) 7. ADJOURNMENT 0-)_ Lx) 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of April 21, 1994 Minutes 3. Public Hearing for FY 1994 CDBG Program 4. Senior Housing Project Update a. Furnishings (Jill Kruger) b. Construction (Greg Oppegard) C. Lease -up (Donna Flaata) 5. First Time Homebuyer Program a. Change in 1994 Guidelines 6. Information Items a. Letter from Nancy Myers b. Metro HRA Report "Working for the Region" C. Letter from a Section 8 Client d. Defense Cost Coverage for HRA Commissioners 7. Other Business 8. Adjournment (hra/agenda/hra05-26) Metropolitan Waste Control Commission Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1633 612 222-8423 May 11, 1994 To Elected Officials, City Managers and Staff : .,r /,I" The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) four four breakfast meetings in June seeking input to its proposed 1995 budget. The meeting schedule is listed on the back of this page. The MWCC invites you and/or appropriate city staff to attend. Pre - Budget meetings were held in February and March to gather input prior to developing this proposed budget. The Commission appreciates comments received from all who attended. We realize that wastewater treatment is a major cost in your community's budget and are committed to providing our system users with effective treatment at a reasonable cost. We believe it is important to provide you with an opportunity to review and comment throughout our budget process. In order to accommodate those who will be attending the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) June Conference, MWCC has scheduled one of the breakfast meetings at the St. Paul Civic Center on June 9. You do not need to be registered for the conference in order to attend this breakfast meeting. We will end the breakfast meeting in time for you to make the LMC conference sessions. Last year many of you were disappointed when the budget breakfast meeting scheduled at the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul was moved to another location because of the flood. We have again scheduled a budget breakfast meeting at the plant for June 2. For those who are interested, there will be a tour of the Metro Plant immediately following the breakfast meeting. MWCC will schedule a public hearing on the Proposed 1995 Budget at the June meeting of the Board of Commissioners. SEE BUDGET BREAKFAST MEETING SCHEDULE ON BACK Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer OW 16, 1. METROPOLITAN WASTE CONTROL COMMISSION BUDGET BREAKFAST MEETING SCHEDULE FOR THE PROPOSED 1995 BUDGET 1. JUNE 1 - WEDNESDAY MAPLEWOOD INN - MAPLEWOOD (just west of Maplewood Mall) 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. 2. JUNE 2 - THURSDAY MAP TO METRO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT METRO WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT 2400 CHILDS ROAD IN ST. PAUL ( see map on this page) a PX& 94 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. Tour: 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. sr. rru W Wear good walking shoes with CO)R leather uppers, if you plan to take this tour. There will _ ' ��` be stairs and a considerable 10 amount of walking involved. Wd b61 rdc - N 3. JUNE Y - FRIDAY R.AMADA RIDGEDALE �b (just east of Ridgedale) _ CLW 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. < 1 P / 1 METRO PLANT 4. JUNE 9 - THURSDAY ST. PAUL CIVIC CENTER 143 WEST FOURTH STREET Room C-11 (location of the League of Minnesota Cities Conference) 7:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. TO PLACE MEETING RESERVATIONS, CALL SARAH KLINE AT 229-2129. *REVISED MEETING ** NEW MEETING 5/19/94 3 ® CITY CENTER MEETINGS June 1994 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday 1 Thursday 2 3 Friday Saturday 4 May S hI T W T F S 7:30 Pr -I HUDIAN RIGHTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 COD4MISSION 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 7 0(j g j l 7:00 PDI WATER QUALITY CODIDIITTEE 4:00 PDI FINANCIAL ADVI- SORY COM[ IITTEE 5:30 PM OPEN SPACE M CODIITTEE a 7:00 PDI PLANNING 7:00 PM PRAC CONI IISSION 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 7.00 PM COUNCIL S'Ct}IjY" ' - 7:00 PMBOARD OF 7:00 PMPACT 7:00 PM HRA SESSION-Pab[ic Safety Conf.' ZONING Rm 7:00 PM Council Subcom- mittee on State Auditor's Report - Pub. Safety Library 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 7:00 PM COUNCIL MEETING '' Summer begins 7:00 PDI PLANNING COMIIIISSION 26 27 28 29 30 JUN 7.00PMCOUNCILSTUDY MUSIC IN PLYMOUTH S M T \Y T F S SESKON- Pub Safety Conf ` :.. Rm3 _. ...... .... JQ,' 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 .... .........__..____.. :; ..... __ ._..._ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .... .i:-. ._...._ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 *REVISED MEETING ** NEW MEETING 5/19/94 City Council Weekly Planner May 22 -July 02, 1994 Sunday May 22 Monday May 23 7:00 PM COUNC L STUDY SESSION _ Pub Safety CoufRm Tuesday May 24 Wednesday May 25 11:30 AM Wetlands Seminar - Sensible Land Use Coalition, Sheraton Metrodome Thursday May 26 9:00 AM LMC Legis - lative Review Session - Holiday Inn, Burnsville 5:00 PM OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE Friday May 27 Saturday May 28 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMSSION CITY PARK TOUR - Bus Leaves 4:30 pm 7:00 PM HRA May 29 May 30 Memorial Day (Observed) City Offices Closed May 31 June 1 June 2 7:30 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION June 3 June 4 June 5 June 6 7:00 PM COUNCII MEETING June 7 PM WATER ALITY IMMITTEE June 8 4:00 PM FINANCIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 9 5:30 PM OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE June 10 June 11 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION 7:00 PM PRAC June 12 June 13 June 14 June 15 June 16 June 17 June 18 7:00 PM COUNCIL STUDY SESSION- Public Safety Conf. Rm 7:00 PM BOARD OF ZONING 7:00 PM PACT 7:00 PM HRA 7:00 PM Council Subcommittee on State Auditor's Report - Pub. Safety Library June 19 June 20 June 21 Summer begins June 22 June 23 June 24 June 25 7:00 PM COUNCIL MEETING 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION June 26 June 27 7:00 pM COUNCIL STUDY SESSION- ' Pub Safety Cont Rm '. June 28 June 29 MUSIC IN PLYMOUTH o; June 30 I July 1 — --. July 2 "Revised Meeting "New Meeting 5/19/94 CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLANNING COMIVIISSION MINUTES APRIL 27, 1994 The regular meeting of the Plymouth Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Mike Stulberg. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Mike Stulberg, Commissioners Barb Stimson, Ed Albro, Virginia Black, Linda Oja and Allen Ribbe. MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Jack Hill. STAFF PRESENT: Director Anne Hurlburt, City Engineer Dan Faulkner, Planning Supervisor Barbara Senness, Associate Planner John Keho, and Planning Secretary Jackie Watson. MINUTES: Commissioner Stimson requested that a change be made on Page 58, Paragraph 3 stating that as acting Chairman she did not ask for a Nay vote on the issue of the interim ordinance. She stated that she wanted to be on the record as a Nay vote. Commissioner Oja stated that she also wanted to be on the record as a Nay vote. MOTION by Commissioner Black, seconded by Commissioner Stimson to approve the April 13, 1994 Planning Commission minutes as amended. Vote. 5 Ayes. Chairman Stulberg abstained. TWIN CITY FAN & BLOWER COMPANY (94026) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Twin City Fan & Blower Company for an Amended PUD Plan and Conditional Use Permit to erect a building identification sign in the side yard setback at 5959 Trenton Lane. Planning Supervisor Senness reviewed the April 21, 1994 staff report. Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Ron Barry representing the petitioner. Mr. Barry stated that he was in agreement with the staff report. He said that the 3 acres of land that abuts the side of the property on which they propose to place the sign is currently owned by OPUS Corporation. He said that Twin City Fan & Blower Company intends to purchase this site in the future. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 61 Chairman Stulberg opened and closed the Public Hearing as there was no one present to speak on the request. MOTION by Commissioner Black, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe to recommend approval of the request by Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. Motion carried on an unanimous vote. WESTBURNE SUPPLY, INC. (94027) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Westburne Supply, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage of plumbing supplies at 10205 10th Avenue North. Planning Supervisor Senness reviewed the April 21, 1994 staff report. Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. Chuck Youngquist representing the petitioner Chairman Stulberg opened and closed the Public Hearing as there was no one present to speak on the subject. MOTION by Commissioner Stimson, seconded by Commissioner Black to recommend approval of the request by Westburne Supply, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit for outside storage of plumbing supplies at 10205 10th Avenue North. Roll Call Vote. 6 Ayes. Motion carried on an unanimous vote. MISSIONS, INC. PROGRAMS (94029) Chairman Stulberg introduced the request by Missions, Inc. Programs for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Master Site Plan Amendment, Variance and Site Plan for property located at 3409 East Medicine Lake Boulevard. Associate Planner Keho reviewed the April 22, 1994 staff report. Chairman Stulberg asked if the June deadline was a financial deadline. Associate Planner Keho responded that this deadline was imposed by the State. Commissioner Black asked if this request would increase in number of beds in the facility. Associate Planner Keho responded that it would not. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 62 Commissioner Oja asked what was the required setback from the lake. Associate Planner Keho showed the required setback line and stated that this proposal exceeded the required setback. Chairman Stulberg introduced Ms. Pat Murphy representing the petitioner. Ms. Murphy reviewed the history of the site, the functions of the facility and the funding. She stated that the State currently has a moratorium in place prohibiting any new nursing homes or any remodeling of nursing home facilities. She said that Missions, Inc. was granted an exception to the moratorium from the State because of the dramatic need to update the decaying structure. A condition of this exception is that the building permits must be initiated by June 30, 1994. She stated that an archeological study was done because of their concern that the site could have some historical significance. The Historical Society stated that they may want to do a recordation of the existing building. Ms. Murphy stated that they would work closely with the Historical Society to accommodate their wishes. Ms. Murphy stated that they had met with the neighborhood to discuss the plans. She said that as a result of the meeting they had eliminated one program, moved the road and move the location of the nursing home. Chairman Stulberg opened the Public Hearing. Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. John Lorbiecki of 11335 37th Avenue North. Mr. Lorbiecki stated the he was at the meeting just to gather information and said he applauded Missions, Inc. in their effort to get neighborhood input. Chairman Stulberg introduced Mr. John Soneson of 3520 East Medicine Lake Boulevard. Mr. Soneson stated that he lived directly across the street and was a member of the neighborhood dialog group. He said he was very satisfied with the informational meeting held by Missions, Inc. and said he sensed that Missions, Inc. will carry out a good social work program. He stated his support for this application and said that Missions, Inc. were very sensitive to the neighborhood input. Chairman Stulberg closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Oja asked where the two signs requested would be located and whether the existing sign would remain. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 63 Associate Planner Keho stated that one sign would be place at the entrance along with the existing sign and one at intersection of 36th Avenue North. Commissioner Oja asked why an additional sign would be placed at the entrance on the south. She said she thought the temporary sign on 36th Avenue North was ugly. Ms. Murphy stated that it was their intent to have two signs at south entrance but the old sign would be changed to coordinate with the new sign. Commissioner Oja stated she drives by this location every day and would like new signs to be low enough to not block the view of the lake. Ms. Murphy stated they would also enhance the sign area with some landscaping. Commission Oja asked if they were planning to move the road. Ms. Murphy stated there would be no change to the roads. She said that the Master Site Plan of 1988 showed a different road configuration and this application is just changing that plan to keep the roads as they are. Chairman Stulberg asked how high a sign could be. Associate Planner Keho responded that the Zoning Ordinance restricts signs to 32 square feet but there is no height restriction. Director Hurlburt stated that if sign height was a concern a condition could be added in the resolution. Commissioner Oja stated she would like to see a condition added to the report regarding height of the sign before it goes to the Council. Chairman Stulberg suggested that plans for the signs be reviewed by staff before going to Council. Commissioner Oja asked Ms. Murphy to describe the signage. Ms. Murphy stated that she envisions the signage to be long and low like subdivision signs with landscaping. The signs have not been designed at this time but she said she could bring some plans back to the Commission if desired. She said she agreed that the present sign is not pleasant and that the new signs would be very pleasing. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 64 Commissioner Ribbe stated that he felt staff could review the sign plan and make the decision as to their appropriateness without the plan coming back to the Planning Commission.. MOTION by Commissioner Ribbe, seconded by Commissioner Black to recommend approval of the request by Missions, Inc. Programs for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Master Site Plan Amendment, Variance and Site Plan for property located at 3409 East Medicine Lake Boulevard, subject to all conditions listed in the April 22, 1994 staff report. Motion to Amend by Commissioner Oja, seconded by Commissioner Albro to add a condition to the resolution stating that the signs on the corner of East Medicine Lake Road and 36th Avenue North would not exceed 4 1/2 feet in height and would be consistent with residential monument signs; and that the addition of landscaping would not obscure the view and be approved by staff. Commissioner Oja asked if the signs could be lighted and if the Zoning Ordinance restricted the lighting of signs. Associate Planner Keho responded that this was not restricted in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Stimson stated that she was against the amendment. She said that this entire project was so tastefully designed that she did not feel there was a need to set limitations on the signage, that she felt the signage would be just as tasteful as the project. Roll Call Vote on Motion to Amend. Commissioners Stimson Ribbe and Chairman Stulberg voted Nay. Motion failed on a tie vote. Roll Call Vote on Main Motion. 6 Ayes. Motion carried on a unanimous vote. PROPOSED WETLAND INTERIM ORDINANCE REGARDING SETBACKS Director Hurlburt reviewed the past history of developing this ordinance and explained the ordinance as drafted. She stated that this would apply to only new applications and would provide some minimal protection of the wetlands until the Ordinance is done. Chairman Stulberg recognized Council Member Anderson. Council Member Anderson stated that he is Council representative to the Commission. He explained why Council asked for this ordinance which is an environmental and economic issue. He discussed the ruin of Parkers Lake which is scheduled for cleanup at great cost. He stated that the Council wanted the guidance, input and advice from Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 65 the Planning Commission and their consensus that the interim ordinance would help to control the impact of new developments on the wetlands. Commissioner Black asked Council Member Anderson what the intent of the Council was for the ordinance, was it water quality or wildlife habitat or both. Council Member Anderson stated his feelings were not necessarily the opinion of all Council Members. He said his concern was water quality and the cost of cleaning up water pollution. Commissioner Albro stated water quality was his concern. He said he did not see the buffers being discussed for the ordinance as doing much for the Parkers Lake problem. Mr. Anderson stated that he does not envision the new ordinance applying to completed, past development because of concerns that would invoke litigation. He said he felt the ordinance should apply to new developments to prevent more problems. Commissioner Albro stated that there was a big difference between what would be needed in an ordinance for water quality and one which would protect habitat. He said that an ordinance protecting habitat would require such a large buffer that it would make most property in Plymouth undevelopable. Commissioner Oja asked Council Member Anderson to explain just what the Council wanted and whether the ordinance should ignore existing housing. She said she felt that existing developments can damage the wetlands if they are not regulated. She said that there should be regulations for existing developments so that they cannot contaminate the waters as the current problem with Parkers Lake. She asked if the Council felt old developments should be ignored. Council Member Anderson stated that the new ordinance would be for new development sand the existing property has not been addressed. He said the priority is for those now in process and new developments and that possibly past developments will be addressed later. He said he feels a concern with existing homeowners and the impact a new ordinance would have on them. Commissioner Oja stated that past developments can damage wetlands if they are not regulated, and that there should be some regulations to prevent Parkers Lake from being contaminated again once it is cleaned up. She said something should be done regarding the use of chemicals for the care of wetlands in existing developments. Council Member Anderson stated that there could be some regulation of chemical use in the future but at the present time the Council is concerned with maintaining the water quality in new developments. `o, Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1994 Page 66 Commissioner Oja stated that this was a good start with new housing but something does need to be done regarding existing developments too. Council Member Anderson said that we should first prevent further damage to wetlands in new developments and then address the other issues at a later time. Chairman Stulberg stated there are some controls regarding dumping and other things. Council Member Anderson stated that the City would have to hire additional staff to monitor and control dumping and other regulations. He said that staff was beginning to address these types of problems. Commissioner Stimson thanked Council Member Anderson for coming to the meeting and for explaining to the Planning Commission what the Council's intent was for an ordinance. Commissioner Albro stated that he shared Council Member Anderson's concerns regarding potential legal ramifications for existing developments. He said that he felt that because of possible legal ramifications, the aim should be at water quality for the good of citizens, not the wildlife issue. Chairman Stulberg stated that after the new ordinance is adopted staff should discuss how the ordinance affects each new development when it comes before the Commission. Commissioner Stimson asked what is the definition of a wetland. Director Hurlburt described the various definitions for the different classifications of wetlands. She said that every new project will be surveyed and described as to what type of wetlands are located on the site. Commissioner Black stated that she would get copies of a brochures describing wetland types from the Department of Natural Resources for each of the Commissioners. Council Member Anderson suggested that staff should also obtain copies of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet guidelines for the Commissioners. Chairman Stulberg suggested that staff have an informal get-together with developers before the Public Hearing. MOTION to adjourn by Commissioner Black, seconded by Commissioner Ribbe. The meeting adjourned. at 8:15 p.m. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 Wayzata, Minnesota BOARD OF EDUCATION Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 MINUTES _— `I A regular meeting of the Board of Education of Independent School District Regular Meeting 284 was convened on Monday, April 11, 1994, 7:30 p.m. in the cafeteria of Wayzata Senior High School, 305 Vicksburg Lane, Plymouth, Minnesota, pursuant to due notice. The meeting was broadcast live on cable television Plymouth Channels 59/67 and Wayzata Channel 8, and delayed broadcast on Minnetonka Channel 35. Board Chair Howard Casmey called the meeting to order and Board Clerk Roll Call Patricia Gleason called the roll. The following School Boardmembers were present: Mr. Thomas J. Ahmann, Mr. Howard B. Casmey, Mrs. Patricia L. Gleason, Mrs. Debra L. Jamrogiewicz, Mr. Paul L. Landry, Mr. Michael J. Murphy, Mrs. Karen M. Parks, and Dr. David R. Landswerk, Ex Officio. Boardmembers absent: no one. Others present: Laura Tubbs Booth, Bruce R. Halgren, Lucille M. Balombiny, Natalie Malphrus, Mary Powell, Eileen Kuehn (COMMUNICATOR), Jay Maxwell (PLYMOUTH SUN -SAILOR), Patty MacDonald (WEEKLY NEWS), Laura Moranchek, Sara Lottie (Wayzata Senior High Student Council), Jennifer Fischer, Ariane Biermann, Holly Knudsen, Tom Knudsen, Jon Knudsen, Tom Dykhoff (Adolfson & Peterson, Inc. Construction Managers), Kathy Wilson, Marannie Wilson, Lindsey McDougall, Susan Hughes, Leah Hughes, Monica Manuell, John Gammell, Chris Bonte, John Bonte, Louie Benko, Andrea Manuell, Matt Schneider, Brian Markham, Buffy Leuer, Joni Crozier, Jenny Brass, Kelly McGoldrick, Angie Gates, Nancy Hanily Dolan, Nels Larson, Chris Larson, Bob Larson, and cable television crew: Tim Pattrin and Eric Mize. BOARD ACTION The following motions and resolutions were acted on by the School Board: A motion was made by Mr. Murphy and seconded by Mr. Landry to approve Minutes the minutes of the Board of Education Regular Meeting of March 14, 1994, March 14, 1994 Emergency Special Meeting of March 18, 1994, and Special Meeting of March March 18, 1994 21, 1994, as submitted. The motion passed unanimously on a 7-0 vote. March 21, 1994 A motion was made by Mrs. Jamrogiewicz and seconded by Mrs. Parks to Agenda Approval approve the agenda as submitted. The motion passed unanimously on a 7-0 vote. Wayzata Board of Education Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 Superintendent Landswerk presented a progress report on the bond issue referendum approved by the School Board at their March 21, 1994, special meeting. The election scheduled for Tuesday, June 7, 1994, would offer a ballot question authorizing issuance of bonded debt up to $64,000,000. The funds would be used for land acquisition, construction of a 3200 -student capacity senior high school, general technology districtwide, adaptation of the present senior high to a middle school, and computer lab and media center improvements at Birchview Elementary School. As directed by the Board, Dr. Landswerk reported that the Administration was embarking on a broad-based communications effort to provide the school district community with details of various Board actions, including the process followed and rationale developed for adopting a grade configuration of K-5 elementaries, 6-8 middle schools, and 9-12 senior high; educational advantages of the middle school concept; and the need to update districtwide technology. The communications plan would include a special issue of the COMMUNICA- TOR, articles for school newsletters and local newspapers, staff communiques, cable television programs, etc. Superintendent Landswerk also indicated that the community survey authorized by the School Board would be conducted the weeks of April 11 and 18 and would measure citizen sentiment on a number of issues related to the bond referendum. Survey results were expected by the end of April. Dr. Landswerk distributed to the School Board copies of his memorandum recommending consideration of four firms as architects for the proposed new senior high school. The firms are: (1) Armstrong, Torseth, Skold and Rydeen; (2) Himmel Green & Abramson; (3) Setter, Leach & Lindstrom; and (4) Winsor/Faricy. Board discussion included: • Administration would be able to meet the legal timelines for the June 7 election • information on the communications and legal timelines would be sent with the Board weekly memorandum • Bill Morris of Decision Resources, COMMUNICATOR Consultant Eileen Kuehn, and a District resident who is a marketing expert would serve as resources on the communications effort • Board Secondary School Facility Subcommittee met with a construction management firm to discuss timing for hiring a construction manager and an architect • concern that the Board had requested a list of ten architects from which to choose, but received only four and felt that a couple of those might not be viable — one because they were handling another large project in the Twin Cities, and the other because some had the perception that their work on the educational plan study w^s not of the quality expected; Board would be piuvided with an additional two architects from which to choose = � b Minutes Page 2 Bond Referendum Progress Report Wayzata Board of Education Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 Board discussion (continued) • consensus was to hire a construction manager first and then have them assist with selection of an architect • one person contacted to be Chair of the Citizens Committee declined to serve — need to move quickly on formation of Citizens Committee; each Boardmember to provide names of five individuals to serve on Citizens Committee Dr. Landswerk reported that Governor Arne Carlson had proclaimed April 17- 23, 1994, as Minnesota Volunteer Recognition Week which coincided with Na- tional Volunteer Week. District 284 volunteers would be honored at a Districtwide workshop on Saturday, April 30, at Wayzata High School. The workshop — "Wildflowers" — would be presented by Shirley Kooyman from the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. Dr. Landswerk expressed appreciation for the invaluable work the volunteers provide the students and schools, and recommended adoption of the resolution. Boardmember Gleason introduced the RESOLUTION - VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEEK - APRIL 17-23, 1994, and moved its adoption. Board Clerk Gleason read the resolution. The motion for adoption of the resolution was duly seconded by Boardmember Parks. Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Patricia Gleason, Debra Jamrogiewicz, Paul Landry, Michael Murphy, Karen Parks, Thomas Ahmann, Howard Casmey; and the following voted against the same: no one; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted on a 7-0 vote. (Resolution attached.) Dr. Landswerk indicated that Governor Carlson had proclaimed April 20, 1994, as Minnesota School -Age Child Care Day. This day fell during the Week of the Young Child, April 17-23, 1994, which was sponsored by the Minnesota School -Age Child Care Alliance and the Minnesota Association of Education of Young Children. Superintendent Landswerk also reported that District 284 Home Base Coordinator Janice Jordan would be President of the School -Age Child Care Alliance during the 1994-1995 school year. In recog- nition of the fine work Ms. Jordan and the Home Base staff provided the young children of our community, the Administration recommended adoption of the resolution. Boardmember Murphy introduced the RESOLUTION - SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE DAY - APRIL 20, 1994, and moved its adoption. The motion for adoption of the resolution was duly seconded by Boardmember Landry. Board Clerk Gleason read the resolution. Upon vote being taken thereon, the followin- voted in favor thereof: Debra Jamrogiewicz, Paul Landry, Michael Murphy, Karen Parks, Thomas Ahmann, Patricia Gleason, Howard Casmey; and the following voted against the same: no one; whereupon said resolution was declared duly pa. sed and adopted on a 7-0 vote. (Resolution attached.) iVlinutes Page 3 Bond Referendum Progress Report (continued) Resolution Volunteer Recognition Resolution School -Age Child Care Day Wayzata Board of Education Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 Superintendent Landswerk reported that May 3, 1994, had been designated National Teacher Day — a day to remember and honor those individuals who help us learn. This day fell during National Teacher Appreciation Week — May 1-7, 1994. He further indicated that the School Board and Administration took pride in the teaching staff of Wayzata Public Schools and felt they should be recognized for their skills and talents not only on May 3 but all through the year. National Teacher Day did, however, provide an opportunity to call attention to the dedicated staff of Wayzata Schools. The Administration recommended the School Board urge all District 284 citizens to observe National Teacher Day by adopting the resolution. Boardmember Parks introduced the RESOLUTION — NATIONAL TEACHER DAY — MAY 3, 1994, moved its adoption, and directed the Superintendent to distribute copies of the resolution for posting in all District 284 facilities. The motion for adoption of the resolution was duly seconded by Boardmember Jamrogiewicz. Board Clerk Gleason read the resolution. Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof. Paul Lan- dry, Michael Murphy, Karen Parks, Thomas Ahmann, Howard Casmey, Patricia Gleason, Debra Jamrogiewicz; and the following voted against the same: no one; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted on a 7-0 vote. (Resolution attached.) Bruce Halgren, Executive Director of Academic Services, highlighted two pro- posed calendars for the 1994-1995 school year — one started school before Labor Day on Thursday, September 1, and the second after Labor Day on Thursday, September 8. Dr. Halgren reported that the Administration and Calendar Subcommittee favored the before Labor Day start which had been approved by the Minnesota Legislature, but not as yet signed by the Governor. Both calendars synchronized the nonstudent days so that elementary, junior high, and senior high students were in or out of school at the same time. It was anticipated that this synchronization would result in transportation cost savings. A motion was made by Mr. Landry and seconded by Mr. Murphy to approve the 1994-1995 school calendar with the before Labor Day start for students if permitted by legislation, and the calendar with the Thursday, September 8, starting date for students as a second choice. Board discussion included: communicate Board decision to parents as soon as possible; many are already making vacation plans that might include the week before Labor Day; rationale for scheduling an elementary conference preparation day in January when parent conferences weren't scheduled until March; important to note that before Labor Day school start legislation was not permanent and dealt with the 1994-1995 school year only to address the Jewish Holydays of Rosh Hashannah. Chairman Casincy called for a vote, and the motion to approvdy tt« rirs . and second choice calendars for 1994-1995 passed unanimously on a 7-0 vote. (Calendars attached.) -J-_ �b Minutes Page 4 Resolution National Teacher Day Calendar for 1994-1995 School Year Wayzata Board of Education Minutes Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 Page 5 Natalie Malphrus, Controller, reviewed the routine financial items and recom- Finance and Business mended approval. Recommendations A motion was made by Mr. Landry and seconded by Mr. Murphy to approve the following Finance and Business Services recommendations: Authorize the following disbursements: Disbursements General Checking - March 1994 $ 1,795,947.02 Wire Transfer - February 1994 75,429,384.59 (Disbursement lists attached to official minutes.) • Approve the following gifts to be used as designated: Gifts Amount: Donated by: Purpose: $600.00 Oakwood School P.T.O. Media Center Book Nook 202.45 Oakwood School P.T.O. Reimbursement, Custodial Services for Carnival 150.95 Kimberly Lane P.T.A. Purchase of Books Mr. Casmey called for a vote on the motion to approve the Finance and Busi- ness recommendations. The motion passed unanimously on a 7-0 vote. Mrs. Malphrus highlighted the Monthly Financial Report which detailed fund Monthly Financial and budget status data as of February 28, 1994. She indicated that while the Report District had received 63 % of its revenue, it had only spent 55 % of its budgeted February 28, 1994 expenditures to date. Board Chair Casmey indicated the School Board had received a report by the Minnesota Department of Education indicating that Distrid 284 had the lowest per pupil expenditure rate in the metropolitan area and was lower than the State average. He further stated that student education equity was affected when District 284 was spending $1500 to $1800 less per pupil than its neighboring school districts. The Board also received the February 1994 Student Activity Fund Report. These reports were provided for information purposes only; no Board action was required. (Reports attached to official minutes.) Laura Tubbs Booth, Executive Director of Human Resource Services, reviewed Human Resource the proposed personnel actions and recommended approval. Services Recommendations A motion was made by Mrs. Gleason and seconded by Mrs. Jamrogiewicz to approve the following Human Resource actions as recommended: Resignation Resignation Belbas, Nancy Nancy Belbas, District Social Worker, effective at the end of the 1993- 1994 school year Wayzata Board of Education Minutes Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 Page 6 Child Care Leave Child Care Leave Glomski, Amy Amy Glomski, .8 Communications Teacher, Wayzata East Junior High School, for the balance of the 1993-1994 school year - will return full time for the 1994-1995 school year Employment Employment Matuszak, Patricia Patricia Matuszak, .2 Special Education Teacher, Wayzata Senior High (MA/Step 1, $1,414 for 49 days) - replacing .2 time vacated by Steve Mumma when his time was increased with District 287 Chairman Casmey called for a vote, and the motion to approve the recom- mended personnel actions passed unanimously on a 7-0 vote. Mrs. Booth reported that the Administration recommended adoption of the Resolution for resolution for nonrenewal of the teaching contracts for the following probation- Nonrenewal of ary teachers: Teaching Contracts of Probationary Teachers Jey Carlson - .8 Art Teacher, Gleason Lake School Carslon, Jey Hames, Stephanie Stephanie Hames - .8 District Psychologist Kendall, Mary Mary Kendall - 1.0 Special Education Teacher, Kimberly Lane School Kivisto, Martha Martha Kivisto - 1.0 Special Education Teacher, Kimberly Lane School Miller, Amy Amy Miller - .5 Kindergarten Teacher, Plymouth Creek School Olson, Susan Susan Olson - .7 Vocal Music Teacher, Kimberly Lane School Rabago, SusanRichards, Elizabeth Susan Rabago - .5 Vocal Music Teacher, Oakwood School Sullivan, Patricia Elizabeth Richards - 1.0 Special Education Teacher, Gleason Lake School Patricia Sullivan - .9 District Psychologist Boardmember Jamrogiewicz introduced the RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE NONRENEWAL OF THE TEACHING CONTRACT OF (THOSE INDIVIDUALLY NAMED), A PROBATIONARY TEACHER, moved its adoption, and waived its reading. The motion for adoption of the resolution was duly seconded by Boardmember Landry. Upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Howard Casmey, Patricia Gleason, Debra Jamrogiewicz, Paul Landry, Michael Murphy, Karen Parks, Thomas Ahmann; and the following voted against the same: no one; whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted on a 7-0 vote. (Resolution attached.) OTHER BUSINESS Other Business Other business that came before the School Board included the following: Honored Chris Bonte, Second Grade Teacher at Kimberly Lane Elementary School, as the April 1994 Employee of the Month. Wayzata Board of Education Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 • Heard Superintendent Landswerk report that the Wayzata Senior High Odyssey of the Mind Team would make a presentation of their OM prob- lem: MTV — Mini Terrain Vehicles. The "Spirit of the Problem" was for the team to create and use a minimum of three vehicles to complete seven or eight tasks. Sharen Hilliard reported that the Odyssey of the Mind program was celebrating its tenth anniversary, and introduced team members Andrea Manuell, Matt Schneider, Brian Markham, Buffy Leuer, Joni Cro- zier, and Jenny Brass. Monica Manuell, team coach, provided the story line and invited the School Board and audience into the other section of the cafeteria to view the presentation. Following the presentation, Chairman Casmey thanked the students and wished them success in the State competition. • Heard Kelly McGoldrick and Angie Gates report on the upcoming Empty Bowls project scheduled for May 31, 5:30 - 7:00 p.m. at Wayzata Senior High School. This is an annual fundraising event for Interfaith Outreach; tickets are $10 which include soup, bread, and the handmade ceramic soup bowl. The goal was to produce 300 - 350 bowls. Ms. McGoldrick and Ms. Gates sold tickets and solicited volunteers to serve and clean. • Heard Nancy Hanily Dolan, Art Instructor at Wayzata Senior High School, report that eleven Wayzata art students won Scholastic Art Awards, a national visual art competition for junior and senior high school students. A jury, composed of artists and art educators recommended by members of the Minnesota Scholastic Art Awards Advisory Committee, selected 243 works from this year's 1100 entries. These 243 outstanding works of art were included in the Scholastic Art exhibition at the Minneapolis College of Art:and Design. The following students were Silver Award Winners representing the finest of the regional art works: Dominic Bazzett East Junior High, 7th Grade Painting Josh Grinolos West Junior High, 7th Grade Painting Ruth Lindquist Wayzata Senior High, 11th Grade Ceramics Laura Moranchek Wayzata Senior High, 12th Grade Painting Lindsey McDougall Wayzata Senior High, 12th Grade Drawing The following students were Gold Award Winners and would be representing Wayzata Schools at the National level: Annemarie Bjordal West Junior High, 7th Grade Ceramics Leah Hughes Wayzata Senior High, 12th Grade Ceramics & Bookmaking John Knudsen West Junior High, 7th Grade Ceramics Nels Larson Wayzata Senior High, 12th Grade Ceramics Stephanie Hasser East Junior High, 9th Grade Drawing Marannie Wilson Way<Ata Senior High, 12th Gra_::: Ceramics - (2 awards) _� \b Minutes Page 7 Other Business (continued) Wayzata Board of Education Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 Minutes Page 8 Ms. Dolan further reported that a total of 8 Gold awards were given in the Other Business senior high ceramics category and Wayzata students received 4 of these; (continued) at the junior high level, 6 ceramics Gold awards were selected and Wayzata students received 2. In addition, Leah Hughes received a cash award from Positive Strokes for her bookmaking and design skills. • Heard Superintendent Landswerk read his Proclamation — School Board Member Recognition. This was in conjunction with Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson's proclamation honoring the work and dedication of School Board members of Minnesota's public school systems. Certificates and copies of the proclamation were presented to School Board members. (Proclamation attached.) • Heard Sara Lottie, representing the Wayzata High School Student Council, report on student activities including the following: Baby Food Drive to be conducted May 2-6; a Sharing and Caring Hands metrowide organiza- tional meeting of student councils to develop a project to raise funds to support construction of a temporary shelter would be hosted by Wayzata on April 19; WHS junior Bridgett Dahl to represent Wayzata at the Min- nesota State Student Council convention in Grand Rapids — April 17-19; annual Senior Awards Night scheduled for May 2, 7:30 p.m. at WHS Auditorium; junior/senior prom set for May 21; schedule of spring sporting events distributed; and Danceline try outs to be conducted for next year's team. • Heard John Gammell, District 284 resident, thank those responsible for improving the financial condition of the school district from what it was. I Fesponses to Mr. Gammell's questions regarding the proposed new high school included: community survey being conducted the weeks of April 11 and 18 — results expected by the end of the month and they would be available to the public; no drawings or plans as yet available; Review & Comment being developed for Minnesota Department of Education approval; estimated cost of just the school building is $38,900,000 ($80 per square foot). Superintendent Landswerk invited Mr. Gammell to stop in the District Administration Building for copies of any available documents. • Heard Mr. Landry report that the video tape regarding the Superintendent Search process would be ready for broadcast by April 18. He also sug- gested the Board consider doing something similar regarding the proposed new high school. There being no additional business before the School Board, a motion was Adjourn made by Mr. Murphy and seconded by Mrs. Gleason to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously on a 7-0 vote, and the meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m. LMB/5 Attachments: Listed on Page 9 Wayzata Board of Education Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 Attachments: Resolution - Volunteer Recognition Week - April 17-23, 1994 Resolution - School -Age Child Care Day - April 20, 1994 Resolution - National Teacher Day - May 3, 1994 Calendar for 1994-1995 School Year (1st & 2nd Choices) Resolution Relating to the Nonrenewal of the Teaching Contracts of Probationary Teachers Proclamation - School Board Member Recognition Minutes Page 9 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 WAYZATA, MINNESOTA BOARD OF EDUC477ON Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 RESOLUTION VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION WEER - APRIL 17-23 1944 W UMAS: The hard work and commitment of our volunteers have made our community and schools a better place in which to live and learn; and WHEREAS: Our progress and reputation as an innovative and quality school district are in part directly the results of the efforts of this outstanding community spirit; and WLUMAS: Volunteerism has fostered the development of social consciousness in our student volunteers; and WHEREAS. Volunteers have been a vital resource, enabling and guiding our efforts for the benefit of our students; and WHEREAS. • Volunteers help maintain the strength of our school district community; and W ZEREAS: The WAYZATA SCHOOL DISTRICT wishes to thank our volunteers for their dedicated service and generous spirit; NOW, 7EEREFORE, We, the SCHOOL BOARD OF WAYZATA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284, do hereby proclaim the week of April 17-23, 1994, as WAYZATA SCHOOLS VOL UN7FER RECOGNITION WEEK, and urge all students, staff`', and citizens to salute DISTRICT 284 VOLUNTEERS, to thank them for their efforts, and to make all citizens aware of the challenge and fulfillment of volunteer work. Adopted this 11th day of April 1994. LMB11 David R. Landswerk Superintendent of Schools _--�-- \b INDEPENDENT SCHOOL D1S77ZICT 284 WAYIATA, MINNESOTA BOARD OF EDUC477ON Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 RESOLUTION SCHOOL AGE CHILD CARE DAY - APRIL 20 1994 WHEREAS. The Minnesota School -Age child Care Alliance in conjunction with the Minnesota Association of Education of Young children are celebrating the Week of the Young Child, April 17-23, 1994; and WHEREAS. • The District 284 Home Base Program provides a safe, caring place for approxi- mately 800 children Grades K-6 before and after school and during school vacations; and W7MEAS.' Providing a program that expands children's learning opportunities and make available support for District 284 working families is critical if children are to succeed in school; and W EREAS.• The Home Base Program represents a worthy commitment to our children's future; NOW, 7EEREFORE, We, the SCHOOL BOARD OF WAYZATA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, do hereby Proclaim Wednesday, April 20, 1994, as SCHOOL-AGE CHILD CARE DAY in District 284. 4. Adopted this 11th day of April 1994. L,VB11 David R. Landswerk Superintendent of Schools INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 WAYZATA, MINNESOTA BOARD OF EDUCATION Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 RESOLUTION NATIONAL TEACHER DAY - MAY 3, 1994 z Vb WHEREAS, Teachers play vital roles in the renewal and regeneration of our democratic society; and WHEREAS, They shape the future by helping to mold minds and train tomorrow's workforce; and WHEREAS, They transform lives through their work; and WHEREAS, They give of themselves by imparting what they know to help others learn; NOW, THEREFORE, We, the School Board of Wayzata Public Schools do hereby urge all District 284 citizens to observe Tuesday, May 3, 1994, as .A NATIONAL TEACHER DAY by taking time to remember and honor those individuals who help us learn, and remembering that as this year's theme states, "Teaching is a Gift for a Lifetime." Adopted this 11th day of April 1994. 1)dt4ye 61t 0 z�1e David R. Landswerk Superintendent of Schools INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 Z b Wayzata, Minnesota MEMO TO: Wayzata Board of Education FROM: Bruce Halgren Qom_ - Executive Director Academic Services DATE: March 18, 1994 SUBJECT: 1994-95 SCHOOL CALENDAR Attached are copies of two 1994-95 calendar proposals. One has a before Labor Day start for students and the other starts school for students on Thursday, September S. The Administration and calendar subcommittee favor the before Labor Day start if the legislature modifies the current law. Both calendars synchronize the non -student days so that elementary, junior high, and senior high students are in or out of school at the same time. It is anticipated that this will result in a savings in the transportation fund. The calendars provide one day of teacher -parent conferences for all three levels in the fall and one day in the spring for elementary. Additionally, each school will schedule eight (8) hours of conferences outside the teacher work day in the fall for all three levels and eight (8) hours in the spring for elementary and junior high. Teachers will be given comp days for this time outside the work day. The 1994-95 calendar will be on the agenda for the April School Board meeting. MEM:94-95CalendarComm. Attachments y. E (: O Senior High - No Students 0 Junior High - No Students O Elarnentnry - No Students School 8eginsEnd3 Q Warkshops - No Students(fchrs in School) ❑ H0tid4yN4catton . No Sludents/Tchrs I July S 14 T W T F S 1 7 3 0 5 t l i f 10 It 12 13 14 is 14 17 11 11 20 21 22 23 r'M 23 26 27 29 21 30 August S M T W T F S 1 J 3 4 S 4 7 t f 10 11 12 13 14 is 14 Il It 11 20 21 77 22 24 75 24 21 73 T®© September S M T W T F _S I 2 3 SAA 7 t t to 11 17 13 14 is 14 17 It It 20 21 22 23 24 1s 74 77 73 21 to October S M T W T F S 41 2 3 ! 7 1 / 10 11 12 11 14 IS 14 11 It ® F1 7: 71 24 77 21 21 November S M T W T F S 1 2 3 9 5 4 7 t 1 10 17 11 14 13 jj 17 is 1/ 20 7 77 74 71 74 77 71 December S M T w T F S 1 I 4 s 7 t Ie tl t7 t2 t4 14 it 11 17 7o 7I 24 15 7 71 Independence Day - 7/4 CALENDAR WAYZATA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1994/95 Teacher Workshop - 8/29,8/30,8/31 Teachers - 3 days First Day Students - 9/1 Labor Day - 9/5 Teachers - 21 days Students - 21 days Elem Conf Prep Day - 10/19 Jr & Sr High Staff Dev Day - 10/19 Teacher Cony - 10/20,10/21 Teachers - 19 days Students - 18 days Eleni Conf Day - 11/4 Qtr. Day - Jr High - 11/4 Sr High Conf Day - 11/4 Elem, Jr & Sr Starr Dev Day - 11/23 Thanksgiving Vacation- 11/24,11/25 Teachers - 20 days Students - 1S days Elem Starr Der Day - 12/2 Jr High Conf Day - 12/2 Trimester Day - Sr High - 12/2 Elem, Jr & Sr Conf Comp Day - 12/22 Holiday Vacation - 12/23 - 12/30 Holidays - 12/23, 12/26 Teachers - 16 days Students - 14 days L"U January S M r W r F S I 7J /i\ 4 S 4 S i 10 11 12 I1 14 IS Il It 11 10 7t 22 24 73 24 21 21 ?t 11 IS 14 It it February s M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 ! 7 I t 10 It 17 13 I4 1S 14 it to 110 21 77 23 14 17 24 27 23 March 1 7 3 4 5 S M T W T F S U 14 t3 14 17 1t it ! 4 7 t 1 11 11 13 14 IS 14 It it 20 71 72 71 23 74 727 II April S M T W T F S t 7 Q 4 s 4 ) t / 10 11 12 13 Qi IS 14 17 It If 20 71 77 I'm 24 is 14 71 28 79 May S M r w T F S [JuneW T F S IS 4 17 13 14 Is 14 17 It I/ 20 21 72 71 14 71 74 17 21 2/ )o Student Days 171 Teacher Days - 185 Holiday - 1/2 Eleni, Jr, Sr High Starr Dev Day -1/16 Elem Conf Prep Day - 1M Qtr. Day - Jr High - 1/23 Sr High Staff Der Day - 1/23 Teachers - 21 days Students 19 days Founders' Day - 2/20 Teachers - 19 days Students 19 days Elem Coni Day - 3/10 Jr High Conf Comp Day - 3/10 Trimester Day - Sr High - 3/10 Elem Conf Comp Day - 3/24 Jr High Qtr Day - 3/24 Sr High Starr Der Day - 3/24 Spring Vacation - 3/27 - 3/31 Teachers - 18 days Students - 16 days Holiday 4/14 Teachers - 19 days Students - 19 days Memorial Day - 5/29 Teachers 22 days Students - 22 days Last Day for Students - 6/7 Last Day for Teachers - 6/9 Teachers 7 days Students - 5 days 1 7 3 4 5 1 1 t / 10 11 17 U 14 t3 14 17 1t it 70 1t 121 24 IS 74 71 2t ® 31 [JuneW T F S IS 4 17 13 14 Is 14 17 It I/ 20 21 72 71 14 71 74 17 21 2/ )o Student Days 171 Teacher Days - 185 Holiday - 1/2 Eleni, Jr, Sr High Starr Dev Day -1/16 Elem Conf Prep Day - 1M Qtr. Day - Jr High - 1/23 Sr High Staff Der Day - 1/23 Teachers - 21 days Students 19 days Founders' Day - 2/20 Teachers - 19 days Students 19 days Elem Coni Day - 3/10 Jr High Conf Comp Day - 3/10 Trimester Day - Sr High - 3/10 Elem Conf Comp Day - 3/24 Jr High Qtr Day - 3/24 Sr High Starr Der Day - 3/24 Spring Vacation - 3/27 - 3/31 Teachers - 18 days Students - 16 days Holiday 4/14 Teachers - 19 days Students - 19 days Memorial Day - 5/29 Teachers 22 days Students - 22 days Last Day for Students - 6/7 Last Day for Teachers - 6/9 Teachers 7 days Students - 5 days WAYZATA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 CALENDAR 1994/95 1 b '7/4/94 Mon. Holiday 8/29-8/31/94 Mon. -Wed. Teachers Workshop - 3 Days 9/1/94 Thurs. First Day of School for Students '9/5/94 Mon. Holiday 10/19/94 Wed. Elementary Prep Day, Jr. & Sr. High Staff Development Day - NO STUDENTS 10/20-21/94 Thurs.-Fri. Teachers' Convention - NO STUDENTS 11/3/94 Thurs. End of Ist Quarter - Jr. Highs - 42 days 11/4/94 Mon. Elementary Conference Day - No Elementary Students 11/4/94 Fri. Jr. High Quarter Day — No Jr. High Students 11/4/94 Fri. Sr. High Conference Day - No Sr. High Students 11/23/94 Wed. Elem., Jr. & Sr. High Staff Development Day - NO STUDENTS '11/24-25/94 Thurs.-Fri. Holidays 11/28/94 Mon. School Resumes After Thanksgiving Vacation 12/2/94 Fri. Elementary Staff Development Day - No Elementary Students 12/2/94 Fri. Jr. High Conference Day - No Jr. High Students 12/2/94 Fri. Trimester Day - No Sr. High Students - 56 days 12/21/94 Wed. Last Day of School Before Winter Vacation 12/22/94 Thurs. Elementary, Jr. & Sr. High Staff Conference Comp Day - NO STUDENTS '12/23/94 Fri. Holiday '12/26/94 Mon. Holiday '1/2/95 Mon. Holiday 1/3/95 Tues. School Resumes After Winter Vacation 1/16/95 Mon. Elementary, Jr. & Sr. High Staff Development Day - NO STUDENTS 1/20/95 Fri. End of 2nd Quarter - Jr. Highs - 42 days 1/23/95 Mon. Elementary Conf Prep Day - No Elementary Students 1/23/95 Mon. Jr. High Quarter Day - No Jr. High Students 1/23/95 Mon. Sr. High Staff Development Day - No Sr. High Students '2/20/95 Mon. Holiday 3/10/95 Fri. Elementary Conference Comp Day - No Elementary Students 3/10/95 Fri. Jr. High Conference Day - No Jr. High Students 3/10/95 Fri. Trimester Day - No Sr. High Students - 59 Days 3/23/95 Thurs. Last Day of School Before Spring Vacation - Elem., Jr. & Sr. High 3/23195 Thurs. End of 3rd Quarter - Jr. Highs - 41 days 3/24/95 Fri. Elementary Conference Comp Day - No Elementary Students 3/24/95 Fri. Jr. High Quarter Day - No Jr. High Students 3/24/95 Fri. Sr. High Staff Development Day - No Sr. High Students 4/3/95 Mon. School Resumes After Spring Vacation '4/14/95 Fri. Holiday '5/29/95 Mon. Holiday 6/7/95 Wed. End of 3rd Trimester - Sr. High - 56 days 6/7/95 Wed. End of 4th Quarter - Jr. Highs - 46 days 6/7/95 Wed. Last Day of School - Elementary, Jr. High, Sr. High 6/8/95 Thurs. Graduation 6/9/95 Fri. Last Day for Teachers Student Days 171 'HOLIDAY FOR ALL EMPLOYEES Teacher Days 185 PROPOSED 4/11/94 0 Junior F19h - No Students O pementary • No students School BeginvEnds Q Worksnop.. No SLAents(Tchra In School) ❑ 14olideyNecatlon - A" Sa44.nta/Tchra 1994 July 1 S M T W T F S 1 1 2 ] 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 19 20 21 22 21 "n 23 26 27 23 29 30 August S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 9 to 11 12 11 14 IS 16 17 is 19 70 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 78 29 ®©1 September S M T W T F S 1 1 4 11 12 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 14 75 16 27 28 29 30 October S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7/ 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 to 19 20 [F11 22 25 26 27 23 27 November S M T W T F S T 2 3 5 6 7 a 9 10 12 11 14 IS P16 17 it 19 TO 21 22 Qr131) ©4 ®S 26 77 21 29 �/ Oecember S M T W T F S Independence Day - 714 SCHOOL BEGINS AFTER LABOR DAY CALENDAR WAYZATA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1994/95 Preschool Workshop- 8/30, 8/31 Teachers - 2 days Preschool Workshop -9/1,9/2,9/6,9/7 Labor Day - 9/5 First Day Student - 9/8 Teachers - 21 days Student - 17 days Teacher Conv - 10/21 Teachers - 20 days Student - 20 days EIem Cont Prep Day - 11/4 Qtr. Day - Jr High - 11/4 Sr High Conf Day - 11/4 Elem, Jr & Sr High Conf Camp-I1/Z3 Thanksgiving V2c2tion-11/24,11/25 Teachers - 20 days Student - 18 days El & Jr High Conf Day - 12/2 Trimester Day - Sr. High - 12/2 Holiday Vacation - 12/23 - 12130 Holidays - 12123, 12/26 Teachers - 16 days Students - 15 days 121 January S M T W T F S 1 LJ e 4 S 6 7 1 17 ] 4 S 6 I t 21 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 70 71 72 li 74 75 ]1 Independence Day - 714 SCHOOL BEGINS AFTER LABOR DAY CALENDAR WAYZATA PUBLIC SCHOOLS 1994/95 Preschool Workshop- 8/30, 8/31 Teachers - 2 days Preschool Workshop -9/1,9/2,9/6,9/7 Labor Day - 9/5 First Day Student - 9/8 Teachers - 21 days Student - 17 days Teacher Conv - 10/21 Teachers - 20 days Student - 20 days EIem Cont Prep Day - 11/4 Qtr. Day - Jr High - 11/4 Sr High Conf Day - 11/4 Elem, Jr & Sr High Conf Camp-I1/Z3 Thanksgiving V2c2tion-11/24,11/25 Teachers - 20 days Student - 18 days El & Jr High Conf Day - 12/2 Trimester Day - Sr. High - 12/2 Holiday Vacation - 12/23 - 12130 Holidays - 12123, 12/26 Teachers - 16 days Students - 15 days 121 January S M T W T F S 1 LJ e 4 S 6 7 a 9 10 11 17 13 14 I5I7 1a 19 20 21 22 14 15 16 27 21 79 3 31 22 24 25 February S M T W T F S 11 3 4 5 6 7 t 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 It 19 ® 21 27 23 24 25 26 27 28 March S M T W T F S 1 2 1 4 5 6 7 1 93 22,, t19 20 21 27 2]2 13 14 15 165 26 F77 78 77 10 111 April S M T W T F S 7 Q 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ®a 15 16 it It 19 70 21 71 ,',. 24 15 26 27 28 79 May S M T W T F S June S M T W T F S t Z 3 4 5 1t lz. T] 14 Is 14 17 is IV 70 21 27 13 24 75 76 27 28 29 3a Student Days - 171 Teacher Days 185 -a-- 1b Holiday - 1/2 Eiem.Jr&Sr High Staff Dev 132y-1/In Eleni Conf Prep Day - 1/23 Qtr. Day - Jr. High 1123 Sr High Staff Dev Day - 1123 Teachers - 21 days Students - 19 days Founders' Day - 2120 Teachers - 19 days Student - 19 days Elem Conf Day - 3/10 Jr. High Conf Comp Day - 3/10 Trimester Day - Sr. High - 3/10 Elem Conf Comp Day - 3/24 Jr High Qtr Day - 3/24 Sr High Staff Dev Day - 3/24 Spring Vacation - 3/27 - 3/31 Teachers - 18 days Students - 16 days Holiday - 4/14 Teachers - 19 days Student - 19 days Memorial Day - 5129 Teachers - 22 days Student - 12 days Last Day for Students - 618 Last Day for Teachers - 6/9 Teachers - 7 days Students - 6 days 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 24 25 26 27 7a ,7[�, F1 31 June S M T W T F S t Z 3 4 5 1t lz. T] 14 Is 14 17 is IV 70 21 27 13 24 75 76 27 28 29 3a Student Days - 171 Teacher Days 185 -a-- 1b Holiday - 1/2 Eiem.Jr&Sr High Staff Dev 132y-1/In Eleni Conf Prep Day - 1/23 Qtr. Day - Jr. High 1123 Sr High Staff Dev Day - 1123 Teachers - 21 days Students - 19 days Founders' Day - 2120 Teachers - 19 days Student - 19 days Elem Conf Day - 3/10 Jr. High Conf Comp Day - 3/10 Trimester Day - Sr. High - 3/10 Elem Conf Comp Day - 3/24 Jr High Qtr Day - 3/24 Sr High Staff Dev Day - 3/24 Spring Vacation - 3/27 - 3/31 Teachers - 18 days Students - 16 days Holiday - 4/14 Teachers - 19 days Student - 19 days Memorial Day - 5129 Teachers - 22 days Student - 12 days Last Day for Students - 618 Last Day for Teachers - 6/9 Teachers - 7 days Students - 6 days t6/b�1/I aauruuuuJ: y4.3y� TZ laqurJ.tuN rru rivl duroJ y 1of scrnral ur '11 laqutanoN puD j laqulaAoN uaanuaq rtvp joogJs agl aplrsno saJuadafuoJ so slnog (gJ IgSn ajnPagJS - g 1�u-1 01 tP-V;f PuD £Z laq�AoN uo Pa1nP'uos aq 11Int rCvp durcv `umsal 111 -6 gJlvm puv OZ rCrvvrsuga3 puv ' j laquraJaQ puD L laquDAonj uaaAtpq 4vp loalpr azp vp.=o saJualafuaJ fo .lnog (8) sgSp al"Pa�PS - 't fo?un/ *PZ gJlvN Puv £Z laquoAo11 uo Pal RP Ps aq lP& sKDP dU= 'sunsal ul 'cZ splDyy puD 1 q=;f PuD '1 laquoZaG PUD 1 laqura,toN uaantraq r(vp looses rill apssmo nJuardfUX fo s=nag (g) nlSp alnpasps lPm s7oo:rns ,C1Drsrauoja jsmpr,tjpul _ n rvnvuoj� S3JH •NOD 2�IJY3L-11 Yd L ra= OMMVCT XaRDY3L J"JS AYQ 210EY7 'DnaPIA 'szuaPrus lof,tDp zsv? - 8 aunt 'i1DpSJnt� OZ lagoao uo joosPs P== S=Pras puv, fvjs ,CUQ *10& latlJDa,L t(DQ VO& l2s{1Da.L e{DQ -IJO& laLDDaL 6 aunt `,Cvpud nrawdoja,taQ,�iv�S &a lazmnD ,CD duio aouala uo Q J f J �Z gJ1Dx1 ',Cvpu.� ,CDQ lalsaufU.L ,CDQ duioJ aJualafuoJ ICDA aJualafuOJ 1D ,ti u 01 � yy ' p JuaurdojaAaQ 'DSS &C7 &C7 dud aJualafsroD ,d £Z 4JDITtrDp ',{vpuvK JuasudojaAaQ�D�S ruasudojaAaQ�C'D�S tuasudojaAaQ v�S 91 rCtvntrvr',CupuoH ,CDQ 1alsauru,L eCDQ aJualafuoJ ,tDQ JJualafuoJ Z 1aquWJ,Q '&PvJj &CI duroJ ?ivalafircZ) &c7 dsuoJ-o=.i2jucD I&C7 du -'OD ;OualafuoJ £Z laq=Aom •&p=uPa/d XDQ-Oualafug7 rtDQ lasmn?3 &C7 da.W aJualafuoJ, q='jo�j tvp y3 ,p dorl4jo& l oosPS a sd dogmyo& jooupy a.sd doq.�lo& l o�PS and L laquasdaS 'rtJv dogs3rlo& joosPS -7.q doll ohi joospS add doYmpo& joosPS 21d 9 fagsualdaS •rtvpsan,L dogs�rlo.& IOO1PS ald do=l�o& Ioo:PS -,td doynyo& loorpS add Z .nquofdaS •,tvpud dogs*lo& loos -,S 2 -td dos =po& lOOzPS ald dogmpoU 1oo1PS and 1 laqumdaS •&pslnu dog-,zyuo& looLpS add dogMIJohi 100iPS a1d dogmuo& IoosPS add 1£:=sny •&p=t p2,t dogs juoA joogJS -21d dogiydo& lompS a sd doyrpo& loorPS ald 0£ ssaSny •,(Dp�n j HOI1l 2lOIN3S RDIR ?10Ilr(Qf 1?lY.1X3i4�"II 3LYp L ra= OMMVCT XaRDY3L J"JS AYQ 210EY7 'DnaPIA Member 1- introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION RELATING TO THE NON -RENEWAL OF THE TEACHING CONTRACT OF 2- A PROBATIONARY TEACHER WHEREAS, 2- is a probationary teacher in Independent School District 284, BE IT RESOLVED by the School Board of Independent School District 284 that pursuant to Minnesota Statute Section 125.12, Subd. 3, the teaching contract of 2-, a probationary teacher in Independent School District 284 is hereby not renewed for the 1994- 95 school year. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that written notice be sent to said teacher regarding non -renewal of the teacher's contract as provided by law, and that said notice shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF NON -RENEWAL OF PROBATIONARY CONTRACT You are hereby notified that at the regular meeting of the School Board of Independent School District 284 held on April 11, 1994, a resolution was adopted by a majority roll call vote to not renew Your contract for the 1994-95 school year. This action of the Board is taken pursuant to MN Stat. Sec. 125.12, Subd. 3. You may request that the Board give its reasons for the non -renewal of your teaching contract. Such a request must be received within ten days after receipt of this notice. Your$ very truly, .N SCHOOL BOARD OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 3- /sgd/ Clerk of the School Board The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by 4- and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: 5 - and the following voted against the same: 6 - Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 17-09 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 WAYZATA, MINNESOTA BOARD OF EDUCATION Regular Meeting - April 11, 1994 PROCLAMATION SCHOOL BOARD MTMBER RECOGNITION WHEREAS, The Governor of the State of Minnesota has issued a proclama- tion honoring the School Boards of Minnesota's public school systems; and WHEREAS, District 284 students, staff, and citizens agree with the Gover- nor that school board members represent a tremendous resource as local decision makers, responding to the needs of their communities; and WHEREAS, School board members must deal with the ever increasing complexity of educational and social issues; and WHEREAS, Wayzata School Board members continue to devote countless hours of service to the students, staff, and citizens of District 284; NOW THEREFORE, I, David R. Landswerk, Superintendent of Schools, on behalf of the students, staff, and citizens, do hereby express deep appreciation to the District 284 School Board members for their dedication and commitment to the Wayzata Public Schools. Signed this 11th day of April 1994. David R. Landswerk Superintendent of Schools LMB/1 \b INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 284 Wayzata, Minnesota BOARD OF EDUCATION Special Meeting - April 19, 1994 MINUTES A special meeting of the Board of Education of Independent School District Special Meeting 284 was convened on Tuesday, April 19, 1994, 7:30 a.m., in the Superinten- dent's Office of the District Administration Building, pursuant to due notice. The meeting was tape-recorded. Board Chair Howard Casmey called the meeting to order and Board Clerk Roll Call Patricia Gleason called the roll. The following School Boardmembers were present: Mr. Thomas J. Ahmann, Mr. Howard B. Casmey, Mrs. Patricia L. Gleason, Mrs. Debra L. Jamrogiewicz, Mr. Michael J. Murphy, Mrs. Karen M. Parks, and Dr. David R. Landswerk, Ex Officio. Boardmember absent: Mr. Paul L. Landry. Others present: no one. Mr. Casmey reported that this special meeting had been called to pass a motion Closed Session to go into closed session. A motion was made by Mr. Murphy and seconded by Mrs. Gleason to approve going into closed session to discuss personnel matters. The motion passed unanimously by those present on a 6-0 vote: Mr. Landry was absent. Mr. Murphy left the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Following the closed session and there being no additional business before the Adjourn School Board, a motion was made by Mrs. Jamrogiewicz and seconded by Mrs. Parks to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously by those present on a 6-0 vote; Mr. Landry was absent. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 a.m.. LMB/5 0 `I OA Dt.%V C WAYZATA PUBLIC SCHOOLS `/ M 4 E The May 1994 regular meeting of the District 284 Board of Education was called too at Wayzata High School in the Small Cafeteria at 7:30 p.m. Present were Board members Thomas Ahmann, Howard Casmey. Pat Gleason, Debbie Jamrogiewicz, Paul Landry, Mike Murphy, Karen Parks, and Superintendent David Landswerk, ex officio. RECOGNITIONS Carole Benzick, second grade teacher at Sunset Hill Elementary, Employee of was named Employee of the Month. Her nomination stated, "When the Month someone voiced the challenge to 'practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty' they simply described how Carole Benzick lives. Those of us who work with her enjoy and appreciate her devotion to her profession." Continental Math Three hundred and forty-two students in Grades 3 & 4 participated League Award in the Continental Math League. Janelle Mattson, Vision 21 Winners (Elementary) coordinator at Gleason Lake, presented awards for outstanding achievement to the following students: Grade 3—Joshua Rounds (Kimberly Lane), Kevin Czura (Plymouth Creek), Christopher Paskach (Plymouth Creek), Shelby Wegener (Plymouth Creek), and Ben Heinoi (Sunset Hill). Grade 4—Maria Bruun jGleason Lake), Sarah Newsom (Gleason Lake), and Ben Hammargren (Kimberly Lane). Math Olympiad Two hundred and ninty-seven students in Grades 5 & 6 participated Award Winners in Math Olympiad competition. Janelle Mattson presented medals for achievement to the following students: Grade 5—Rachel Loukusa (Birchview), Eric Hsu (Kimberly Lane), David Kurtz (Kimberly Lane), and Philip Rooney (Kimberly Lane). Grade 6—Anthony Mandile (Kimberly Lane), Aaron Quinn (Kimberly Lane), Melissa Tsang (Kimberly Lane), ;. Prem Padhve (Plymouth Creek), Erin Rhode (Plymouth Creek), and Tim Bancroft (Sunset Hill). Continental Math Dave Nelson, math teacher at Wayzata West, presented medals to the League Winners following students: Wayzata East—Stewart Williams (Grade 7), Craig jSecondary) Wronski (7), Joe Gleason (8), Michael Dammeyer (8), Dave Herman (9), and Tim Bowers (9). Wayzata West— Ryan Carney (7), Courtney Wobig (7), Matt Reinke (8), Dan Kirchgessner (8). Katie Aschenbeck (9), Nikhil Jo lekar (9), Phil Semmer (9), Nick Stang (9), Tom Strnad (9), John Warne j9), and Becky Wvffels (9). Seventh grader Courtney Wobig was first in the region and state. Eighth grader Joe Gleason was first in region and state. The Ninth Grade team from West was first in the nation for the third consecutive year. Art Awards Nancy Hanily Dolan, art instructor at Wayzata High School introduced student artists who have received recent recognition. They are: Sasha Dzubay and Marannie Wilson, St. Mary's College Invitational Art Exhibition Winners; Leah Hughes, National Silver Award winner in ceramics, 1994 Scholastic Art Awards; Leah Hughes (ceramics), Lindsey McDougall (charcoal self-portrait), Toia Okoh (tempera painting and narrative work) had works selected for display at the Classic Lake Conference High School Visual Arts Exhibition. Marannie Wilson received an Award of Excellence for a sculpted ceramic vase. District 284's "Focus on Art 1993-94" exhibit was held at the Wayzata Bay Center in April. It was a juried show with winners selected in the following categories: Best of Show, Superintendent's Awards, Principal's Awards, Awards of Excellence, Sponsored Awards, and Honorable Mentions. Winners in each of these categories were recognized. Leadership Award Mary Powell, Public Information Coordinator, was presented with the "Distinguished Leadership Award" from the Minnesota Chapter of the National School Public Relations Association. AUDIENCE Chloe Lieberknecht, representing the Wayzata High School Student OPPORTUNITY TO Council, reported on activities at the school. Food Fight '94 was ADDRESS THE highly successful. Students at the high school donated baby food BOARD items. The WHS Student Council provided leadership for metrowide student councils engaging in a fundraising campaign to benefit "Sharing and Caring Hands." "Magic Theater" is Friday, May 13. Prom is May 21. Graduation is Thursday. June 9. SUPERINTENDENT'S The Board adopted "Resolution Relating to the Issuance of School RECOMMENDATIONS Building Bonds and Calling an Election Thereon." The resolution Bond Referendum specified that the election will be held on June 7, 1994; for an amount not to exceed $64 million: and that the funds will be used for construction and equipping a new Grades 9-12 senior high school building, remodeling the present senior high building and Birchview Elementary, and for Districtwide technology. FINANCE The Board approved the following: AND BUSINESS April 1994 general checking account ..$1,583,106.76 Monthly Bills March 1994 wire transfer ............... $107,602,232.35 Gifts The following gifts were received by the District: • $2,500 from General Mills Foundation for elementary strings program • $4,193 from Plymouth Creek PTA for playground equipment • $1,814 from Oakwood PTO for field trips • $1,500 from Greenwood PTA for paper costs • $1,000 from Hamel Lions for "guest" training • $130.74 from Oakwood PTO for conflict mediation program Official Auditor The Board approved the designation of the accounting firm of Deloitte & Touche as District 284's official auditor for the Fiscal Year 1994 audit. Transportation The Board approved the regular student transportation service contract with Hanus Bus Company for the 1994-96. HUMAN RESOURCE The following personnel recommendations were approved by the SERVICES Board: Resignation: Joyce Rief—counselor at WHS on leave without pay Retirement Margaret Duntley—elementary teacher at Plymouth Creek who has been employed by the District since 1970 Child Care Leave: Heather Lane—vocal music teacher at Plymouth Creek for the 1994-95 school year Employment; Joseph J. Matson —Buildings and Grounds Supervisor effective May 31; Robert Bostrom-1,0 industrial technology teacher at WHS; Theresa Bostrom—.7 industrial technology at East/West and .2 physical education at East Resolution for The Board approved the resolution not to renew the teaching Nonrenewal of contracts of the following probationary teachers: Contracts Clarene Asche—.5 physical education at Sunset Hill Michael Galde—.7 industrial technology at East/West Linda Henke—physical education at Greenwood Motion to hold The Board will meet in a closed session on May 14 & 15 at the Crown Closed Meeting Sterling Suites for the purpose of interviewing superintendent candidates and selecting finalists. The search firm has narrowed the field of 60 applicants to five individuals who will be interviewed on May 14-15. Two finalists will be selected for site visits in May following these interviews. BOARD UPDATE is a summary of highlights of School Board action items. Complete minutes of the regular meetings are available in all school libraries and from the Administration Building (476-3241 or 476-3108). WAYZATA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Public Information Office 210 County Road 101 North PO Box 660 Wayzata, MN 55391-9990 Jim Willis 3400 Plymouth Boule-, Plymouth, MN 55447 Nonprofit Org. U.S. POSTAGE PAID Wayzata, MN PERMIT NO. 43 Minutes of the Regular Meeting Board of Education, Independent School District 279 Maple Grove, Minnesota May 3, 1994 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Board of Education was held on Tuesday, May 3, 1994 in the Media Center at Osseo Elementary School. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chairperson Clair Coughlin. ROLL CALL The following were present: Board members - Ron Christensen, Clair Coughlin, Lynda Forbes, Russ Funk, Patience Gall, and Rich Krambeer, and the Superintendent of Schools, Marl Ramsey. PLEDGE OF The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. ALLEGIANCE ACCEPTANCE Motion by Mr. Funk, seconded by Mrs. Forbes, to accept the printed OF AGENDA agenda. The motion carried unanimously. OPEN FORUM No one addressed the Board in the Open Forum. HOST Principal Bobbi Gale welcomed all present to Osseo Elementary School. SCHOOL Teacher Penny Thorkilson reviewed SEM (Schoolwide Enrichment REPORT Model) activities. A number of teachers and students shared science learning and projects. PROCLA- Nancy Wavrin, supervisor of elementary physical education, presented MATION a proclamation to the Board. Motion by Mr. Krambeer, seconded by Mr. Christensen to proclaim May as "National Physical Education and Sport Month." The motion carried unanimously. CONSENT Motion by Mrs. Forbes, seconded by Mrs. Gall, to approve items in the CALENDAR Consent Calendar as follows: Minutes of the regular meeting of April 19, 1994. Verified Accounts Payable dated May 3. 1994. Licensed Personnel: To accept the resignation of Mary Grimmer, effective 6/10/94; to grant child care leaves to Ann W. Evenson, effective 8/29/94, Janelle Rau, effective 8/29/94, and Brenda Schneider, effective 8/29/94; to grant leave of absence to Susan Rush, educational leave, 1994-95 school year; and to employ Elizabeth Albrecht, effective 4/21/94. Nonlicensed Personnel: To acknowledge with appreciation the long- term service of Kenneth L. Gulbraa, and now to accept his request for retirement, effective 7/31/94; to grant child care leave to Connie Schwecke, effective 5/24/94 through 7/5/94; and to employ Donald Balck, effective 4/22/94, Kathy Betzold, effective 4/25/94, Ronald Crossland, effective 4/14/94, Rosemarie McNally, effective 4/18/94, and Carol Staples, effective 4/20/94. Contract for Services by and between Independent School District No. 279 and Dennis Skinner, for services in preparing the Even Start Family Literacy grant for submission to the State Department of Education. The consultant shall be paid a rate of $30.00 per hour for 100 hours. __�- \ C_'� Minutes of the regular meeting, May 3, 1994 (page two) CONSENT Contract for Services by and between Independent School District CALENDAR No. 279, Chapter 1, and Forever Learning Corporation (Kip McGrath) for after-school tutoring services for Chapter 1 students, at a cost not to exceed $10,000. Nonresident Student Attendance Agreements Secondary Outgoing 1993-94: Five resident students to finish the school year. Secondary Incoming 1993-94: Three nonresident students to finish the school year. Secondary Incoming 1994-95: One nonresident student to finish senior high school. Elementary Outgoing 1993-94: Eight resident students to finish the school year. Elementary Outgoing 1994-95: Three resident students to complete an elementary grade or due to daycare provisions. Elementary Incoming 1993-94: Four nonresident students to finish the school year. Elementary Incoming 1994-95: Eleven nonresident students to finish an elementary grade or due to daycare provisions, and one due to extenuating circumstances. Student Trip by Maple Grove Junior High eighth grade High Performance Earth Science class to Iron World in Hibbing, May 20-21. Convention, Conference and Workshop attendance for Maria Swan - Paraprofessional: Critical Link, Mankato, April 1-2; Dean Reiners - Leadership for Positive Change, Clearwater, Florida, April 4-8; Jean Lingbeck - Minnesota Association for Secondary Vocational Administrators, Duluth, April 21-22; Mark Obarski - DECA National Conference, Detroit, April 22-27; LeAnn Helgeson - Golf Tournament, Elk River, April 26; Nancy Wavrin - Department of Education, St. Cloud, April 26-27; Renee McWilliams - MEEP, Brainerd, April 27-29; Julia Jilek - Vision Strategy 1994 Equity Conference, Brainerd, April 27-29; John Erickson - Senate Human Resources Committee, Washington D.C., Apr'128; Carol Heselton - MEEP, Brainerd, April 28-29; Laura Olson - Minnesota Kindergarten Association, Bemidji, April 30; Dawn Kennedy - American Cancer Society, New Ulm, May 5; Rose Ann Koop, Debbie Petersen, Colleen Jullie, Byron Smith, Monica Peterson, Ruby Babst, Margie Weber, Michelle Karlson, Margaret Triplett, Jane Saxton, Sandra White, Mary Cameron, Ginny Gryniewski, Kathy Dwyer, Diane Przymus, Linda Sundean, Larry Henson and Karen Allen - Annual Paraprofessional Conference, Hutchinson, May 6-7; Tim Paske and Bob Iverson - Supermileage Competition, Brainerd, May 19-20; John Nelson and Roger Strom - Creating Learning Environments, Orlando, June 20-25; and Dale Hamilton, Roofing Seminar, Tremco, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio, May 10, 11, 12. Minutes of the regular meeting, May 3, 1994 (page three) CONSENT CALENDAR __l--= \C -- Minutes C and 4-2. The motion to approve the above items on the Consent Calendar carried unanimously. ORCHARD Board member Ron Christensen introduced the following resolution LANE and moved its adoption: CONSTRUCTION RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION DATED MARCH 22, 1994 AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO ORCHARD LANE ELEMENTARY TO STONEBROOK HAYMAKER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND AWARDING SAID CONTRACT TO W.H. CATES CONSTRUCTION WHEREAS, pursuant to advertisement for bids for additions and alterations to Orchard Lane Elementary, according to the plans and specifications thereof on file in the District Office of Independent School District No. 279, said bids were received on March 9, 1994, at nine o'clock a.m., opened and tabulated according to the law and the following bids for the Base Bid and Alternate Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and S were received complying with the advertisement: Minutes of the regular meeting, May 3, 1994 (page four) RESOLUTION Base Bid and Alternate Bidder Nos. 1.2. 3, 5.6. 7 and 8 Stonebrook Haymaker Construction Co. $803,102.00 W.H. Cates Construction 861,500.00 Fulco Construction 874,600.00 Zeman Construction 881,500.00 James Stelle Construction 885,600.00 Parkos Construction 891,550.00 CM Construction 901,874.00 Lovering-Johnson, Inc. 915,294.00 Gladstone Construction 917,222.00 Rochon Corporation 928,600.00 Mikkelson-Wulff Construction 929,700.00 Merrimac Construction 934,262.00 Lund Martin Construction 935,000.00 C.O. Field Company 943,112.00 WHEREAS, pursuant to the advertisement for bids and the plans and specifications, all bidders submitted bid security with their bid in the amount of five (5) percent of their bid, in the form of a certified check, cashier's check or bid bond; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Bid Form all bidders, upon written notice of acceptance of their bid, agreed to enter into a Contract with the School District in accordance with the bid as accepted and in a form acceptable to the School District, and to furnish and deliver to the School District the Performance Bond, Labor and Material Payment Bond, and proof of insurance coverage, pursuant to the specifications, all within ten (.10) days after notice of acceptance of the bid; and WHEREAS, upon the opening and tabulation of the bids it was determined that the bid (including the Base Bid and Alternate Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8) submitted by Stonebrook Haymaker Construction Company ("Stonebrook/Haymaker") was the lowest bid; and WHEREAS, the School District's Architect asked the representative of Stonebrook/Haymaker who was present at the bidopening if Stonebrook/Haymaker was comfortable with its bid, particularly in light of discrepancies in the amounts bid for Alternate Nos. 2 and 3 in comparison to the amounts bid by other bidders for those Alternates; and WHEREAS, the representative of Stonebrook/Haymaker responded to the Architect's inquiry by indicating that Stonebrook/Haymaker was comfortable with its bid, but that it would recheck its bid in all respects to ensure that there were no errors; and WHEREAS, on March 18, 1994, a representative of Stonebrook/ Haymaker sent a letter to the Architect stating that they were comfortable with their Base Bid and Alternate Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8; and - \C - Minutes of the regular meeting, May 3, 1994 (page five) RESOLUTION WHEREAS, based on the certification provided by Stonebrook/ Haymaker and the fact that Stonebrook/Haymaker had submitted the lowest bid, the School Board of the School District awarded the contract for additions and alterations to Orchard Lane Elementary (Base Bid and Alternate Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8) to Stonebrook/Haymaker on March 22, 1994 for the amount of $803,102.00; and WHEREAS, a letter of intent to proceed advising Stonebrook/Haymaker that it had been awarded said contract was issued by the Architect on behalf of the School District to Stonebrook/Haymaker on March 23, 1994; and WHEREAS, Stonebrook/Haymaker have refused to execute a Contract with the School District and furnish and deliver the required bond and insurance documentation; and WHEREAS, in light of apparent intention on the part of Stonebrook/ Haymaker to repudiate the Contract with the School District for the additions and alterations to Orchard Lane Elementary in accordance with its bid submitted on March 9, 1994, the School District sent a letter to Stonebrook/Haymaker directing them to execute the Contract and provide the appropriate bonds and insurance by 12:00 noon on Tuesday, May 3, 1994; and WHEREAS, Stonebrook/Haymaker were advised that their failure to execute the Contract and provide the appropriate bonds and insurance within said time period would constitute a repudiation on the part of Stonebrook/Haymaker, which would result in the rescission of the award of the contract to Stonebrook/Haymaker and an award of said contract to the next lowest bidder; and WHEREAS, Stonebrook/Haymaker failed to execute the Contract and provide the appropriate bonds and insurance within said time period; and WHEREAS, it appears that W.H. Cates is the next lowest responsible bidder (Base Bid and Alternate Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8) at the tabulated price of $861,500.00. Minutes of the regular meeting, May 3, 1994 (page six) RESOLUTION - \ C:—, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the School Board of Independent School District No. 279, Maple Grove, Minnesota, as follows: 1. That the resolution awarding the Contract for additions and alterations to Orchard Lane Elementary to Stonebrook/Haymaker adopted by the School Board on March 22, 1994, be and hereby is rescinded. 2. That the School District shall retain the Bid Bond submitted by Stonebrook/Haymaker and take any and all action necessary to recover its damages. 3. That the Contract for additions and alterations to Orchard Lane Elementary (Base Bid and Alternate Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8), according to the plans and specifications thereof hereto before approved by the School Board and on file in the District Office of the School District, be and hereby is awarded to W.H. Cates Construction in the amount of $861,500.00. 4. That the Chair and Clerk of the School Board are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract with W.H. Cates Construction, in the name of Independent School District No. 279, for the additions and alterations to Orchard Lane Elementary including Alternate Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8, according to the plans and specifications on file in the District Office of the School District. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Board Member Rich Kram and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Ron Christensen, Clair Coughlin, Lynda Forbes, Russ Funk, Patience Gall, and Rich Krambeer. and the following voted against the same: No one whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. DPAC Karen McGurk, Chair, presented the annual report of the District REPORT Planning Advisory Council. She reviewed the high priority recommendations from the three subcommittees of DPAC contained in the report. Following discussion, motion by Mrs. Gall, seconded by Mr. Christensen, to accept the report of the District Planning Advisory Council, with appreciation to the members. The motion carried unanimously. PHYSICAL Nancy Wavrin, supervisor, Elementary Phy Ed; Kathy Omberg, teacher; EDUCATION and Robin Gillispie, teacher, presented an overview of the district's physical education program, which is unique, in that it is theme -based and includes biomechanics. A videotape "Movement is a Lifesaver," was also shown. 1 \ C� Minutes of the regular meeting, May 3, 1994 (page seven) GIFTS TO THE Motion by Mrs. Forbes, seconded by Mr. Krambeer, to accept DISTRICT with great appreciation the following gifts to the district: from Birch Grove PTO - $613.55, patrols and peer mediators to Valleyfair; Cedar Island PTO - $579, patrol and Kids in Service to Valleyfair; Edgewood PTO - $5,865.69, phy ed rewards, admission to Skateland and $layground equipment; and $135, patrol to Valleyfair; Elm Creek PTO 247.50, patrol to Valleyfair; Fair Oaks PTO - $668, patrol and helpers to Valleyfair. From Fernbrook PTO - $292.50, field day ribbons and patrol to Valleyfair, $75, end -of -year party for student volunteers, and $192.90, paper and frames for Spin Art machine; Osseo Elementary PTA - $366, patrol to Valleyfair; Palmer Lake PTA - $5,680, computer equipment, and $334, transportation and tickets to Valleyfair; Park Brook PTO - $206.50, admission for grade two youth performance; Weaver Lake PTO - $1,200, St. Croix transportation, chaperones and hardship expenses, and $207, patrol to Valleyfair. From Willow Lane PTA - $100, ribbons for Super Kids' Day, and $2,200, volunteer coordinator's salary; Zanewood PTO - $370, transportation to Valley Fair; Osseo Elementary Student Council - $700, MacIntosh computer; Climb Theatre - $798,grant for Climb Theatre performance at Crest View; Sharon Narum and Linda Thielman - $35, for honor roll breakfast at Brooklyn Junior; Brooklyn Junior Student Council - $350, world language software program; Student Council of North View - $1,150, incentive awards for the Knight STAR project and $575, supplies for the Knight STAR project. The motion carried unanimously. SCHOOL Motion by Mrs. Gall, seconded by Mrs. Forbes, to approve the following BOARD polices on second and final reading: POLICIES a. Policy No. 5117, In -district Student Transfers b. Policy No. 4111. 1, Voluntary Transfer c. Policy No. 4111.2, Involuntary Transfer d. Policy No. 6212, Class Size and Student -Teacher Staffing Ratios. The motion carried unanimously. RECESS The meeting was recessed at 9:05 p.m. to allow school board members AND time to read and review the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and RECONVENING Recommended Decision of the Hearing Officer relative to a proposed expulsion. The meeting was reconvened at 9:13 p.m. Minutes of the regular meeting, May 3, 1994 (page eight) EXPULSION Board member Ron Christensen introduced the following resolution OF STUDENT and moved its adoption: RESOLUTION EXPELLING THE PUPIL IDENTIFIED IN THE ATTACHMENTS HERETO (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE PUPIL") WHEREAS, the Pupil is a full-time student of Independent School District No. 279, Maple Grove, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, it has been recommended by the administration of the School District that the Pupil be expelled as a student in the School District for the remainder of the 1993-94 school year; and WHEREAS, the Pupil and the Pupil's parent were properly served with written notice of the School District's intent to initiate expulsion proceedings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Pupil Fair Dismissal Act, said Notice contained a statement of the facts; a list of witnesses and description of their testimony; described alternative educational programs accorded the Pupil prior to the commencement of the expulsion proceedings; stated the date, time and place of the hearing; and advised them of their rights, including the right to waive the hearing in writing if they wished to acquiesce to the expulsion proposed by the School District; and WHEREAS, said Notice was also accompanied by a copy of the Pupil Fair Dismissal Act, Minn. Stat. §127.26 to 127.39, inclusive; and WHEREAS, said Notice stated that the hearing on the proposed expulsion of the Pupil was scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on April 26, 1994, in the CRC Room at Brooklyn Junior High School, 7377 Noble Avenue North in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, a hearing on the proposed expulsion of the Pupil was held before Independent Hearing Officer Steven R. Rutzick, on April 26, 1994, in accordance with the Pupil Fair Dismissal Act; and WHEREAS, all Board members have reviewed the evidence adduced at the hearing along with all the files, records and proceedings therein, including the Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommended Decision which were received by the School District on May 3, 1994. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the School Board of Independent School District No. 279, that, based upon its complete review of the entire record of the proceedings herein, the School Board finds that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommended Decision of the Independent Hearing Officer are supported by substantial evidence on the record as presented at the hearing; and Minutes of the regular meeting, May 3, 1994 (page nine) EXPULSION BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommended Decision of the Independent Hearing Officer attached hereto as Exhibit A be and hereby are adopted by the School Board as its Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision in this matter; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that, upon the Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision attached hereto as Exhibit A, the Pupil is hereby expelled as a student in the School District for the remainder of the 1993-94 school year; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this Resolution and the attached findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision be immediately served personally or by certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the Pupil and the Pupil's parent; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of the School Board give written notice of expulsion to the Pupil and the Pupil's parents in substantially the same form as in Exhibit B attached hereto; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that pursuant to a proper request, Independent School District No. 279, Maple Grove, Minnesota, shall provide copies of this Resolution. However, any release of said Resolution shall not include the Exhibits which are attachments hereto, as the School Board finds that such materials constitute private data on individuals pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, more specifically Minn. Stat. §13.32. The Superintendent is specifically directed to maintain the private data classification of these materials in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws including the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing Resolution was duly seconded by Board member Russ Funk; and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof: Ron Christensen, Clair Coughlin, Lynda Forbes, Russ Funk, Patience Gall, and Rich Krambeer; and the following voted against the same: No one; Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted. 1994 Superintendent Ramsey reported briefly on the status of education bills LEGISLATIVE in the State Legislature. Positive components to date are $600,000 SESSION designated for a grant program for at -risk schools, an increase in the weighting for kindergarten students, and flexibility in the use of new Learning Development Aid. The Education Conference Committee will determine the final legislation. ANNOUNCE- a. Negotiations strategy session, Tuesday, May 10, 5:00 p.m., ESC MENTS b. School Board work session, Tuesday, May 10, following negotiations session, ESC C. School Board Election, Tuesday, May 17, polls open 7:00 a.m. - 8:00 p.m. d. Flora Rogge Reception, Tuesday, May 17, 7:30 p.m., ESC e. Next regular School Board meeting, Tuesday, May 17, 8:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT At 9:25 p.m., motion by Mr. Funk, seconded by Mr. Coughlin, to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. Lynda Forbes, Clerk Communitc Volume 10, Issue 5 6 " �F Newsletter for District 279 KEY COMMUNICATORS MAY, 1994 As promised in our last edition of the "Key Communicator," here we are right back at you. (Didn't the CBers in the 70s say it that way?) We have a number of cards from the previous mailing, plus some new ones, on a variety of subjects. But first, let's update some things around the district.... BUDGET CUTS The total budget cut amount for the 1994-95 school year was $2.9 million. Someone questioned this process in the following manner, "I'm hearing that there are some cuts being made that are not shown on information sent out -- example: staff cuts in special education. Is this true?" I believe the cuts this writer is referencing are those in areas wherd the district overstaffed last year. All staffing is based on the number of students expected. When fewer show up than predicted, the district is overstaffed. This occurred match the enrollments. This amounted to $800,000 of the cuts and did affect special education. This was documented on all information circulated about the budget cuts. This rollback, however, was not part of the public discussion, and perhaps that is where the "not shown" came from in the writer's letter. Additionally, the administration is seeking to increase revenues (through legislative action and grant writing) by $1,000,000. The remaining $1,100,000 came in hard cuts of identifiable programs and positions. r,A 1985SCHOOL oriA 1993 BELL District GOLDEN 1985 Merit AWARD NOF C 27 ACHIEVEMENT � ;(P O Merit EXCELLENCE /1 Award IN WRITING Osseo Haan scnoocs AWARD WINNER Winner Q An aside to all this: up until now the cuts have been accomplished by program reduction, spending freezes and shaving accounts here and there. If the legislature continues with no funding increases for a fifth and sixth year (next session), there will be cuts of total programs and services. It will no longer be possible to "do the same thing with less." Services will be discontinued. NEVER 100% AGREEMENT ON CUTS "I think it's disgusting how our district pays for things such as 5th and 6th grade orchestra/band and Odyssey of the Mind and then cuts funding for drug counseling. Our priorities are screwed -up! This district holds tight to OM to see its name in print. Pretty soon we will be recognizing lots of individual names in drug treatment programs and paying a lot more in the long run." Remember the recent budget adjustment was a process, with tons of input from parents and the twenty-six schools. The drug counseling program was not cut, but reduced, like everything else this writer cites. The cuts mentioned here were all valuable programs. Band and orchestra were also cut back. While very little district money is spent on OM, that also was cut. As cutbacks continue, more programs considered very valuable by many will be lost. Thinking in terms of the educational mission of the district, where does drug counseling fit alongside music (the arts) and academic competition? PROVING A POINT? This arrived in the same day's mail as the above communication: "Our daughter was in Odyssey of the Mind, what a great program, thank you, teachers and administration, for supporting this wonderful program!!" A new reader of the Key Communicator wrote about gender equity in math and science. 'Wow can the district implement `one gender' math and science classes? I'd like to see if my daughter could thrive in math in that type of atmosphere. Studies prove out that theory. Is this possible? Even at an experimental level?" This question led to a long and interesting discussion with Don Pascoe, the district's science/math curriculum specialist. He explained that the concept behind the "one gender" (all girls) classes is that the girls would be forced to take a more active role in experimentation and question answering. Now the boys often tend to take a more active role in these classes. There are many cultural biases that produce this. Don believed that there was more experimentation with this in science than in math. In District 279, the girls compete well with the boys until they get to the higher levels, i.e. physics, math analysis, calculus. Today, for example, in calculus, there would not be enough females to fill out a class. For this reason, Pascoe believes that this thrust must start earlier, probably in the junior high. He pointed out some other interesting facts. Dl - Those females who are highly skilled in the math and science areas are not choosing careers in those fields with the same frequency as males. In the area of technical careers where math and science skills are applied the situation is even worse Very few females chose careers here, despite the fact that the business community says this is where many of the good, high -paying jobs of tomorrow will be. People who wish to discuss this gender issue further may call Don Pascoe at 391-7092. In direct answer to our writer's question: It seems that this should be discussed at the junior high or senior high level, especially at the Parent Advisory Council meetings. And before we leave the subject of gender equity... virtually all gender test score reporting I have seen finds the males behind the females in English and writing, often by a far wider margin than the gender gap in math and science. MUST EVERYONE ATTEND COLLEGE? A. - converse of that: market or not." business community, our current direction (heavy college prep) in preparing our children for careers, K-12 and post K-12, will be farther and farther from the mark. The fires in local high schools have raised questions about our own schools. One of the issues is the sprinklering of schools. All schools built since 1980 (beginning with Rice Lake and Elm Creek) are sprinklered. Some older buildings with additions are also sprinklered, including Birch Grove, Crest View, Edgewood, Fair Oaks, Palmer Lake and the Early Childhood Centers in the shopping malls. After this summer, Garden City, Orchard Lane and Park Brook will be sprinklered. Maple Grove Junior High is the only secondary building with a sprinkler system. Under a new law, all school buildings will be inspected soon, and all nonsprinklered will be ordered to have a system installed. Once this happens, the money can be obtained possible. Our buildings are fire retardant, since we have no wood frame construction and our hallways are the and terrazzo. One of the problems in the Burnsville fire was the carpeted hallway. LOOK FOR WOMEN'S HOCKEY IN DISTRICT 279 IN THE FALL. While the School Board has not yet made a final decision, they ate studyingg a proposal. The proposal will be to initiate the sport at both high schools next fall, and do it within � the current athletic budget. That means shaving coaches in the other sports. Outfitting the teams will be taken mostly from the capital outlayy budget and will not affect the general fund (instructional) budget. Originallygender equity in sports sought the same of participants for eacheg nder. While the number of sports in District 279 has been equal for boys and girls, there are more male participants. Hockey and football, two large -number sports, have contributed to this differential. There is a growing demand for girls hockey, and the High School League will make it an approved sport when there are twenty-five teams in the state. At the time of this writing there are more that half that number, and more school districts are studying the issue. MORE MONEY ISSUES While the current session of the legislature is not yet over, it now appears that the 1994- 95 school year will be the fifth in succession without any increase in the funding formula. Legislators will tell you they have funded lower class sizes K-3 and that constituted extra money. No one argues with lower class sizes at the primary level. Nevertheless, costs go up and with everything frozen at levels four years ago (or worse, in the case of cutbacks), and with a two-year hiring freeze, class sizes are going up in grades 4-12. Even with only a 3% annual inflation rate, that's 12% on the general fund, or about ten million dollars of loss. Minnesota's level of support for education is falling when compared to other states. THOSE LYING ADMINSTRATORS... AGAIN "Relating to expanding the window for open enrollment... More and more residents of the district continue to distrust the administrators of District 279. More than a year ago, we were told that our schools were so crowded that it was necessary to build a new senior high. We trusted your judgement by voting for the new school referendum. Now we read that our senior highs are really not crowded. District administrators are opening the window to accept "outside" students. Don't you realize that as more Minneapolis students attend our schools, more District 279 residents are becoming upset and are withdrawing their children from our schools. This defeats the window for open enrollments." I will do my very best not to read more into this response that the words allow. Let's deal with the facts. District 279 receives very few open enrollment students from Minneapolis, despite the fact that Minneapolis citizens have the same rights as the rest of "us". Open enrollment is the law of the state, and if citizens can't handle "outside" students, they will be hard-pressed to find safe haven anywhere in Minnesota. Just because one high school came in under projection for one year doesn't mean all statements about the bond election were wrong, or even misleading, Here are the 1993-94 school year enrollment facts. Osseo Senior High was projected to open the year (1993) with 2361 students (361 over normal capacity). They came in 66 students under projection at 2295. Park Center was projected at 1684 and opened with 1682. The junior highs were projected at 4845 and came in at 4778, a loss of 67 students or about 17 students per building. At the elementary level, twenty buildings came in short by 152 students or an average of less than eight per building. Fernbrook was projected with growth and came in 67 short and continues to lose students despite new home construction. Adding up these numbers, we find fall enrollments nearly 300 short of projections. There are a lot of reasons for this, including people not wanting their children involved with the two-year crowding prior to opening the new senior high. They told us this. Additionally, I believe we have replaced a number of older families with very young families. This happened before when interest rates were very low. A number of kindergartners didn't show because their parents opted for all -day classes through a private or commercial school. Altogether, our shortfall of students amounted to nearly a million dollars in lost state aid and contributes to the ongoing budget problem. By becoming more liberal in our open enrollment, we are attempting to recoup some of the losses. There will be no influx of students, and no one will notice a difference in their child's class. If we gain more than 10% of our loss (30 students), I would be surprised. The open enrollment numbers (incoming and outgoing,) are very small, less than 100 either way. As far as the need for a high school: The current enrollment of grades 2-4 is 5150 students. Divide that number (with no class growth at all) and you have 1500 at Park Center, 1800 at Osseo Senior High and 1850 at the new school, with the district still growing. There was not, and is not now, any option other than a third high school. A Boundary change committee appointments have been made and all positions have been filled. We expect to call a meeting before school is out. Here's a card that raises a "history question. "It seems students are moved from the north to the schools south of 694. Was it ever thought to move students from the west to the east? Students north of 85th have already been moved from Birch Grove to Edinbrook,--now another change?!" The answer is "yes." During the sixties, seventies and part of the eighties, Maple Grove students attended virtually all of the eastern schools, including those south of the freeway. Right now, there are still about 400 Maple Grove students attending Edgewood and Edinbrook. Additionally, more than 1300 attend school in New Hope, and it is the replacement of those schools that precipitates this boundary change. How to BOUNDARY CHANGE RUMOR OF THE MONTH A Key Communicator trooper writes that she "Heard a rumor from a resident behind (Maple Grove Junior High) that the boundaries have already been set ...and the committee is simply there to `hash it out' and put their John Henry on the recommendations already put forth. " We've heard this one too, quite a few times. Its just more of that sneaky administration duping forty citizens representing twenty-six schools to vote unanimously for a plan they don't want. Another writer elaborated on this rumor by specifying that the above plan sends the Cedar Island/Rice Lake area to Park Center. Rats! Somebody leaked the secret plan! (See above) A STAFF DRESS CODE? I have received two messages (in different handwriting) that expressed this same idea. Administrators and staff members read this publication. If anyone cares to continue this discussion, our pages are open. The dress attire for our teachers is terrible. How are our students supposed to respect anyone in authority when the teachers are wearing jeans andflannel Zannel shirts like the rest of the students! Let's get real. A 3 piece suit is not necessary, but jeans, T-shirts, flannel and sweatshirts are not appropriate for faculty members. Set a dress code for the staff of our schools. " Several of you wrote about increasing the number of lunch periods, the cost of the experimental "dry run" of next year's program and that, generally, discipline at Osseo Senior was going on a long trip in a handbasket. Admittedly, these cards were written before the dry run. Here's what we now know. The_dry run day went very well, there heard, many are upbeat about the possibilities for next year. The program will be improved and refined. Remember, this solution to the short-term crowding at Osseo Senior High was the choice of a committee that met for a year and studied the options. The only other option was split shifts, which they rejected. S: PARK CENTER STUDENTS ON BROOKLYN BOULEVARD "Students who stand on the sidewalk in front of Park Center (on the school's side of the fence) do a tremendous disservice to the school. First, they block the sidewalk, forcing some students to walk in the street, creating a safety concern. Second, they are the most visible representation of Park Center to the community and the hundreds of commuters who pass them every morning. I have talked to the administrators many times, but the problem persists. " Periodically, this year, when smoking has been involved, the police have dispersed the gathering. The difficulty is that they are effectively off the school property. If they also happen to be truant from school, they do suffer the consequences. An appeal to school spirit doesn't seem to help. I don't believe there is much disagreement with this writer's statement. HEAD START Head Start's parent involvement moved a parent to write: "Head Start has a successful model which I feel could be adapted for implementation into all public schools at all levels. Involve the parents! Educate the parents! Require the parents to be involved! What do you (the public) and the school staff think about this suggestion?" The first and second highest correlations to success in school are the educational level of the mother and the father, in that order. I assume this also measures, to some extent, parental involvement with children. (If they were not involved, would their educational level have any effect)? Few argue that parental involvement does not impact children's learning. Where the ideal breaks down is the "require" part. The school district, unlike Head Start, has no authority to "require." KEY COMMUNICATOR IDENTITY Your response on use of names was uniform and nearly unanimous. Use names where people give permission (by signing their name), but continue to provide anonymity for those who wish it. So, if you give me your name, I will use it. If not, we will still use your correspondence. YOU CONTINUE TO WRITE ABOUT DIVERSITY I'm "commented out" on the subject, except to say, once again, that I'm suspicious of "Them - Us" phrasing. I'll bet you have some comments on these next five responses, which we received shortly before going to press. "1 would like to know if there are any other viable options in our district for `at -risk' students and their 'peers' to make their learning environment more conducive to education. The two mentioned in the April newsletter were more public funding (and all the good programs it buys) and dispersion?" (Good question! Any ideas?) "I agree with the elementary principal, by `dispersing the diversity' we bury the problem and give it to someone else! We pay much more to live on the `west side' for a_reason. and it's not to have the east kids brought over to us. Let some more of the tax money we pay help those kids, but do it in their own neighborhoods. The whole neighborhoods need help and support, not just the troubled kids." "1 agree with your statement that busing to achieve `dispersal' would be unfair and counterproductive. Keep neighborhood schools at any cost and add funding for additional counselors and/or programs that at -risk students may need. West end schools and parents must accept that their advantages in life outweigh the possible appearance of favoritism' from the schools (or they can move east)!" "I don't think `disperse the diverse' debate is resolved, so it shouldn't be put on the back burner. You say the 'diverse' do not want to move. Neither do the west side people. Everyone wants a neighborhood school, but it can't be done. Many people should have to move when there are new boundary changes. You say we're already spending more for 'at -risk' students, but 1 submit that's not working. The whole district needs to share in helping these kids. They are part of our future, but the future won't be good unless we find positive solutions, part of which should be dispersing the diverse. I think kids with fewer- problems on the east side are being dragged down." "Myfirst newsletter! To me, and many of us on the `west' side, we don't care what a child's color or economic condition is, we care about the child's behavior. As parents we help guide our children into relationships with other children. There are children in this neighborhood that my kids know that I'm not crazy about them playing with, because of their. behavior, not because of any other factor. We have behavior problems out here. If you could send us `at -risk' students without behavior problems, great. If you want to give us more, expect parents to balk. We chose the location of our home based first on safety, then on proximity to family and friends, and finally convenience of roads and businesses. If we thought our children's safety was in danger, no question, we would move -- even though we plann on staying here until our kids are through college." Published by ISD 279 (Osseo Area Schools), Educational Service Center, 11200 93rd Ave. N., Maple Grove, MN 55369-6605. Bill Dix, Editor, Kathy Elert, Editorial Secretary. BOARD OF EDUCATION Clair W. Coughlin, Chairperson Patience H. Gall, Vice Chairperson Lynda Forbes, Clerk Ron Christensen, Treasurer Russ Funk, Director Rich Krambeer, Director Dr. Marl Ramsey Superintendent of Schools Educational Service Center ISD 279 - Osseo Area Schools 11200 93rd Avenue North Maple Grove, MN 55369-6605 SERO"1A N. MR XIM M4YOR CITY O PLYMOH PLYMO PLYMOUTH. MIN H BLVD 55447 Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 3 Osseo, Minnesota 1 JACK DATE: May 14, 1994 TO: Dwight Johnson, City Manager cc: Alan Barnard, City Attorney's Office Planning Staff c FROM: Anne Hu lburt, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Attorney General Opinion re Time Frames for Subdivision Approvals and Environmental Review Last February, following a meeting with State Legislators, the City Council asked staff to request the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) to seek a legal opinion from the Attorney General to define how the statutory deadlines for preliminary plat approvals can be reconciled with the EQB's rules and timelines for environmental reviews. We have received a response to that request, and a copy is attached for your information. The Attorney General's office agrees with the interpretations that have been made in the past by EQB staff, and upon which the City has relied: that the environmental review requirements take precedence over the 120 timeframe for preliminary plat review. The "clock stops" during the review of environmental documents. In addition to this finding, the letter offers some suggestions on how a city can minimize the conflict between the review timelines. One suggestion was to not find a preliminary plat application complete for review until the environmental review documents are complete. We may want to consider incorporating this requirement when we revise the city's subdivision regulations in the future. They also suggest using the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process that is available in the EQB's rules. Using the AUAR will be a real possibility for Northwest Plymouth, as a logical extension of the planning process. It could improve our environmental reviews and project reviews if and when that area is urbanized. memos\5059\egbag. doc )ACk� E 01 u MAY 13 1;24 e'r'r ; y 0,()MMU°NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT May 10, 1994 Ms. Anne Hurlburt Community Development Director City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 RE: Opinion of Attorney General re Timeframes of Plat Approval and Environmental Review Dear Ms. Hurlburt: Enclosed is a memorandum from the EQB's legal counsel of the staff of the Attorney General in reply to the issue raised by the city concerning the relative timeframes of environmental review and plat approval. In brief, our legal counsel believes that environmental review requirements take precedence over the 120 day timeframe of plat review. The reasons are explained in the memorandum. Mr. Mitchell also presents some thoughts in his memorandum (on the last page) on how a city might act to avoid apparent conflicts that could arise between the two statutory schemes. I trust this information will be helpful to the city. Sincerely, -- 1 Gregg Downing Coordinator Environmental review program cc: Alan Mitchell, Assistant Attorney General Robert Dunn, Chair, EQB :'. FYUIQOYYFYTAI OIIAIITV AOAQQ 15A I'FOAQ QTOFFT QT QAIII YY 55155 117 701_700!! FAY 919 9QR_gRQA QTAFF QQOIIIAFO AV M DIANNIN9 TO FROM SUBJECT STATE OF MINNESOTA Office of the Attorney General : ROBERT DUNN, CHAIR Z -1A C)- STATE ). DATE : April 27, 1994 MICHAEL SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR GREGG DOWNING, EIS COORDINATOR ALAN R. MITCHELL Assistant Attorney General PHONE : 297-5944 (Voice) 282-2525 (TDD) CITY OF PLYMOUTH PLAT APPLICATION REVIEW The City of Plymouth has written to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and requested assistance in reconciling the environmental review requirements of the Environmental Policy Act [Minn. Stat. ch. 116D] and the rules of the EQB [Minn. Rules ch. 44101 with the statutory requirements of the Municipal Planning Act [Minn. Stat. §§ 462.351 to 462.379] for reviewing preliminary plat applications. The City presented the following FACTS Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 3b (1992) provides that an application for a subdivision project must be preliminarily approved or disapproved by the city within 120 days following delivery of a completed application. If an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) were required on the project, the city would not be able to complete the EAW or EIS within the 120 day time period. The City asks the following QUESTION How can a municipality reconcile the 120 day time period in section 462.358, subd. 3b with the obligation to prepare an EAW or EIS on a proposed subdivision project? ANSWER In my view, the need to complete the appropriate environmental review, whether preparation of an EAW or EIS or action on a citizen petition for an EAW, would take precedence over the statutory directive for a city to act within 120 days on a subdivision application. I do not believe that Minn. Stat. § 462.358 can be relied on to defeat the obligation to conduct environmental review of a proposed subdivision project, even if the review takes longer than 120 days. Robert Dunn April 27, 1994 Page 2 DISCUSSION The Legislature has declared that, "to the fullest extent practicable the policies, rules and public laws of the state shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in sections 116D.01 to 116D.06 [the Environmental Policy Act]." Minn. Stat. § 116D.03, subd. 1 (1992). I read this statute to mean that the Legislature intended that other statutory provisions should be interpreted to accomodate the directives of the Environmental Policy Act if at all possible. The way to do that in this case is to toll the 120 day time limit during the time environmental review is ongoing. There are other indications in the Environmental Policy Act that the Legislature intended for environmental review to take precedence over other requirements. Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2b (1992) provides: If an environmental assessment worksheet or an environmental impact statement is required for a governmental action under subdivision 2a, a project may not be started and a final governmental decision may not be made to grant a permit, approve a project, or begin a project, until: (1) a petition for an environmental assessment worksheet is dismissed; (2) a negative declaration has been issued on the need for an environmental impact statement; (3) the environmental impact statement has been determined adequate; or (4) a variance has been granted from making an environmental impact statement by the environmental quality board. Approving a subdivision application while environmental review is ongoing would require a city to violate these statutory mandates. In my view, the Legislature would prefer for the 120 day time period to be extended than to make a final decision on a project before environmental review was completed. It is of no consequence that section 462.358 talks about preliminary approval. The preliminary approval of a subdivision application conveys certain rights and obligations that make the decision final in some respects. Seg Minn. Stat. § 462.358, subd. 3c (1992) ("no amendment to a comprehensive plan or official control shall apply to or affect" the application for one year after approval). The statutory definition of "preliminary approval" in Minn. Stat. § 462.352, subd. 16 (1992) confirms that a city's preliminary decision on a subdivision application is a final decision. That defintion provides that "preliminary approval" means "official action taken by a municipality on an application to create a subdivision which establishes the rights and obligations set forth in section 462.358 and the applicable subdivision regulation. " Robert Dunn April 27, 1994 Page 3 Another reason to give precedence to the environmental review statutes is because the Municipal Planning statutes (Minn. Stat. §§ 462.351 to 462.379 (1992)] themselves are intended to carry out similar goals of protecting public health, safety, and welfare. The Legislature's policy statement for the Municipal Planning statutes begins: The legislature finds that municipalities are faced with mounting problems in providing means of guiding future development of land so as to insure a safer, more pleasant and more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial and public activities, to preserve agricultural and other open lands, and to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare. Minn. Stat. § 462.351 (1992). Incorporating the requirements of the Environmental Policy Act into the Municipal Planning statutes is consistent with the Legislature's intent that municipalities conduct long range planning that is protective of public health and welfare and the environment. There are no court cases in Minnesota that answer the question presented here. I am confident, however, from other cases decided by the courts involving the environmental statutes and municipal decisionmaking, that the courts would not allow the 120 day time limit to cut off environmental review. One of those cases is Carl Bolander & Sons Co. v. City of Minneapolis. 488 N.W.2d 804 (Minn. App. 1992), affirmed, 502 N.W.2d 203 (Minn. 1993). In the Bolander case, the company challenged the right of the City of Minneapolis to require the preparation of an EAW before determining whether to issue a recycling yard permit. The company argued that based on an earlier case, Chanhassen Estates Residents Assoc. v. City of Chanhassen. 342 N.W.2d 335, 340 (Minn. 1984), a city had to approve a permit request if the application complied with the specific requirements of the ordinance. The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected this argument, citing the restrictions of Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2b prohibiting a governmental body from issuing a permit while environmental review was underway. The Court said, "These statutory provisions override the general rule set forth in Chanhassen Estates," Bolander. 488 N.W.2d at 809. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed, saying: However, the holding in Chanhassen is not applicable to this case because the provisions of Minn. Stat. ch 116D and the rules formulated thereunder, which form the basis for this appeal, were not raised in that case. These staututes must be considered in evaluating Bolander's claim. 502 N.W.2d at 207. In an earlier case, the Minnesota Supreme Court made it clear that project proposers must comply with both local ordinances and environmental statutes. White Bear Rod and Gun Club v. City of Hugo. 388 N.W.2d 739 (Minn. 1986). In that case the Supreme Court said: Robert Dunn April 27, 1994 Page 4 Simply put, for the gun club to conduct outdoor shooting it must be in compliance with the Hugo zoning ordinance and the special use permit issued pursuant thereto and also be in compliance with the requirements of the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act [Minn. Stat. ch 116B]. Id., 388 N.W.2d at 743. The Minnesota Supreme Court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals have consistently held that the environmental laws must be given application in all proceedings. It is unlikely that the Supreme Court would excuse a municipality from completing environmental review because it would extend beyond the 120 day limit. While I believe that the 120 day time limit will have to be extended if necessary to complete environmental review, I think there are steps a municipality could take to minimize the conflict between the two statutory schemes. One thing a municipality with a comprehensive plan and regulations specifying how development shall occur in the community might do is provide in its regulations and ordinances that a preliminary plat application is not complete unless the necessary environmental review documents are included with the application. That way the 120 day time limit will not begin to run until the environmental review documents are completed, since section 462.358, subdivison 3 provides that a "subdivision application shall be preliminarily approved or disapproved within 120 days following delivery of an application completed in compliance with the municipal ordinance." Another step a municipality might consider undertaking is to conduct environmental review of its entire comprehensive planning effort under the EQB's Alternative Urban Areawide Review Process specified in Minn.. Rules part 4410.3610. That rule recognizes that a municipality can elect to conduct environmental review in a more generic way of the community's overall development plan rather than wait until specific projects are proposed by developers. If this kind of review were conducted, it could eliminate the need for environmental review of specific projects as they are proposed. Conducting such review at an early stage without the pressures of approving a project that is ready to begin construction might allow for more comprehensive review of the environmental impacts initially and for quicker action on specific projects in the future. Another alternative available to a community that is facing the end of the 120 day time limit to act on a preliminary application is to simply disapprove the application until the environmental review is completed. Disapproval of the application would not run afoul of the restraints of Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2b (1992). Most developers, I suspect, would prefer that the municipality not disapprove their plans and would agree to an extension of the 120 day time limit until the environmental review can be completed. Section 462.358, subd. 3b recognizes that the applicant can agree to an extension. CONCLUSION In sum, in my view the 120 day time limit for reviewing a preliminary plat application will have to be extended if environmental review cannot be completed within that time period. There are no court cases interpreting these statutory provisions but I think the Minnesota courts have made it clear that municipalities cannot shirk their responsibilities under the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act and the Minnesota En. ronmental Rights Acs. to r;omplete environmental review and consider the environmental consequences of their actions. There are steps, however, that municipalities can consider to minimize the potential conflicts between the statutes. n J n A- "1' I D � DATE: May 10, 1994 TO: Chief Gerde FROM: Sara Cwayna SUBJECT: Operation Buckle Down Mike Goldstein and Curtis Smith have received support from the principals of Wayzata and Armstrong to join with us in sponsoring an Operation Buckle Down Project at each high school. Our Buckle Down Project will unite representatives from the State of Minnesota's Operation Buckle Down Project, Mother's Against Drunk Drivers and Plymouth Police and Fire to recognize students who wear their seatbelts. June 1 at Armstrong and June 2 at Wayzata, the MADD display crash car will be positioned outside of the major entrance area to the school. On each day respectively, Officer Luke Way, Firefighter Henry Arends, Captain Tom Anthony, Project Director from Operation Buckle Down and myself will be stationed at the entrance to the main student parking lot before the school day begins. They will randomly identify 7-10 cars being driven by students wearing their seatbelts. The Police Officer will run the registration of the vehicle to identify the student driver. Working in partnership with the School Liaison Officer and School Administration, students will be located within the building. The Buckle Down Team will go to the classroom of each driver, unannounced, and ask to speak with driver. In front of the class, they will ask the student a couple of questions to verify vehicle registration and to draw the attention of their classmates. They will ask the student if he/she was wearing their seatbelt. Rather than issuing a citation for not wearing the seatbelt, the team will congratulate the driver for wearing their seatbelt, talk about the importance of the seatbelt and award the driver with an "Operation Buckle Down" tee-shirt and baseball cap. We will obtain the students' parents or guardian's address so that we can follow up with a letter from the Public Safety Department congratulating the students safe driving behavior. Helen and I are working on media coverage of the event. May 16, 1994 Mr. Dwight Johnson City Manager City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mr. Johnson: This letter is written out of CONCERN FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. It has been brought to our attention that the City of Plymouth City Council will begin to consider a project for expansion of Zachary Lane into four lanes. I find this idea both upsetting and unnecessary. We live at 11035 38th Place North, with approximately 200 feet of our back yard that runs along Zachary Lane, directly across the street from Mission Hills park. For ourselves and our children to enjoy the area that we moved into almost eight years ago, we strongly oppose having Zachary Lane made into four lanes. The only time there is traffic here is during rush hour, i.e. around 8 a.m. and around 5 p.m. To make this into four lanes would only encourage more traffic from those who want to bypass Hwy 169 on their way to their jobs. Why should the City of Plymouth residential streets/roads take responsibility for the overflow of our highways?! We feel instead that additional lanes should be added to Hwy 169, and that Zachary Lane should be improved to two driving lanes (minor collector) with curb and gutter, with adequate walking/bike paths for us and our neighbors. We also would be in favor of adding stop signs where necessary and a reduced speed limit --THAT IS ENFORCED --for Zachary Lane to reduce noise levels in our neighborhoods and allow us, ,..n ........mar..e .i...rr..1.portantly.._..o.U..r.....c..h.i..l.d_ren, to cross and access parks and schools safely. Therefore, we expect that Zachary Lane will be constructed as a two lane road, with appropriate stop signs and walking/bike paths where necessary. We demand immediate action for the safety of us and our children. We are counting on YQJ, our city council and city employees to represent the best interests of .11 the residents of your city.T,.ha_eaf..etY .af...__Q,.m..r.....c.hl1.d.r_e..n-m..u.st..-h.e.__._c_o__n.atd.er..ed......ex.t_r...e.m.el.y....i..m.p r...ta.nll. Si cerely, E len & Eric Larson 11035 38th Place North Plymouth, MN 55441 545-6597 T-_Ac� 10875 54th Ave N Plymouth, MN 55442 Mayor Joy Tierney City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I am a resident of Plymouth in the Harrison Hills neighborhood. Recently it has been brought to my attention that the proposal to expand Zachary Lane into a four lane highway is going to be brought forth to the city council for approval. I would like to voice my opinion that I vehemently oppose any action that would expand the Zachary Lane into 4 lanes for the following reasons: 1. As a suburban neighborhood we do not need to provide traffic relief to Highway 169. Highway 169 has been undersized since the lower portion of then County RD 18 was opened to 494. This is the State of Minnesota's issue that the road is undersized not the City of Plymouth. 2. The safety and welfare of the residents and their children must be concerned. To access safe bike paths or low volume traffic roads to walk or ride on the residents must now cross Zachary or walk along a 1/4 mile stretchpf Zachary to Schmitt Lake Blvd. As Zachary currently is designed this is a dangerous task due to existing traffic. Widening the road will only accentuate the issue. 3. Who would use the widened Zachary? As it is since County Road 10 was widened, the traffic volume has substantially increased in the mornings and afternoons on Zachary. Many times it takes me 5 minutes of waiting before I can make a left turn out of Harrison Hills on to Zachary. When a train stops traffic that time easily doubles. Where is the traffic coming from? Most likely from residents of Maple Grove. Why are we jeopardizing our neighborhoods for the convenience of residences of another city? What I would propose instead is to reconstruct Zachary lane into a two lane minor collector with walking and bike paths on both sides of the road so that bikers and pedestrians can safely travel from parks, schools, shopping or work without the fear of being run down by motorists. Zachary Lane is in bad need of repair and resurfacing. Please consider the requests of our neighborhoods when making your decision. Sincerely, Cln a��• an.el Gordon May 16, 1994 11160 40th Av( Plymouth, MN Mayor Joy Tierney, City Council Members and City Manager Dwight Johnson City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Mayor Tierney: _1 JA C' My wife and I are both concerned about the plan to expand Zachary lane. While we can certainly see the need to repair this road, converting it to a four (4) lane road for the purpose of off-loading some of the traffic on highway 169 is, in our judgment, a very poor idea. What we would like to see is: Reconstruction of Zachary Lane as a two (2) lane, minor collector, with curb and gutter. Construction of bike/waMng paths on both sides of Zachary where feasible to facilitate safer passage for pedestrians and bikers to neighborhood park areas and schools. Lowering of the speed limit on Zachary Lane to allow for safer passage. The traffic levels on highway 169 is a state problem. It should not be the responsibility of our City of Plymouth to resolve any such problem. To use Zachary lane in this manner is a potentially dangerous and ineffective attempt to solve such a problem. Thank you for hearing our voice among the many who are crying out for a more effective and caring resolution in this matter. Sincerel , f Louis and Lynn Hermanek //0/0 M -1h P1 /, til y tau -8n , �m1-kyi,5; ���� f1A@ E I 1 �j Q., CO. r) rJ Cl ( r CZ) Ui r- � C b lu alt 'T - L ^f � LZ r -LA c. all May 12, 1994 Ms. Joy Tierney, Mayor City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55447 Dear Ms. Tierney: U My sincere thanks for writing to the Zachary Lane Chess Team. They were excited to receive your letter, which was read to them by coach Russell Erickson prior to their National Tournament matches. Copies of letters received will be given to each participant. Before leaving for the National Tournament, the team participated in the State Tournament. The K -3rd grade Primary Team won the STATE CHAMPIONSHIP (43 teams). The 4th & 5th grade Elementary Team finished SECOND (47 teams) in the 4th - 6th grade division (The champion in this division was a team of 6th grade students from Plymouth Middle School, all of whom were former Zachary Lane students). About 1,200 players and 60 teams from around the United States participated in the National Tournament. Zachary Lane competed in three of five divisions. The Primary Grades Junior Varsity Team finished FOURTH, the Upper Elementary Junior Varsity Team finished 24th, and the Upper Elementary Team in the Championship Division finished SIXTH. All three teams, and six players received national trophies. 4, Again, many thanks for your encouragement, and for your thoughtfulness in writing to these young people. Sinc ely, Banning L. a scom Zachary Lane Chess Support Group DATE: May 12, 1994 TO: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager FROM: John R. Sweeney, Assistant City Engineer/Transit Administrator ✓�� SUBJECT: 1994 OPT -OUT TRANSIT LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Attached is a Legislative Update for Opt -Out Transit prepared by George C. Bentley, Legislative Liaison for Plymouth Metrolink and all other Opt -Out communities in the state of Minnesota. The following issues are addressed in detail in the Legislative Update: • Opt -Out legislation • Metropolitan governance • High speed bus • Transit funding • Transit bonding The Legislative Update states that the 1994 session of the Minnesota Legislature ended early in the morning May 7 and that little was done this session to assist transit or highways. Now that the session has ended I will not be receiving any additional updates from George Bentley. I will, however, continue to keep you informed of any impacts on our Plymouth Metrolink system due to recently passed legislation. Unfortunately, due to the change in metropolitan governance I am not sure at this time what, if any, impact we will feel in our Metrolink system. I do not anticipate any adverse impacts at this time, however, I do anticipate a great deal of confusion during the transitional process. If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at your convenience. attachment cc: Fred G. Moore Daniel L. Faulkner Kathy Lueckert F.EhdTLE'r H 0C. , Ihdi TEL 110.r;I i ; -.=,i=i 1 P1 ,1. _I 1Ci. 14 1 Vii) P.0 May 10, 1994 r _JKGJEsJ1_.W iLvJK uFqDkATg FOR OPT --OUT TRANSIT By George Bentley -_� � -1ArZL_ The 1994 session of the Minnesota Legislature ended on the early morning hours of May 7th, and everyone from the legislators to the lobbyists were ready for, tree session to end. it was a particularly rancorous ae9ssion this year with battles between the DFL controlled I-ogislature and the I --R Governor, between outstate and metro legislators, between liberal DFL members and more conservative DFL members, between the House and thA Sonate, and between the DFL majority and the I --R minority_ Everyone seemed to have a battle with someone else, with House Speaker Iry Anderson at the center of many of these battler3_ Transit and transportation bills were not exempt from these battles. Little was done this session to assist transit or highways, virtually guarLu,teeing both will be at the forefront of legislative debate next year_ OPT--0ITP LIWISIATION The bill promoted by opt -out transit this eeesion passed both houaeo by overwhelming margine and was signed by the Governor on May 6th. The legislation allows opt --out transit 000ess to existing regional transit bonding authority for contract reimbursement to private, for profit operators of public transit to provide payments for vehicle depreciation costs, thus removing those costs from operating budgets. These vehicle capital costs to opt -out transit in 1994 will be $442,000. The Senate bill, SF 1736 (Sen. Bill Belanger - Bloomington), passed the Genate several weeks ago on a 61 - 0 vote. The Hruee bill, HF 1917 (Rep_ Becky Kelso - Shakopee), was replaced by the Senate File in the House and had passed all committees without objection, but was held UP on the House floor by leadership because it was designed to benefit "fertile crescent" suburbs. Ultimately it was broken loose on May 2nd and was humeri on the floor on May 3rd where it passed on a 127 -- 4 vo LC . This legislation will benefit more than just opt -out transiL because it broadens tho potential uses of regional transit bonds and allows, generically, the use of bond funds for private, for profit operators of public transit who are under contract with a recipient of transit funding_ It can be applied to Metro Mobility and other suburban programs who contract out service as opt -out doee. GC BENTLEY H UC .. INC TEL N0.612 937-5504 May 10 .94 13:51 F.K. _7- -,Ae— Legislative Update - Page 2 If you get an opportunity to do so, please drop a note to Rep. Kelso and to Sen. Belanger thanking them for their fine work in shepherding our bil] through the process. Their addresses are: Rep. Barky Kolao 60 S. Shannon Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 Gen. Bill Belanger 10716 Beard Ave. So.. Bloomington, MN 55431 The RTB and the MTC, as well as the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, were abolished and rolled into the Metropolitan Council through SF 2015 (Sen. Carol Flynn -- Mpls_ and Rep. Myron Orfield - Mpls.). The MTC and the Waste Commission will be abolished on July 1, 1994, and the RTB will disappear on October 1, 1994. The extension for the RTB is to allow for a smoother transition in the Metro Mobility changeover, set to take place in July after ATE announced its withdrawal from the program. All of the duties, property, policies and personnel of the abolished agencies (with the exceptions of the boards) will be passed on to the Met Council Intact. It is not yet clear how the Council will manage transit policy, oversight and operations, but it ie expected that opt -out wP3 see little change in regional oversight in the initial phase of the transition, probably about a year and one-half. opt -out itself was not directly impacted by this metro reorganization, but expected changes in regional policy and oversight requirements will have to be watched carefully as the transition proceeds. The Senate version of this bill, which did not include an elected Met Council, passed the Senate floor several weeks ago. The House veralon, still containing the elected provision, was defeated a week ago by a one vote margin on the House floor. It was brought back this week on reconsideration without the election provision and passed by a wide margin. The bill had to go to conference committee due to differences in the House and oenats versions, asci it was repassed in both houses on May 5th. Basically, the bill maintains an appointed sixteen member Met Council, with a seventeenth member, the Chair, also maintained. All appointments will be made by the Governor, as they are now, but terms will be co -terminus with the Governor. This means that with a change in Governor there will likely be a change in the Met Council_ There are no staggered terms. The bill also provides for a strong administrator, a change from the current structure, who will have hiring and firing capacity over all employees, including division heads_ At the present time the Chair has these powers. The Council will have several divisions, including a transportation division which will house all transit planning, oversight and operations. Each division will have s. division head who will report to the administrator. The Council itself will Corm several subcommittees V oversee three divieione. GC BENTLEY H SUC .. INC TEL N11 . 612 937-3M- may 10 .94 13 : 51 F . 04 Legislative Update - Page 3 It Is expected the Council will appoint several advisory committees, but what these committees will do and when they will be created is not known at this time. Gtay tuned. HIGi SPKKD ESUS The High Shoed Bus (NSB) program received a great deal of attention this sessJon but no funding. The bill, SF 2153 (Sen. Phil Riveness - Bloomington) and HF 2266 (Rep. Mark Mahon - Bloomington), went through a number of changes during Its trek through the process, but ultimately fell prey to the battles between the inner-city and the suburbs, and between highway interests and trnnni t.. Originally the bill requested $3.25 million in operating funds, $8.7 million In metropolitan bonding authority for. HSB vehicles and facilities (i.e., transfer stations, park and ride lot enhancements, etc.), &nd $2.6 million in state bonding for highway infrastructure improvements (i.e., diamond shoulder lanes on 1-494, ramp meter bypasses, etc.). In the House the bill ran into trouble in the Transportation and 'Transit Committee, where the operating funds were stripped out and the metro bonding was reduced to $5.5 million and attached, without reference: to HSB, to the MTC bonding bill. The state bonding was stripped out in the Economic Development, Infrastructure & Regulation Finance Committee and Gent to the Capital Investment Committee where it wao never heard. The MTC metro bonding bill wag never taken up on the House floor, despite numerous attempts to amend it to other bills in conference committees. The Senate bill fared better. As in the House, the operating funds were stripped out early as was the state bonding (which was sent to the Senate Capital Bonding Subcommittee). The metro bonding was attached to the MTC bonding bill in an amount of $6.25 million and the HSB program was clearly identified in the bill. The MTC bonding bill with the HSB language passed the Senate floor, but was never heard on the House floor. The HSB state bonding was not Included in the state bonding bill. Tne major roadblock H513 faced was from those legialators who vaw It an tutu War bill to help the south and west suburbs. Key committees through which the HSB bill had to pass are controlled by interests that are not friendly to south and west suburban areas. Also, the House and the Senate battled over highway and transit funding throughout the session, particularly in tht final days, and HSB was not going to get funding from the Senate unless a gas tax inoreaoe bilJ was agreed upon. Since the conference committee on transportation and transit funding could not reach an agreement on the gas tax measure, HSB died. Gi 114 BEilTLE`( H CIC .. IhIC TEL PIIJ .61 Legislative Update - Page 4 TRANSIT FUNDING 11-1 .,:14 1 , ' S F. (i 1A The NTH requested supplemental appropriations from the begislatur•e in the amount of $11.35 million for fiscal year (FY) 1995, starting July 1, 1994. They also were requesting $5.b million for first year implementation of Vision Lor Transit. The $11.35 million request was broken down an follows: Regular route service $6.3 million Metro Mobility 2.6 million Community based/ rural and small urban 1.25 million Agency (restore fund balance) 1.3 million TOTAL, $11.35 million The final, supplemental appropriations for FY 1995 from the Legislature were. Regular route service $5.0 million Metro Mobility 2.5 million Community based/ rural and small urban .9 million TO'T'AL $8.4 million Funding for transit in Greater Minnesota was also addressed. MnDDT, the agency responsible for outstate transit, requested $2.1 million in new FY 1995 appropriations and the ability to use $1.5 million in unused 1994 appropriations. The legislature approved $1.6 million in new money and allowed the carryover of $l.b million from 1994. The MTC requested $3.9 million in funds for a quality improvement program, largely involving additional personnel. Their request was not approved. The Nieollet Mall Shuttle, a program in downtown Minneapolis involving now style shuttle vehicles designed to reduce general bus traffic in the downtown area, was requesting $1 million for FY 1995 to start the program. Their request was not approved. More money would have been made available to transit if a uumprehenaive transportation funding package had been agreed upon. The House bill called for a constitutional ballot question dedicating 40 percent of MUST to transit, which would have generated $197 million for the next biennium. This compares '.o the 61,propr'iri' ion for the cr=ent biennium of $439.7 million. i;i= BENTLEY H ni= . , INC TEL N0 .61 937-350J. May 10 .94 13:53 P , i=ii=. Legislative Update - Page 5 Tho House and the Senate oould not oome to an agreement in oonferenoe committee on how to structure a transportation funding bill., particularly ni.nce the threat of a Governor's veto loomed large. Ultimately, no new funding package could be agreed upon and the issue of comprehensive transportation and transit funding was put off until next year. Two projects received state bonding authorization from the Legislature this year. Light Rail Transit was given $10 million in state bonding to use as a match for federal 16TEA funds for the final engineering work on the (central Corridor LRT line. The MTC received $10 million in state bonding to begin the proc.enn of replacing the Snelling bus garage with two new garages in different locations. The MTC had requested $84.5 million in regional bonding for fleet replacement, Snelling garage replacement and a new computer system, but the bill died on the final day because inner-city legislators were very concerned about the property tax implications of the debt retirement. This ralouu bu riuua questions about the future of regional transit bonding for projects like park and ride lots, transit hubs and new vehicles, and will certainly be an issue in upcoming legislative Bensiono. The 1994 legislative session will certainly not go down in history as one of the greatest ever for transit, but opt --out tranait fared well. Our bill was one of the only transit bills to pass this ueaa ion, and the metro governance bill left opt -out systems as the only independent public transit agencies in the metro area. 'Through our presence at the Leginlature attacks on opt -out transit by certain legislators were thwarted, and opt -out emerged as a Arong voice in regional and state-wide transit. 1 would like to thank everyone for their support this year, and l would like to extend a special thank you to the opt -out adminintratoro who helped me strategize and plan, and spent time attending committee hearings and other muttingb. Once again, thank you. INTRODUCTION This report examines the land use planning practices and regulatory requirements of ten suburban communities in the Minneapolis -St. Paul metro- politan area to assess the extent to which these practices limit housing choices for moderate and low income households --in fact, although not necessarily by intent. Hence the title of the report --de facto or de jure? The communities were selected by the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis in consultation with the authors, with field reports completed by students con- tracting with the Society. The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) has summarized these case studies, supplemented the information to provide comparable data across communities, and provided further analysis to draw independent conclusions from this analysis. The case studies themselves have not been edited by CURA. Our summaries of the case studies, however, do comment on points where there is conflicting data and thus instances where we draw different conclusions from the available evidence. The cities selected for this study are identified in Figure 1. The arc from Maple Grove in northern Hennepin County to Eden Prairie in the south encompasses some of the most affluent cities, part of the strong -growth communities to the west and south of Minneapolis, and oft times referred to as the "fertile crescent" by State Representative Myron Orfield. The focus on western suburbs was deliberate in that it seemed critical to know what barriers exist in communities with the greatest job growth. The remaining communities are geographically dispersed to include cities in other counties and with a broader range of incomes. Coon Rapids (Anoka County), for example, experienced its early suburban development with Orrin Thompson tract housing developments in the 1960s and is located in the northwest corridor expanding from north Minneapolis to Anoka. Shakopee, in Scott County, is a free-standing growth center now experiencing heavy suburban residential development to the south of the older urban core. Burnsville and Lakeville in Dakota County are the spill-over cities to the south of Minneapolis as growth leapt over the Minnesota River valley with the building of .the interstate freeways. Woodbury represents a relatively affluent and pro -growth city on the east side of St. Paul and is now experiencing some of the fastest growth of any Twin Cities suburb. In choosing these cities there was no attempt to make them truly "repre- sentative" on the basis of current household income distribution or some other quantifiable measure for the metropolitan area as a whole. Cities with both high and moderate income profiles were included to check whether the regula- tory environments were similar. This report includes the following sections: A. Background commenting on the local and regional land use planning responsibilities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and defini- tions of exclusionary practices and fair share housing. B. Assessment of the evidence of exclusionary land use practices in the case study communities. C. Summary and conclusions. D. Summary of the case studies. -1- Figure 1 CASE STUDY COMMUNITIES LAND USE PRACTICES: EXCLUSIONARY ZONING, DE FACTO OR DE JURE An Examination of the Practices of Ten Suburban Communities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area Barbara L. Lukermann and Michael P. Kane Center for Urban and Regional Affairs University of Minnesota April 1994 The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA) has supported the work of the authors of this report but has not yet reviewed it for final publication. The final report will be published later this year. Its content is solely the responsibility of the authors and is not necessarily endorsed by CURA. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements Introduction A. Background B. Assessment of Land Use Practices in the Ten Communities C. Summary and Conclusions D. Summary of Case Studies Endnotes Bibliography Appendices Page v 1 3 31 35 78 81 86 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are indebted to Timothy L. Thompson, Litigation Director for the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, who first conceived of the project as a series of case studies and contracted with graduate students from the Univer- sity of Minnesota's Law School and the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs to complete the initial field work. We also wish to recognize the authors of the individual case studies: Sharon D'Amico, Plymouth; Beth Falkenhagen, Coon Rapids; Michael Kane, Eden Prairie; David Kent, Maple Grove; Christopher McGlincey, Edina and Minnetonka; Robert Marthaler, Lakeville; Chris Shriver, Shakopee; Juli Stensland, Burnsville; and Gary Strookman, Woodbury. Editing and production services were provided by Chris McKee. Financial support for this project has been provided by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. Barbara Lukermann Senior Fellow Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs and Michael P. Kane Research Assistant Center for Urban and Regional Affairs -v- A. BACKGROUND LOCAL AND REGIONAL LAND USE PLANNING RESPONSIBILITIES The 1976 Minnesota Land Planning Act (Minnesota Statute 473.859)) requires all municipalities and townships in the seven -county metropolitan area to undertake comprehensive planning and take appropriate actions to insure plan implementation. All communities have thus enacted zoning and subdivision regulations and, in the housing element of their plans, the communities must show how their housing goals will be achieved. The act requires that the housing element of a plan project local housing needs, demonstrate how the community plan will meet its ten-year fair share of the area -wide need for subsidized housing, and develop policies to facilitate modest -cost market -rate housing. The Metropolitan Council has the responsibility of reviewing local plans and regulations to insure consistency with the regional development systems which cover transportation and wastewater treatment. Housing is not categor- ized as a regional system, but the Council's Metropolitan Development Guide (as amended in 1979) sets out policies for dispersion of subsidized housing and requires communities to establish goals for accommodating low and moderate income households as part of the comprehensive plan. Appendix E of the December 1985 Metropolitan Development Guide spells out what a local housing component of a comprehensive plan should contain. The guidelines suggest that each community plan should contain numerical housing goals for affordability levels, general policies addressing how low and moderate income affordable housing will be provided, and implementation strategies to assure that local policies are implemented. Policy 39 in the housing chapter of the 1985 Metropolitan Development Guide states that under its review powers, the Metropolitan Council will recommend priority in funding from various state and federal programs based on a community's present provision of housing for low and moderate income persons and its commitments to provide such housing in the future. In reviewing municipal plans for consistency with the regional systems, the Council comments on the adequacy of a housing plan vis-a-vis its policies. Lack of commitment to providing opportunities for low and moderate income housing, however, carries no significant penalties to insure compliance. In theory, the Council's policy provides a financial incentive for local units of government to make a commitment. In practice, this policy has not been a significant factor in either plan preparation or plan implementation. When local governments wish to amend their comprehensive plans or zoning ordinances, they must submit these changes to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. This provides an additional opportunity for the regional agency to address the impact of such changes on the housing element of the plan. -3- EXCLUSIONARY PRACTICES AND FAIR SHARE HOUSING GOALS Exclusionary practices effectively preclude low and moderate income households from a reasonable opportunity to live in a community. (Note that in this report we are not addressing discrimination under the Civil Rights Act.) In the politically fragmented Twin Cities area, the home -rule powers of local units of government to determine how the land may be used (and set quality performance standards) can result in housing sub -markets segregated by income. An increasing concentration of poverty populations in the inner city neighborhoods of the two central cities and in parts of older first -ring suburbs again raises the issue of the implied responsibility of all commun- ities to offer realistic opportunities for the construction of their fair share of the current and future regional need for low and moderate income housing. This responsibility of a local unit of government to cooperate to meet a regional housing need was the basis for New Jersey's Supreme Court decision in 1975 that found Mount Laurel's zoning practices exclusionary, preventing any building of affordable housing for lower income households. "Fair share" housing goals often become the solution to overcome local it practices" within a regional housing market. Who should set the "fair share" --should it be the local unit of government or a regional agency? What criteria should be applied to determine the amount of fair -share housing for a single municipality? Should it be related to number and type of jobs in the city or in a sub -region? Should it simply be a numerical proportion of total units in a community vis-a-vis the projected regional need? In 1979 the Metropolitan Council established numerical goals for each local unit of government based on a regional projected need for an additional 33,835 subsidized units by 1990. The formula for the allocation was based on each comunity's relative share of: availability of land, projected household growth, and multi -family apartment units which could be used through existing leased housing subsidies or use of the substantial rehabilitation subsidy programs ("Amendments to the Housing Chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide," Metropolitan Council, July 26, 1979). The allocated numerical goals for the ten selected cities will be discussed in the following section. -4- B. ASSESSMENT OF LAND USE PRACTICES IN THE TEN COMMUNITIES What practices can be defined as exclusionary? The following four definitions or descriptions are drawn from various court and commentator writings. 1. "Exclusionary zoning... means land use control regulations which singly or in concert tend to exclude persons of low or moderate income from the zoning municipality." (Anderson, 8.02) 2. "Exclusionary zoning may be defined as the complex of zoning prac- tices which results in closing suburban housing and land markets to low- and moderate -income families." (Davidoff and Davidoff, 507) 3. "When municipalities exclude multi -family developments, require low residential densities, and adopt other restrictions such as exces- sive street frontage and minimum house size requirements which function to exclude low- and moderate -income groups and racial minorities, exclusionary zoning is occurring." (Mandelker, 7.01) 4. "When zoning to improve fiscal ratables is combined with land use regulations that increase the required standards of housing quality beyond those necessary for health and safety and thereby 'appear to interfere seriously with the availability of low- and moderate -cost housing where it is needed,' a community is said to be engaged in exclusionary zoning." (Salsich, 9.02) The literature on exclusionary zoning suggests the following indicators can be tests for a finding of exclusionary land use practices (see American Land Planning Law, Chapter 8). Some of the requirements restrict the types of units that can be built and thus housing choices; other requirements increase the costs of housing so as to make it unaffordable for low and moderate income households. • exclusion of multiple -family dwellings or other intensive housing types --including mobile homes • actions and motivations for down -zoning higher density land or making additional high density residential land available • large lot and lot -width requirements for single-family homes • restrictions on number of bedrooms per unit for multi -family developments or large lot area requirements for units with more than one bedroom • minimum floor area requirements; requirements for a garage that raise the per unit cost of housing • burdensome administrative requirements that increase development costs o burdensome development fees -5- • fiscal zoning --"use districting" that consciously avoids high future service delivery costs (costs greater than the revenues received from property taxes) As the New Jersey Supreme Court recognized in formulating the Mount Laurel Doctrine, the question of exclusionary zoning is not simply whether a city's practices exclude lower cost housing, but whether the city's practices create a realistic opportunity for low and moderate income housing to be built. The notion of creating realistic opportunities is at the heart of the Minnesota Land Planning Act and its requirement that each city include plans "for providing adequate housing opportunities to meet existing and projected local and regional housing needs, including but not limited to the use of official controls and land use planning to promote the availability of land for the development of low and moderate income housing." (MS 473.859 Subd.2) Therefore, in addition to examining the above indicators, the following assessment of the ten cities includes information on affordability of the existing housing stock vis-a-vis documented need, and actions that the cities have taken to meet the housing goals specified in their comprehensive plans. THE CURRENT HOUSING SUPPLY AND NEED FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS Current Housing Stock Tables 1 and 2 profile available housing data from the 1990 Census for the ten cities. Conclusion: Diversity of housing types exist in these communities, but this does not mean that there is a wide choice in afford- ability of these units across all cities. Specific findings for the individual communities: 1. None of the communities have exclusively single-family units, but the cities do differ widely in the proportion of units in this category --from over 70 percent in Maple Grove and Lakeville to less than 50 percent in Burnsville. The metropolitan area had 59 percent of the housing stock in single-family units. 2. Mobile homes, some of the most affordable housing units in the metropolitan area, are available in all but three cities, with Lakeville having a relatively high 12 percent of all units in this category. Burnsville joins Lakeville as having a higher proportion of mobile homes than the metropolitan area as a whole. The ten cities had 16 percent of the regional housing stock and 13 percent of the region's mobile home units. 3. Six of the ten cities have more than the average proportion of units in larger apartment complexes of fifty or more units (9.3 percent metropolitan average). 4. Of the ten communities, Maple Grove has the least diversified housing base --less than 10 percent in multiple family units.. -6- TABLE 1: Housing Units by units Per Residential structure 1 Unit I 1 Unit 1 2 Units 1 3 to 4 1 5 to 49 1 60+ 1 Mobiie I Other I 1990 -Total Detached Attached Units Untb Units Homes Housina Units Burnsville 9432 2901 85 297 2755 4016 708 70 20244 Coon Rapids 12216 2254 108 183 2440 593 252 52 18098 Eden Prairie 8542 2336 49 402 1745 2301 0 30 15405 Edina j 12238 950 191 125 2598 4662 0 217 20983 LakwiiW 56M 533 35 170 454 0 979 48 8105 Maple Grow 9373 2487 45 150 481 348 0 84 12968 Mkwwtonka 12173 1794 118 161 1906 3816 19 132 20119 PtynxmM 11748 2034 96 176 1954 3434 93 81 19616 Shakopee 2779 340 104 235 361 415 32 74 4340 Woodbury 4323 1723 8 157 904 405 0 21 7541 Metro Area Counties 540602 58229 41977 24159 149126 85753 16379 6270 922495 Sara: Metropoid n Count C wnnxrity Prdke Based upon 1990 Census Data Tabia L Perm of Housing Units by Units Per Residential Structure 1 Unit 1 Unit 2 Units 3 t0 4 5 to 49 50+ Mobile Other 1990 -Total Detached Attached Units Units Units Homes Housinq Units PAWMVWS 46.59% 14.33% 0.32% 1.47% 13.61% 19.84% 3.50% 0.35% 20244 Coon Rapids 67.50% 12.45% 0.60% 1.01% 13.48% 3.28% 1.39% 0.29% 18098 Eden Prairie 55.45% 15.16% 0.32% 2.61% 11.33% 14.94% 0.00% 0.19% 15405 Edina58.33% 4.53% 0.91% 0.60% 12.38% 2222% 0.00% 1.03% 20983 Lakeville 6.58% 0.43% 210% 5.60% 0.00% 0.59% 8105 Mapie Grow 19.18% 0.35% 1.16% 3.71% 268% 0.00% 0.65% 12966 MknneOonka 80 8.92% 0.59% 0.80% 9.47% 18.97% 0.09% 0.66% 20119 Plymouth 59.89% 10.37% 0.49% 0.90% 9.96% 17.51 % 0.47% 0.41% 19616 Shakopee 84.03% 7.83% 240% 5.41% 8.32% 9Zil 0.74% 1.71% 4340 Woodbury 57.33% 0.11% 208% 11.99% 5.37% 0.00% 0.28% 7541 Metro Area Counties 58.80% 6.31 % 4.55% 262% 16.17% 9 30% 1.78% 0.68% 922495 Sotroe: Metropo iton Council; Cormnunity PnXiles Based upon 1990 Gnsus Data In the 1985 Metropolitan Development Guide, the Metropolitan Council set a regional goal for 1990 where 41 percent of the housing stock would be alternatives to single-family units. Half of our ten communities have achieved that mix; half have not, with Lakeville and Maple Grove furthest from the goal. The goal has been met for the metropolitan area as a whole. Subsidized Housing The Metropolitan Council's 1979 allocated fair share of subsidized hous- ing for the ten communities is reproduced in Table 3. At a minimum, these communities were to provide 7,000+ units, using available subsidy funds to provide housing for low income households. TABLE 3. ALLOCATED FAIR SHARE HOUSING GOALS FOR 1990 FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS City Allocated Goal Range Burnsville 1,240-3,100 Coon Rapids 720-1,800 Eden Prairie 760-1,900 Edina 720-1,800 Lakeville 360-900 Maple Grove 740-1,850 Minnetonka 560-1,450 Plymouth 1,040-2,600 Shakopee 360-900 Woodbury 560-1,400 Source: "Amendments to the Housing Chapter of the Metropolitan Develop- ment Guide," July 26, 1979, Table 10. Over the past fifteen years the metropolitan area as a whole, and several of these communities, have grown more rapidly than projected. The number of persons in poverty has also increased; thus need and goals should be greater today than quantified in the above table. Table 4 lists the number of federally subsidized housing units these communities have accommodated, broken down by target populations and source of financing. Data reflect the July 1992 availability of subsidized units total- ing 3,576, or approximately half the targeted minimum. Conclusion: Low income households with access to Section 8 rent sub- sidies have much less choice available to them in these suburban cities as compared with the metropolitan area as a whole. The targeted fair share goals have simply remained goals -- in general, they have not been achieved. -8- Fn 0 m S H epi t+1 4dcc g R or or l7 � f N � � f ''• m r r N r r P f m f V) f t FS N !f O cr) O O r g N O r O r O � N � � O •lj � � � O l7 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o R o 0 0 0 0 W c~ Findings for the individual communities include: 1. Only Coon Rapids has matched the minimum fair share subsidized housing goal established by the Metropolitan Council. 2. The two communities of Maple Grove and Woodbury provide extremely limited choices for households qualifying for subsidized housing. Less than 1 percent of their units are in this category compared with a metropolitan average of almost 5 percent. Both of these cities have far fewer subsidized housing units than the targeted minimum. In addition, Plymouth, Minnetonka, and Lakeville have less than 2 percent of their housing subsidized. 3. Only Shakopee exceeds the metropolitan area average of 5 percent of all housing units being subsidized. For the ten communities, subsidized housing accounts for just over 2 percent --less than half the regional proportion. 4. A very small number of public housing units exist in Burnsville and Lakeville; the eight remaining communities offer no public housing. 5. Two-thirds of all subsidized units are privately -owned Section 8 projects. Burnsville and Coon Rapids have the largest number of certificates and vouchers; Edina has the largest number of privately -owned subsidized housing units --with over 70 percent serving only the elderly population. Affordability of Existing Housing for Low and Moderate Income Households Analysis focuses on the rental housing stock to assess the availability of units which are affordable to households at 30 and 50 percent of the metropolitan median family income ($43,785 in 1990). Conclusion: Low and moderate income households are not excluded from these communities, but the supply of affordable rental housing is extremely limited for households with income at the 30 percent of median family income for the metropolitan area as a whole. In 1990 the ten communities had slightly more than 32,000 rental housing units (12 percent of the metropolitan total). (See Table 5.) Of this total 7 percent were affordable to households with incomes at 30 percent of the median family income ($13,135); an additional 25 percent were affordable to house- holds with income at 50 percent of median family income ($21,890). Approxi- mately 6,700 market -rate rental units were available to households with incomes at the 50 percent level in addition to the 2,278 subsidized units. -10- TABLE 5: Realer • Occupied Units Affordable at 30% and 50% Median Family Income Renter - Omupied Totalenter - Occupied Totalum Housing Affordable at Housing Affordable at of Renter Occupied I 30% Median Income 50% Median Income Units Burnsvik 376 5.730A 2765 42.10% 6567 Coon Rapids 361 1683 3415 10.57% 49.28% Eden Prairie 279 892 3900 7.15% 22.87% Edna 421 1018 4527 9.30% 22.49% Lakeville 101 299 838 12.05% 35.88% Maple Grove 31 1223 253% v Minnetonka 321 781 4289 7.48% 18.21% Plymouth 108 1478 4755 227% 31.08% Shakopee 251 907 1176 21.34% 77.13% Woodbury 29 402 1350 2.15% 29.78% Total for Ten 2278 10317 32040 Communities 7.11% 32.20% Metro 19.40% 1 65.66% Source: 1990 Census; STF3; H43 Rents Affordable at 30% Median Family Income - $349.00 per month Rents Affordable at 31 % to 50% Median Family Income - $547.30 Rent affordability cakulated as follows: 1989 Median Family Income - $43,785 ((43785 X .5) X .3) / 12 a Rents Affordable at 50% Median Famiy Income ((43785 X .3) X .32) / 12 - Rents Affordable at 30% Median Family Income The differences in housing choices for lower income households between the communities is striking: 1. Over 75 percent of Shakopee's rental stock is affordable at 50 percent of median family income (well above the metropolitan average of 66 percent). Burnsville provides the largest number of rental units at the 50 percent level, representing 42 percent of all rental units in the city. 2. In contrast, only 7 percent of Maple Grove's rental housing is affordable for households earning at the 50 percent level, and only thirty-four rental units outside the publicly -subsidized units provide a choice for these households. 3. All ten communities are well below the metropolitan average of 19 percent of renter -occupied housing affordable at 30 percent median family income. Plymouth, Woodbury, and Maple Grove have just over 2 percent of their rental units affordable to the lowest income group. Incidence of Poverty and the Affordable Housing Supply Conclusion: A gap exists between the current supply of affordable housing and the number of households living below the poverty level in these communities. Constructing addi- tional low cost units in these suburbs could thus meet the needs of existing residents and not necessarily offer expanded opportunities for households in the concentrated poverty areas of the older urban areas. Opportunities for city residents to find affordable housing in these communities will depend on more aggressive and affirmative marketing from local officials and developers. Table 6 lists the number and percent of households in poverty from the 1990 Census of Population. Although a relatively small number of households meet the census definition of poverty, the proportion of all households below poverty is less than half the metropolitan rate --3.5 percent vs. 7.9 percent. The proportions range from a low of 2.2 percent in Maple Grove and Minnetonka to 6.3 percent in Shakopee. A third of all households in poverty are younger female -headed families, with the largest concentration in Burnsville and Coon Rapids. One out of five households in poverty are elderly; but in Edina this increases to 50 percent. Note that in most of the communities listed above, and for the metropol- itan area as a whole, the proportion of households receiving public assistance in 1989 (census data) is smaller than the percent identified as being below the poverty level. „�2- TABLE 6: Total Number and Percent of Households In Poverty by Selected Household Types Burnsville Married up es Femaie Househoiders] o ami ys s In PovertyIn P In Poverty Total Total Hslds Under Over Under Over Under Over Households In PovertyAge 65 Age 65 a 65 a 65 Age 65 A e 65 Burnsville 191V RK 137 Maw 0 185 61 3.64% Coon Rapids 17449 832 124 21 0 145 140 4.77% Eden Prairie 14447 451 57 7 193 0 150 39 3.12% Edina 19860 804 66 54 68 13 212 4.05% Lakeville 7851 248 39 a 84 0 45r-jr5i 3.16% Maple Grove 12531 272 76 7 94 7 58 2.17% Minnetonka 18687 410 16 9 100 0 154 114 2.18% Plymouth 18361 636 102 0 211 0 202 107 3.46% Shakopee 4163 261 w 16 14 94 10 64 26 Woodbury 6927 185 19 9 83 0 67 7 2.6771 Totals for Ten 139403 4833 652 129 1632 30 1282 924 Communities Source: 1990 Census; STF 3; P127 NOTE Male Householders in Poverty excluded due to insignificant number. NOTE All percentages based upon total households (Column 1) Community Totals as a Percentage of Total Metro Households and Households in Poverty by Selected Household Typ Source: 1990 Census; STF 3; P127 The percentage of households in poverty living in these suburbs is strongly correlated with the provision of subsidized housing units, but in all ten communities the percent of households in poverty exceeds the percent of the housing supply affordable to households earning 30 percent of median family income. This is documented in Table 7. TABLE 7. SHARES OF HOUSEHOLDS IN POVERTY AND HOUSING STOCK AFFORDABLE TO HOUSEHOLDS EARNING 30 PERCENT OF MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME, 1990 (in percents) * This calculation takes the number of rental units affordable to households earning 30 percent of median family income as a percent of all housing units in the community/region. Sources: U.S. Census of Population, 1990; Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority, 1992. Four statistical tables are included in the appendices for reference. Appendix A gives a breakdown of owner- and renter -households paying over 30 percent of income for housing. This is one measure for calculating unmet needs for affordable housing, but younger owner -households often over -consume housing in anticipation of future income gains. Tax policies favoring home ownership at both federal and state levels provide powerful incentives for this over -consumption. Statistics on the rental rate structure of units in each of the commun- ities and the availability of three-bedroom rental units, by rent range, are included in appendices B and C. Appendix D provides additional data on the number of households receiving public assistance from 1990 Census data. -14- Affordable Households Public Subsidized at 30% Median in Poverty Assistance Units Family Income* Burnsville 3.8 2.9 3.7 1.9 Coon Rapids 4.8 5.0 4.0 3.5 Eden Prairie 3.1 2.5 2.8 1.8 Edina 4.1 2.0 2.7 2.0 Lakeville 3.2 2.8 1.4 1.2 Maple Grove 2.2 1.4 0.4 0.2 Minnetonka 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.6 Plymouth 3.5 2.4 1.3 0.6 Shakopee 6.3 4.8 6.2 5.8 Woodbury 2.7 1.4 0.8 0.4 METROPOLITAN AVERAGE 7.9 5.5 4.9 5.8 * This calculation takes the number of rental units affordable to households earning 30 percent of median family income as a percent of all housing units in the community/region. Sources: U.S. Census of Population, 1990; Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority, 1992. Four statistical tables are included in the appendices for reference. Appendix A gives a breakdown of owner- and renter -households paying over 30 percent of income for housing. This is one measure for calculating unmet needs for affordable housing, but younger owner -households often over -consume housing in anticipation of future income gains. Tax policies favoring home ownership at both federal and state levels provide powerful incentives for this over -consumption. Statistics on the rental rate structure of units in each of the commun- ities and the availability of three-bedroom rental units, by rent range, are included in appendices B and C. Appendix D provides additional data on the number of households receiving public assistance from 1990 Census data. -14- LOCAL REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT This section of the report summarizes the locally adopted zoning regu- lations and fee structures and compares their standards against those adopted by the Metropolitan Council as a guide for local comprehensive plans and ordinances. Zoning Regulations --Single Family Districts Table 8 compares the current zoning regulations of the ten suburban com- munities against the advisory standards proposed by the Metropolitan Council in 1977 to maintain affordability of single-family housing. The table gives information on the following: • minimum lot size for the highest density single-family zoning district • minimum lot width for the above district • requirement for a minimum floor area in single-family units • requirements for garages Data on the supply of vacant land for future housing in that zoning district were not available for some of the communities. Large lot sizes and lot widths, minimum floor area, and requirements that all units have a garage each contribute to the cost of a house --either through land costs, building costs, or utility connection costs. 1. All of the cities have minimum lot sizes greater than the 7,500 sq. ft. recommended by the Metropolitan Council. The smallest minimum size is currently 9,000 sq. ft., 20 percent larger than that recommended. Minnetonka has the largest lot requirement of 22,000 sq. ft. --three times that recommended by the Metropolitan Council. 2. Half the communities specify minimum floor areas of between 960 and 1,100 sq. ft. --well above standards required by the Uniform Building Code for health and safety. 3. Four of the ten communities require a two -car garage be built at the same time as the house. For other communities, minimum lot widths assure that space is available on the lot to accommodate garages. Zoning Requirements--Multi-Family Districts The Metropolitan Council recommended that densities of twenty units per acre should be permitted in multi -family zoning districts as one way to maintain affordability of new rental housing. The zoning requirements for a two-bedroom apartment in the ten communities are summarized in Table 9. Zoning -requirements for 1977 are listed to determine if communities have "upgraded" their requirements since the Metropolitan Council's 1983 report. A two-bedroom unit is chosen as the type of housing most likely selected by lower income households given the limited supply of three or more bedroom units. -15- e k « § 0 ■ a 0 g 0 $ Go k§ P. J � i ® CO c LO vi 0 2 e c 2 ® $ 2 - 2 7 2 c _ o 0 ■ ■ � � 2 2 10 co 0 8 — r- & 8 w- cc @ 2 � 2 @ � ®f—ƒ—�®Z o § 2 c 2 c 0 d Q 2 2 2 2 ■ � e k~ƒ® c ® 2 f® �f® § 2 2 2 2 2 c � ■ � C .00 2 E c2 o A c 2 c 2 2 c 2 c 2 Or- 2 2 c C e — c o e e _ c2 2 § CL c 2 c 2 / 2 § § § 2 a ■ § cE � � e a — w 2 2 2 2 — A 22-,772:228-2L22$��� f C c 2 0 2 c 2 -k�Q�■���2�$�CcW 2 E E § _ e K to C a 7212\� 7&029 4 2I2 � § o / V4- o - CD ab 2 32 O $ % �■ 2 z � j � 0 ■ �. zo ® $ f $ w R�R E c v ® % ® CL C © 2 k 2 , LU . CD V- k 7 o ® CO c we 0 � 2 e c 2 ® $ & Q c I 0 ■ ■ � � 2 2 E & § o § c v c 0 d Q 2 ■ � e - c ® a 2 § 0 a E & ® c � ■ � C .00 E A c k 6 c C e o c o e e § CL § CL o® RL (A 2 a ■ § cE � � e a § c w 2 C $ S a E 2 f C c 2 0 2 c 2 2 E E § _ e to C a I ® � § o / o - CD ab 2 O $ % I .. c j � �— | zo # ! w FABLE f: Locally Adopted Zoning Regulstloris for Multl-Family Housing Minkrnan Lot Area For Ma*nuxn Density For MkAnxxn Floor Area For Number of Requited PUD Ckdkwm Adn***rstlw Two -Bedroom Unk TMo-Bedroom Unk Two -Bedroom Unk Garage Spaces For MuWFwr&y"' Bsnlsfs ' 1 1 (square fest) (units per acre) (square ►est) 1993 1977 1993 1977 1993 1977 1993 1977 1993 1977 1993 Metropolitan Council 20 20 None None None None Advisory Standards Sumsville 3000 2500 14.5 17.4 800 700 Yes Yes Yes Yes R -3C R -3C 1 1 nCoon Rapids 2900 2700 15 18.1 700 700 Yes Yes Yes Yes permitted Hoa M 0.75 0.5 Eden Prairie 2500 2500 17.4 17.4 None None No Yes Yes Yes permitted RM•2.5 RAA -2.5 1 Edina 2800 2500 15 17.4 950 No Yes Yes Yes permitted a PRD4 Ra 1.25 Lakeville 2500 2800 17.4 15.5 800 None No No Yes Yes permitted R-7 R -3C Maple trove 2500 17.4 15 900 Yes None Yes Yes permitted R3 R•5 'z 1 Minnetonka None 2500 No Maxirmorn 10" None 900 Yes Yes Yes Yes R•5 R•6 Densky1 1 Plymouth 11 11 None 900 Yes Yes Yes Yes 1 1 'Shakopee 3000 2000 14.5 21.8 720 720 None None Yes Yes permitted s RJ RJB Woodbury 3800 3100 850 850 Yes No No' No— R-4 RJ 1 Maple OroW* 1977 mi *mirn lot alta for muid-f*t* was 15,000 square fast with densky onsA. x77 of 15 units par acre. "The nmirnum psr idH denaky per we M Isar than the density that world fait from amploykq Mrs min k.u. area requkernants to regulate dernky per acre. (i.e. - whka Woodbury* mkrknurn lot area requlrwrwrt would akow a dareky of 12.1 (4350013MM. #w toning cods permits a naximurn density per acro of 10 unit per acro). Coon Rapid's PUD ondkwroe psi.. 25% density kwromo B lot amsnMn provided (11-7004) I- EdkWs PUD adkanos Pa.. dsnaky bormse for underground pkg; nod Type 1 and II bid standards; distance from R-1; distance from freeway; lot site and owArape ' P"xxAh provides bonuses based on sits of developmd, mk of residential uses, and provision of open space Woodburys On, I I- tonkp regu labor we pa -in Ir to tonkg d1dricls and Is based on provision of enclosed parldng, open space, hwmkcRn anw*jes Adnukds6adve bu i la nota whetter multi -fan* dawbprrenb an pem kted uses, require a Condkkxal Use Pwmk (CUP) within hlpter density toning distrlds. r require a ratonkq to accomodate mu 111-hmfly hou*r0 gym• Key findings from the data are that: 1. Minnetonka does not specify a density limit; the remaining nine cities set density limits at less than twenty units per acre (calculated on the land area requirements for two-bedroom units). Eden Prairie, Lakeville and Maple Grove approach that density with 17.4 units/acre. Woodbury restricts development to ten units/acre. Half of these cities have increased their minimum lot area require- ment since 1977, including Burnsville, Coon Rapids, Edina, Shakopee, and Woodbury. 2. Most cities set minimum floor areas, while the Metropolitan Council recommended no requirements. Edina and Maple Grove set requirements equivalent to the minimum for single-family homes in many cities. 3. Five of the cities require that one garage space per unit be built. Eden Prairie and Edina previously had that requirement. The Metropolitan Council recommended that a garage not be required as a cost savings measure. 4. Three cities require a conditional use permit for all multi -family developments. This increases the cost of development through permit fees, increased time to gain approval, and the risk that conditions may be imposed that could further increase costs through site plan review. Minnetonka's requirement that the land must be re -zoned from a single-family to multiple -family district significantly increases time and costs for project approval. It should be noted that Eden Prairie requires a "planned unit develop- ment" permit for all of the multi -family developments targeted for low and moderate income households where minimum floor area and garage requirements may be waived. Requiring a special use permit for multi -family housing may give a developer the opportunity to waive density regulations, but the quid pro quo of requiring underground parking or higher quality brick exterior as specified in the Woodbury code defeats the purpose of greater affordability. (See "Making the Connection: Linking Housing, Jobs and Transportation," Minnesota Planning, Metropolitan Council, and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, December 1993, pp. 39-40 for an extended discussion of Woodbury's code.) Conclusion: Recent trends are for communities to make their zoning requirements more rather than less restrictive. None of the communities are in compliance with the guide- lines recommended by the Metropolitan Council for local zoning or subdivision regulations. ..1. R Fees and Charges Associated with Land Development All communities charge fees for the administrative costs involved in processing development applications. Table 10 describes current fee struc- tures in the ten communities for platting, conditional use permits, variances, and comprehensive plan amendments. The basis for fee setting differs consider- ably from community to community, making it difficult to judge the actual fiscal impact on the cost of housing. The purpose of these fees is to pass through actual administrative costs to the developer. Connection charges for sanitary sewer and water and the Sewer Availabil- ity Charge (SAC) for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission are listed in Table 11. These charges are significantly higher than the administrative fees and can add well over $2,000 to the cost of a housing unit in several of these communities. Note, however, that charges for utility services are assigned throughout the metropolitan area for all new developments, with the SAC charge uniform for all communities. Park dedication fees are an additional cost for developers and reflect the anticipated costs for providing adequate park and recreation space for the incoming population. Table 12 compares the fees currently required by each of the cities. Eight out of the ten cities charge a straight fee per unit, but this ranges widely --from a low of $384 for a single-family unit in Coon Rapids to Eden Prairie's $900. In Table 13 we have assigned these fees/costs to a hypothetical forty - acre tract to estimate the potential cost per unit for a single-family development in each of the communities. (Note that the table does not include costs for roads, lighting, signs, boulevard landscaping, or other costs involved in the development process.) On a per-unit basis, fees differ greatly among the communities --from a high of over $5,000 to approximately $1,250. Park fees at $900 per unit in Eden Prairie, for example, are almost double the charges assigned in Shakopee (assumes $20,000 per acre for raw land) under the same zoning density stan- dards. Plymouth and Lakeville apply the same zoning density standards, but the charges are significantly different. It does make a difference, therefore, in which community a developer seeks to build if raw land costs are comparable. Conclusion: The policies for assigning charges/fees for both utilities and other municipal services should be examined, in addi- tion to density controls, as a factor increasing costs and having differential impact on the final cost of housing among cities. I 8 LL CL I .W I a 0 `o e c d O C r O C « C 7 8 C w Ea �a E co _ E V p w M a c C O O D a c wo c �Z w w � a �r c c $ $o C c M N Q 'a a as v « v �«p r1 � o a w k C a ao � a� I J? aO cc o 0 VC Q �0" E $ 8 a LL Ex C E$ C coin, cmN C 0 ' = g gC C CL w2 as � i LL g b Ag ~ IN CCD r- 60 N N {L O N N M M Q OO M M O 8 N O CV) a MO LL. O O O O 8 8 N } N W8N N .Nr► N GUS z r c `v w `o gg �n NNp� a tt a ado Q 'r'�o N~l� N ON 0 CV) CV) NW �cc N c oc c oc c oc c c o v a f t w~+p L a g N O N, t 0 y $ 0 0 O N N N m N N N ttl N 8 N N y c t O � y o � � a a O Icno O o t N O N t N N y t Oy in 8 40 a N N o N N H t N t N t + N N t t `v+wOgt O _ y pt 8 M �y g oy�NNyS M o to •. p o Q v c m u�i :E Mi a 0 `o e c d O C r O C « C 7 8 C w Ea �a E co _ E V p w M a c C O O D a c wo c �Z w w � a �r c c $ $o C c M N Q 'a a as v « v �«p r1 � o a w k C a ao � a� I J? aO cc o 0 VC Q �0" E $ 8 a LL Ex C E$ C coin, cmN C 0 ' = g gC C CL w2 as � i I 32 E " CL o � p E a .8 c r EO O d� Q t a O ar L � U� �Q ro � E 7 E O CL =4D O O L VU a —0 O 0H a M � M O E C. E 0� A o a V Q 3 EE G 8 O O t t o c E of U t CID N iO � N � N N N N N N O N N ra N N N NW) S S S S S S S N N M N N W h H N S N S co N N aD N COD N co N CD N COD N aDD N ED N O Cl) N CMi _ O S N Q N O W CD An O > CV) N N N N N N N O N O N N j O t O 'T op CP� H O N N 40 N N N S N NNhN h h N h S N N N N h N Y ~ Q c O o 1:0 T a a m lui Itu 13 a 3 32 E " CL o � p E a .8 c r EO O d� Q t a O ar L � U� �Q ro � E 7 E O CL =4D O O L VU a —0 O 0H a M � M O E C. E 0� A o a V Q 3 EE G 8 O O t t o c E of U t Table 12: Park Dedications Fees ' In addition to the park dedication fee, Lakeville chanes a trail dedication fee of $150 p Park e kation Single Family Fees Per Unit Mutti-Family Burnsville $512 $731 Coon Rapids $384 $238 Eden Prairie $900 $900 Edina 8% of the undeveloped land value Lakeville 650• gyp• Maple Grove $630 $630 Minnetonka $400 5250 Plymouth $885 5885 Shakopee 10% of the undeveloped land value Woodbury $725 5500 ' In addition to the park dedication fee, Lakeville chanes a trail dedication fee of $150 p LL c COL I LL O E V t' C E C a d e c M G. 7 CL N E t7 a 0 a a O L U C O E CL >0 O V JOR O CL O a V c e 0 L `o 0 e L_ C O CL e 8 CLs ogL O O V N e c C V c c M c e E � M a: r e E 19 ri a QQ �• ii ti N M M N M N N M m 1A m C /7 IA 10 N m O) co 1.- V O f- �- m r " O IAN 9 m M N N N N h CCRO eTi W m A O CV) 04 C4 N N N N N N N h N V- N, O /N coN m con* Ni Nf N N M �N N N N N cc M r cn NN � O) QN N N Q W) b N m N N N 0 0 C eTi m /Ti n o cn N h h N h N N N � N O) w M r 1n N 1O0 N /� N 1A N A N N IA In In O o i. CD N M M N N " N N N y r r In r to m CO r O O) V- V- e E ® � e o o W W . D a c E O E V t' C E C a d e c M G. 7 CL N E t7 a 0 a a O L U C O E CL >0 O V JOR O CL O a V c e 0 L `o 0 e L_ C O CL e 8 CLs ogL O O V N e c C V c c M c e E � M a: r e E 19 LOCAL POLICIES AND ACTIONS Down -Zoning The authors of the case studies frequently commented on actions resulting in the loss of available land for multi -family housing and thus less capacity to accommodate more lower cost housing. Formal re -zoning requests from these cities to the Metropolitan Council since 1985 are summarized in Table 14. Most of the requests have been to down zone, resulting in the net loss of 530 acres of higher density land to a lower density (652 down -zoned and 82 acres zoned to high density residential). Woodbury is the only city requesting a zoning change from "office" to "high density residential" to accommodate some low and moderate income housing in a 400 -unit rental project. Use of Local Resources to Provide Low and Moderate Income Housin The level of commitment by cities to use local dollars to help finance low and moderate income households has been modest. The Maple Grove case study points out that none of the $1.46 million CDBG funds have been used for assisted housing. Other communities, including Burnsville and Lakeville, have used CDBG funds for site acquisition for new senior housing; Plymouth used some of its funds to assist low income families (average income $25,800) through a scattered home -ownership program. The Edina case study points out that significant public subsidies have been used for what is essentially market -rate housing. In several cities it seems that the moderate income market has been targeted at the expense of meeting low income goals. In general, communities have been more receptive to help finance new housing for seniors and participate in mortgage interest reduction programs for first-time buyers. The author of the Coon Rapids case study, however, questions whether low and moderate income households benefitted from the city's industrial revenue bonds --which initially targeted households with less than 120 percent of median family income, and then opened up the program to all interested buyers after six months. With the assistance of the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Lakeville has used revenue bonds for three assisted -housing developments. Twenty percent of two multi -family rental projects (68 out of 342 units) were to be reserved for families earning between 50 percent and 80 percent of median family income and one has been built for seniors. The Eden Prairie case study summary also points out that local housing revenue bonds have been used for twelve rental projects, totaling 447 units. One of the problems raised by the case studies is the lack of monitoring for compliance with these "set aside" requirements to rent to lower income households. In one instance current property managers were not aware of the requirement. 24- TABLE 14: Summary of Zoning Amendment Changes Filed With the Metropolitan Council Since 1985 Coon Rapids Rezoned Change Density' Rezone Subdivision File Number 14 High to Commercial 12 Medium to Low I Down -Zoned Acres I Up -Zoned Acres Eden Prairie Acres Rezoned Change 28.7 Low to Medium 13.5 Park to Low 8.4 Park to Low 39.5 Medium to Low 10 Medium to Public .� otal Down -Zoned Acres Total Medium to Public Total Up -Zoned Acres' Total Public to Low Density --- 12/87 Shamrock Development 4.9 12/87 Shamrock Development 26 0 12803-4 - The two rezonings resulted In a net loss of 300 housing units 12803-4 Density' Rezone Subdivision File Number 3.93 4/86 Bluff Country 139041 PUD 2.15 11/86 Meadowlark 139041 2.25 1/87 139047 1.47 1/87 Cardinal 13904-8 Hills -- 3/87 International 13904-9 School 39.5 10 28.7 21.9 Z Y 3 P 0 or`—° 10 $a _CD C q N � q 7 r, L b C O > 0 o E°E'° rs o O � L U�EC—M a oo E 0 E � Z CD O V LL Fit P 2 O co a� c h 0 0 z a 0r o Eo o.—>o or A D C O N �< 2=F c`0 E o c 22 m m O v t0 O N C O O 40 P. -I- JUb In w! 'r m O N N N 6m 5E lwN 0 � Z o�c m ti m � m r o ei V- lhC* 292 ai iz iz r r r r V- C h a a 0r o o.—>o or WN �< 2=F o c 22 m m w t0 O O 40 P. -I- w In w! 'r m O N N N 6m lwN 0 29 292 O 0 J J J ; W ow �1 C a CD O S O a m N CL q E S Minnetonka" i Rezoned Change 4.3 Low to Medium Down -Zoned Acres Up -Zoned Acres Plymouth Density' Rezone Subdivision File Number 5/87 13983-2 - Rezoning for 78 unit senior housing project 4.3 i er of Zoning Revised Date of Name o Rezoned Change Density' Rezone Subdivision 15 High/Med t — 2/91 Plymouth Bus. Industrial Center South 80.3 High/ Med t 1.51 9/90 Low/ Med Z All High/ Med 12/91 to Low/ Med m otal Down -Zoned Acres 95.3+ Total Up -Zoned Acres 0 File Number 15249-2 - City answered yes to Impacting supply of low/mod Income housing. Council Staff OK'd due to housing 14913-9 stock and vacancy rate in city 14913-3 - Resulted in net loss of 3,839 units Reasons were present balance on housing stock and future traffic congestion Oa o � J k Q 7 O � w 0 9 o � � A c o CIO al- Pt M� c� o Eoc cob _ t c 0 0 N c x `m o 0 E C Q O M 0 IO WW � Implementation of the Housing Plans The simplest measure of successful plan implementation would be to evaluate achievement of the ten-year fair -share low and moderate housing goal established by the Metropolitan Council in 1979. These goals were established at a time when there was a reasonable expection that federal funding would play a significant role in assisting the communities meet their fair share goals. In reality, the federal funding available for affordable housing during the 1980s was much less than antici- pated. Judging communities' efforts to provide low and moderate income housing solely on the basis of these targets may be inappropriate given the unexpected financial constraints facing these communities. On the other hand, population growth and increases in the number of households in poverty have increased need and thus heightened urgency to meet or exceed those earlier goals. The fact that Minneapolis has been able to create over 2,000 subsidized housing units between 1985 and 1990, measured against a total of 774 in all of suburban Hennepin County, attests to the lack of motivation and priority given to the affordable housing goals outside the central city. Table 15 is taken from a joint task force report submitted to the Hennepin County Board in 1991, listing data compiled by the Minneapolis Community Development Agency and the Hennepin County planning office. TABLE 15. NUMBER OF NEW SUBSIDIZED HOUSING UNITS PRODUCED, 1986-1990 Deep Subsidies Shallow Subsidies Affordable to Affordable to Families on AFDC "Working Poor" Total Minneapolis 848 1,173 2,021 Suburban Hennepin 730 44 774 All Hennepin County 1,578 1,217 2,795 Source: Minneapolis Community Development Agency, Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development. Taken from "A Community Response to the Needs of Homeless Families," The Joint Task Force on Homeless Single Adults and Families, for Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, July, 1991. The communities' commitment can still be demonstrated by showing: (a) how successful the communities were in implementing their unquantified housing goals; and (b) showing that these policies are an effective means in promoting more affordable housing opportunities. We found a wide degree of variation among the communities in both the specificity of housing plans as well as in the success communities exhibited in actually implementing those plans. In some cases, such as in Burnsville, Coon Rapids, and Eden Prairie, communities articulated specific actions and -29- policies the community would undertake to promote low and moderate income housing. The plans typically included using several tools that would either directly reduce housing costs or lower administrative barriers that hindered the development of affordable housing. These policies included the use of flexible zoning to promote housing variety and reduce land costs, the elimina- tion of unnecessary zoning and performance standards which increase the cost of housing, actively pursuing funding for subsidized housing, and evaluating the communities' development procedures to insure that the process did not create unnecessary time delays. Full implementation of housing goals and policies was rare. However, several communities were more successful than others. For example, Eden Prairie has made extensive use of the "planned unit development" process in its residential developments, has not enforced (or eliminated) zoning regula- tions such as minimum floor area and mandatory garage requirements, and has sought to develop subsidized rental units in the city through the issuance of housing revenue bonds. On the other hand, Eden Prairie's sixteen -year-old Policy to investigate the possibility of mobile parks in the city has not resulted in any manufactured housing being located in the city. Lakeville is an example of one of the communities that has not been as successful in implementing its low and moderate income housing policies, although three projects have been built with some of the units targeted to low and moderate income households. Lakeville's subdivision and zoning code amendments in January 1994 that require strict adherence to per-unit minimum lot requirements conflicts with the city's policy designed to promote the use of planned unit developments to reduce land costs as well as the city's policy to encourage the removal of unnecessary housing requirements that reduce hous- ing affordability. In addition, while the housing plan requires that the city establish quantitative goals for low and moderate income housing, these have not been adopted to guide current actions. The degree in which the housing plans developed by the communities varied in specificity is exemplified in the housing plan developed by Maple Grove. While most of the communities outlined general strategies for encouraging affordable housing, Maple Grove offered few, if any, actions. In fact, Maple Grove's comprehensive plan suggests that the city ought not pursue the development of low and moderate income housing. The plan's review of housing in the city notes that, "efforts to develop large areas of low and moderate priced housing would be futile. The market for this housing has shrunk and other cities can provide it at less cost." The city's philosophy was reflected in its housing policies that encouraged greater single-family development, the use of mandatory garage requirements, and increasing minimum lot sizes. Conclusion: Suggested guidelines for the housing element of local comprehensive plans have not been followed --many plans skirt the issue or remain vague; other plans with good stated goals have been not implemented. Current penalties or incentives for communities to achieve the goals of broader geographical distribution of housing for low and moderate income households are not achieving the regional objectives. -30- C. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The evidence of exclusionary practices is a very mixed bag. The practices of these ten communities have not completely excluded low and moderate income housing. These practices, however, have not created realistic opportunities for affordable housing other than on a very limited basis. Some of the con- clusions drawn from this study include the following: 1. Many of the local land use practices, either through zoning or other programs, serve to effectively restrict the market for the lowest income groups while not excluding them in total. Diversity of housing stock exists, but only half of the cities analyzed here have achieved the regional goal of having over 40 percent of all units alternatives to single-family detached housing. 2. The targeted goals for subsidized housing set in the late 1970s have not been met and thus the supply of housing affordable to persons with earnings of only 30 percent of the metropolitan median family income is well below documented need. 3. The most recent census data point out that existing low income resi- dents in these communities could well fill any expanded affordable housing, leaving very little opportunity for those living in neigh- borhoods of concentrated poverty to move out. 4. Local policies and programs have not made further development of lower cost housing a priority. Achieving a regional goal of broad- ening housing choice for lower income persons, particularly in the communities experiencing rapid growth in jobs, will require a renewed commitment from local governments. 5. Current regional policies to either provide incentives or assert penalties are not sufficient to motivate local governments to action. Closer monitoring is required to insure that when public subsidies are provided at the local level that this investment clearly benefits those in greatest financial need. To be sure, there are a number of reasons for the shortage of affordable housing in Twin Cities suburbs, many of which are beyond the control of municipalities. Such barriers include the following: 1. High property taxes and tight municipal budgets which encourage communities to accommodate higher value, owner -occupied housing -- which tend to "pay their own way" for municipal services. 2. The higher value "trade up" housing market fueling the demand for new housing. This reflects the aging of baby boomers (who are now approaching their peak earning years), and many developers see this as their niche for the near future. 3. Inequitable property tax rates for rental properties, recent high vacancy rates in multi -family housing (a result of over -building in -31- the late 1980s and fewer persons in the younger age groups who are more likely to be renters). These factors discourage developers from constructing new multi -family units. 4. Rapidly escalating prices for undeveloped land in suburban commun- ities provided with sewer and water services. A perceived sense of scarcity has led to large increases in raw land prices over the past year and a half. 5. Property ownership of vacant land. The re -zonings and down -zonings requested from the Metropolitan Council have resulted from property owner requests for an alternative use. Communities have been recep- tive to these requests, not seeing any benefit in maintaining higher density zoning where there is weak market demand. 6. Concern over long-term maintenance and quality of high-density and lower-priced housing. Communities view their performance standards for both single- and multi -family units as contributing to long-term quality and giving incentives for property owners to maintain their investments over the long term. 7. Development costs for new multi -family units which require rents unaffordable for moderate income households. Raw land costs, development charges, density controls, dedication requirements, and performance requirements combine to increase overall costs per unit. 8. Lack of public subsidies from the federal government targeted to low income households. Very modest increases in the number of Section 8 certificates and vouchers for eligible households. Many are eligi- ble, few get the subsidy. Many more units within HUD's "fair market rent" guidelines exist than there are households with the subsidy. 9. Negative community attitudes toward multi -family housing. In part, this stems from experiences of communities with large concentrations of moderately priced rentals where human service needs have escala- ted. The perception of crime and values conflicting with middle class values is reflected in community surveys guiding actions of elected officials. Several communities express the belief that they already have "too much" multi -family housing. There is the fear that should the community expand opportunities for a large increase in multi -family housing, it will become a ghetto with the same kinds of problems experienced by both central cities and inner suburbs where poverty households are concentrated. 10. Lack of incentives for a community to aggressively use local resources to increase the supply of low cost rental housing. Cities with few affordable units are still able to attract workers to fill local jobs. Reverse commute transit services are seen as a more attractive solution to any shortages in the local work force. 11. Appropriate scale for multi -family housing. No independent research has been conducted on how development costs (and thus rent levels) are affected by the number of units in a development. There is -32- concern in these communities, however, that large scale developments in neighborhood settings are incompatible with long-term vitality of the neighborhood. Other, more subtle barriers can be discerned. The information from the Metropolitan Council that more households with Section 8 subsidies assigned in the suburbs move into the central cities than vice versa points to a consumer preference for a non -suburban place to live. We do not have data to provide a true explanation. It may be that the suburbs offer a very restricted choice; "value for money" may be greater in the central cities; accessibility to tran- sit and social services may also be a strong factor. A survey to determine the range of reasons would help determine whether there is an inhospitable environment in areas where few low income persons live. Addressing the need for more affordable housing in the suburbs will require a multi -faceted approach. Simply reducing zoning barriers will not be sufficient. Incentives for the market to respond to the demand and for commun- ities to see some long-term benefits from a more diversified housing base are required. Several strategies are suggested below for further discussion: 1. Property tax reform to treat rental housing on a par with owner - occupied housing should make duplex and multi -family housing more attractive to developers and current property owners. This should reduce the depth of subsidy required to make new or existing housing more affordable and make more effective use of existing housing in suburban communities. 2. Re -focus local zoning regulations toward urban design performance standards, in lieu of current density requirements with minimum lot sizes, lot widths, floor area requirements etc. Existing "planned unit development" approaches do not provide opportunities to create a more intimate scale of development at higher densities and with lower costs. 3. Adopt local policies that will prevent future concentrations of poverty in any neighborhood. Set -asides of a small proportion of units for lower income, scattered -site subsidized housing, or restrictions on the number of units serving only one income group, could be strategies applied at the local level. Maintaining the desired quality of life in suburban neighborhoods is viewed as a function of scale. 4. Create a regional funding pool that would reward communities who are strongly motivated to diversify their housing stock. 5. Elevate the Metropolitan Council's Housing Policy Plan chapter of the Metropolitan Development Guide to "system status" --thus increasing the authority of the Council to link the achievement of affordable housing goals with access to regionally funded infra- structure improvements. -33- 6. Re-establish a fair share housing program at the regional level where achievement is linked to both incentives and penalities which can be effectively enforced. 7. Tighter monitoring over the criteria for use of local resources in subsidizing the local housing market. If the increasing concentration of poverty in the older urban areas and lack of opportunity for lower income households to live in the expanding suburban areas are the problems, then the solution is, by definition, to remove barriers and expand opportunity. This becomes a regionally shared goal. -34- D. SUMMARY OF THE CASE STUDIES Five questions guided the research for the ten case studies: 1. What are the characteristics of the community's existing housing stock in terms of mix of housing types and housing costs? 2. What is the community's existing supply of affordable housing for low and moderate income households and what financing mechanisms have been applied to create this supply? 3. What barriers to building units for low and moderate income house- holds exist in the community due to various land use controls, performance standards, development fees and/or administrative procedures? 4. How has the community used its locally available financial resources to facilitate construction of low and moderate income housing? 5. How much land is available for future housing construction and, specifically, land zoned for multi -family housing? What evidence is there of down -zoning residential land to lower densities and thus further restricting the supply of vacant land for lower cost hous- ing? The following summaries draw on material in the case studies which answer the above questions. Emphasis is placed on conclusions drawn by the authors in the case studies themselves, and thus the reader is referred to the com- plete case studies for the statistical supporting data. -35- BURNSVILLE CASE STUDY The evidence presented in the Burnsville case study appears to show that Burnsville generally has a wider variety of housing types than many of the other suburban communities examined in this study. In part, this varied mix of housing is related to the boom in the construction of multi -family housing in the city during the early 1980s. Since the late 1980s, however, the author believes the city has responded to the earlier construction of multi -family housing by discouraging additional multi -family housing construction in the city. LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT The city has 1,192 acres available for development.l If fully developed as currently zoned, the city could support an additional 8,903 housing units. HOUSING MARKET CHARACTERISTICS According to the 1983 Burnsville housing plan, if all the city's land is developed as currently zoned, the housing stock mix in the year 2010 would be 38.8 percent single-family and 61.2 percent multi -family. Such a distribution in housing types would generally reflect the Metropolitan Council's recommen- dation that 41 percent of a community's housing stock be composed of alterna- tives to single-family detached homes. Over 35 percent of all rental units in Dakota County are located in Burnsville.2 Average rental rates in Burnsville range from $440 for an efficiency to $718 for a three-bedroom unit. SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING The Burnsville housing plan admits a "possible shortage of units suitable for families and low-wage or fixed-income single people." This conclusion appears to be based on two factors. One is the very low vacancy rates for all types of rental housing in the city. The second indication of the growing demand for affordable housing is the long waiting list for Section 8 housing.3 The shortage of affordable housing is explained by the economic infeas- ibility for developers of affordable housing projects. Specific factors related to the infeasibility of such projects are: 1) the construction of three-bedroom apartments requires financial assistance from the public sector, and 2) there has been a dramatic decline in federally -assisted housing since 1980. The 1978 Burnsville comprehensive plan cited the Metropolitan Council's low and moderate income housing target for the city as a range between 1,240 and 3,100 units. In 1990, there were a total of 808 assisted units in Burnsville representing approximately 4 percent of the city's housing stock.4 -36- In addition to federally subsidized rental housing, there are several multi -family developments in Burnsville that have been developed through a variety of financing mechanisms. These projects include: • Andrews Pointe Townhomes. Andrews Pointe is fifty -seven -unit complex in which 100 percent of the two- and three-bedroom units are reserved for families at or below 60 percent of the metropolitan median family income. The project received funding through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), FHA, and the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. • Parkside Townhomes. Parkside is a twenty -two -unit complex reserving 100 percent of the two- and three-bedroom units for families at or below 60 percent median family income, with preference given to families below 50 percent median family income. Financing was obtained through MHFA, tax credits, Minneapolis/St. Paul Family Housing Fund, FHA, tax increment financing, Community Development Block Grant funds, the city of Burnsville, and Dakota County HRA. • Eagle Ridge. Eagle Ridge is a forty -four -unit senior development that is owned and operated by the Dakota County HRA. Residents pay 30 percent of their monthly income towards rent, but not less than $255 per month for a one -bedroom or $355 for a two-bedroom unit. The development was financed through the issuance of tax exempt housing revenue bonds. LAND USE BARRIERS TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING One significant barrier to additional low and moderate income housing in Burnsville is the community's present attitude towards discouraging further multi -family development in the city. Two housing studies were undertaken by the city to assess the community impact of multi -family development on the existing city's vacant land zoned multi-family.5 Following the first study in 1990, the city reduced the maximum density allowed in multi -family projects by increasing the minimum lot size from 2,000 sq. ft. per unit to 3,000 sq. ft. per unit. The city's primary concerns appeared to be related to the impact that additional multi -family housing (particularly three-bedroom units) might have upon schools and traffic congestion. Developers install all utilities, residential streets, and sewer and water mains. In addition to these development costs, the city charges for the following fees: • Preliminary and final plat fee • Street assessment for the installation of collector streets • Sewer connection fee • Water connection fee • Park dedication fee (in lieu of land) • Storm sewer assessment • PUD, conditional use, or re -zoning fee Burnsville requires that developers of multi -family complexes obtain a conditional use permit. USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO ENCOURAGE -37- LOW INCOME HOUSING The author cites several examples of the growing trend in the city to discourage additional multi -family development. These include a 1988 citizen poll advocating less multi -family development, the two housing reports noted above, and a 1989 moratorium, which lasted one year, on the development of multi -family units exceeding ten units. Despite changing attitudes in Burnsville regarding the development of more affordable multi -family housing in the city, the city has made available some resources to encourage the development of low and moderate income housing. Examples include: • Use of flexible zoning. The 1990 Burnsville comprehensive plan update notes that "perhaps the area where the city can be most effective in reducing housing prices is by lowering land costs".6 In an effort to reduce land costs, the city has advocated the use of planned unit developments (PUD) that can reduce the amount of land required for developments and, therefore, lower land costs per unit. One factor that the author believes further encourages the use of PUDs is that if a multi -family complex is not developed via PUD, the developer is required to obtain a conditional use permit for the development. • Use of tax increment financing. Burnsville employed tax increment financing to assist in the development of the Parkside Townhomes development. • CDBG funds. Since 1985, funds Burnsville has obtained through the Community Development Block Grant program have been pooled among other Dakota County communities for various projects. Examples where the CDBG funds were allocated for projects in Burnsville include $105,000 for mobile home rehabilitation in Burnsville as well as $279,000 for site acquisition of a senior housing development in Burnsville. • Use of federal financin . As was noted earlier, there are approxi- mately 750 to 800 federally subsidized rental housing units in Burnsville financed through the Section 6, 202, and 236 programs. In addition to these units, there are currently two proposals to add sixty-six subsidized units for the elderly and people with disabil- ities in Burnsville. -38- COON RAPIDS CASE STUDY The author of the Coon Rapids case study does not draw any strong conclusions regarding the community's provision or accommodation of low and moderate income housing. The author outlines the land use and zoning controls found in Coon Rapids. In general, these standards do not differ from many of the standards found in other suburban communities. However, the case study does highlight the fact that the city has implemented or amended several land use regulations over the past decade that generally have worked to increase the cost of housing development. Specifically, these regulations have increased minimum lot sizes and required a larger minimum garage area. Other barriers noted by the author include a lack of land available for multi -family development. LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT The author quotes Evelyn Turner, senior planner for the City of Coon Rapids, as stating that less than 20 percent of the land in Coon Rapids remains available for development and, further, that there is little land available for multi -family development.? CURRENT LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING SUPPLY Owner Occupied Housine In 1990, the median price for owner -occupied housing in Coon Rapids was $82,500. Of the 12,800 owner -occupied units in Coon Rapids, 1,059 or 8 percent were priced below $60,000. Of the twenty-one cities in Anoka County, Coon Rapids ranked tenth in terms of offering the most number of owner - occupied housing priced below $60,000. When Coon Rapids was compared against the forty-seven communities in Hennepin County, the city ranked sixth in providing the most home ownership opportunities priced at $60,000 or less. Coon Rapids was one of four cities in the metropolitan region that issued more than 500 single-family building permits in 1992. Renter -Occupied Housing • Market rate rental units. In 1990, the median rent for 3,459 rental housing units in Coon Rapids was $520. This compared to a median rent of $460 for Anoka County. Approximately 12 percent of the rental units in Coon Rapids were affordable at 30 percent the metropolitan median family income.8 • Subsidized rental units. The city currently has 420 subsidized units. In 1991, there were 247 family units and 173 units designated for the elderly. This compares to 1980 figures where there were 370 units (257 family units and 113 elderly units). Of note is the fact that there were fewer subsidized family units in 1991 than there were in 1980.9 -39- BARRIERS CREATED BY ZONING AND LAND USE PRACTICES The author notes a number of zoning and land use regulations found in Coon Rapids that may raise the cost of housing. These include: • Minimum lot sizes. The lot sizes for duplexes have fluctuated since the early 1970s. In 1973, the lot size for a duplex was 14,000 sq. ft. In 1977, the minimum lot size was reduced to 12,150 sq. ft. Currently, the minimum duplex lot size is 14,850 sq. ft. The author believes that the increased lot sizes are limiting the potential for new low and moderate income housing in the city. • Minimum floor area requirements. Local regulations that require minimum floor areas for dwelling units are one factor the Metropolitan Council concludes raises the cost of housing. The city has minimum finished -floor -area requirements in medium and high density zoning districts. The floor area requirements range from 600 sq. ft. for a one bedroom apartment to 720 sq. ft. for a three bedroom apartment. • Garage reouirements. Local regulations that require construction of garages or enclosed parking are another factor the Metropolitan Council concludes raises the cost of housing. The city's zoning ordinance requires a garage for all housing. In a single-family district (LDR-2), the required area for garages has recently been increased from 300 sq. ft. to 400 sq. ft. In medium density districts, one of two required spaces must be in a garage. For townhouses, one of three required spaces must be in a garage. In high density districts, .75 of the 2.25 spaces required for each unit must be in a garage. This requirement was increased from .5 of 2.25 in 1987. • Administrative barriers. Site plan approval is required for all housing types except single-family. The cost is $285 and takes seven to twelve weeks. In addition, duplex housing in the LDR-2 district requires a conditional use permit.10 s Attitude of Policy makers. The author contacted several local developers to ask them about administrative barriers in Coon Rapids. None of the developers "felt the city's development costs were excessive or any greater than for single-family development. All three felt the city was receptive to multi-familydevelopmentand that developer agreements were not overly burdensome." In addition to the comments of developers working in Coon Rapids, Steve Klein, Director of the Anoka County Community Action Program, believed that Coon Rapids was supportive of low and moderate housing efforts within the city. The case study notes that Klein's experience working with Coon Rapids was related to creating moderate cost home ownership opportunities in Coon Rapids through the Urban Homestead Program. • Impact of down -zonings. The author concluded that the greatest barrier to additional multi -family development was the lack of land -40- zoned "high density residential." According to a local developer, none of the city's existing vacant land that is zoned high density residential is suitable for development. In part, this lack of land zoned high density is the result of down -zonings in 1985. The re - zonings were a response to complaints made by both developers and citizens that too much land was being reserved for multi -family development.12 The alterations in the city's distribution of housing types that occurred due to the re -zonings were not submitted to the Metropolitan Council for review. In 1987, two comprehensive plan amendments in Coon Rapids continued to reduce the amount of land available for higher density developments. The amendments, which affected 26 acres, involved a re -zoning from high density residential to commercial as well as a re -zoning from medium density to low density residential. According to documents submitted to the Metropolitan Council, the zoning changes resulted in a net loss of 300 housing units. USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO ENCOURAGE LOW INCOME HOUSING The 1981 Coon Rapids comprehensive plan set a goal to provide an addi- tional 720 low to moderate income housing units between 1980 and 1990. As noted above, the city had 727 subsidized units in 1993. Various resources the city could have employed to promote the development of low and moderate income housing include: • Flexible zoning. The Coon Rapids zoning code includes a planned unit development provision that the city's 1981 land use plan stated should be a mechanism for encouraging low and moderate income housing developments. According to Lee Starr, Director of Community Planning, the city has not specifically used the PUD provisions to develop low and moderate income housing. Despite the comments of the Director of Community Planning, the author notes that in 1982 the city reduced the lot size requirements for a development providing 140 single-family homes and 41 townhomes. • Tax increment financin . The author notes that Coon Rapids has in the past employed tax increment financing to assist the development of low and moderate income housing, but that the city is not currently using tax increment financingTIF) as a tool to assist in the financing of residential development J3 Previous multi -family developments where Coon Rapids did use TIF are two senior complexes. Margaret Place, built in 1987, provides seventy-two market -rate rental units for seniors. Ox Bowl, built in 1983, provides sixty-one subsidized rental units for seniors. • Industrial revenue bonds. In 1979 and 1982 the city issued $45 million and $30 million, respectively, in industrial revenue bonds to provide 8 7/8 percent mortgage financing for new single-family and duplex units. Fifty percent of the funds were to be provided to homebuyers making less than 110 percent of the median income. Forty -41- percent of the funds were to be provided to homebuyers making less than 120 percent of the median income. The author questions whether the housing bonds the city has issued have been of any benefit to low and moderate income households since, if eligible applicants did not apply within six months, anyone could apply for the subsidy. The author has no figures on how many housing units went to eligible candidates. • Urban Homestead Program. The Anoka County Community Action Program has made three single-family houses available to first-time buyers through the Urban Homestead Program. The price of the houses ranged from $51,000 and $72,000. -42- EDEN PRAIRIE CASE STUDY The Eden Prairie case study provided to the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs was incomplete. The following summary for the City of Eden Prairie supplements information provided by the City of Eden Prairie, 1990 Census data, and data from the Metropolitan Council Housing Redevelopment Authority. LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT The City of Eden Prairie covers 23,027 acres. The City's guide plan allocates 9,734 acres (42.7 percent ) of the city's area to be zoned residen- tial. About 35 percent of the land zoned residential (or 3,500 acres) is vacant and remains available for residential development. The City's guide plan calls for the vacant residential land to be developed as follows: • Low density. 3,116 acres or about 88 percent of the vacant residen- tial land will be developed at a density of 2.5 units per acre or less. At the present time, the city has 5,365 acres that have been developed at this level of density. • Medium density. 320 acres or about 9 percent of the vacant residen- tial land will be developed at a density of 2.5 to 10 units per acre. At the present time, the city has 751 acres that have been developed at this level of density. • High density. 62 acres or about 3 percent of the vacant residential land will be developed at a density of greater than 10 units per acre. At the present time, the city has 210 acres that have been developed at this level of density. Once the city is fully developed, the City's guide plan calls for 36.8 percent of all land to be low density residential, 5 percent of land to be zoned medium density, and 1.2 percent of land to be high density. According to Eden Prairie's 1978 housing plan, the proposed land use plan would result in approximately 50 percent of the housing in the city being located in low density areas, 25 percent of housing being located in medium density areas, and 25 percent of housing being located in Eden Prairie's high density zoning districts. HOUSING SUPPLY In 1990, Eden Prairie had 15,405 housing units and the distribution of housing types in Eden Prairie roughly mirrored the distribution of housing types found in the metro area (i.e., 56 percent of units in Eden Prairie were single-family detached compared to 61 percent of units in the metro area; 26 percent of units in Eden Prairie were apartments with five or more units compared to 25 percent of units in the metro area). With 15 percent of the city's housing defined as one -unit attached, the proportion of Eden Prairie's housing stock devoted to this type of housing was 2.5 times greater than that found in the region as a whole. -43- In 1990, 19.3 percent of home owners in Eden Prairie were paying at least 30 percent of their income towards housing. This was the highest proportion of residents among the ten case study communities and slightly above the rate for the region as a whole. In 1990, median contract rent in Eden Prairie was $618 compared to $447 for the region as a whole. In 1990, 27.8 percent of renters in Eden Prairie were paying at least 30 percent of their income towards housing. This was the lowest proportion of residents among the ten case study communities and compared to 40.1 percent of renters for the region as a whole. SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING Owner -Occupied Housing According to the 1990 Census, 23 percent of owner -occupied housing in Eden Prairie was valued at less than $100,000, compared to 55 percent of owner -occupied units in the region as a whole. Subsidized Owner -Occupied Housing Through 1993, twenty-one households in Eden Prairie have received public subsidies to purchase a home in the City of Eden Prairie. Five households received assistance through the Scattered Site Housing Assistance Program, which employed CDBG funds to reduce the mortgages on the units. However, this program was discontinued in 1991. Through the Minnesota Cities Participation Program, sixteen families have purchased homes in Eden Prairie. The program offers low interest mortgages through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to low-income first-time home buyers. Renter -Occupied Housing In 1990, Eden Prairie had 279 rental units or 7.2 percent of all rental units affordable at 30 percent median family income. The region as a whole had 53,281 units or 19.4 percent of all rental units affordable at 30 percent median income in 1990. In 1990, Eden Prairie had 892 rental units or 23 percent of all rental units affordable at 50 percent median family income. The region as a whole had 127,081 units or 65 percent of all rental units affordable at 50 percent median income. -44- Subsidized Rental Housine There are 928 rental units in Eden Prairie representing approximately 6 percent of the city's housing stock that are subsidized through various federal, state, and local financing sources. • Federally subsidized rental units. Data from the Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority indicate that there exist 425 federally subsidized rental units in Eden Prairie. Three developments provide 329 subsidized units for families and/or the elderly through the project -based Section 8 program. One unit provides sixty-one units exclusively for seniors. In addition to the project -based units, there are thirty-five households in Eden Prairie using Section 8 certificates to subsidize their rents. • Rent subsidies through housing revenue bonds. Housing revenue bonds have been issued for the development of twelve rental complexes providing 447 subsidized units in Eden Prairie. • Other subsidized rental units. Through the use of CDBG funds, tax increment financing, and housing revenue bonds, Eden Prairie developed the Sterling Ponds complex --providing fifty-six subsidized housing units for families over age 55. All the units in the development are reserved for households earning less than 70 percent the metropolitan median family income. BARRIERS CREATED BY ZONING AND LAND USE REGULATIONS • Minimum lot sizes. Eden Prairie has seven residential zoning districts. Minimum lot sizes for single-family zones range from 9,500 sq. ft. to 10 acres. Minimum lot sizes in multi -family zones range from 2,500 sq. ft. (high density) to 6,500 sq. ft. (medium density). Conversations with an Eden Prairie city planner indicated that the city is often flexible on minimum lot sizes because most development is done via planned unit development. The critical standard is that a development's overall density conform to the city's maximum density restrictions outlined in the city's comprehensive plan. With the overall density as the critical standard, a greater variety of housing types is possible since higher density units can be offset by lower density units within a development. • Floor area requirements. Eden Prairie does not have minimum floor area requirements or garage requirements for single or multi -family units. • Administrative barriers. Eden Prairie does not require a conditional use permit for multi -family developments. • Park dedication fee. Eden Prairie's park dedication fee is $900 per single-family or multi -family unit. Among the case study cities that have a flat fee (as opposed to the value of land), the cost of Eden -45- Prairie's dedication fee ranks as the highest per unit fee among the ten case study communities. • Re -zonings. Since 1986, Eden Prairie has submitted at least five amendments to the city's comprehensive plan that have affected residential development in the city (See Table 14). One case was the Cardinal Hills subdivision which involved down -zoning 39.5 acres from medium density to low density. Another amendment involved re -zoning ten acres zoned medium density to public use. A third amendment, the Bluff Country planned unit development, involved re -zoning twenty-nine acres from low density to medium density. However, the revised density of the Bluff Country development was a relatively low 3.93 dwelling units per acre. The two remaining Eden Prairie comprehensive plan amendments involved re -zoning park land to low density development. These amendments affected a total of twenty-two acres. USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING In 1979, the Metropolitan Council determined that Eden Prairie's fair share housing goal was to provide between 760 and 1,900 new subsidized housing units for low and moderate income households. As was noted earlier, Eden Prairie currently has 425 federally subsidized rental units and an additional 503 units subsidized through a variety of financing mechanisms. While not all of the city's 928 subsidized rental units were constructed during the 1980s, the importance of efforts to develop these subsidized units within the city is evident in the fact that 928 units represent more than the entire stock of affordable rental units in the city at 50 percent the metropolitan median income. In several respects, Eden Prairie has made use of city resources to encourage the development of low and moderate income housing in the city. For example: • Flexible zoning. Using the planned unit development (PUD) process can reduce housing costs by increasing density and, thus, reduce land costs associated with residential development. As was noted earlier, Eden Prairie uses PUDs extensively to encourage a variety of housing types in developments. • Elimination of administrative and zoning barriers. In 1977, Eden Prairie required that new developments provide enclosed parking as well as abide by the minimum floor requirements outlined in the city's zoning code. Since that time the city has eliminated those regula- tions that the Metropolitan Council advisory standards suggest unnecessarily contribute to higher housing costs. • Financing mechanisms for low and moderate income housing. The preceding section on the supply of low and moderate income housing in Eden Prairie highlighted the various financing mechanisms that have been employed to develop low and moderate income housing in Eden -46- Prairie. While the proportional supply of such housing is extremely limited compared to the metropolitan region as a whole, there is evidence that the city has made an effort to find financing sources for low and moderate income housing. These financing sources include the use of housing revenue bonds, tax increment financing, and federal funds available through the Section 8 project based program and CDBG program. -47- EDINA CASE STUDY Like the other case studies, the case study on Edina addresses the five basic issues requested by the Minneapolis Legal Aid Society. These relate to the availability of land, characteristics of the housing stock, the supply of low income housing, land use and zoning barriers to low income housing, and efforts made by the city to support low and moderate income housing. Briefly summarizing this information, the author concludes in the case study report that Edina's supply of low and moderate income housing is fairly limited. This basic conclusion was based upon the following factors. HOUSING SUPPLY In 1990, Edina had 20,983 housing units, and the distribution of the housing types in the city is, in many respects, similar to that found in the metropolitan region as a whole (i.e., 58 percent of housing units in Edina were single-family detached compared to 61 percent in the region as a whole; 4.5 percent of housing units were single-family attached in Edina, while 6.3 percent of housing in the region was single-family attached.) One significant difference between the housing stock in Edina and that of the metropolitan region is that roughly 34 percent of housing in Edina was in complexes with five or more units while only about 25 percent of housing in the region was in these larger complexes. The author notes that this disparity is largely due to Edina's efforts to develop higher density renter - occupied and, in particular, owner -occupied housing in southeast Edina. SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING Rental -Occupied Units The author notes that there are two elements dictating the supply of low and moderate income rental housing in Edina. One is the availability of such housing, measured in terms of turnover and vacancy rates, while the other is the affordability of such units measured in terms of rental rates. • Availability. Based upon an analysis of vacancy and turnover rates for multi -family housing in Edina, the author concludes that there is high demand for rental housing in the city which may, in turn, hamper the ability of prospective tenants to find adequate and affordable rental housing in Edina. In 1992, the multi -family housing turnover rate in Edina was 9.8 percent, while the metropolitan rate was 18.2 percent. The vacancy rate for multi -family housing in Edina in 1992 was a low 3.1 percent, and there were no units that were vacant for six months or longer. • Affordability. In 1990 the median rent for housing in Edina was $654 compared to a median rent in Hennepin County of $452 and a median rent for the fully developed area (less the two central cities) of $488. The impact of the higher median rents in Edina is apparent in the _48- percentage of units that were available for less than $500. In 1990, 20 percent of rental units in Edina rented for less than $500 compared to 61 percent of rental units in Hennepin County. The rental rate differentials become more acute when comparing the rents for three-bedroom units, which are often the type of units demanded by families. In 1990, nearly 65 percent of three-bedroom units rented for $750 or more, while only 41 percent of such units rented for more than $750 in Hennepin County and the region as a whole. Based upon the relative lack of availability and the higher rental rate in Edina, the author concludes that the market -rate rental opportunities for low and moderate income households are fairly limited. • Federally subsidized rental housing. Edina has 558 federally subsidized rental units in the city, composing approximately 2.7 percent of housing within the city. The metropolitan region as a whole has approximately 4.9 percent of rental housing that is federally subsidized. 547 of the federally subsidized rental units in Edina are project - based units financed through the Section 8, 202, or 236 programs. Of these units, the vast majority (72 percent) are subsidized senior units. There are eleven households in the city using Section 8 vouchers or certificates. The author notes that five of the eleven households have "ported in" from other jurisdictions. • Minnesota Housing Finance Agency assistance. The author notes that Edina is eligible for a small number of MHFA rent -assisted units through a special stabilization program focused on St. Louis Park. However, it is unclear whether any such units are located in Edina. • Tax increment financing/housing revenue bonds. Edina has assisted in the financing of three multi -family developments through the use of tax increment financing and housing revenue bonds. These subsidies require that 20 percent of the 424 units in these developments be reserved at the regional fair market rate of $535 for a one -bedroom, $630 for a two-bedroom, and $788 for a three-bedroom unit. The following is a brief description of the projects: • Edina Park Plaza. Edina Park is a senior development providing 202 rental units with approximately 30 units renting from $1,105 to $1,170. The remaining units generally rent up to $1,600, with two units renting for $2,200. • Vernon Terrace. Vernon Terrace is a senior development providing 150 units, with one -bedroom units renting for $775. -49- • Walker Elder Suites. This development provides seventy-two studio and one -bedroom units for the frail elderly. Rental rates range from $1,810 to $2,285. Each of the complexes provide specialized services, the costs of which are incorporated in the rental rate, to meet the needs of the elderly. However, the author points out that the rents at all three of the developments far exceed the fair market rental rates that are required under the provisions of the housing revenue bonds. Further, the author's conversations with the property managers of the developments indicated that two of the three managers were not aware of the set-aside requirements. BARRIERS CREATED BY ZONING AND LAND USE PRACTICES • Minimum lot area for single-family housing. The minimum lot area for single-family housing in Edina is 9,000 sq. ft. provided certain requirements are fulfilled. Specifically, the lot may be as small as 9,000 sq. ft. only if the median lot size of residential properties in the surrounding neighborhood are 9,000 sq. ft. or less. Neighborhood is defined as plats or subdivisions in whole or in part that are 500 feet from the subject property. Thus if residential lots surrounding the area are larger than 9,000 sq, ft., the minimum lot area requirement becomes the median of the neighborhood. • Minimum lot areas for multi -family development. Edina has ten zoning districts that regulate the development of multi -family developments. These districts each provide a base lot area requirement, but then provide a wide array of density bonuses by incorporating certain amenities or other site characteristics into the development. The maximum density possible if all the density provisions were incor- porated into a development would be fifteen to thirty dwelling units per acre. (See tables 1, 3 and 4 in the original case study for more detailed information.) Notable factors that the city uses to adjust the density of multi- family developments include an allowance that permits a 600 sq. ft. reduction in per unit lot area for providing low and moderate income housing, a 500 sq. ft. reduction for providing underground parking, as well as a 500 ft. increase in the lot area for each unit that has three bedrooms. • Minimum floor areas. Edina employs minimum lot area requirements in multi -family developments even though the inclusion of such requirements can reduce the flexibility a developer may have in providing lower cost units,14 • Garage requirements. Edina maintains a mandatory two -car garage requirement for single-family homes, but has eliminated the city's requirement that multi -family developments provide enclosed parking. As noted above, a developer may receive a density bonus if the development has enclosed parking. -50- • Usable area. Street setback areas, driveways, parking lots, and garages may not be calculated in determining the usable area of a proposed development. The author concludes that the exclusion of these areas limits flexibility of site designs and reduces the overall density of a development. • Administrative barriers. Proposed developments that must be designated "planned residential development" or "mixed development" districts require two rounds of Planning Commission and City Council review, while only one round of review is required to re -zone land to the city's R-1 or R-2 districts. The author notes that one potential impact of the added review procedures are time delays, and the opportunity costs associated with such delays. USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING In 1979, the Metropolitan Council determined that Edina's fair share housing goal was to provide by 1990 between 720 and 1,800 new subsidized housing units for low and moderate income households. Edina's 1980 compre- hensive plan set a goal of providing 720 new subsidized units by 1990. However, the housing policy plan of the comprehensive plan only developed goals for providing 545 new subsidized units. Of these 545 units, 300 units were to be for seniors, while the remaining 245 units were for families. The author's analysis of new subsidized housing developed in the city since 1980 indicates that Edina has not met its goal of providing 545 new subsidized units. The development of the South Haven and Summit Point complexes created 129 new subsidized units for seniors, meeting 43 percent of the goal established in 1980. The Oak Glen complex created 24 new assisted units for families, meeting 10 percent of Edina's 1980 goal. According to the 1980 Edina comprehensive plan, the city was to attempt to meet subsidized housing goals through the following actions: "Review subdivision and zoning ordinances for requirements that may unnecessarily increase the cost of housing." The author concludes that the city's actions related to this objective were to develop an array of density bonuses that reward developers for incor- porating certain features in multi -family developments. One factor was the density bonus for providing low and moderate income housing opportunities. Another was the bonus for underground parking, which replaced the requirement that all multi -family developments provide enclosed parking. While acknow- ledging that some of the incentives have the potential to reduce housing costs, the author also notes that many of the density bonus factors may also raise the cost of housing: "Consider the creation of tax increment financing districts as a means to acquire and make lands available for assisted hous- ing." Edina has eight tax increment financing (TIF) districts. As noted earlier, the city has employed TIF with the intention of providing affordable housing opportunities. Specifically, Edina has used TIF to facilitate the -51- development of housing (such as the Centennial Lakes and Edinborough developments) in the area surrounding Southdale in southeast Edina. The redevelopment plan for this area was developed in 1977 and was incorporated into the housing element of the city's 1980 comprehensive plan. However, given the rental rates for the city's three subsidized housing complexes using TIF and housing revenue bonds, it is questionable to what degree the use of TIF has effectively promoted affordable housing opportunities. Between 1975 and 1992, Edina received a total of $3.3 million in CDBG funds. Over this period, the city's largest spending categories were for the development of assisted -housing units and for housing rehabilitation. The city has devoted 25.3 percent of the funds allocated through the CDBG program to assisted housing, while allocating 25.2 percent of CDBG funds for housing rehabilitation. For Hennepin County as a whole, 11 percent was allocated to assisted housing, while 30 percent of CDBG funds were spent on housing rehabilitation. -52- LAKEVILLE CASE STUDY The general conclusion found in the Lakeville case study is that the current pattern of city policies do not work to accommodate the housing needs of low and moderate income residents. Briefly, the author bases this conclusion upon the following: • The city is presently dominated by single-family development and, based upon the city's future development plans, this trend will continue. e The city's growth management plan recommends zoning changes (such as increasing lot sizes) that will generally make housing more costly. These changes work in concert with the city's objective to encourage more housing that can "pay its own way"15 i.e., generate sufficient revenue to cover the costs of providing public services. • The city has very little developable land that is zoned and available for high density multi -family development. In part, this is due to the city down -zoning a number of sites since the late 1980s. • The city has failed to fulfill its objectives outlined in its 1980 comprehensive plan for providing a balance of housing types within the city. Lakeville residents and elected officials generally have a negative attitude towards future multi -family development in the city. The following provides some of the evidence the author uses to draw his conclusions, using as a framework the five questions that the Minneapolis Legal Aid Society asked the author to investigate. LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT The land area of the city that is presently platted is dominated by single-family residence zoning. Although platted land does not reflect all developable land within the city, the conclusion is that current and future land use will be predominantly single-family.16 There is little land available for high density development in the city. Six acres of land in the central business district are zoned high density multi -family (R-7) and are available for development. All other R-7 districts are located outside the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) line which, therefore, reduces the feasibility of multi -family housing developments. Lakeville presently has thirty undeveloped acres zoned for use as a mobile home park. However, this area is presently located outside the MUSA line.l7 -53- There are no data cited as to how many total acres are available for development within the city. BARRIERS TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING The fact that there is little developable land for multi -family housing while a large proportion of the city is zoned single-family, is reiterated as a potential barrier to affordable housing. In addition to this barrier, the author cites the following local policies and regulations as barriers to affordable housing: • Impact of growth management strategy. The policies recommended in the city's 1993 strategic growth management plan reduce the possibility of affordable single-family housing. The plan encourages reducing densities by increasing lot sizes. This is recommended in order to reduce demand on sewer facilities, protect the environment, and increase the amount of housing that "pays it own way." • Impact of zoning amendments. The city has undertaken a number of residential down -zonings since the late 1980s that have hindered the potential for low and moderate income housing. There have been eight down -zonings from R-7 since 1987, while only one up -zoning to R-7 during this period. There has also been one up -zoning to R-6 during this period.19 • Minimum floor area requirements. Although the Metropolitan Council's advisory standards for local land use regulations recommend that cities do not have minimum floor area requirements for multi -family housing, Lakeville employs minimum floor area requirements for multi -family housing. • Park dedication. The case study infers that the city's park dedication disproportionately impacts multi -family housing. The dedication is based upon the development's density. For a density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre, the fee is 10 percent of the market value of the land. When a development's density is 10+ dwelling units per acre, the dedication is 17 to 20 percent of market value of the land.20 In lieu of land, Lakeville collects a park dedication fee of $650 per unit regardless of the development's density. • Trail dedication fee. The case study also notes that the city's trail dedication fee disproportionately impacts multi -family housing. Each dwelling unit is charged a $150 trail fee regardless of the development's density. • Conditional use permit for multi -family developments. While a conditional use permit is not required for multi -family developments within a high density zoning district, construction of multi -family housing or townhomes for the elderly does require a conditional use permit.21 -54- • Attitude of policy makers and community. A comment noted throughout the case study is that the community has a negative attitude in terms of encouraging additional multi -family development in the city. As evidence, the case study cites a survey of Lakeville residents where 24 percent of residents were opposed to future multi -family development and 12 percent were opposed to low-income housing.22 The city administrator is quoted as saying that the City Council has taken notice of the survey results. The report also quotes a developer as saying that Lakeville does not want to be another Burnsville with its large apartment complexes. SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING Lakeville's significant stock of mobile homes is the city's primary source of low and moderate income housing. In 1990 there were 979 mobile homes in Lakeville representing approximately 12 percent of the city's housing stock. In the metropolitan area as a whole, only 1.78 percent of the region's housing stock are mobile homes. According to the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority, there are 166 assisted -housing units within the City of Lakeville. Of these units, 111 are federally subsidized rental units for families (69 units) or seniors (42 units). Section 8 vouchers or certificates, which represent 40 percent of Lakeville's federally subsidized rental units, are the most common type of funding for rental assistance within the city. Lakeville has three multi -family complexes that provide assisted housing through housing revenue bonds or other alternatives to direct federal subsidies. These developments are: • Lakevillaee. Lakevillage is a seventy -unit multi -family complex developed by the Lakeville Development Company. The Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) issued multi -family housing revenue bonds for the project and further assisted in the financing of the project through the Interest Reduction Program -- which reduces the effective interest rate on a bond loan. Public assistance for the project requires that 20 percent of the complex's units be rented to families earning 50 percent the median family income or to reserve 40 percent of the units for families at 60 percent median family income. An additional 55 percent of the units must be reserved for moderate income families as determined by the Dakota County HRA. • Southfork Apartments. Southfork Apartments is a 272 -unit multi- family complex for low to moderate income families that was built in two phases. Combined, the complex provides 68 one -bedroom units, 136 two-bedroom units, and 68 three-bedroom units. Twenty percent of the 272 units are reserved for families at or below 80 percent the median family income. Both phases were financed by the City of Lakeville issuing multi -family housing revenue bonds. The Dakota -55- County HRA assisted in the second phase of the project by reducing the effective bond rate through the Interest Reduction Program. • Winsor Plaza. Winsor Plaza is a multiple dwelling unit development providing forty units for low and moderate income seniors. Resi- dents pay 30 percent of their monthly income towards rent, but not less than $255 for a one -bedroom and $355 for a two-bedroom unit. The project is owned and operated by the Dakota County HRA and was initially financed through the issuance of housing revenue bonds. In 1993 the Dakota County HRA issued additional bonds to construct a second phase of senior housing adjoining Winsor that will provide an additional twenty-four units. USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO ENCOURAGE LOW INCOME HOUSING The 1980 Lakeville comprehensive plan outlined several policies intended to encourage low and moderate income housing in Lakeville. In several respects, the author believes that the city has failed to adequately pursue these policies outlined in the comprehensive plan. For example: • Lakeville should "maintain a balance in the types and quantities of housing units available throughout the city". The author concludes that the present character of the housing stock in Lakeville, combined with implementation of the city's growth management strategy, reflect the city's failure to provide a balanced housing stock. At the present time the housing stock in Lakeville is biased towards single-family detached units. In 1990, while 72.6 percent of housing in Lakeville was single family - detached, only 58.6 percent of housing in the metropolitan area was single-family detached. Land use and zoning regulation amendments related to Lakeville's growth management strategy during the 1980s and 1990s will reorient the housing market toward higher value single-family development. Examples include the increases in minimum lot sizes for single- family homes and the re -zoning of land to lower density zoning districts. • Lakeville should insure "that sufficient housing is provided to meet the needs of all segments of the population. Due to the city's preference for single-family housing development, the author concludes that city is not working to meet the housing needs of all segments of the population. Despite this conclusion, the author does recognize that the city has cooperated with the Dakota County HRA to provide alternatives to single-family housing through the provision of low and moderate income multi -family housing. • "Quantitative goals for the provision of low to moderate income housing shall be established and re-evaluated on an annual basis."25 -56- In 1980, the Metropolitan Council determined that Lakeville should work to provide 360 to 900 new low and moderate income housing units between 1980 and 1990 in order to meet the city's fair share of the region's affordable housing. Due to the difficulty in determining what constitutes affordable housing, the author does not review whether the city has met the quantitative goals that were estab- lished by the Metropolitan Council. However, the author does note that the city presently doesnothave a quantitative target for low and moderate income housing.2 • Lakeville should "provide sufficient housing options to meet the needs of all segments of the population including the elderly, and those of low to moderate income". One policy the author believes Lakeville has made an effort to address is to provide senior housing in the community. As was noted earlier, Dakota County HRA developed a forty -unit subsidized senior housing complex in Lakeville and has issued bonds to expand the facility. The city has committed resources to the senior housing project through its contribution of more than $343,000 in CDBG funds for site preparation. This represents approximately 45 percent of the city's entire CDBG funding allocation since 1984.27 (The remainder of the city's CDBG funds have been used for public improvements to multi -family housing developments ($37,118), housing rehabilitation ($60,000), a senior citizens' center ($260,000), commercial rehabil- itation fund ($59,000), and a battered women's shelter ($10,000). -57- MAPLE GROVE CASE STUDY The general conclusion found in the Maple Grove case study is that the current pattern of municipal activities works to exclude low and moderate income residents from living within the community. In fact, of all the case studies, this author appears to take the strongest stand in terms of the city's inhospitability to low and moderate income housing. While the author concedes and provides some evidence that Maple Grove has in the past worked to accommodate low and moderate income housing, the author's conclusions are primarily based upon the notion that the activities of the city since the late 1980s have had the impact of discouraging further low and moderate income housing within the community. AVAILABLE LAND FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT There exists 8,000 acres of undeveloped land in Maple Grove. The majority of this land is located outside the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Under the city's 1986 comprehensive plan amendments, the city re -zoned all vacant and developable residential land (excluding planned unit develop- ments) within the MUSA to single-family housing. HOUSING MARKET The city has 12,968 housing units with 9,373 (72 percent ) single- family detached units. The city has six manufactured homes. Due to the zoning changes under the 1986 amendments, the vast majority of building permits are for single-family homes. In 1987, all building permits were for single-family homes. Between 1989 and 1992, the percentage of building permits in Maple Grove that were for single-family homes ranged from 80 to 93 percent. The average estimated value of a home is $95,565. However, new homes constructed in the city in 1992 and 1993 had an average valuation between $125,000 and $130,000. Maple Grove's comprehensive plan proposes a future housing mix of 80 percent single-family detached and 20 percent attached housing. The Metropolitan Council recommends a 60/40 distribution. AVAILABILITY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING Market Rate Rental Opportunities The author argues that the majority of rental units in the city are not affordable to low income households. Median contract rent for Maple Grove's 1,258 rental units is $637 while the region's median is $447. Of these vSg= units, 96.5 percent of rents in the city percent metropolitan median family income units in the city are affordable to those 5 percent of rental units in the city are median income.29 Subsidized Rental Units are affordable to those at 80 Thirty-five percent of rental at 50 percent median income. Only affordable to those at 30 percent Approximately 116 rental units in Maple Grove are subsidized through either city -sponsored housing revenue bonds or federal housing subsidies. The city has one federally subsidized multi -family development, Hickory Ridge, that provides thirty-two two- and three-bedroom units for families. In addition, there were twenty-two households in Maple Grove in 1992 that received rental assistance through the use of Section 8 certificates. The City of Maple Grove issued housing revenue bonds, under Minnesota Statute 462C, in both 1984 and 1985 to assist in the financing of the Abitare and Eagle Ridge multi -family developments. Twenty percent of the units within these complexes are reserved for households making 80 percent or less of the metropolitan median family income. The two complexes com- bined provide 312 total rental units, with a minimum of 62 units reserved for low and moderate income households. Moderate Cost Home Ownership Opportunities The author also finds that home ownership is limited for low and moderate income households in Maple Grove. The average value for owner - occupied housing is $109,579. According to the 1990 Census, 45 percent of owner -occupied housing was valued at greater than $100,000. BARRIERS TO LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING The author cites a number of zoning, building, and design standards that significantly raise the cost of housing within the city. These requirements include the following: • Minimum lot size. Minimum lot sizes for single-family housing zoning districts are 20,000 sq. ft. and 10,000 sq. ft. However, the city requires that all preliminary plats have an average lot size of 11,000 sq. ft. Thus, it appears that a mix of larger lots must be incorporated into any plat with the more affordable 10,000 sq. ft. lots. • Minimum floor area. Although the Metropolitan Council's advisory zoning standards discourage the use of floor area requirements, Maple Grove has a 960 sq. ft. floor area requirement for single- family homes. Maple Grove has one of the highest floor area requirements for multi -family housing in the metropolitan area. A two-bedroom multi -family unit in Maple Grove is required to have a floor area of 950 sq. ft.30 -59- • Garage requirements. Although the Metropolitan Council's advisory zoning standards discourage municipalities from requiring garages, Maple Grove requires that each single-family home have a two -car garage. For multi -family developments, one of the two required parking spaces must be enclosed and located either under or within the multiple dwelling building. • Desizn and performance standards for multi family developments. Design and performance standards that raise the cost of multi -family developments include: • Each development must have at least one indoor room for social or exercise purposes. The size of the community room is required to be either 750 sq. ft. or equal to 25 sq. ft. per dwelling unit in the building, whichever is greater. • Each multi -family unit shall have at least 500 sq. ft. of usable open space available for recreation. • All off-street parking areas of six spaces or more must be screened and have landscaped parking islands. • All non -impervious surfaces must be landscaped. The minimum number of trees shall be equal to the perimeter of the lot divided by forty. An irrigation system must also be installed and maintained. • The Maple Grove comprehensive plan recommends that apartment concentrations be limited to no more than twenty contiguous acres. The barriers noted by the author in the case study were, in some cases, also identified by the Metropolitan Council during the agency's reviews of Maple Grove's comprehensive plan amendments. Although the Metropolitan Council approved Maple Grove's amendments during the late 1980s, documents prepared by the agency's staff implied that the city was creating barriers to affordable housing. For example, a letter dated September 23, 1988 from the Metropolitan Council to the City of Maple Grove regarding a proposed comprehensive plan amendment stated the following: While the city has made considerable progress in providing afford- able housing in a range of costs and types, the city's intent for the future is to build primarily high-cost housing. In its comments on the plan, the Council expressed concern that the city not emphasize higher -priced single-family housing at the expense of more affordable housing. Maple Grove has among the highest apartment rents in the metropolitan area, and among the highest minimum required apartment unit sizes. It is appropriate to reiterate the Council's comments on the 1987 plan update: Maple Grove is encour- aged to periodically evaluate its policy of encouraging primarily large -lot, single-family housing to ensure that housing continues to be available and affordable for people of varying incomes. -60- USE OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES TO ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING The 1980 housing element of the Maple Grove comprehensive plan states that the city is expected by the Metropolitan Council to provide 750 to 1,850 units for low and moderate income households, or approximately 75 to 185 units per year. The author identifies the city's issuance of housing revenue bonds in 1984 and 1985 for the development of the Abitare and Eagle Ridge multi- family complexes as the primary action the city has undertaken to meet the low and moderate income goals established by the Metropolitan Council. As was noted earlier, these developments provide 312 rental units, with 20 percent guaranteed for households at or below 80 percent the metropolitan median family income. Between 1975 and 1992, Maple Grove has received $1.456 million in CDBG funds. During this period, the city did not use any of the CDGB funds for the development of assisted housing. Maple Grove's major spending categories for CDBG funds during this period were for publicfacilities(32.3 percent ) and neighborhood revitalization (26.7 percent ).1 Although Maple Grove has not met its target for low and moderate income housing, the author concludes that the city's position on low and moderate income housing is that the city has already done its share in providing affordable housing and, therefore, need not do more. The following evidence is cited from Maple Grove's 1987 comprehensive plan: Changing demographic characteristics and the loss of flat sandy land place Maple Grove in a position where efforts to develop large areas of low and moderate priced housing would be futile. The market for this housing has shrunk and other cities can provide it at less cost." As additional evidence, the author cites a February 6, 1986 Metropolitan Council document regarding the housing element of Maple Grove's comprehensive plan. Joanne Barron, the author of the document, stated that: Although one of the stated goals (of the plan) is to provide housing for all income groups, nothing in the plan would seem to encourage construction of moderate cost housing. -61- MINNETONKA CASE STUDY The City of Minnetonka is quickly becoming a fully developed city. Recent data from the Minnetonka Planning Department indicate that approxi- mately 110 acres are available for new housing development. Approximately seventy acres of the land are available for multi -family housing. However, many other vacant parcels of land located in the city are unavailable for development due to environmental constraints. The author of the case study notes that the increasing shortage of land for residential development has resulted in slower population growth in the city between 1980 and 1990. In addition, the number of residential building permits issued by the city has declined after a high level of building activity in the mid-1980s. Since 1990 the number of residential building permits issued has remained fairly constant, with about 140 to 200 residential building permits per year. The author of the Minnetonka case study concludes that little affordable rental or owner -occupied housing exists in the City of Minnetonka. Factors that the author points to as inhibiting a greater amount of affordable housing in the city include strong demand for higher priced units, little subsidized housing within the city, high land costs, restrictive local environmental and land use regulations, and ambiguously defined municipal objectives related to encouraging additional affordable housing within Minnetonka. The author supports these conclusions with the following information. HOUSING SUPPLY Less than 25 percent of housing units in Minnetonka are renter -occupied units. This proportion is low in contrast to the metro -wide proportion of just under one-third and the Hennepin County proportion of just over one-third of housing units being renter -occupied. Rental rates in Minnetonka are far above the metro area median and the median for the developing area. Region -wide median rent is $447, developing area's median rent is $518, Minnetonka's median rent is $631. Due to the high rental rates in Minnetonka, renter -occupied households in Minnetonka tend to be affluent. 1990 Census data show that 50 percent of renters had an income of greater than $35,000, while 25 percent of renter households had incomes exceeding $50,000. The city has an uneven distribution of rental units within the -city as well as marked differences in rental rates within different parts of the city. The section of the city that has the least expensive rental housing is located along the city's eastern border with the City of Hopkins. Vacancy rates for rental housing in Minnetonka are low compared to the metro area and the developing area --providing some indication that there is strong demand for rental housing within the city. While Minnetonka's vacancy rate for rental units was about 4.3 percent in 1991-92, the region's vacancy rate was 8.2 percent and the developing area's rate was 9.8 percent during -62- this period (Rental Housing in the Twin City Metropolitan Area, Metropolitan Council, p. 12). SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING Of those renter households earning less than $20,000 annually, 76 percent pay more than 30 percent of income for housing according to the 1990 Census. Federally Funded Housing Minnetonka has 370 project -based, federally -funded subsidized units through Section 8 and 236 programs. Data from the Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) indicate 197 units (or 53 percent) of federally subsidized housing in the city are devoted to senior housing. The units are located in five projects: Archer Heights, Cedar Hills Townhomes, Elmbrook Townhomes, Hunter's Ridge, and Glen Lake Landing. Waiting periods for units ranged from six months for a one -bedroom to three to five years for a three-bedroom unit. Data from the Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) indicate ten housing units in Minnetonka are subsidized through federal Section 8 certificates or vouchers. Federally subsidized housing, which includes project -based rental housing as well as certificates and vouchers, represented about 1.4 percent of all housing units in Minnetonka in 1992. This compares to the region as a whole where approximately 4.7 percent of housing units are federally subsidized. Housing Revenue Bond Projects The author notes four housing revenue projects containing 1,304 rental units that should supply 260 low and moderate income rental units. However, conversations with apartment managers found that three of the four housing complexes stated that they either no longer participated in the rental unit set -asides or simply were not aware of the need to set aside 20 percent of the complexes' units for low and moderate income households. Modest Cost Home Ownership Fewer than 25 percent of owner -occupied housing in Minnetonka was at or below the metro median home price of $89,564. BARRIERS CREATED BY ZONING AND LAND USE RESTRICTIONS The author of the case study examined the lot size and dimensional requirements for each of the city's residential zoning districts. These include regulations related to maximum building height, minimum lot area, setback requirements, and minimum lot width and depth requirements. See -63- Tables 1 and 2 as well as pages 18 through 23 of the case study for these numerical standards. Conclusions drawn by the author based upon analysis of these dimensional requirements include the following: • The city's minimum lot size for single-family homes in the R-1 District is 22,000 sq. ft. This is the largest minimum lot size within a sewered area among the case study communities. However, in areas that serve as a transition between low density and more intensive uses, the city does allow a parcel of no more than 40,000 sq. ft. to be subdivided into lots with a minimum area of 15,000 sq. ft. Information on the number of potential land parcels where 15,000 sq. ft. lots could be platted was not available. • The city's R-2 district allows a maximum density of four units per acre. However, the author points out that minimum lot size requirements (15,000 sq. ft. for single-family homes and 12,500 per unit for two-family dwellings) appear to make the four unit per acre density limit infeasible. The minimum lot area requirements for single-family homes permit a density of 2.9 housing units per acre, while the multi -family minimum lot area requirements permit a density of only 3.9 housing units per acre. • The city's R-3 district allows up to twelve units per acre. However, the city requires that there be no more than four units per structure. The author finds this restriction on the number of units allowed per structure to be quite restrictive since it limits building configurations that may use land more efficiently. • The city's R-4 district allows densities of four to twelve units per acre. Although there is no restriction on the number of units per structure, the author notes other standards that limit the possible layout of a given development and, thus, result in additional land consumption and greater development costs. These standards include a floor area ratio (FAR) of .5 combined with large minimum side and rear setback requirements. These setback requirements are 1.5 times the height of the building up to 100 feet, but in no case less than: 1) 50 feet from low density residential, 2) 40 feet from medium or high density, 3) 30 feet from industrial uses, or 4) 20 feet from open space uses. • The city's requirements for the R-5 district allow for densities greater than 12 units per acre. Otherwise, the standards for the R-5 district are the same as for the R-4 district, except that the maximum FAR is increased from .5 to 1.0. In addition to bulk and density zoning requirements, the city has a number of other zoning, building and/or performance standards that include: • Outdoor recreation area. In R-4 and R-5 districts, developments must designate a minimum of 10 percent of the gross project area to active and passive recreational areas (300.13 Subd. 5(h) and 300.14 Subd. 5(h)). -64- • Road access. R-4 and R-5 developments must be on sites with access to an arterial or collector roadway. • Parking. Two parking spaces are required for each multi -family unit. One of the spaces must be enclosed. In addition, parking areas must have concrete curbs. • Architectural standards. The author notes that there is "a ban on certain materials which one may presume have been deemed unsightly, but which also assume are inexpensive construction materials" (300.27). • Landscaping. For projects under $1 million in value, landscaping must account for a minimum of 2 percent of total value. The percentage decreases as the value of the project increases so that a project valued at $4 million need only dedicate 1 percent of the total project value towards landscaping (300.27). • Screening and buffering. Any off-street parking lot with more than six spaces must be buffered from streets within 50 feet and from all residential lots. All developments built at a density of four units or greater must be buffered from lower density uses (300.27). • Re-zonine. Since almost all vacant land in the city is zoned R-1, any multi -family development requires a re -zoning. USE OF RESOURCES TO ENCOURAGE LOW/MODERATE INCOME HOUSING In 1981, the Minnetonka comprehensive plan stated that the Metropolitan Council determined a ten-year low and moderate income housing goal of 560 to 1,400 units. The author notes that the comprehensive plan rejected the upper end of the range as unrealistic given projected growth in the city during the 1980s. In addition, the city could not guarantee a full commitment to providing government subsidized housing in the absence of continued federal funding levels. Despite the city's disclaimers, the 1981 Minnetonka comprehensive plan outlined several housing policies it intended to use to guide development and encourage more affordable housing in the city. The author's primary criticism of the city's policies is that it is very difficult to measure the success of many of the city's affordable housing objectives because the objectives tend to be qualitative rather than quantitative. Thus, the author's point is that while the city states that it wishes to expand housing opportunities for all persons, how do we judge the success of this objective? A brief summary of the more specific policies, along with municipal actions supporting the policy, include: -65- Zoning and Regulatory Barriers The city identified the large minimum lot sizes and low density standards as barriers to affordable housing. In response, the city allows the use of flexible zoning in three contexts. These are: • For platted lots under 40,000 sq. ft., the city permits a lot split as long as each new lot has a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. (300.10). • Planned unit development projects that allow "modification of density and floor area requirements for developments providing low and moderate cost housing." • The city's planned I-394 district allows the City to require mixed-use. development projects along the I-394 corridor. This provision enables the city to encourage mixed-use development containing low and moderate income housing that would not otherwise be feasible in the district. The author is not certain how frequently these flexible zoning efforts have been employed by the city to reduce housing costs. Administrative Delays Policy 41 of the comprehensive plan identifies administrative delays as a barrier to affordable housing. The city's housing policy called for reducing such delays to promote affordable housing. The author finds no particular evidence, given the existing planned unit development process, as well as site and building review requirements, that administrative processes have been streamlined. Facilitating the Construction of Subsidized Housing The city's federally subsidized housing projects (370 units) as well as housing revenue bond projects (260 units) were noted above. Minnetonka has received $3.26 million in CDBG funds between 1975 and 1992. The city's two largest spending categories for CDBG funds over this period have been for housing rehabilitation, which comprised 60.9 percent of the CDBG funds the city received, and assisted housing, which represented 8.6 percent of the CDBG funds allocation. The city's comprehensive plan proposed a land bank to subsidize low and moderate income housing. The author, however, found no evidence of such a program. At the present time, the city has proposed constructing a new subsidized rental housing development for seniors. The proposed Presbyterian Homes development would provide 110 senior rental units and 42 units of senior - assisted living units. The project would be financed through a qualified housing tax increment financing district. Based upon legislation passed by the Minnesota Legislature in 1993, the development would be required to reserve 40 percent of the units at rents at or below $558 per month for a one- -66- bedroom and $669 per month for a two-bedroom unit, including utilities. Further, 40 percent of the units would have to be reserved for residents with incomes at or below 60 percent the area median income or $20,800 per year for a one-person household and $23,800 per year for a two -person household. Assessments The city's comprehensive plan notes developments may increase per-unit costs specifically examine this issue, but was toward special assessments which may have costs. -67- that assessments on planned unit of housing. The author did not unaware of any change in city polices served to facilitate lower per unit PLYMOUTH CASE STUDY The author of the Plymouth case study does not believe that an adequate supply of affordable housing exists within the City of Plymouth. Two factors are cited to support the author's conclusions. These are: 1. The present housing market in Plymouth demands the construction of large and, therefore, expensive homes. The increasing demand for this type of housing in Plymouth is making housing unaffordable to low and moderate income households. 2. Local control of the housing and redevelopment authority. Unlike many other suburban communities, Plymouth operates its Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The author believes that the city has established its own HRA to have greater control over when, where, and how affordable housing is provided in the city. Through such control, the author implies that the city has the ability to neglect the affordable housing needs of the region as a whole. The following provides information on the housing and development characteristics of Plymouth as well as the efforts the City has undertaken to provide affordable housing in Plymouth. LAND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT No information was available from the city on the amount of land avail- able for new housing development within the city. HOUSING SUPPLY According to the 1990 Census, there were 18,361 occupied housing units in Plymouth in 1990. Owner -occupied units represented 74 percent of the city's housing stock (13,519 units), while renter -occupied units accounted for 26 percent of housing in the city (4,842 units). The author used a study prepared by the City of Eden Prairie in 1992 to compare the Plymouth housingg stock with the housing characteristics of ten other suburban communities.33 These communities were Apple Valley, Blooming- ton, Chanhassen, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Edina, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Woodbury, and Plymouth. Based upon a comparison of these communities, the author notes the following: • Plymouth had the third highest median sales price of a single-family home at $143,000. • Median rent in 1990 in Plymouth was $578, compared to the median rent in the developing area ($518), and the region as a whole ($447). • The price of single-family lots in Plymouth range from $45,000 to $90,000.34 -68- SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING Plymouth ranked seventh out of ten communities in the Eden Prairie study noted above in the percentage of its housing available to low income renters. Two and one-half percent of its rental housing is available to low income renters. There are 142 households in Plymouth using Section 8 certificates. While the Plymouth HRA issued eighty-seven certificates, twenty-five certificate holders live outside Plymouth. However, an additional eighty households carr ing certificates not issued by the Plymouth HRA have moved into Plymouth.3 The author notes information provided by the city indicating that there are 2,165 rental units in fifteen housing developments which offer market rate rents and will accept Section 8 certificates. Plymouth has four site-based subsidized housing projects providing 153 rental units. Of these units, 40.5 percent are three-bedroom units and 3.9 percent are four-bedroom units. No information was provided regarding how the projects were financed or whether the units are designed for seniors or families.36 There are seventy-four manufactured homes in Plymouth. BARRIERS CREATED BY ZONING AND LAND USE PRACTICES The author focuses discussion of local regulations on Plymouth's multi- family zoning and land use policies. (The city's specific land use standards for multi -family development are found in Table 9 of the case study.) A particularly noteworthy characteristic of the City's local land use regulations is that all multi -family developments require a conditional use permit. The application fee for the C.U.P. is $250.. The city has no minimum floor area requirements for any type of housing. The city has no zoning district that allows mobile home parks. The city does, however, allow for mobile homes in the city. USE OF RESOURCES TO ENCOURAGE LOW/MODERATE INCOME HOUSING According to Plymouth's 1981 comprehensive plan, the city's long-term goal was to provide a range of 1,040 to 2,600 low to moderate income housing units and 1,491 modest cost housing opportunities. No time frame in which the city hoped to accomplish this affordable housing goal is cited. Strategies listed in Plymouth's comprehensive plan to provide affordable housing include the following: • Direct subsidy programs such as Section 8. As noted above, the city has issued eighty-seven Section 8 certificates. -69- Encourage construction of lower cost units. The city's zoning ordinance is, in some ways, amenable to affordable housing. Examples include: • The city does not have minimum floor area requirements. • The city allows 6,000 sq. ft. single-family lots in high-density residential districts. While such a provision clearly reduces the amount of land available for multi -family development, it does offer the possibility of moderate cost home ownership by reducing land costs. • The city is considering eliminating the garage requirement for multi -family housing. Other actions the city has undertaken to fulfill its affordable housing goal include the following: • CDBG funds. In fiscal year 1993, Plymouth received $272,000 in federal CDBG funds. The majority of the funds were used for housing rehabilitation ($70,000) and a scattered site home ownership program ($120,000). The housing rehabilitation program assists ten to fourteen households per year. The scattered site home ownership program, which was initiated in 1992, assisted 19 of the 145 program applicants with loans ranging from $3,000 to $15,000. The average income of families receiving loans was $25,800, while the average price of houses purchased through the program was $75,400. The author notes, however, that the Plymouth planning director thought the home ownership program was of limited value because most houses in the city are so expensive that applicants could not afford to make monthly payments. • HRA tax levy. The author states that the HRA levied a tax to purchase land for the construction of senior housing in Plymouth. Some of the units will be reserved for low income seniors. At the end of 1992, the city selected an architectural firm to develop a site plan for the project. -70- SHAKOPEE CASE STUDY The findings of the author of the Shakopee case study clearly indicate that Shakopee's housing stock has the largest proportion of affordable housing among the ten case study communities. There may be a variety of reasons why this is so. One of the primary factors is related to the fact that Shakopee's housing stock reflects the older, smaller, and less expensive housing that is typically found within a free-standing growth center that has not experienced extensive suburban development. Residential development in Shakopee is, however, on the rise. In 1992, 405 building permits were issued for single-family homes and 2.permits were issued for multi -family developments. This one-year total compares to the 353 building permits for single-family homes issued for the fours years between 1987 and 1990, and the 15 permits for multi -family housing during this same period. As implied above, the author of the Shakopee case study concludes that, "the city appears tobe a growing community most suitable for raising a family on an average income ."37 The following provides information supporting the author's conclusions as well as information regarding the city's efforts to provide a range of housing opportunities within the city. LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING SUPPLY • Affordable rents. Twenty-one percent of rental housing units rent for less than $337 and, thus, are available to individuals earning 30 percent the metro median family income. Eighty-two percent of rental housing units rent for less than $562 and, thus, are available to individuals earning less than 50 percent the metro median family income. Median contract rent in Shakopee is $444 per month. • Affordable home ownership. 2,019 of the 2,595 owner -occupied housing units in the city were valued at $100,000 or less. This made 77.8 percent of owner -occupied housing affordable to households at 80 percent of the median family income. At 50 percent median family income, 7.6 percent of owner -occupied housing was affordable. BARRIERS CREATED BY ZONING AND LAND USE PRACTICES In general, Shakopee's zoning and land use practices do not place as great a hinderance to low and moderate income housing when compared to the land use and zoning practices of many metropolitan communities. • Minimum lot size. While the Metropolitan Council's advisory standard for local land use regulations recommends a 7,500 sq. ft. minimum lot area for single-family homes, the minimum lot size for single-family housing in Shakopee is 9,000 sq. ft. However, despite exceeding the Metropolitan Council's, Shakopee's minimum lot area requirement compares favorably to other developing communities where 10,000 to -71- 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot areas are more common. The minimum lot area for a two-bedroom multi -family unit in Shakopee is 3,000 sq. ft., permitting a maximum density of 14.5 units per acre. • Minimum floor area. The Metropolitan Council's advisory standard for local land use regulations recommends that cities do not impose minimum floor area requirements. While there is no minimum floor area requirement for single-family homes in Shakopee, the city does impose minimum floor area requirements for multi -family units. The minimum floor area for a two-bedroom multi -family unit is 720 sq. ft. • Garage requirements. The Metropolitan Council's advisory standard for local land use regulations recommends that cities do not impose garage requirements. The city does not require that either single- or multi- family developments have garages. • Parking for multi -family developments. Each housing unit is required to have two parking spaces. In addition, a minimum 15 ft. setback is required for any paved parking area, and the setback area must be landscaped. • Downzonines. The city is currently considering re -zoning a 68 -acre parcel zoned R-4 to R-2. This parcel is the largest area of undeveloped land currently reserved for R-4 development. The re- zoning has been requested by the property owners --who wish to construct single-family homes valued in the $95,000 to $120,000 price range. • Unsewered areas. The minimum lot size for single-family homes outside the city's urban area is 2.5 acres. • Landscaninz for multi -family units. The city specifies minimum tree size and minimum tree spacing along boulevards. Parking areas, roof- top facilities, storage and trash areas, and loading zones must be screened. • Conditional use permits. A CUP is required for any multi -family housing project exceeding 30 feet in height. USE OF RESOURCES TO ENCOURAGE LOW MODERATE INCOME HOUSING In 1979, Shakopee stated in its comprehensive plan that it intended to fulfill its ten-year fair share housing goal of 470 low and moderate income housing units. In 1990, Shakopee had 907 rental units or 77 percent of the city's rental housing that was affordable at 50 percent of the metropolitan median family income. In addition, the city subsidized 271 housing units. Actions the city has undertaken to provide affordable housing in Shakopee include the following: - 7:. • Federally subsidized housing projects. Using the Section 8 program, Shakopee has constructed two low income housing projects since 1979. Each project has 66 units for senior housing. 8 • CDBG funds. In 1980, the city used CDBG money to reduce the costs for new owner -occupied townhouses. No information is provided on how much money was spent or how many units were constructed. Shakopee is not an annual recipient of CDBG funds since Scott County is not an entitlement county. • Housing revenue bonds. In 1986, the city issued bonds to assist in the construction of ninety-two apartments in the Riva Ridge development. The author notes that rents for one- and two-bedroom units are $500 and $610 respectively. The author did not state whether 20 percent of the ninety-two units or all of the ninety-two units were for low and moderate income households. However, the author makes note of fifty-six mixed-use subsidized units that are unaccounted for among the subsidized housing projects noted in this report. • Re -zonings. The author notes that the city has re -zoned land within a B-1 commercial district to a R-4 high density residential district. However, re -zonings increasing the amount of land available for multi- family have been offset by down -zonings of land in R-4 districts. -73- WOODBURY CASE STUDY The author of the Woodbury case study concludes that housing in Woodbury is not affordable to a large segment of the metro area's low and moderate income population. Despite some indications of changing attitudes regarding the need for affordable housing in the city, the author believes that the city's lack of affordable housing is the result of a local regulatory framework that does not easily accommodate affordable housing and a previous political landscape that was hostile to allowing low income housing within the city. As evidence, the author cites the following factors. HOUSING SUPPLY In 1985, the Metropolitan Council developed a housing allocation plan for metropolitan cities that recommended that cities strive to develop a housing stock that provides both affordable housing and alternatives to single-family detached housing. The specific goals developed by the Metropolitan Council were that 63 percent of a local community's housing should be affordable to modest income households (housing values equal to $62,000 or less in 1980) and 41 percent of a community's housing stock should be composed of alternatives to single-family detached residences (Metropolitan Development Guide, Metropolitan Council, 1985, p. 53). The author uses the above criteria to evaluate the Woodbury housing supply. In 1980, with 32 percent of Woodbury's housing stock composed of alternatives to single-family housing, and only 38 percent of housing affordable to low and modest income households, the city did not meet the Metropolitan Council standards for affordable housing or for alternatives to single-family housing. By 1990, however, 42.7 percent of the Woodbury housing stock was composed of alternatives to single-family homes and, thus, surpassed the goals articulated by the Metropolitan Council. The most dominant type of housing alternative in Woodbury is single-family attached housing. In 1990, almost 23 percent of the city's housing was single-family attached, compared to apartment complexes with five or more units --which consisted of 17 percent of the city's housing stock. SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING Given the variety of housing types that exist in Woodbury, the issue is whether there is an adequate supply of housing in Woodbury that is affordable to low and moderate income households. In this regard, the author finds that there is certain limited affordable housing opportunities in the owner - occupied housing market in Woodbury when the city is compared to other developing communities, but that there are few affordable rental housing opportunities in the city. -74- Owner -Occupied Housine The author notes that 10 percent of owner -occupied housing in the metropolitan area is affordable at 50 percent median family income ($21,892) -- according to a Metropolitan Council data base listing affordable home ownership opportunities. In Woodbury, 6.3 percent of owner -.occupied homes are affordable at 50 percent of the metropolitan median family income. While the author notes that the percentage of affordable housing in Woodbury is less than in the region as a whole, a random survey conducted by the author of housing affordability in other developing suburbs found that only 3.2 percent of housing was affordable within these communities.39 Further, at 80 percent median family income, 40.4 percent of owner -occupied homes are affordable in Woodbury compared to 45.6 percent of owner -occupied homes among a random sample of third -ring suburbs. Based upon these comparisons of housing affordability in Woodbury with similar developing communities, the author concludes that the proportion of affordable homes available for ownership in Woodbury is not dramatically different from that found in developing suburbs as a whole. Renter -Occupied Housing • Market rate rental opportunities. Eight housing complexes constitute the majority of rental units in Woodbury. Only two of the complexes, Woodmere and Tamarack, have rents that could conceivably be affordable to people at 50 percent of median income. Rents at these complexes range from $445 for a one -bedroom unit to $565 for a two-bedroom unit.40 There is very little rental housing in Woodbury that is affordable to people earning 30 percent of the metro median family income. While 24 percent of rental housing is affordable to this income group in the metro area and Washington County, only 1.6 percent of rental housing is affordable in Woodbury.41 • Subsidized rental housing. There are fifty-seven households in the city using Section 8 certificates issued by Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority. This represents about .63 percent of the housing in the city. In addition to the Section 8 certificates, Woodbury cooperated with the Washington County Housing and Redevelopment Authority in the development of the Woodcliff senior housing complex. Washington County assisted in the financing of the development, while Woodbury's contribution consisted of waiving the city's ten -unit -per -acre density limit in exchange for the provision of underground parking and a partial brick facade. The city presently has no site-based federally -subsidized rental housing units. However, Washington County is currently working with Woodbury to build forty-five to fifty low-income rental units for families (see below for details). -75- BARRIERS CREATED BY ZONING AND LAND USE PRACTICES The author focuses the discussion of local regulations on the zoning and land use policies related to multi -family housing.. (The minimum lot, minimum floor, and garage requirements noted by the author are found in Tables 8 and 9 of the case study.) The author notes that the city's existing standards are more stringent than the city's 1977 standards. While the maximum density for multi -family units is currently ten units per acre, sixteen units per acre were allowed in 1977.42 In addition, while each unit must now be accompanied by at least one garage space, no such requirement existed in 1977. An administrative barrier that increases the time and costs associated with obtaining approval for multi -family developments in Woodbury is the requirement that developers obtain a special use permit for multi -family complexes. Construction standards that appear to apply to all housing projects include concrete curb and gutter, brick facades, a total use requirement, and a garage disposal requirement.43 USE OF RESOURCES TO ENCOURAGE LOW INCOME HOUSING In 1980, Woodbury established an affordable housing goal of sixty new subsidized housing units over five years. The author notes that, until recently, the city had taken few steps towards meeting this objective. According to the author, the relative inaction of the city to meet its subsidized housing target is related to two factors. The first is an attitude on the part of elected officials in Woodbury that discouraged the development of subsidized housing in the city. The author cites as evidence the comments of former Woodbury Mayor Kenneth Mahle, who stated that housing advocates wanted to "invite all of the indigent people walking the streets in downtown St. Paul to come and live in Woodbury. We don't need that."44 Since the departure of Mahle from office, the author believes there is the potential for a renewed commitment in Woodbury to providing more affordable housing opportunities. However, the author also believes that the city's existing housing policies and regulatory framework may hinder the effectiveness of any renewed effort to develop affordable housing in Woodbury. This conclusion is based upon the author's belief that many of the policies developed by the city do little to encourage additional construction of low and moderate income housing in the city. Policies articulated and actions undertaken by the city to promote low and moderate income housing include: • Flexible zoning. Multi -family housing may be built at a density of fifteen units per acre in exchange for certain site amenities. Addi- tional requirements include larger unit sizes, private recreation facilities, increased landscaping requirements, greater setback requirements, and the burden of showing that the development will not have an adverse impact upon infrastructure. The author notes that once the additional amenities and setback requirements are fulfilled, the use of flexible zoning has little effect on reducing housing costs. -76- • Modest cost home ownership efforts. The author implies that the city has a program to assist young families purchase homes in the city. The objectives of the program are discussed in the city's comprehen- sive plan. (A conversation between CURA staff and Woodbury planner Sara Prow reveals that no such program is currently run by the City of Woodbury.) • Subsidized rental housing. As noted earlier, Washington County HRA is working with Woodbury to build the city's first rental housing development for low income families. The project will cost $2.5 million and will be built with municipal general obligation (GO) bonds as well as Minnesota Housing Finance Agency, Twin Cities Housing Fund, and FHA funds. The City has agreed to give concessions on the requirement of a brick facade, underground parking, and has relaxed standard road specifications. Rents are projected to be $350 for one - bedroom, $450 for two-bedroom, and $550 for three-bedroom units. • CDBG funds. Since Washington County is not an entitlement county, the county was not aware of Woodbury receiving any CDBG funds. -77- END NOTES 1. Data complied by CURA indicate that there are 2,942 undeveloped acres in Burnsville. There is a total of 589 vacant acres in the city's highest density single-family zoning district (R-1), as well as 90 vacant acres in the city's highest density multi -family district (R -3C. 2. Stensland, at 3. 3. Ibid, at 6. 4. According to 1992 data from the Metropolitan Council, Burnsville has 743 federally subsidized rental housing units. Approximately 80 percent of these units were for families, and over 50 percent of the city's sub- sidized units were through Section 8 certificates or vouchers. 5. Stensland, at 8 6. Ibid, at 7. 7. Land use data provided by the City of Coon Rapids to CUBA indicate that approximately 1,665 acres or 11 percent of the land in Coon Rapids is undeveloped. Based upon Coon Rapid's Future Land Use Plan (4/93) approximately 115 acres of the 1,665 presently undeveloped acres in the city are designated for apartments, and 200 acres are designated for attached housing. By comparison, only 149 acres are designated for single-family development. Thus, while the figures noted above represent gross undeveloped acres, it appears that the city has set- aside a significant proportion of its remaining land for multi -family development. 8. 1990 Census data presented in this report indicate that 10.5 percent of rental housing in Coon Rapids was affordable at 30 percent the median family income, while 49 percent of rental housing was affordable at 50 percent the median family income. 9. Data from the Metropolitan Council presented in this report indicate that there were 727 federally subsidized rental units in Coon Rapids in 1992, representing approximately 4 percent of the total housing units in Coon Rapids. Of these 727 units, 65 percent of the units were for families. Thus, the data presented by CURA would indicate that the number of subsidized units did not decline during the 1980s, but rather increased by 357 units over this period. 10. Falkenhagen, at 16. 11. Ibid, at 11. 12. Ibid, at 12. 13. Ibid, at 5. -78.. 14. Data collected by CURA indicate that Edina's 950 sq. ft. minimum floor area for a two-bedroom apartment is among the highest in the metropoli- tan area. 15. The proposed zoning changes noted by the author took effect January 1, 1994. 16. Marthaler, at 3 and 7. 17. Based on March 15, 1994 conversation with Lakeville City Planner Frank Dempsey. 18. Marthaler, at 3. One characteristic of the Lakeville Plan not noted in the case study is that there is no lot area flexibility in Lakeville's single-family planned unit development ordinance. This provision reduces the effect that the PUD ordinance can provide in reducing land costs and, therefore, housing costs. 19 Ibid, at 12. See Table 14 of this report for comprehensive plan amendments submitted by Lakeville to the Metropolitan Council. 20. Ibid, at 8. 21. Ibid, at 10. 22. Ibid, at 11 and 18. 23. Ibid, at 13. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. Ibid, at 16. 27. Data obtained by CURA from the Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 28. Kett, at 5. 29. See Table 5 of this report: 1990 Census data indicate that only ninety- two units or 7.5 percent of rental units are affordable at 50 percent or less of the median family income. 30. Kett, at 11. 31. Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development, "CDBG Program: The First Eighteen Years", at 39. 32. Maple Grove 1987 Comprehensive Plan, at 8. 33. January 22, 1993 memo from Eden Prairie Planner Dave Lindahl on Eden Prairie's housing goals and objectives. -79- 34. D'Amico, at 14. 35. Data from the Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority indicate that there are ninety-seven households in Plymouth using Section 8 Certificates. 36. Data from Metropolitan Council HRA show that there are 153 subsidized rental units. All of the units are designated for families. 37. Shriver, at 3. 38. Data from the Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority indicate that the city has 128 senior housing units. 39. Strootman, at 12. 40. Strootman, at 11. 41. See Table 5: 1990 Census data STF3; H34 shows that 2.15 percent of rental housing was affordable at 30 percent median income. 42. Data collected by CURA indicate that the maximum density in Woodbury in 1977 was ten units per acre. 43. See Woodbury Zoning Code Section 24-9. 44. May 17, 1993 edition of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. En BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, John. "Housing Sub -Markets in an American Metropolis." Reprinted from Our Changing Cities. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press. 1991. Anderson, R. American Law of Zoning, 3rd edition. Rochester, N.Y.: Lawyer Cooperative Publishing Co., San Francisco, Calif: Bancroft and Whitney, 1986. Branfman, E., B. Cohen, and D. Trubek. "Measuring the Invisible Wall: Land Use Controls and the Residential Patterns of the Poor." Yale Law Journal. 82: 483-508 (1973). Burnsville Housing Report. 1990 and 1993. Citizens League. "Second Draft Report: Committee on Housing Policy and Metropolitan Development". February, 1994. "A Community Response to the Needs of Homeless Families," Joint Task Force on Homeless Single Adults and Families for the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners and the Minneapolis City Council. July 1991. Coon Rapids Housing Plan. 1982. Dakota County Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Data on current subsidized housing complexes and use of community development block grant funds in the cities of Burnsville and Lakeville. January, 1994. D'Amico, Sharon. "Zoning Practices of the City of Plymouth." Unpublished manuscript for Minneapolis Legal Aid Society. September 1993. Davidoff and Davidoff. Opening the Suburbs: Toward Inclusionary Land Use Zones. Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan: Housing Goals and Guidelines. 1978. Eden Prairie. Memo Concerning Eden Prairie Housing Goals and Policies. January 1993. Edina Comprehensive Plan. 1980. Falkenhagen, Beth. "Memo on the Effect's of Coon Rapid's Zoning Code, Land Use Plan, and City Policies on the Provision of Low and Modest Income Housing." Unpublished manuscript for Minneapolis Legal Aid Society. August 1993. Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development. "The Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program: The First Eighteen Years (1975- 1992)." Kett, David. "Memo Concerning Maple Grove's Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan and Their Impact on the Development of Low and Moderate .81.. Income Housing." Unpublished manuscript for Minneapolis Legal Aid Society. September 1993. Lakeville Comprehensive Plan Amendments. 1988. Lakeville Housing Plan. 1979. Lakeville, Strategic Growth Management Task Force 1992; Growth Management Plan, 1993. Mandelker, Daniel R. Land Use Law. SS 7.01 (2nd ed.). 1988. Maple Grove Comprehensive Housing Plan. 1980. Maple Grove Comprehensive Plan. 1987. Marthaler, Robert. "A Memo Concerning Lakeville's Zoning Ordinance and City Actions Incongruent with the Comprehensive Plan and Other Practices and Policies Affecting the Provision of Low to Moderate Income Housing." Unpublished manuscript for Minneapolis Legal Aid Society. June 1993. McGlincey, Christopher. "No Pigs in the Parlor: Keeping Up the Neighborhoods in Edina." Unpublished manuscript for Minneapolis Legal Aid Society. August 1993. McGlincey, Christopher. "Minnetonka's Housing Guidelines." Unpublished manuscript for Minneapolis Legal Aid Society. November 1993. Metropolitan Council. Community Profiles: Housing, Population, and Households. July 1993. Metropolitan Council. Directory of Subsidized Rental Housing in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. September, 1991. Metropolitan Council. Housing Development Guide. June, 1985. Metropolitan Council. Housing Development Guide. July, 1977. Metropolitan Council. Housing Development Guide. June, 1973. Metropolitan Council. Impact of Government Fees, Regulations, and Processes on Housing Costs (Draft Report). December, 1991. Metropolitan Council, Minnesota Planning, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. "Making the Connection: Linking Housing, Jobs, and Transportation" (Draft Report). December, 1993. Metropolitan Council. "Metropolitan Council Development Cost Comparative Analysis Draft Summary." 1994. Metropolitan Council. Modest Cost Housing in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. December, 1976. -82- Metropolitan Council, Rental Housing in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area: 1980 to 1990. 1992. Metropolitan Council. Residential Zoning Ordinances in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. May, 1977. Metropolitan Council. Residential Zoning Ordinances: A Summary from Selected Area Communities. November, 1983. Metropolitan Council. "City of Coon Rapids Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." December 1987. Metropolitan Council. "City of Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." April, 1986. Metropolitan Council. "City of Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." November, 1986. Metropolitan Council. "City of Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." January, 1987. Metropolitan Council. "City of Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." January, 1987. Metropolitan Council. "City of Eden Prairie Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." March, 1987. Metropolitan Council. "City of Lakeville Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." September, 1989. Metropolitan Council. "City of Maple Grove Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." June, 1986. Metropolitan Council. "City of Maple Grove Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." August, 1986. Metropolitan Council. "City of Maple Grove Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." October, 1986. Metropolitan Council. "City of Maple Grove Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." April, 1987. Metropolitan Council. Review." May, 1987. Metropolitan Council. February, 1991. Metropolitan Council. September, 1990. Metropolitan Council. December, 1991. "City of Minnetonka Comprehensive Plan Amendment "City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." "City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." "City of Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." -83- Metropolitan Council. "City of Woodbury Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." April, 1986. Metropolitan Council. "City of Woodbury Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review." June, 1989. Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority. 1992 data on the number of federally subsidized rental housing units by community in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Minnesota Planning. "Summary Data on Zoning Code Regulations in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area." 1993. Minnetonka Comprehensive Plan. 1981. Minnetonka Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 1990. Ottensmann, John. "Central City Dominance in Metropolitan Areas and the Availability of Affordable Housing." J of Planning Education and Research. 11: 96-104. Winter 1992. Plymouth Comprehensive Plan Update. 1980. Rolleston, Barbara. "Determinants of Restrictive Suburban Zoning: An Empirical Analysis." J. of Urban Economics. 21: 1-21 (1987). Rubin, J., J. Seneca, J. Stotsky. "Affordable Housing and Municipal Choice." Land Economics. 66: 325-40 (Aug 1990). Salsich, Peter W. Land Use Regulation SS 9.01 (1991). (Quoting Norman Williams, Exclusionary Land Use Controls: The Case of Northeastern New Jersey 22, Syracuse L. Rev. 474, 478. 1971. Shakopee Comprehensive Plan. 1-981. Shriver, Craig E. "Current Factors Influencing Low and Moderate Income Housing in the City of Shakopee." Unpublished manuscript for Minneapolis Legal Aid Society. 1993. Stensland, Juli. "Memo Analyzing Burnsville's Zoning Practices." Unpublished manuscript for Minneapolis Legal Aid Society. August 1993. Strootman, Gary. "Woodbury Zoning Practices." Unpublished manuscript for Minneapolis Legal Aid Society. November, 1993. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Minneapolis/St. Paul Housing Market Analysis. July, 1990. U.S. Census Bureau. 1990 Census of Population and Housing -.Summary Tape File 3. Machine Readable Data Center, University of Minnesota Libraries. September, 1992. -84- Williams, J. American Land Planning Law. Callaghen, Wilmette, Il. 1974. Woodbury Comprehensive Plan Summary Report. Unknown date. Woodbury Housing Program Draft Report. 1980. -85- APPENDICES -86- APPENDIX A: Owner and Renter Households Paying Over 30% of Income 1br Housing Number of OWner-1Number of owners I Percentof Owners I Number of R or Number of R GM&M Pero Renters Occupied Units PayingOver 30% Paying Over 30% led Units Paying Over 30% Pan Over 30% Burnsville 12421— 1898 15.23% afut$ 2075 30.96% Coon Rapids 13961 2240 16.04% 3488 1423 40.80% Eden Prairie 10479 2025 19.32% 3968 1104 27.82% Edina 15170 2184 14.40% 4890 1938 41.32% Lakeville 6958 1199 17.23% 893 384 43.00% Maple Grow 11250 1966 17.48% 1281 423 33.02% Minnetonka 14319 2184 15.25% 4368 1413 32.35% Plymouth 13519 2354 17.41% 4852 1358 27.99% Shakopee a 2942 422 14.34% 1221 359 29.40% Woodbury 5528 955 17.28% 1399 404 28.88% Metro Area 7 Counties) I 593959 i 88412 14.89% 281545 112976 40.13% Source: Metrpol tan Council; Community Profiles Based upon 1990 Census Data KH !£d1S !WMAD 086 t :oomo8 Slm UUP" CIO I WH 9J0W Jo 666 663 OOZ J94wnN IWol PPROONI OOOt! 1 W 04LS C% 003 1 u seal um A smun IRu9b ummm t W wowed PUo >wias A14wW A4 mun Pq&mo Jewev umwpes t e MN3ddV %Z9'► %91.9 %►rLZ %Wsc Wo' 11 %96'9 %e►•► "gurao 991K 6L4 t 9LLZ 9Li6 99££ t 9L0► SKI £Z4 t o91V oJ19W %s9'z %Z9'9 %9019 ULU %000 %00'0 %00'0 OL t ► 91 tit L£ 0 0 0 AMWOOM %00'0 %Lz'c %99'►1 %Z9'99 %1rZt %00'0 %tt'tt £4t 0 S ZZ 06 6t 0 Lt oodo)1948 %►9'9 %t9'6t %►1'0► %K*t9 %£6'L %9L't %90'9 Z8i £ t 96 961 got 6£ 91, 4Z 41muAld %99'9 %99'99 %6L'9► %9L'91 %99'9 %Lt't %91'9 964 £Z ZL t 19Z 001 OZ L £ t 9*W019WV4 %00'0 %91'91 %9C99 %►Z'61 %92'9 %9Z'9 %00'0 46£ 0 Z9 OR 9L 01, 6 0 9AOJfl 91d9W %00.0 %KM %►1'2► %99.1► %29.1 %2c•1 %oo•o OLE 0 6£ L9t i4t 9 4 0 OW481 %Zo'9 %t6'cc %00'19 %99'11 %►c'9 %oo'o %L9'9 L£9 Z£ 91Z 009 9£t ►£ 0 Lt MW3 %t2'z %ce'9t %99'69 %9Z'►1 %►6'O %99'1 %96'c 9£9 91, 901 1 09£ 1,6 . 9 Zt 4Z QMRJd U9P3 %Lt•9 %L1.9 %t9'oc %2►'c2 %Lo•6 %90.1 %914 6£L 91. 91 ►ZZ 46£ L9 9 £t 9PIdeN woo %91'9 %19'9 %6z'S► 1 %tC'2z %►9'9 %191 %661 9L6 tZ 99 Zri Ltz L4 4t 9L WW1"8 Slm UUP" CIO I WH 9J0W Jo 666 663 OOZ J94wnN IWol PPROONI OOOt! 1 W 04LS C% 003 1 u seal um A smun IRu9b ummm t W wowed PUo >wias A14wW A4 mun Pq&mo Jewev umwpes t e MN3ddV APPENDIX C: Percent of Renbr Occupied Units by Monthly Rent -1990 Less than 5500 to $700 to $1000 Total 5250. $699 1 $999 or More Rental Units Burnsville 4.89% 31.52% 55.60% 7.72% 027% 6567 Coon Rapids 7.44% 3423% 5329% 4.92% 0.12% 3415 Eden Prairie 5.10% 59.97% 22.05% 2.15% 3900 Edna 7.07% 46.65% 27.02% 9.70% 4527 Lakeville 7.76% Ir 29.83% 51.31% 10.14% 0.95% 838 Maple Grove 2.78%69.17% 20.36% 0.74% 1223 Mimetonka 4.90% 52.76% 24.99% 5.64% 4289 Pyrr o 2.48% 20.38% 5924% 17.16% 0.74% 4755 Shakopee 14.80% 61.05% 23.21% 0.68% 026% 1176 Woodbury 126% 20.89% 54.52% 21.70% 1.63% 1350 Metro Area Counties 11.59% 51-99%-1-28.83% 6.52% 1 1.07% 274711 Source: Metropolitan Coura; Community Profiles Based upon 1990 Census Data APPENM D: Number and Peneent of Households Rea"M Public Assistance in 1989 Number o eceanp I Percentage of A" Number I Pubic Assistance I Receiving Pubic AnIstance I of Households Bumsvile 556 -2m% 19106 Coon Rapids 835 4.79% 17427 Eden Prairie 363 2.50% 14548 Edna 398 2.01% 19783 Lakevile 220 2.79% 7890 Maple Grove 175 1.40% 12511 Mimetanka 407 2.18% 18670 Plyl l 439 2-41% 18213 Shakopee 201 4.82% 4171 Woodbury 99 1.42% 6982 Metro Area (T Coundes) 48342 5.52% 875833 Source: 1990 Census; STF 3; P95