Chaska

Type of Community (Metropolitan Council Designation):
Developing
1995 Population:
14,181
2005 Population:
22,467
2020 Forecast Population:
33,000
Progress Towards LUPA & LCA Affordable Housing Goals*, 2011-2020

New Units Produced (2011)

2

LUPA Goal

1,105

LCA Goal

718

% Progress Towards LCA Goal

0.3%
Source: Metropolitan Council.

*Although new affordable housing goals under LUPA (Comp Plan) and LCA (Livable Communities eligibility) cover the same time period for the same kind of units, the Met Council established generally different goals for cities. For most cities, the LCA goal is set at 65% of the LUPA goal. Some larger cities or those with access to more resource have LCA goals closer to or equal to LUPA goals. Unlike pre-2010 goals, the 2011-2020 goals do not create separate sub-goals for rental and ownership housing units. More information.
Progress Toward LCA Affordable Housing Goals Through 2010
 
Owner
Rental
Total

New Units Produced

948
122
1,070

2010 LCA Goals

1,065
329
1,394

% Progress Towards 2010 Goals

89.0%
37.1%
76.8%
Source: Metropolitan Council.

Metropolitan Council Housing Performance Score
Out of 100 (100 = highest)

2012: 59
2011: 69

2010 Housing Performance Scores (PDF - 45 KB)
All Metro Communities

2009 Housing Performance Scores (PDF - 27 KB)
All Metro Communities

2008 Housing Performance Scores (PDF - 138 KB)
All Metro Communities

Housing Affordability in 2000
Affordable Units Available
Owner
Rental
Total

Units affordable at 50% or less of Regional Family Median Income

905
809
1,714

Total Housing Units

4,579
1,506
6,085

% Affordable

19.8%
53.7%
28.2%
Low Income Households In Need
Owner
Rental
Total

Households at 50% or less of Regional Median Family Income with Housing Problems

313
364
677

Total Households at 50% or less of Regional Family Median Income

493
618
1,111

% with Problems

63.5%
58.9%
60.9%
Source: United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Consolidated Plan/CHAS, 2000.

Note: The median family income for the Twin Cities was $65,800 in 2000 (or $32,900 at 50% of median).

Housing affordability numbers are adjusted by family size. Housing affordability matches the number of persons in a family to units with different numbers of bedrooms (e.g. a 4-person family is matched to 2 bedroom units). Income limits to affordable housing costs are also adjusted higher for larger families (greater than 4 people) and lower for smaller families (less than 4 people).

Housing problems are defined as household cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcrowding (more than 1 person per room) and/or without complete kitchen and plumbing facilities.

An interview was conducted with an official from Chaska's planning or community development department in Spring of 2006, shortly after the Metropolitan Council's calculations for affordable housing need numbers were made public. A summary of key issues addressed in the interview is below:

According to the Met Council's recent report on "Determining Affordable Housing Need in the Twin Cites," Chaska's affordable housing need number is 789 units for 2010-2020. Our source felt that these goals were about right for the community and feasible. Our source identified the following problems and obstacles to meeting these goals: the pace of development. The new affordable housing goals do not make a distinction between affordable rental and affordable for-sale housing, and our source felt that this would not make a difference in the type of affordable housing produced. Our source felt that the new goals are higher than Chaska's LCA goals. Chaska does not plan to use the need number established in the Met Council's report as the affordable housing target in its comprehensive plan update.

Actions

Chaska has kept a database tracking the supply of low- and moderate-income rental housing since 1998. It has used the following programs to develop and facilitate the development of affordable housing: density bonuses for affordable housing development, changes to city policies, guidelines, and ordinances that accommodate affordable housing, and a defined affordable housing toolbox. We also asked our source about Chaska's use of some specific policies and programs. The results are summarized below:

Tools

Have Used?
Effectiveness
Will Use

PUD with smaller lots or density bonus

Often
Effective
Yes

Zoning variances for low-mod housing

Often
Effective
Yes

Density bonuses

Often
Effective
Yes

Expedited zoning & approval for low-mod

Often
Not Effective
Yes

Adjusted fees for low-mod housing

No
 
No

Adjusted lot sizes for low-mod housing

Often
Effective
Yes

Allow accessory apartments

A Few Times
Very Effective
Yes

Set asides for low-moderate housing (i.e., inclusionary zoning)

Often
Effective
Yes

Low Income Housing Tax Credits

Often
Very Effective
Yes

Local tax abatement for low-mod housing

No
 
No

Incentives for new construction technologies

A Few Times
Not Effective
Yes

Manufactured homes

A Few Times
Not Effective
Yes

Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

Often
Very Effective
Yes

Mortgage Revenue bonds

Once or Twice
Effective
Yes

Others

Often
Very Effective
Yes

Chaska has not solicited proposals from the local HRA or other developers for building low- and moderate-income housing. It has acted as a proposer or developer of low- and moderate-income housing. Our source indicated that Chaska does not have any transit-oriented development opportunities. Data is not available on our source's opinion of whether additional funding would allow Chaska to accomplish its affordable housing goals.

Obstacles and Challenges

Data is not available on our source's opinion of whether certain aspects of city zoning and permitting processes discourage or prevent adding to the supply of low-and moderate income housing. We asked our source about some specific local practices and if they limit the development of low- and moderate-income housing. The results are summarized below:

Challenge Name

Assessment

Lot size requirements

Does Not Limit Low-Moderate Housing

Restricted amount of land zoned for multi-family housing

Does Not Limit Low-Moderate Housing

Local requirements for building materials

Does Not Limit Low-Moderate Housing

Subdivision regulations requiring high quality materials or wide street paving

Does Not Limit Low-Moderate Housing

Permitting processes and fees

Does Not Limit Low-Moderate Housing

Local limits on the use of manufactured housing (e.g., mobile homes)

Does Not Limit Low-Moderate Housing

Building codes hat require updated code enforcement with any rehabilitation

Does Not Limit Low-Moderate Housing

Prohibition on accessory apartment units

Does Not Limit Low-Moderate Housing

Our source reported that Chaska has 1,000 acres of undeveloped land that is zoned residential and allows ten or more units per acre. Our source felt that in order to meet its affordable housing goals, Chaska needs no new policies or objectives.

Bookmark and Share
Survey Summary Page
Learn more about the Survey and the cities involved.
What is the difference between current and future metro area affordable housing goals?
Explanation of the differences between the current affordable housing goals for cities (for 1995-2010) based on the Livable Communities Act, and the goals for the coming decade of 2011-2020.
PDF - 10 KB
Met Council LCA Progress Report
Source for City Snapshot information related to LCA Affordable Housing Goals.
PDF - 1.7 MB
HUD/CHAS Dataset
For a detailed analysis by HUD of housing needs in this community, follow this link. Then, select Minnesota and Submit. You then have the choice of viewing data for "all households" or for various racial/ethnic groups. Make the selection and Submit. Select either "County" or "Census Place" and Submit.
City Data
More information is available at Dataplace.org.
City Website
Visit the city's website to identify the key city staff and how to contact them.

Housing Justice Center Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs Institute on Race & Poverty The McKnight Foundation
 Click for Sponsor Websites